House of Commons

Monday 17th January 2011 Commons Chamber

Monday 17 January 2011

The House met at half-past Two o’clock

Prayers

Monday 17th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Monday 17th January 2011 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

1. What steps he is taking to reduce the burden of regulation on local government.

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)]

The Government are committed to reducing radically the burden of regulation on local government. We have already freed councils from the top-down controls of the comprehensive area assessment and local area agreement targets. The Localism Bill will go further, scrapping regional strategies and housing targets, the Standards Board regime and the duty to promote local democracy.

[Richard Graham]

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s reduction of local government paperwork. Not long ago, in order to meet Official Journal of the European Community requirements, Gloucester city council had to spend more than £300,000 on a tendering document for the redevelopment of King’s quarter. In this time of financial difficulty, does he agree that it is time for the European Commission to reduce the number of local government tenders that must follow OJEC rules, and so save taxpayers’ money in Gloucester and elsewhere?

[Mr Pickles]

My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point. In fairness to the European Commission, it also recognises the problem and is undertaking a comprehensive evaluation of public procurement legislation. I also know that the Local Government Association feels strongly on that; its snappily titled, “The impact of EU procurement legislation on councils”, highlights the specific difficulties faced by local councils. I agree with the LGA and the EU. I met Commissioner Hahn last summer and urged him to ensure that a similar light-touch approach is taken to the administration of the European regional development fund.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

The Localism Bill, which we will discuss later, has more than 140 new order-making powers for the Secretary of State. Is not that the Government saying that there will be new freedoms and powers for local communities and then being very prescriptive about how they should operate? Why is it necessary to have among those new orders and powers a raft of regulations imposing non-elected mayors on places such as Sheffield, where there is no demand for them from either the council or the public?

[Mr Pickles]

I do not recall the hon. Gentleman making those points about the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, which contained a much smaller number of clauses and yet had 87 pieces of regulation. What we are doing is entirely necessary to liberate local government from the hand of central Government and is deregulatory by nature. As a friend of local government, he should be congratulating us and perhaps showing some contrition for his failure over the 2007 Act.

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

2. How many local authorities have published details of their spending online to date.

[Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

4. How many local authorities have published online details of their spending over £500 to date.

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

9. How many local authorities have published online details of their spending over £500 to date.

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

14. How many local authorities have published online details of their spending over £500 to date.

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)]

Our latest assessment is that at least 193 local authorities have published their spending data online to date. Another 10 are about to publish those data on their websites, but that figure is changing daily—pleasingly, upwards.

[Richard Ottaway]

I congratulate the Secretary of State on that initiative. As Parliament knows to its cost, transparency is the best way to restore confidence in Government, and for that matter in local government, but any policy must be judged by its outcomes. Is there any sign that that initiative has changed behaviour in any way in local government?

[Mr Pickles]

As my hon. Friend will know, my Department has published those figures, and that has certainly changed our attitude. There is no possibility that, as under our predecessors, we will order lots of expensive Parisian sofas, a peace pod or special, high-quality chocolates for the Secretary of State—Mrs Pickles is probably pleased about that. We recognise that we must account for every single penny.

[Sheryll Murray]

When councils publish details of any spending over £500, will they also publish the date on which the decision to initiate that spending was taken, so that the public can see clearly when it was taken so that accountability is not misplaced when administrations change?

[Mr Pickles]

We will fairly soon be publishing guidance on what is expected. We were clear that we were keen to see the raw data out there. My hon. Friend should easily be able to obtain such information through freedom of information or by writing directly to the authorities. It is important that local authorities are accountable, as we are, for the money that they spend. I look forward to seeing more local authorities publishing their spending online.

[Elizabeth Truss]

I congratulate King’s Lynn and West Norfolk council and Breckland council on being in the vanguard of councils publishing their expenditure online. Will the Secretary of State confirm how important this initiative is for transparency and for taxpayers to know how their money is spent?

[Mr Pickles]

I agree. The councils that my hon. Friend mentions should receive our congratulations and should be a spur to Norfolk county council to follow their lead.

[Andrew Griffiths]

May I draw the attention of the Secretary of State to an editorial in that august newspaper, the Burton Mail, which said:

“Eric Pickles deserves credit for requiring councils to publish every item of spending above £500. Mr Pickles’ requirement is about strengthening democracy.”?

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a similar approach should be taken to councillors paying expenses? Will he join me in condemning those Opposition Members who are calling for more pay for councillors at this difficult time?

[Mr Pickles]

I am glad to know that I am going down well in Burton. Information about councillors’ expenses has for some time been available from councils, but I hope the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) will take the opportunity some time to say that Lord Beecham’s request for extra remuneration for councillors at a time of crisis is singularly inappropriate.

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

In that case, should not all Departments, not just councils and the Department for Communities and Local Government, also have to publish every £500 item of spend?

[Mr Pickles]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, a number of other Departments have taken that initiative. I look forward to seeing the whole Government follow where councils lead—[Interruption.] I am relaxed about that. It is up to individual Departments, but there are already a number that publish expenditure above £500.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Does not the Secretary of State realise that that is an absurd bureaucratic regulation? Durham county council has calculated that it will take two full-time officers to fulfil that requirement, at the same time as the Secretary of State is cutting £100 million from the budget. [Interruption.] What is the purpose of such pointless posturing?

[Mr Pickles]

I confess that I had difficulty hearing the hon. Lady for all the gasps of disbelief. Only if Durham is using an abacus for calculation or providing the information on vellum is that likely to happen. In most councils and in my Department it happens automatically. With a simple spreadsheet, it is very easy to do.

[Mr Speaker]

I had the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) down for question 2 but, if there has been a change of plan or if I have been misinformed, that is fine.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

3. What support his Department is giving to local authorities to minimise increases in council tax.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

8. What support his Department is giving to local authorities to minimise increases in council tax.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

12. What support his Department is giving to local authorities to minimise increases in council tax.

[The Minister for Housing and Local Government (Grant Shapps)]

The Government are making an extra £650 million per annum available over the next four years to help principal local authorities in England to freeze their council tax in 2011-12, and will take action against excessive increases. The Localism Bill provides for local referendums on excessive council tax rises in future years.

[Harriett Baldwin]

At a time when so many household bills are rising, will the Minister join me in sending congratulations to Wychavon district council and Malvern Hills district council, which have worked so hard to share services and to keep council tax rises down for local residents?

[Grant Shapps]

My hon. Friend is right. In the past week or so since the finance settlement, I have had a procession of council leaders coming to see me, usually with their chief executives, to plead that they have no money left. One came this morning, and notably brought the chief executive who is being paid £180,000. I pay tribute to those local authorities that have taken the necessary steps and are therefore able to take advantage of the council tax freeze.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The elderly, vulnerable and least well-off constituents of mine in Dover and Deal and I am sure across the country will welcome the Government’s efforts to freeze council tax. May we have an assurance from Ministers that we will never again return to the dark days of the past, when council tax doubled under the previous Labour Administration?

[Grant Shapps]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that between 1997 and last year council tax rose by 109%, so the elderly, the frail, the most vulnerable and those with fixed incomes had absolutely no defence against what was happening when the current Opposition were in government. I am very proud to say that £650 million is being made available for this important priority: a 0% rise.

[Mr Turner]

What can be done to stop local authorities withdrawing services, such as libraries and lavatories, and expecting town and parish councils to take them over, thereby increasing the local precept? People will not benefit from the Government’s support to protect them from council tax bills rising if the local precept rises instead.

[Grant Shapps]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Unless an authority has already merged its human resources, legal services and planning departments and cut the chief executive pay that Opposition Members are so keen to defend, there is no excuse for trying to charge more for those services, or indeed, as my hon. Friend points out, for trying to shove them off on to, perhaps, parish councils.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Since Bolsover district council has managed to hold its council tax steady for a few years, and since none of its executives get the kind of sums that have been referred to, will the Minister repay the compliment by allowing it to deal with the 108 prefabricated buildings that have been there since the end of the second world war? The council needs to replace them and pensioners need new accommodation, so will he get the show on the road?

[Grant Shapps]

The hon. Gentleman knows, because he has raised this issue with me before in the House, that the decent homes programme continues, and last week’s settlement, on top of the spending review, makes it very clear that £2.2 billion is available for decent homes—which, I understand, subsequent to our previous exchange in the House, his council is in line for.[Official Report, 27 January 2011, Vol. 522, c. 4MC.]

[Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

In a flight of fantasy and a moment of mental dysfunctionality, the Secretary of State and the Minister have proclaimed again and again that there is no need for front-line services to be cut if salaries are reduced, services are shared and there is greater efficiency. What will the Minister say to the Liberal Democrat-controlled Sheffield city council when, in cutting £70 million, it devastates services and decimates jobs in my city?

[Grant Shapps]

It is very important to get out to all local authorities across the country the message that the most vulnerable people should be protected in this spending settlement. That is an important point, because one of the principal ways in which vulnerable people are protected is through the Supporting People programme. Its budget has been pretty much kept intact. I will send out the message from the Dispatch Box now that the reduction in Supporting People is just 2.7% per annum, so there is no reason for local authorities to use that as an excuse to cut services to vulnerable people.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

The Minister must accept that, far from supporting local authorities, the unprecedented cuts that his Government are inflicting will lead to diminished services, massive job losses and lower economic growth in the private sector. Will he at least concede that in the context of these massive cuts and the abolition of area-based grants, the £650 million that he is offering to freeze council tax is nothing more than a gimmick? Can he tell the House how he justifies sacrificing the country’s most deprived communities to indulge the Secretary of State’s penchant for attention-grabbing publicity stunts?

[Grant Shapps]

That was an interesting pre-written question, which seems to have ignored what we have established from the Dispatch Box today: that £650 million will lead to a 0% council tax rise in virtually every authority in the country. Although the hon. Gentleman says that that is of no consequence at all, I can tell him that for the pensioners in my constituency, his constituency and in those of my hon. Friends it will matter a great deal.

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

6. If he will assess the effect on the economy of Halifax of reductions in levels of local authority employment.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)]

The Government monitor public sector job losses at the local level. The £1.4 billion regional growth fund has been set up to help generate private sector job growth, particularly in places that have been over-reliant upon public sector employment.

[Mrs Riordan]

The majority of public sector workers in Halifax are middle and low-income earners who have worked loyally for the council for many years. Will the Minister put on record exactly from where he sees new jobs coming to my constituency, which needs and relies on a strong public sector?

[Robert Neill]

I am sure that the hon. Lady will therefore welcome the latest Office for Budget Responsibility forecast, which predicts a total employment rise in 2011 and 1.5 million new private sector jobs being created. I hope that her council will work with the local enterprise partnership and the regional growth fund to achieve those jobs in her area.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

Halifax will be hard hit by council cutbacks. Halifax council believes that for every job that goes in local government, one will go in the private sector, and that the voluntary sector will also be hard hit. Does the Minister accept, therefore, that this Government are cutting too far, too fast, with no plan for growth and rapidly rising unemployment, and that once again, for this Conservative-led Government, as in the 1980s, unemployment is a price worth paying?

[Robert Neill]

No, sir.

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

7. What assessment has been made of the likely effects on local authorities in areas of deprivation of reductions in formula grant funding.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)]

We have delivered a fair funding settlement for local authorities that takes into account the particular circumstances of each area. Our proposals ensure that no authority sees a reduction in revenue spending power greater than 8.9% in each of the next two financial years.

[Bridget Phillipson]

The Minister apparently does not understand, or does not care about, the scale of the challenge facing constituents in deprived areas such as Sunderland. Does he seriously expect my constituents to be grateful for the hammering that they are taking in order to protect affluent areas such as Surrey?

[Andrew Stunell]

I share the hon. Lady’s disappointment that the financial situation we face means that every part of the public sector has to take pain in order to put things right. The formula grant for Sunderland is £562 per head, and that means that for every £1 going to the less dependent authorities, Sunderland is getting £4.50. Her reduction of 8.9%, and of 4% next year, will in fact be an improvement because of the new homes bonus amounting to more than £500,000 this year.

[Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)]

I welcome the Department’s review of formula grant damping in time for 2013. Will the Minister consider the impact of damping on Norfolk county council, which next year will receive more than £20 million less than if the formula grant were given out on the basis of assessed need only? Will he ensure that from 2013 Norfolk gets a fairer funding deal as a result of this review?

[Andrew Stunell]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The local government finance review will start later this month and will indeed produce a new determination of funding for local authorities that gives them much more freedom to spend and raise their revenue, starting from 2013.

[Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)]

In his appearance before the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government, the Secretary of State said that there was no need for local authorities to make cuts to front-line services, yet only last week the Conservative chair of the Local Government Association said that

“the level of spending reduction that councils are going to have to make goes way beyond anything that conventional efficiency drives, such as shared services, can achieve.”

If the Secretary of State and his team disagree, will the Minister tell us how many local authorities will be able to meet their budget cuts without cutting either jobs or front-line services?

[Andrew Stunell]

It is obviously for every local authority to take its decisions on what services it supports with the money it has available. Councils will have much more freedom and flexibility, with the money that they do have, in making choices in future. It is for them to decide on their priorities.

[Caroline Flint]

I will take that as meaning none. As the Minister knows, in the real world, these huge front-loaded cuts cannot be made by efficiency savings alone. The Secretary of State and his team have said on many occasions that the settlement is fair. He said that it is progressive and that it protects the most vulnerable. The House of Commons Library has confirmed that the top 10% of most deprived areas are being hit with cuts four times worse than those in the best-off areas. To put it another way, while people in Hartlepool will lose £113 per head, residents in Wokingham will lose only £4 per head. Does the Minister still think that that is fair?

[Andrew Stunell]

I say to the right hon. Lady that we have adjusted her formula grants to put a greater emphasis on the importance of deprivation—from 73% to 83%. Our banded floors mean that the percentage loss of formula grant for Hartlepool is lower than for Wokingham.

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

10. What steps his Department is taking to protect green spaces.

[The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)]

The coalition Government have taken immediate action to help communities to protect green spaces. Three measures stand out: the decision to take gardens out of the definition of brownfield sites; the abolition of the density targets that prevented family homes with gardens from being built; and the measures in the Localism Bill, which will be debated this afternoon, that give communities the right to have neighbourhood plans that protect valuable green spaces.

[Andrew Jones]

In 2001, the then Secretary of State for Transport imposed planning restrictions that required councils to limit the number of parking spaces allowed in new residential developments, and set high parking charges that kept shoppers from the high street. What is the Secretary of State doing to end the war on motorists waged by Labour?

[Greg Clark]

I think it was the same Secretary of State for Transport who set a target to reduce the number of journeys made by car, but, of course, the numbers went in the opposite direction. Everyone knows that if people are banned from having garages and driveways, as under those planning changes, it means not that people will not have a car, but that they will drive around looking for a precious parking space, annoying their neighbours and making people oppose development. We have therefore scrapped those maximum parking standards.

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

What impact will selling off the treasure of our national forests, which has been built up over generations, have on access to green spaces for children and families?

[Greg Clark]

Of course, the policy to which the hon. Gentleman refers started under the previous Government. He knows that the intention is to increase and safeguard access to natural assets, such as our forests, for all generations.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

11. What timetable he has set for implementation of the new homes bonus.

[The Minister for Housing and Local Government (Grant Shapps)]

The new homes bonus commences in April 2011 and will match fund the additional council tax raised for every new home that is built or brought back into use. It will continue for six years.

[Jason McCartney]

I thank the Minister for that reply. We all want new homes. However, Labour-run Kirklees council has just launched a local development framework-style consultation process for 28,000 new homes. Many constituents are worried that it will mean the bulldozing of beautiful countryside in the Colne and Holme valleys. How can he reassure my constituents that local people will have a democratic say in developments in their area?

[Grant Shapps]

The good news is that local people will, at last, be in charge of development in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Rather than targets being dictated from Westminster and our telling his constituents what should be going on, the balance will be in local hands. From April, his local authority stands to gain about £1.3 million through the new homes bonus. Local people will decide the pace and scale of growth, and the benefits that they want to derive. I trust them to do that more than I trust Ministers to do it from here.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

What plans does the Minister have for neighbourhoods such as Picton and Kensington in my constituency, where housing stock had been planned under housing market renewal, the existing stock demolished or vacated, and then the funding taken away?

[Grant Shapps]

The housing market renewal programme was responsible for demolishing a large number of homes—so many that there are fewer affordable homes after the 13 years of the previous Government than there were when they got into power in 1997. There was something wrong with that programme and there is now an enormous funding problem. It will be for the local community and local authority to get together with the local enterprise partnership and pull together the various funding streams, which will include the new homes bonus because those homes are no longer there. When they are rebuilt, the local authority can benefit. I extend an offer to meet the hon. Lady to discuss the circumstances of the housing market renewal.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

Rural villages in my constituency and across Britain have seen a policy of decline by neglect over the past 13 years, and people there are excited by the proposals for local housing in the Localism Bill. Can the Minister provide some reassurance that when small pockets of housing around a village are approved, some of the bonus will come back into the local community?

[Grant Shapps]

My hon. Friend will be reassured to hear that under the community right to build, which is one of the proposals in the Bill, local communities will be able to vote for additional homes, for example in a village that is trying to keep the post office and the local school alive. They will be able to do so without so much of the bureaucracy that there has been, and without the regional development agency telling them that their village is not where it wants homes to be built. It will happen on a local neighbourhood scale, so communities will be very much in control. They will own the housing trust that builds the homes and will be able to ensure that those homes stay in local use for as long as they like.

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

I need to draw the House’s attention to an entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests for my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford). To avoid any misunderstanding, I add that he is my partner.

It is eight months since the Minister entered office and asked us to judge him on his record of delivering housing. What has happened since then? Planning permissions have fallen off a cliff, we have the worst record of house building since 1923 and now 21 Tory council leaders in the south-east say that the new homes bonus will not deliver the homes that are needed. Does he agree with them, and what is his time scale for reconsidering the level of the bonus if it does not work, as they fear?

[Grant Shapps]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for pointing out that I have now been in the post for eight months, because that happens to be exactly the time for which my four predecessors, including the current shadow Secretary of State, stayed in office.

House building had fallen to 1923 levels under the previous Government, with their top-down planning and regional spatial strategies. I am confident that the fact that we have scrapped that structure and introduced the new homes bonus, which, as we have heard today, is about to start paying out significant sums, will reverse the fall in house building and affordable house building that we so tragically saw under the previous Government.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

13. What assessment he has made of the potential implications of the provisions of the Localism Bill for planning policy guidance and statements.

[The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)]

The Localism Bill does have implications for the national planning framework, which will be developed in conjunction with the Bill. Currently, national planning guidance runs to 900,000 words, which is the equivalent of two copies of “War and Peace”, and it is completely inaccessible to people in local communities up and down the country. We will replace it with a slimline, powerful version that people can use.

[Mr Robertson]

I thank the Minister for that very clear answer, but may I take the matter a little further? Obviously the new homes bonus is being introduced, as we have heard, along with the right for local people to decide on housing levels. In my experience, understandably, very few people want many homes built close to them. How can the Government ensure that there is not a conflict between those two policies?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend asks a very important question that goes to the heart of the purpose of the Bill, which is to deal with the problem that the number of homes being built has fallen to a low last seen in the 1920s. The reason for that is twofold. First, communities do not get to share in the benefits of new building, and specifically do not get the infrastructure that is required. Secondly, if people are excluded from having a say in the look and feel of development in their area, no wonder they are opposed to it. If we allow people to have a say and have a stake, we can start to turn around the planning system.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

Local neighbourhood partnerships provide local community groups and people with a feedback mechanism to influence planning and other local government decisions. Does the Minister agree that the Government’s decision to scrap those partnerships flies in the face of the stated aim behind the Localism Bill of pushing power down to local people?

[Greg Clark]

No, I do not accept that. The hon. Lady will find that we are encouraging, and indeed empowering, neighbourhoods to come together to develop a vision for their future. Funds will be provided to help them to do that.

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

15. If he will make it his policy to introduce a third party right of appeal in the planning system.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)]

The Localism Bill lays out our proposals for the radical reform of the planning system, making it more effective at the local level, reducing the need for appeal, and supporting economic recovery. It does not include a third party right of appeal because the coalition considered it, but believed that the better route, as the Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) just said, is to give communities greater control over what is considered to be appropriate development for their areas at the very beginning, through our neighbourhood planning system.

[Bob Russell]

It would not be so bad if life in the real world were like that. Developers always have the advantage. They have to win only once, but objectors must win every time. A developer can go to appeal; opponents cannot. When a local authority and a developer sing from the same song sheet—in Colchester, the local authority and Mersea Homes jointly wrote the song sheet—there is a serious problem for the local parish council and local residents. I urge the Minister to take that on board and to think again.

[Robert Neill]

I would understand my hon. Friend’s point if no other changes were being made to the system, but we are addressing precisely the point that he makes. In some areas, people currently feel disfranchised by the system. We are enfranchising them by enabling them, through the neighbourhood plan—if approved by a referendum—to prevent unwanted development in their area.

[Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

The Conservative party and its coalition partners pledged in their pre-election material to introduce a third party right of appeal, so may I congratulate the Minister and his partners on accepting the fact that that was one of the more barmy proposals among many others? Can I look forward to a series of further U-turns on other unrealistic propositions in the Localism Bill?

[Robert Neill]

The right hon. Gentleman is aware that both coalition parties thought that a third party right of appeal was well worth looking at, and we did so carefully—it was not lightly dismissed. The system that the previous Government left in place resulted in people feeling aggrieved. We have concluded, however, that the best means of reducing that grievance is not through the third party right of appeal, but by front-loading the system and giving residents and communities far greater control over development at the beginning, which is swifter and more cost effective.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

16. What steps he plans to take to reduce the dependency of local authorities on central Government; and if he will make a statement.

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)]

The Government’s localism and decentralisation agendas are focused on passing powers to the most local level possible. The local growth White Paper set out our plans to enable authorities to retain locally raised business rates and to give councils a real incentive to go for growth. The Localism Bill, which is before Parliament, includes a number of measures that are designed to reduce the dependency of local authorities on central Government, including in particular a general power of competence for local government.

[Gavin Barwell]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. He will know that my constituency includes the retail and commercial hub of Croydon town centre. Achieving the full localisation of business rates would give the council a very strong stake in the health of the local economy and massively reduce dependency on central Government. Will he look at that idea as part of his long-term review?

[Mr Pickles]

The Government are clearly looking to ensure that local authorities get the benefit of the economic decisions that they take. The key to that is the localisation of business rates. Clearly, were we to apply that to the City of London, it could pave the pavements with gold, so there must be some way of applying that measure to areas that are not as fortunate as, for example, Croydon, but I look forward to my hon. Friend’s submissions to the review.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

Good local councils in areas of greatest need use their grant funding effectively to support people with disabilities, people who need care or housing, and children with special educational needs. Will the Secretary of State therefore tell the House what he is doing to help such councils beyond imposing the heaviest cuts on them and trying to stigmatise their work with the language of dependency?

[Mr Pickles]

As the hon. Lady knows, this was to be the year of the big cuts. Had the Labour party won the election, they would have imposed such cuts, and my job as Secretary of State was made considerably easier because I inherited a lot of the plans that Labour had prepared. She will also know that this Government have ensured that the most dependent councils face the smallest cuts, and that we have put in £6.5 million for Supporting People and transferred nearly £1.5 billion from the health service to help to support people. We have protected the vulnerable, and we expect sensible and responsible local authorities to do the same.

[Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)]

One council radically reducing its dependence on central Government is my council of Hammersmith and Fulham. Thanks to four years of successive council tax reductions, there has been an accumulated saving to the average council tax payer of £1,799. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating Hammersmith and Fulham council on reducing its dependence on central Government and delivering exemplary value for money for its local residents?

[Mr Pickles]

Hammersmith and Fulham council is indeed the apple of my eye. I recall visiting it in opposition and watching that first budget go through. First, the Labour party said that those were ridiculous cuts that would destroy services. Then it said that it would reduce council tax even further, but it ended up abstaining.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

17. How many new social home builds he expects to be started in each year of the comprehensive spending review period.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)]

In the spending review we announced almost £4.5 billion investment in new affordable housing to deliver up to 150,000 affordable homes. We are giving housing associations more flexibility on rents and use of assets, thus increasing their financial capacity, and our aim is to deliver as many homes as possible through our investment and reforms. The actual number of homes started and delivered in each year is dependent on agreements between housing associations and the Homes and Communities Agency in consultation with local authorities.

[Heidi Alexander]

I congratulate the Minister on his optimism, but I am afraid that I do not share it. In my constituency, the former Catford dog track has lain derelict for the past seven years. It is a site owned by the Homes and Communities Agency and has planning permission for a scheme that includes 313 affordable homes. Given the Minister’s stated commitment to affordable housing, will he agree to meet me to discuss options for how we can get appropriate development on this site?

[Andrew Stunell]

I am certainly happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss the situation she described. I hope that she will bring the answer to what happened in those seven years.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

Our experience in rural Broughton Gifford in my constituency is that a parish council can promote an exception site to use land efficiently to meet local housing need. This was possible under existing legislation, but took several years. How will the Minister’s proposals for a community right to build help such enlightened rural parishes?

[Andrew Stunell]

I thank my hon. Friend for the question. As he will see when he studies the Localism Bill, local communities will have a right to build that will allow them to overstep their local planning system to deliver what they need.

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

In spring 2008, the Homes and Communities Agency gave the flagship Conservative council of Westminster grants to build 500 new homes. Three years later, significantly fewer than 50 such homes have been built. Will the Minister tell me why?

[Andrew Stunell]

Clearly, those five years were a time when a Labour Secretary of State was standing at this Dispatch Box.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

18. What steps he is taking to strengthen the enforcement of planning decisions in respect of unauthorised developments.

[The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)]

The Localism Bill gives enforcement powers to local councils specifically to prevent people from preventing enforcement against them by applying for retrospective planning applications.

[Julian Sturdy]

I thank the Minister for his response. Unfortunately, in my constituency the council has become well known for failing to enforce planning conditions. Given that we are encouraging local people to take a greater interest in local matters, does he not agree that local authorities must commit to strict enforcement of planning controls?

[Greg Clark]

One of the great advantages of localism and the Localism Bill is that it will be crystal clear that local authorities are responsible for these decisions, and I hope that in every part of the country local people, through the ballot box, will bring pressure to bear on councils that fall behind others.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

19. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of provision of fire services in Misterton, Retford, Harworth and Worksop.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)]

Decisions on the provision of fire services are taken by individual fire and rescue authorities, as part of their integrated risk-management planning process, which assesses and mitigates risks to local communities. No formal assessment of Nottinghamshire fire and rescue authority’s local decisions has been made by central Government.

[John Mann]

The fire service in my area is not adequate; it is excellent. I would therefore like to know why the Minister is cutting the Nottinghamshire fire service budget by so much, thereby endangering those standards of excellence and possibly leaving the people of Retford in my constituency without proper fire cover—cover that they have had for 100 years and that they deserve in the next 100 years.

[Robert Neill]

Spending for fire and rescue authorities has, in fact, been protected and back-loaded because they are front-line services. Nottinghamshire is making proposals that it intends formally to consult on, I understand, at the end of February. The proper course is for the hon. Gentleman and his constituents to enter that consultation then.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

20. If he will assess the likely effect on vulnerable people in Newcastle upon Tyne Central constituency of the end of the working neighbourhoods fund.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)]

An equality impact assessment on the completion of the working neighbourhoods fund has been carried out and published on the Department’s website.

[Chi Onwurah]

The Minister’s answer gives me no assurance whatsoever. The working neighbourhoods fund funds a project in my constituency called Newcastle Futures, which has supported more than 6,000 people into work and training since it was set up in 2007. That is 6,000 lives changed for the better. Now Newcastle Futures fears for its future. What assurance can the Minister give that such important projects will continue to support people into work and training?

[Andrew Stunell]

For every pound going to the richest authority, £4.80 goes to Newcastle. It is for Newcastle to take those decisions. However, I also want to draw the hon. Lady’s attention to last week’s announcement about the formation of the local enterprise partnership, which covers Newcastle and provides the authority with a chance of accessing regeneration funding.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

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

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)]

Since we last met for oral questions, my Department has introduced new powers to protect community pubs, supported local high streets by scrapping Labour’s petty Whitehall parking rules, championed human rights by reining back on draconian powers to seize private property, and given councils an incentive to put empty homes back into productive use. Today we move forward with the Localism Bill, which will scale back England’s over-centralised state and deliver devolution for the people, giving power to local councils, communities and local people. Other items were contained in a written statement that was laid before the House last week.

[Margot James]

My local authority, Dudley council, received notification last week that existing projects financed by private finance initiative credits will no longer be allowed to access that funding stream. In our case, that amounts to a sudden cut in funding— £10 million over the next decade—for an important information and communications technology programme in 120 schools. Will the Minister meet me and representatives of my local authority urgently to discuss the matter?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)]

I can confirm the message that I left with my hon. Friend’s office at the end of last week: I am very happy to meet her as a matter of urgency to discuss the matter.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

T3. On his recent visit to the north-east, the Prime Minister claimed that his West Oxfordshire council was facing much higher cuts—23% over two years—than anywhere in the north-east. However, that cut of 23% amounts to £775,000. In comparison, Durham county council, which covers my area, is facing cuts of more than £60 million—that is, £28 million in formula grant, plus £32 million in area-based grant. Will the Secretary of State accept that my constituents will struggle to understand this particular concept of fairness, and that, regardless of percentages—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let me gently say to the hon. Gentleman that I think we have got the thrust of it, and topicals need to be brief.

[Mr Pickles]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman gets out much, but West Oxfordshire is a very small place, and Durham is a lot bigger. Durham has reserves of just short of £93 million, and it receives formula grant at £459 per head, a sum that the people of West Oxfordshire can only dream of.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

T2. Last year, London Councils spoke for many when it said that Labour’s local funding formula“lacks transparency and is inherently unstable and unpredictable, generating fluctuations…that defy logic.”Will my right hon. Friend review that formula and base it on real need, so that more taxpayers get what they pay for?

[Mr Pickles]

It is certainly our intention to review the formula and to try to place it on a fair basis. When I had the opportunity of dealing with it, one of the relatively small things I was able to do was to move the relative needs component up to 83% from 73%. That is why the settlement has been so progressive this time.

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)]

T4. The Save Spodden Valley campaign in Rochdale has spent the past six years fighting a planning application to build 600 homes on the former site of the world’s largest asbestos factory. Last week, the council rejected the application, not least because of Save Spodden Valley’s excellent campaigning, to which I pay tribute. Given that planning aid is to lose Government grant, is the Minister confident that local groups will be able to stand up to multi-million pound planning applications on their own?

[The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)]

I have good news for the hon. Gentleman. The Localism Bill, which we will debate this afternoon, will give the power to local communities such as his own not to have to be dragged through the appeals system in the way that he has described, but to say once and for all how they want their communities to look and feel. I look forward to welcoming him into the Lobby this evening.

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

T6. Does the Secretary of State agree that the final decision on major infrastructure projects should be a political one, and not one made by an unelected quango? Given that Britain is 33rd in the world in terms of infrastructure, according to the World Economic Forum, does he agree that he should make it a priority to discuss this matter with other Cabinet members?

[Greg Clark]

We will do more than discuss it; we are going to act on this. It is important that we have a fast-track process for infrastructure investment, but it is also crucial that it is democratic. If people do not have confidence that those who take the decisions can be held to account, there will be no faith in the system. The Localism Bill will deliver the reforms that my hon. Friend seeks.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

T5. In defining localism, if the Secretary of State were to get a planning application appeal on his desk regarding a development that 12,000 local people were in favour of and that would create lots of jobs, and that only two people, and the Tory council, were against, which side would he be on?

[Mr Pickles]

When we judge these matters, we judge them in a quasi-judicial way. We will always be blind to political advantage, and we will do what the evidence suggests.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

T8. The interim report of the Zero Carbon Hub suggests that achieving zero-carbon homes by 2016 will depend on what it calls “allowable solutions”, potentially off-site. How will the Minister ensure that such measures are local and tangible, and therefore more credible than existing offers for carbon offsetting?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)]

Ensuring that our homes are zero carbon is a fundamental part of what the coalition agreement asks us to do, and this Department is strongly committed to that. My hon. Friend makes an important point, and the Housing Minister has made it clear that we are going to make detailed proposals shortly.

[Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)]

T7. The chief executive of Barnardo’s has warned about young people being groomed in every town and city. Given the cutbacks in policing services and the cuts in local government that will impact on children and young people’s services, can any Minister stand at the Dispatch Box with his hand on his heart and say that that apprehension will now be eased?

[Mr Pickles]

I certainly hope that that will be the case, because that kind of behaviour is wholly unacceptable, and I am sure that Members on both sides of the House have been shocked to hear of that process. However, given that the hon. Gentleman’s local authority has £108 million in reserve and receives £714 per head, while areas such as Surrey receive £170, it should be in a very good position to prioritise such matters.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

T9. The Department for Transport has established that where lower tier authorities provide additional funds for concessionary travel, this amounts on average to 12%, yet the Department for Communities and Local Government budget proposals seize all that money and redistribute it to upper tier authorities. Will the Minister agree to meet Kettering borough council, of which I am a member, to discuss how this serious mistake can be corrected?

[Mr Pickles]

Of course we will meet Kettering borough council. The closing date for consideration of evidence is today, but I believe that Kettering has submitted evidence. We, of course, will look very carefully at any evidence of statistical mistakes that might have been made.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Given that the Secretary of State faces a massive cut in his budget and is devolving issues down through his Localism Bill, how many of his six Ministers does he expect to make redundant?

[Mr Pickles]

We are in the process of making the Department smaller by reducing the number of director-generals, directors and assistant directors. As time goes on, it is certainly our intention to get smaller.

[Mr David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)]

T10. We heard earlier that the levels of house building in the last year of the last Labour Government were the lowest since 1924, which is a disgrace. How will the Minister reverse that trend and ensure that house building increases adequately to meet the demand, particularly for social and affordable housing?

[The Minister for Housing and Local Government (Grant Shapps)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: that low record of house building was a disgrace. We need to do a range of different things, starting with the new homes bonus, followed by ensuring that there is affordable rent, that affordable homes are built, and that the planning system is liberated. There are also many measures in the Localism Bill, which we are debating later today. A whole raft of things needs to be done to get the situation fully under control. We look forward to the Opposition’s support for making that happen.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

A theme of Ministers’ answers has been the differential between the grants of different local authorities, with poorer authorities getting more than prosperous authorities. Is it a higher priority for Ministers to equalise those grants or to get rid of the inequality that has given rise to higher grants going to poorer areas?

[Mr Pickles]

We have increased equalisation. We have done three things. We changed the relative needs component from 73% to 83%; we introduced banded floors so that wealthier authorities have a greater percentage cut; and for those falling outside that, we introduced transitional relief. A new form of local government finance should, I think, start to concentrate on those areas of higher dependency, as far as the central grant is concerned, so that we can get them out of that dependency, increase growth and increase prosperity.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

It remains a scandal that a loophole in planning law allows a freestanding pub or other community facility to be demolished without planning permission, thereby denying the community any say whatsoever. May I ask my hon. Friend the new community and pubs Minister if the Government are minded to support the Protection of Local Services (Planning) Bill on Friday or will they incorporate it into the Localism Bill instead?

[Robert Neill]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his congratulations on this interesting addition to my responsibilities. I am discussing with the Bill’s sponsor the best means by which to collaborate sensibly to achieve the objectives of protecting important local services such as community pubs.

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

I am sure that the Secretary of State would acknowledge that under successive Governments Manchester has proved to be a resilient and successful city. Even so, it faces higher than average levels of unemployment. What possible justification does he have or can he offer for axing the £7.7 million working neighbourhoods fund and giving that money to parts of the country that already have relatively high levels of employment?

[Mr Pickles]

We did not axe it; the previous Labour Government axed it, and I do not recall the right hon. Gentleman raising a single objection to it.

[Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

Staffordshire Moorlands district council has entered into an arrangement with neighbouring High Peak borough council to share management services. Does the Secretary of State agree that innovations like these can help save taxpayers money while protecting front-line services?

[Grant Shapps]

I congratulate my hon. Friend’s local authority. Sharing services is surely the way forward. Nowadays there is no real excuse for having separate management teams, separate chief executives and expensive, well-paid officers to fill every position. Sharing can prevent the cuts from falling on the most vulnerable and needy members of society, and I congratulate my hon. Friend’s local authority on doing exactly that.

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

Given that today is the last day for representations to be made in the formal consultation on the grant settlement for local authorities, will the Minister assure me that he will take seriously the representations from Stoke-on-Trent and its Members of Parliament during our welcome meeting with him last week? We cannot afford these cuts.

[Andrew Stunell]

I thank the hon. Lady and her colleagues from Stoke-on-Trent who came to see me last week. I assure her that her words and theirs were clearly heard, and that they will be taken into account along with all the other representations that we have received.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Authorities such as Manchester city council, run by Labour, are publicising front-line job cuts while retaining their Twitter tsars. Meanwhile, other local authorities, such as Leicestershire county council and North West Leicestershire district council, are being diligent. They have cut their management, protected front-line services, and kept council tax low. Is it right for such diligent local authorities to be punished in the next spending round because of the profligacy of councils run by the Labour party?

[Grant Shapps]

My hon. Friend is right. It is for local authorities to work out where to make their savings. I should add for the record that it is not clear whether the Twitter tsar was eventually employed, although the post was certainly advertised. I should also point out that when authorities talk of job reductions, we do not know whether they are including positions that were already vacant.

[Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)]

Last year the Prime Minister asked local authorities not to do the easy thing by cutting the budgets of voluntary bodies, but week after week representatives of such organisations come to my surgery and tell me that their budgets have been slashed and that they cannot continue to do their work. Does the Secretary of State share my concern about Nottinghamshire county council’s failure to heed the Prime Minister’s advice?

[Greg Clark]

The average cut in the spending power of councils is 4.4%, so there is no excuse for any council to target the voluntary sector disproportionately. I hope that Opposition Front Benchers will be as clear as Ministers in condemning such behaviour.

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

When Ministers consider representations about varying the provisional spending formula for councils, will they take seriously three issues above all: the effect of front-loading the settlement, the effect of any staff costs resulting from the settlement on councils without many reserves, and the need to ensure that the population figures are accurate and up to date?

[Mr Pickles]

We will use the most up-to-date information we have. I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point about front-loading; we did much to mitigate its main impacts in the settlement. We are continuing to examine all aspects of the settlement, and we will of course ensure that the most vulnerable are protected in the process.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

In answer to an earlier question, the Secretary of State said that he looked forward to a time when local authorities would be able to retain business rates raised in their areas. With that in mind, can he tell us what proportion of the money distributed to authorities through formula grant is raised through business rates?

[Mr Pickles]

Virtually all equalisation comes from business rates. The hon. Gentleman raises an important point and we will consider it carefully, but before we can move to a system of that kind we must be able to offer a degree of stability. Business rates are notorious for their movements during the economic cycle.

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

Given that three London councils are coming together to share some of their services, what advice would the Secretary of State give the London borough of Hounslow to stop it cutting front-line services?

[Mr Pickles]

It should seek to emulate those fine councils Hammersmith and Fulham, Westminster, and Kensington and Chelsea. It should join others in protecting the front line, and stop using the poor as a battering ram against the Government.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. As ever, the Secretary of State is heavily in demand, but I am afraid that time is our enemy. We must move on.

Tunisia

Monday 17th January 2011 Commons Chamber

15:34

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Tunisia and the Government’s assistance to British nationals.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I welcome this opportunity to update the House on recent events in Tunisia and on what is being done to assist British nationals there.

The House will be aware that, following a month of protests over Government corruption and the lack of political and economic reform, a state of emergency was declared and President Ben Ali left Tunisia for Saudi Arabia. I hope that the House will join me in expressing our sympathy to all those whose friends and relatives have been killed or injured in the disturbances.

The Speaker of the Tunisian House of Deputies, Fouad Mebazaa, has been appointed interim President in line with the constitution, and he has asked Prime Minister Mohammed Ghannouchi to form a Government of national unity. Talks continue with opposition parties and with civil society to try to agree a way forward, and we hope that there will be an announcement on the new Government later today.

When the situation deteriorated, an estimated 5,000 British nationals were in Tunisia, most of them tourists on package holidays. We changed our travel advice to “all but essential travel” on 14 January, since when more than 3,000 British citizens have left Tunisia; many of them were able to leave on additional flights laid on thanks to the swift response of tour operators, and we believe that approximately 1,000 British nationals now remain in Tunisia. That number is largely made up of long-term residents, as well as dual nationals and some independent travellers. Many of those still in Tunisia do not wish to leave and have told our consular staff that.

Despite exceptionally challenging conditions, the embassy is working to help to resolve the crisis and to provide support to British nationals in Tunisia. We have sent a six-person rapid deployment team from London and two members of staff from elsewhere in the region to reinforce embassy staff in Tunis and to provide constant consular assistance. We have established a 24-hour hotline in Tunisia and in London that people can ring for help and advice, and we have staff at Tunis airport who are liaising with airlines and seeking to help British travellers with medical, passport and other consular issues.

Our embassy staff remain in regular contact with our network of wardens across Tunisia, better to understand the evolving picture around the country and keep those British citizens that we are aware of informed of updates as the situation evolves. We are keeping those British nationals who have registered on LOCATE updated on developments through regular e-mails.

I spoke to our ambassador in Tunis earlier this afternoon. He informed me that his staff are now receiving very few consular calls, and those who are calling are mostly asking for updates on the security situation. We continue to advise against all non-essential travel to Tunisia. We advise anyone in the country who does not have a pressing need to be there to leave by commercial means. The airports are operating, and airlines are flying into and out of Tunisia. Those who are still in the country should respect advice or instructions given by the local security authorities and tour operators and avoid rallies and demonstrations. There is no indication that British nationals are being targeted by looters or rioters, but given the unpredictability of the situation there is always the chance of their being caught up in incidental violence, and our advice is that if any British citizen is in doubt about the safety of his or her location they should stay in their accommodation.

At the political level, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has been working with partners, including especially those in the European Union, to promote a peaceful outcome and longer-term political reform. As soon as possible, we will be seeking to engage the Tunisian authorities to help with this. We encourage all involved to do what they can to restore law and order, and we call for the full inclusion of all legal political parties in the formation of an interim Government.

The change in Tunisia in the past few days has been profound, but it is not yet the political reform that many Tunisians hope for. The authorities should not ignore the voice of the Tunisian people. The British Government will work with partners to try to ensure an orderly move towards free and fair elections and an expansion of political freedom in Tunisia. There were extended EU discussions on Friday. We have been calling for a speedy and substantial offer of EU support to underpin the move to free and fair elections, which will be critical in re-establishing calm and security in the country.

Today, the High Representative, Baroness Ashton, has issued a statement, saying:

“The EU stands ready to provide immediate assistance to prepare and organise the electoral process and lasting support to a genuine democratic transition.”

We shall continue to provide the help and advice that British nationals need and expect, and to engage with and support Tunisia, as it works for peace and security.

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank the Minister for his statement and join him in expressing condolences to those who have lost family or friends in these difficult circumstances. Even after President Ben Ali’s departure, which brings to an end a repressive regime, the situation in Tunisia remains tense and uncertain, with prospects for only a fragile interim Government; outbreaks of looting are taking place, alongside continued legitimate protests.

May I ask the Minister about consular support and future Government policy on Tunisia? The Opposition welcome the considerable work done by many of the tour operators to evacuate thousands of people over the weekend. However, I am concerned that the Government were slow off the mark in responding to this situation. On Friday, the Minister responsible for consular policy told the BBC that

“We are not at that moment advising that people make an effort to leave Tunisia.”

Yet a state of emergency was announced that afternoon, following seven days of violence, and tour operators were already bringing British nationals back to the UK. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office did not publicly change its travel advice until Saturday, and the rapid deployment team did not leave the UK until Sunday. British holidaymakers in Tunisia were put in a very confusing and alarming position. They were told by Ministers that they did not need to leave, just as their holiday reps were telling them that there would be emergency evacuations. Does he agree that the Government were too slow to act?

How many British nationals does the Minister believe will still be in Tunisia following today’s flights? Is he confident that sufficient help is in place for independent travellers who wish to return and still need assistance? He will be aware that British Airways has advised its customers that the next return flight to the UK is not until Wednesday, so will he join me in urging BA to provide additional capacity for its passengers tonight or tomorrow? Many tour operators are not yet offering refunds or alternative holidays for people who were due to travel to Tunisia after Wednesday this week. If it is too dangerous to travel there, it is surely unfair to expect holidaymakers to cancel and incur the full financial cost, so I urge tour operators to extend the scope of their refund offers. May I ask the Minister to meet major tour operators to deal with this crucial issue?

Finally, on the Government’s approach to the broader situation, will the Minister tell us whether the Foreign Secretary has spoken to the interim Prime Minister? The ending of the authoritarian regime must be a turning point for a country that, for too long, was under a repressive Administration that denied the Tunisian people their basic democratic freedoms and economic opportunities. I agree with many of the Minister’s points about the importance of Tunisia having free, fair and democratic elections to establish a sustainable and legitimate Government, and I welcome the work being done in the EU. Will he continue to press the EU to support elections, including with possible election observers and practical assistance? The Government have been slow off the mark this week, but we look forward to their being swifter in their response in future.

[Mr Lidington]

The fact that the great majority of British citizens in Tunisia have been able to leave swiftly, with consular support and advice, indicates that the Government’s response has not been lax in the way the right hon. Lady describes. Clearly, as with any such event that makes sudden demands on our consular services, we will examine any lessons that need to be learned from this episode, but I am sure that she will want to join me in recognising the work and commitment of consular staff, both those UK-based and those locally recruited and working in our embassy in Tunis.

The right hon. Lady asks how many British citizens are still in Tunisia, and our best estimate is about 1,000. One thing that our network of wardens will be doing is trying to find out, by making contact with expatriates and dual nationals in particular, exactly what the remaining numbers are and how many wish to leave. I have been advised by the embassy in the past couple of hours that some holidaymakers are telling us that they would prefer to stay in Tunis to see whether there is a chance of resuming their holiday, in the hope that things calm down there.

I would welcome British Airways or other airlines making additional provision to bring back independent travellers, but that is a commercial matter for them. So, too, are the relationships between customers and tour operators regarding possible refunds for holidays that have had to be cut short or cancelled. As the right hon. Lady and I both know, most decent travel insurance policies will have a clause that provides for reimbursement in the case of such an event. I am sure that those companies will be in touch with their customers as soon as possible to try to reach amicable outcomes. My colleagues in the Department for Transport are in frequent touch with the travel industry, but such matters are best addressed, if possible, between companies and their individual customers.

I should add that we are actively working with the Ministry of Defence on contingency plans should an evacuation of British nationals be needed. At the moment, our judgment is that that is not necessary, but I want to reassure the right hon. Lady and the House that we are not simply sitting back and assuming that things will improve. We have contingency plans in place should matters get considerably worse.

Finally, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary hopes to speak to the interim leadership of Tunisia as soon as possible. I am sure that the right hon. Lady will understand that the leadership’s first priority is to try to set up the much-needed Government of national unity. I hope that it is successful in that endeavour.

[Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)]

I was in Tunisia just a few days before this latest outbreak of violence. A constant theme when I talked to people there was the dreadful state of their economy and, above all, the massive unemployment among graduates, particularly among female graduates. Does the Minister agree that if we achieve political stabilisation one of the greatest contributions the United Kingdom and other EU member states can make is to grow trade with Tunisia and improve prosperity for the people, who are in dire need?

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend identifies an important problem that faces not only Tunisia but many other countries in north Africa and the middle east: the dismayingly high and enduring unemployment among young people. The problem is made even starker when we consider that young people under 26 or under 30 make up, in most cases, about 60% of the population of those countries. Trade and investment are an important way of giving people in those countries hope of a better future, but investment and trade will be more likely if business has confidence that the rule of law and political stability apply. I think that reforms to governance, greater political freedom and an independent system of courts and judiciary go hand in hand with the economic reforms and improvements that my hon. Friend seeks.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that although the toxic combination of high unemployment and corruption brought about the huge demonstrations and the downfall of the President, at the same time the World Bank and International Monetary Fund supported and approved of the economic strategy adopted by Tunisia? Is it not time to recognise that these tired old models create awful problems for young people, leaving them unemployed and leading hopeless lives? Does the Minister not recognise that there must be some change in economic thinking?

[Mr Lidington]

There must be sensible economic and political reforms, so that those millions of young people feel that they can have a say in how the society in which they live develops and is shaped. That is why the European Union’s assistance for Tunisia is, for the most part, assistance with reform, particularly the reform of governance. It is also why the British Government have established a human development fund, which will seek to assist those sovereign countries—we cannot just go and tell them how to organise their affairs—the stability of which we want to continue, to engage in the reforms that will make them more stable societies in the longer term.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

I strongly welcome the work being done by Foreign Office officials to support British nationals in Tunisia, but it is not the only middle eastern country that faces rising food prices, high unemployment, corruption and questionable levels of political freedom and human rights. What preparations and contingency plans are our embassies in other middle eastern countries putting in place to make sure that they can provide swift support to UK nationals should the protest and unrest spread to other countries?

[Mr Lidington]

We have contingency plans in London for the rapid deployment of additional staff in the event of exceptional and urgent need for consular services anywhere in the world, not just in the middle east. I would not like to speculate on where the next demand on our consular services might come; it might be from some other part of the world entirely.

[Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)]

The Minister rightly talks about immediate need, particularly with English nationals being over there, and in the longer run Britain and the European Union certainly have no interest in an unstable Tunisia. In that context, will he make it quite clear that the EU will support the process of establishing a free and fair election and will make sure that monitors are available from within the European Union to guarantee that not only the world but the people of Tunisia know that the elections are free and fair?

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Gentleman, who speaks with considerable experience of election-monitoring work, is right. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has discussed this very issue with the French Foreign Minister in the past couple of days, and our Government and other European Governments have been making that point to Baroness Ashton and her team. When the hon. Gentleman reads her statement, he will see that one thing she is offering is robust EU support for election-monitoring work.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

It is very clear that al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and similar organisations are attempting to capitalise on the current situation. What assessment has the Minister made of that and of any potential threat to the United Kingdom, given the porous nature of our borders with Europe and the clear and present danger posed particularly to France, Spain and Italy?

[Mr Lidington]

The advice that I have received to date is that there is no evidence that extreme groups that are linked to or similar to al-Qaeda have played a significant part in the uprising inside Tunisia. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend is right to say that we need to be on our guard against the spread of extremism and terrorism throughout the entire Maghreb. That is yet another reason why we should support reforms, ensuring enduring political stability in those countries in the future and that people in those countries do not believe they should turn to terrorism because they have no other way of seeking to change the society in which they live.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Minister will know that for the past 10 years leaders at EU Council meetings have banged on and on about the Maghreb but done absolutely nothing to make sure that there is economic stability and democratic advance in any of those countries. Will he go back to the next Foreign Affairs Council of the EU and say that it is time that we met our commitments from 10 years ago in relation to some of those countries? Otherwise, the future will be no better than the past few weeks.

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Gentleman is right to imply that the relationships with the Mediterranean governed by the Lisbon process and the Union for the Mediterranean have not delivered the positive results we all hoped for. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I will certainly want to highlight, at the next Foreign Affairs Council, the need to learn lessons from this experience with Tunisia and the need for Europe to get its act together more effectively in terms of its relationships with our southern neighbours.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Is there not still a danger that Tunisia will move out of the frying pan of dictatorship and into the fire of Islamism? What specific steps are the Government taking to ensure that al-Qaeda and Islamists do not step in to fill the vacuum?

[Mr Lidington]

As I said earlier, the advice that I have received up to now is that the risk of violent extremism to which my hon. Friend refers is not as great as has been made out in some parts of the media. It is much more an uprising by people who have been frustrated by many years of political repression and whose feelings have been aggravated by economic hardship. Nevertheless, I assure him that the British Government will be alert to any risk that extremist groups could try to seize an advantage from what has happened in Tunisia, and we will take whatever steps we can to ensure that they are unable to do so.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for the reassurance that he has given about constituents who are in Tunisia and welcome the fact that he has emphasised the EU. Tunisia, of course, is part of the EUROMED process, and a number of projects have been sanctioned by the EU concerning migration, development and policing. As the hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) said, we might be unable to resolve the current issues there, but can we be ready with plan B, so that we can continue with those initiatives, which are important to the whole of the north Africa rim?

[Mr Lidington]

The right hon. Gentleman is correct to say that those are important issues not only for Tunisia, but for every country along the north African coast. Certainly, when I have talked with ambassadors from those countries in London, they have expressed concern about the risk that not only extremist groups, but those involved in people trafficking, drug trafficking and other forms of organised crime might use their territories as through-routes to try to penetrate Europe. We want to work with those countries, which are independent sovereign states, to ensure that they are able to improve their governance in the way the right hon. Gentleman describes. It is in the interests of Europe and of those north African countries that they are able to do so and move forward on the basis of greater respect for human rights and enduring political reforms.

[Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that when such situations arise, organisations such as the BBC speculating about which country will be next to fall is not only unhelpful to the status of the Government and of Parliament, but concerning to people in those countries and their families here at home?

[Mr Lidington]

I have taken great care to try not to engage in such speculation today, but we live in a country in which the broadcast media and the press are free to express their opinions and to speculate. That is part of being in a free society.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I congratulate the Minister on his considered response to the emerging crisis in Tunisia. Clearly, a large number of British nationals are still there, and a large number of British nationals in this country will have relatives, property, assets or businesses there, so what advice and help is the Foreign and Commonwealth Office giving them on the protection of their businesses and relatives?

[Mr Lidington]

I would advise anyone with such concerns to contact the Foreign Office helpline, in either Tunisia or London as most appropriate, and we will then seek to provide what support we can from either our embassy in Tunis or through our network of wardens around the country.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

Many in the House would like to express their sympathy to those in Tunisia who took to the streets and, as they reached for freedom, paid the ultimate price. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the right way to stop the violence, to push back against al-Qaeda and to create the basis for stability and elections is to support the interim Government behind Prime Minister Ghannouchi? Will my right hon. Friend use his office to persuade those in Arab states to lend their support to this change as well?

[Mr Lidington]

The last point that my hon. Friend made was a particularly good one—that it is important that other Arab countries row in and support the new Tunisian Government when one is formed. The most important thing, though, is that a Government of national unity can be put together who genuinely command widespread support among the Tunisian people and among civil society in that country. That offers the hope of a breathing space and a measure of peace which can provide the basis on which to move forward towards free and fair elections and longer-lasting political reforms.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

I congratulate the Minister on presiding over such a swift response to the crisis. May I embellish the question about other Arab states? Will my right hon. Friend and his colleagues encourage other European countries to help in a project to encourage good governance in those states?

[Mr Lidington]

The European Union has relationships with a number of Arab states, both in north Africa and in the Levant, which feature discussions about human rights, the rule of law and democratic reform. I agree that we need to intensify those discussions. All those countries are sovereign states. They will want reforms that are true to their own traditions, histories and ways of life, but it is in the interests of all that they are able to bring forward reforms that satisfy the aspirations of their own people. That is what our bilateral human development fund is intended to do, and it is important, too, that European Union effort is carefully designed to meet the objective that my hon. Friend describes.

Point of Order

Monday 17th January 2011 Commons Chamber

16:02

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Twenty questions were called today at oral questions. Last Monday 23 questions were called. It is now commonplace at business questions for all those standing to be called; that was once a rarity. As there has been a huge increase in the past 12 months in the number of urgent questions, topical questions, oral questions and business questions that are dealt with, is it not right that we should ask the Procedure Committee to examine why that has happened and why Back Benchers’ opportunities for holding the Executive to account have been greatly multiplied, so that we can have a report, and so that we can ensure that this process continues and express our gratitude to the persons or person responsible?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. It is, of course, not a matter for me specifically to request the Procedure Committee to conduct an inquiry. It is entirely open to the hon. Gentleman who, as I have remarked before, is the author of a well-read tome on how to be a Back Bencher, to make that request of the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight). I note with interest and appreciation the observations that the hon. Gentleman has just made.

Localism Bill

Monday 17th January 2011 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

[Mr Speaker]

I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

16:03

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)]

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

I am glad to see the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) in her place. Had she not arrived, I might have raised a point of order myself to allow her to get here.

The present situation is not Labour’s fault. I do not blame the Opposition for the excessive centralisation that has come to characterise government in this country. Command and control is, of course, naturally appealing to the Opposition, but in fairness, they only accelerated an existing trend. If they boarded the moving train of centralism, there cannot be any doubt that they drove it to its terminus: grand centralist station. So the Labour party is not entirely to blame; it is just mostly to blame.

The Bill will reverse the centralist creep of decades and replace it with local control. It is a triumph for democracy over bureaucracy. It will fundamentally shake up the balance of power in this country, revitalising local democracy and putting power back where it belongs, in the hands of the people. For years, Ministers sat in their Departments hoarding power like misers. Occasionally, grudgingly and with deep resentment, they might have loosened their grip on the reins of power, only to tighten it almost immediately. Uniquely, they managed to fulfil the wildest dreams of both Sir Humphrey Appleby and Mr Joseph Stalin. That strangled the life out of local government, so councils can barely get themselves a cup of tea without asking permission. It forced a central blueprint on everything from local public services to housing and planning, regardless of what local people want or need. It left councillors hamstrung, front-line public servants frustrated and residents out in the cold.

The reasoned amendment owes much to the pragmatism of St Augustine: “Oh Lord, make me a localist—but not just yet.” Preserve us from the wickedness of delegated powers. Yet, as I said earlier today to the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), I do not recall those concerns being raised by the current Opposition during the passage of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, which in a mere 176 clauses, contained 86 delegated powers. The number of such powers in this Bill is, therefore, entirely the norm and entirely in keeping with the way in which legislation has been put together, with one important difference: this is a deregulating Bill.

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

I hope that my right hon. Friend does not miss the opportunity to mention the great pilot of centralisation, John, now Lord, Prescott, who, in moving from the social status of waiter to that of a passenger on cruise ships, was so damaging to local government.

[Mr Pickles]

I have to say that I have great affection for Lord Prescott, and I am particularly enjoying his current advocacy of insurance on television.

The Bill is based on a simple premise: we must trust the people who elect us and we must ensure that we trust them to make the right decision for their area. To misquote Clint Eastwood: “A Government needs to know its limitations.” We do not have all the answers but we have to have the courage to encourage local solutions. The Bill is made up of four main elements: London governance, planning, localism and housing. The London element is relatively straightforward and redistributes power away from quangos and back to elected officials and communities. The settlement has been agreed by the Mayor of London, the London assembly and the boroughs, and it is based on consensus across the political parties. I would like to pay tribute to the constructive way in which the Mayor, the assembly and the London boroughs, regardless of their political persuasion, have worked together on these arrangements.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

If this is all about giving away powers from Whitehall, why does the Bill transfer 126 new powers to the Secretary of State?

[Mr Pickles]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was distracted by something in the Chamber more interesting than my speech, but I have already dealt with that. I politely pointed out that in previous, much smaller Bills introduced when the Labour party was running these matters, the proportion of delegated legislation was much higher. I am here to be helpful.

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

As a London Member of Parliament, I welcome the part of the Bill that delegates considerable extra powers to London government across the board. We tried to bring in many of these things during the passage of the Bill that set up the Greater London authority in the first place. Will the Secretary of State continue, over the course of this Parliament, to take the attitude that, where possible, we can continue to devolve power both to regional government, which is what the GLA is, and to local government?

[Mr Pickles]

I wish that my right hon. Friend had not used the R-word, but it is certainly my intention that this is part of a continuous process of devolution. He is quite right. There was a lot of cynical suggestion that the London councils and the Mayor would not be able to reach an agreement, and it is to their credit that they have managed to do so.

[Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Mr Pickles]

Of course I give way to the distinguished gentleman.

[Mr Raynsford]

As I understand it, the Secretary of State’s chief argument in favour of the Bill is that local people should be free to determine how they receive services within their own area. Does he believe that the frequency and arrangement of refuse collection services should be left entirely to local decision, or might he occasionally be tempted to intervene in this?

[Mr Pickles]

Of course refuse collection is a matter for local people. We have ended Labour’s bin taxes, and there will no longer be an incentive to have a fortnightly collection. If, on that basis, councils want to continue to have fortnightly collections, then good luck to them in facing their electorates. I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman, who is in some ways my hero—I am sorely tempted to take down one of my pictures of John Wayne and replace it with one of him—because he is an example of someone who had enormous vitality and ideas regarding the finance of local government and was continually ignored by his own side. I hope to take up the baton that he so sadly dropped.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Within the ethos and context of localism, how are we going to deal with the scandal of 129 local government executives earning more than the Prime Minister? Perhaps they should have to go back to their local people and ask permission before they are paid such outrageous salaries.

[Mr Pickles]

My hon. Friend makes a very moderate and reasonable point. I have suggested to chief executives that in order to demonstrate that they are on the side of the workers, they should take a 10% cut if they are earning more than £200,000 and a 5% cut if they are earning more than £150,000. In future, under this Bill, such remunerations will not be arrived at through cosy little deals between the leader and the applicant but must come before the full council, which will have to endorse them. I am pretty sure that common sense will rear its head and we will no longer see this ridiculous creep in the sums of money for chief executives, who will be more cognisant of their responsibilities.

Councils have been drowning in red tape and rules and paralysed by a culture of centralism. Those that want to break the mould and innovate continually run the risk of legal challenge. The Bill will restore town halls to their former glory. There was a time when local councils really were the centre of a community—when the local councillor was revered and honoured as a local person of importance and local government got things done, improved public health, cut poverty and ended slum housing. That is the sort of courage and ambition that we need in councils today.

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his generous comments about local councillors. I am sure that they apply to councillors of all political persuasions. My experience is that councillors want to be involved. Does he agree that one way of involving them is to encourage the abolition of the cabinet system in local government?

[Mr Pickles]

The cabinet system has many advantages, but it means that a number of councillors are denied the opportunity to be involved. We do not take a strong view on that matter, but the Bill will enable councils to go back to the committee system if they want to do so.

The Bill will give councils the powers and authority that they need. It will be a shot in the arm for local democracy. It will give councils a general power of competence. That is probably the single most important item in the Bill. It will turn convention on its head. It differs from a general power of well-being in one vital respect: instead of local authorities having to find a statute that allows them to act, the fun-loving legal advisers will have to find a statute that prevents them from taking action.

We know that the Labour party considered a general power of competence, so what held them back? Apparently, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) once argued that councils should not be allowed a general power because it would allow Islington to build a nuclear bomb. He is a much-respected Member of the House and his worries should be taken seriously. I have good news. The residents of Islington and the rest of us can sleep safely in the knowledge that the Radioactive Substances Act 1993, the Nuclear Explosions (Prohibition and Inspections) Act 1998 and the Nuclear Safeguards Act 2000 will prevent Islington council from obtaining weapons of mass destruction. In short, the power of general competence for councils does not simultaneously abolish all other laws of the land.

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

The Secretary of State advocated the power of general competence as a means of increasing the freedoms of local authorities. However, clause 5(3) states:

“The Secretary of State may by order make provision preventing local authorities from doing, in exercise of the general power, anything which is specified, or is of a description specified, in the order.”

Does that not completely negate the supposed freedoms?

[Mr Pickles]

I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman’s statement, because he and I have previous. When he was engaged in a respectable profession before returning to this House, I recall him advising me on these issues. His advice was that these things should not be absolute, and that the Secretary of State needs to retain residual powers just in case. He should not castigate me for taking the advice that he gave all those years ago— nice try.

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

The Secretary of State said that the current power to do anything that is in the interests of economic, social or environmental well-being is too narrow and that his general power of competence will extend the ability of councils to take action. Will he give practical examples of issues that do not fall within economic, social or environmental well-being, on which councils will be able to act? I am sure that the House wants to be enlightened on how large the power is. Before the election, he said that he wanted to give councils the power to do anything other than raise taxation. Is that still his intention?

[Mr Pickles]

The right hon. Lady makes a reasonable point. She will be aware of problems with London authorities’ insurance, and the general power of competence will deal with those. However, the question is: what is the difference between the general power of competence and the general power of well-being? The truth is that there is not much difference, and we welcomed the intention to introduce the latter, but only about 17% of authorities have done so. The reason for that is the innate conservatism of those providing legal advice, so councils have tended to err on the side of not introducing it.

The reason why the general power of competence is so important is that it turns the determination requirements on their head. All those fun-loving guys who are involved in offering legal advice to local authorities, who are basically conservative, will now have to err on the side of permissiveness. That is a substantial change, and I would have thought that there would be no difference between the parties on that matter. I believe that a general power of competence is better than a general power of well-being, because the latter had to be invented as a concept whereas the former is well accepted by local authorities throughout the world, which understand exactly what it means.

The Bill will let councils decide the best way to organise themselves, whether through cities having mayors, through local council executives or through the committee system. On the subject of mayors, I am delighted to report to the House that Lord Adonis will begin a tour of 12 English cities, talking to local people about the prospect of having a mayor. I look forward to his report. The Government are grateful that that distinguished former Cabinet Minister is undertaking that important work.

[Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Mr Pickles]

Of course I give way to another distinguished former Cabinet Minister.

[Mr Ainsworth]

Will the Secretary of State share with the House his thinking and motives in providing for the imposition of shadow mayors ahead of a referendum in the 12 cities involved?

[Mr Pickles]

The idea is basically to get ready for the mayors. I want to make it absolutely clear that if the people in those authorities decide that they do not want a mayor, the powers will disappear. However, it was felt that if we were to move towards referendums, the people of the cities involved should have an indication of the powers and freedoms that they would get if they had a mayor.

I think it was Lord Adonis, when he was dealing with high-speed rail, who made it clear that it was easier to deal with mayors in London and other parts of the country than to deal with council leaders. Cities such as Birmingham—I understand that one of our former colleagues, Clare Short, has thrown her hat in the ring as a potential mayor there—are as important as Boston or Barcelona, and they have a part to play on the world stage. I believe that mayors can enhance that role.

The Bill pushes power out as far as possible into communities and neighbourhoods, into the hands of individuals and community groups. For too long, local groups, community associations and even ordinary men and women on the street with a good idea and a desire to make their neighbourhood a better place to live, have been ignored and left out. They have no rights and no chance to have their voice heard. It is hardly surprising that even the most dedicated activist gets frustrated, let alone a concerned mum who just wants to see her street kept clean or a group of friends who are worried about a local pub that is under threat. We are giving people new rights, powers and opportunities to act on the issues that matter.

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

The right hon. Gentleman knows my town of Huddersfield very well. Since the election, local community groups have been falling by the wayside in political and community activity. They have lost their funding, including seed funding, and third sector and community groups are in a dire state. What will the Bill do to rejuvenate the third sector and create a renaissance in it?

[Mr Pickles]

Voluntary groups in Huddersfield, which I know and love very well, are very keen on those powers. They will have a power to challenge and a power for a proper partnership that is not hand-to-mouth and based on grants and handouts. In such partnerships, sensible local authorities will work hand in glove with voluntary organisations to provide better services for their population.

Let me give another example. People will be able to veto excessive council tax rises. Instead of the Secretary of State making that decision, local people will balance service needs against the level of council tax. They will be able to protect and improve—and even run—the public services on which they rely, and ensure that much-loved local assets are kept for the next generation. Those rights will give community groups the oomph that they need. People will have a genuine stake in their community and a reason to get involved, secure in the knowledge that the power to change things is in their hands.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

This is a truly radical Bill from a truly radical Secretary of State. It brings closer to reality the dream of government for the people, by the people and of the people that shall not perish from this earth. In my constituency, people want to buy the port of Dover. People in other constituencies want to buy forests and other such community assets. Will the Secretary of State and the Government consider going faster, deeper and wider, so that we have a community right to buy from central Government as well as from local government?

[Mr Pickles]

My hon. Friend tempts me to become a bit Maoist in these matters, but we will certainly consider what he says and look towards giving greater powers to local people.

The Bill will return the planning system to the people. Targets do not build homes, and regional plans do not get communities involved. Today, we have an adversarial, confrontational system, fomented on mistrust and a sense of powerlessness. It is simply not working. The Bill will therefore create genuine neighbourhood planning, by which the community will develop in ways that make sense for local people. Instead of instructions being handed down from on high, the Bill will offer incentives to invest in growth. Instead of unelected commissioners making national decisions on important national infrastructure, those choices will again be down to democratically elected Ministers in this House.

[Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

There is a genuine worry among the infrastructure industries, particularly the utilities, about the current interregnum. When will the Secretary of State issue guidance on major infrastructure processes? When will the words used by the Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) be fulfilled? In Question Time, he spoke of a fast-track political process, which might give some certainty for investors and some knowledge of how the system will actually work.

[Mr Pickles]

I am happy to reassure the right hon. Gentleman that there will be no gap in the system, and that the utilities are very much in favour of what we are doing. In terms of general national policy statements, we will move at pace, because as he rightly identifies, infrastructure, particularly in respect of the utilities, is immensely important.

The Bill will give councils and communities the power that they need to tackle the housing challenges that they face. The coalition Government have inherited a deep housing crisis. Five million people languish on waiting lists, and many of them have no chance whatever of being allocated social housing. It is a failing that hundreds of thousands of families live in overcrowded conditions while other homes are under-occupied, and that in half of all families who live in social housing, no one works.

The Localism Bill will create a much fairer and more flexible system. Councils will have the discretion to help families meet their needs in the most appropriate way, and we have of course made sure that there will be appropriate protections for the most vulnerable families. However, there are also many families who simply need a short-term helping hand—and councils will now be able to offer just that. I remind the House that we are only talking about new entrants to the system; existing tenants are unaffected. We are also reforming council house financing, building on proposals from previous Governments, but with a more generous offer. All councils will have more money to manage their stock.

Finally, the Bill represents the final nail in the coffin for the most illogical and unpopular measures of the previous Government: it will get rid of bin taxes, home information packs, the outdated port tax, and the sort of bonkers bureaucratic measures that we get when decisions are taken far away from the people they affect—the sort of measures we will not see anymore. The era of big government is over. Look where it got us: uneven and unstable economic growth; frustrated front-line workers slavishly following the rulebook to the letter; and residents and community groups left powerless to solve their problems.

[Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)]

One of the scandals of recent years is that councils have been allowed to run up astronomical debts. My former authority, where I served as a councillor—Hammersmith and Fulham council—is trying to reduce its historical debt of £133 million, which costs taxpayers £5 million a year in interest payments before a single street is even swept. What safeguards are in the Bill against councils running up excessive debts?

[Mr Pickles]

The Treasury rules prevent it. I know that Hammersmith and Fulham council has received a lot of praise in the Chamber over the past few hours, but it deserves it—it is a fantastic council. After years of Labour neglect and continuous council tax rises, residents in Hammersmith and Fulham are getting a better, cheaper service that represents the real needs of the community. It was no surprise that it was returned with a thumping majority at the last election.

By pushing power out, getting the Government out of the way and letting people run their own affairs, we can build a stronger, fairer Britain. We can restore civic pride, rebuild democratic accountability, promote economic growth and replace big government with the big society. I commend the Bill to the House.

16:33

[Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:

“this House, whilst affirming its belief in the important principle of devolving power to local people and their elected representatives, declines to give a Second Reading to the Localism Bill because the proposed devolution of power to local authorities is undermined both by the extent to which the Bill hands powers to the Secretary of State to over-ride those devolved powers and by the extent of powers of the Secretary of State to direct local authorities in their governance arrangements, and because the community empowerment and neighbourhood planning sections of the Bill, which have been put together hastily and without adequate consultation with important stakeholders, would cause the planning functions of local authorities to become incoherent and ineffective and create new costly and complex systems of service procurement and would reduce the effectiveness of local authorities; and is strongly of the opinion that the publication of such a Bill should have been preceded by both fuller consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny of a draft Bill.”

After all the delays, the false storms, the spin and the briefings, finally we have the Bill where it should be—before the House. It is a Bill that we will demonstrate over the coming weeks will not, I am afraid, revolutionise local politics, empower the masses to shake up their town halls or reinvigorate local democracy. It is a Bill that the Business Secretary rightly described as “not thought through”. Above all, the Bill empowers one person: the Secretary of State. We believe in devolving power to local communities and giving people a real say in how their local area is run: we believe that power should rest in the hands of the many, not the few; and we are optimistic because we have faith that there are few problems so intractable that local communities do not ultimately have the answer.

We would welcome and support a Bill, therefore, that genuinely devolved powers, which is what the Localism Bill was meant to do. We were promised a radical redistribution of power from central Government to people —a new dawn for people power and a groundbreaking shift in power to councils and communities. We were told that this would be the first Government to leave office with much less power in Whitehall than they started with. Today we see that that is just another broken promise. If page 1 of the Bill gives local councils the power to do whatever they like to improve their local areas, why do we need a further 405 pages?

This Bill fails to live up to its name. For all the Government’s talk of localism, the Bill does nothing to convince us that it is anything more than a smokescreen for unprecedented cuts to local communities up and down the country. All those warm words about devolving power and empowering communities ring hollow when, at the same time, local councils face cuts that go deeper than in almost any other Whitehall Department; cuts that fall heaviest in the first year; cuts that hit the most deprived communities the hardest. There is nothing localist about that.

Let us nail the myth that local councils can spare front-line services simply by cutting executive pay, trimming waste and sharing backroom functions, because they cannot. I know that maths is obviously not the Secretary of State’s strong point, because last week he was telling the newspapers about how good the Tory canvass returns were looking in Oldham. We support greater transparency in the pay of senior officials in the public sector and the measures to increase pay accountability in local government, and the right hon. Gentleman does not need a calculator to work out that cutting executive pay and streamlining administration will not help a single council to avoid cutting front-line services.

[Simon Hughes]

The right hon. Lady produced some wry smiles when she said how strongly Labour had been in favour of devolving to local councils. I would like her to be honest, at the beginning of the debate, about her own legacy. Was the previous 13 years of central power and no devolution a mistake that she now greatly regrets, or do all local councils and everybody else have some sort of fallacious memory? Have we all missed something, because that is not their view on the ground, whatever colour they are?

[Caroline Flint]

I think that what we can see is a steady devolution to local government. I can see—[Interruption.] Interestingly enough, I can see how clauses in the Bill build on Labour’s record in local government. The problem occurs when the right hon. Gentleman tries to suggest that the Localism Bill will shape the future of local government. I am afraid that what will shape the future of local government and how it operates with its partners in the voluntary and private sectors are the cuts, which are doing such a large amount of damage to some of those great partnerships. I refuse to accept from those on the Government Benches that somehow they invented localism or opportunities for communities to take control of assets and have a say. That is just not true.

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

rose—

[Charlie Elphicke]

rose—

[Caroline Flint]

I will give way again in a little while.

Let us look at Islington council, of which Labour took control in May. The previous Liberal Democrat administration appointed a chief executive on a salary of £220,000. The Labour council cut that salary by £60,000—a significant sum and a good example of a Labour council delivering value for money. However, that is a drop in the ocean against the £40 million-worth of savings that Islington has to find. The Secretary of State knows that the Bill does nothing for councils up and down the country that are struggling with the most difficult finance settlement in a generation. It is not localist to cripple local councils with devastating cuts and to stop them delivering the essential services on which local communities rely.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Has the right hon. Lady noted that Moody’s, the credit rating agency, stated last week that it is only the coalition Government’s deficit reduction plan that is saving our triple A rating? If we lose that, the markets will force far higher cuts on us.

[Caroline Flint]

I do not sign up to the view that somehow the country was on the brink of bankruptcy. That is absolutely ridiculous. We should be asking why, given all the measures that the Tory-led Government have instigated since the general election, growth is not higher, and why unemployment is not going down more quickly. That is the question that the Government have to answer. Up and down the country, because of the devastating cuts to local government and the front-loading of those cuts, the Government are sucking the life out of local communities that are trying to rebuild and create the growth that is so essential.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Caroline Flint]

I will give way in a little while, but I want to make some progress.

Perhaps we should not be surprised that the Secretary of State has been captured by Whitehall. In the eight months since his appointment, the Cabinet’s champion for local communities has bothered to make only six visits. Perhaps that is why he is so dangerously out of touch. To be fair, although he does not visit much, he tries to keep in touch by writing. Week after week, local councils are inundated by missives, diatribes and diktats from Ministers, lecturing them on how to organise a street party for the diamond jubilee and on the right way to celebrate Christmas, instructing them on what their street signs should look like and when to empty the bins, and telling them to axe their council newspapers even if it costs more to put the notices in the local paper. That is not localism, and nor is much of the Bill. It is no good providing a general power of competence in one clause if the next four clauses give the Secretary of State the power to curtail it.

We believe that elected mayors can offer effective local leadership. That is why we introduced the model, giving local councils and local people the power to elect a mayor if they wanted one. However, the only person whom the Bill gives a vote to is the Secretary of State.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Caroline Flint]

I will give way shortly, but I want to finish this point, because the Secretary of State has made much of his devolution of powers in relation to mayors. The only person whom the Bill gives a vote to in relation to mayors is the Secretary of State. How democratic is it for the Secretary of State to appoint a shadow mayor ahead of a referendum for local people? Would not such a person have an advantage when standing for mayor? It cannot be right or democratic for the leader of whatever party it might be to have such an advantage in a mayoral election.

The Bill could have encouraged and empowered more people to get involved in the way their community is run and made local councils more responsive to the communities they serve. Instead, it abolishes the duty on councils to provide information to people about how their local council works and how they can get involved. It also states that councils no longer have to bother replying to petitions from local people. I do not understand that.

[Christopher Pincher]

I am obliged to the right hon. Lady for giving way; we are obviously getting on better now. She talks about democracy. Can she explain how democratic it was, over 13 years of a Labour Government, to increase the amount of ring-fencing from 4% to 15% of local government spend? Was not that simply a case of Labour saying that Brown knew best?

[Caroline Flint]

In some cases, there was an argument for some ring-fencing, and I am not going to step away from that. I am glad to say, however, that as we moved through from ring-fencing to local area agreements, we encouraged local councils and their partners in the police, health and elsewhere to come forward with plans of their own. That is what was happening. I think I am right in saying that the present Administration agree with the work on Total Place. They were going to give it another name, but they still agreed with the principle of partners coming together in that way. However, there is nothing in the Bill to help Total Place, or whatever it was going to be called under the coalition Government, and that is a crying shame.

[Toby Perkins]

My right hon. Friend is being very generous in taking interventions, and I thank her for taking one from this side of the House. Do the councils that she meets think that they are better off now that, instead of getting ring-fenced funds, their funds are being abolished by the Secretary of State?

[Caroline Flint]

I do not think that the many councils that have had their area-based grants removed are singing from the rooftops about the end of ring-fencing. This is robbing Peter to pay Paul, but it is not the most deprived communities that are being paid; they are losing out hand over fist.

Rebuilding trust in politics and engaging people in the political process is vital, but the Bill could undermine standards in public life by making codes of conduct for councillors voluntary. Good standards are surely not optional. Every community expects its elected representatives to adhere to certain standards.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Caroline Flint]

I give way to the hon. Lady.

[Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)]

Following the question put by her hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins), does the right hon. Lady get thanks from her local residents when she meets them for almost doubling most of their council taxes?

[Caroline Flint]

The record will show that for many years under the Labour Government it was Conservative councils, not Labour ones, that increased their council tax.

This Bill is meant to take power from Whitehall and devolve it to local communities, but we find on closer inspection that it provides an arsenal of more than 100 new powers for the Secretary of State. It should be retitled the “only if I say so” Bill, because if the Secretary of State does not like it, it ain’t happening.

Much has been made of the introduction of local referendums, and we support mechanisms that promote public engagement in the political process, but when the Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to decide what is or is not a local matter and on what local people can and cannot have a say, just how deep the Government’s commitment is to localism is called into question. Far from devolving power as we were promised, this Bill represents a massive accumulation of power in the hands of the Secretary of State. If nothing else, at least we now know why the Government were forced to drop the word “decentralisation” from the Bill’s title.

[Mr Blunkett]

Could we not sum it up very simply by saying that the Government are centralising the power and decentralising the pain?

[Caroline Flint]

Yes.

Despite the best efforts of the Secretary of State and his Ministers to transfer powers from the many to the few, even they have not got everything wrong. Some of the Bill’s measures are a continuation of policies introduced by the previous Labour Government—[Interruption.] I am afraid they are. When the Government build on our reforms, we will support them. We support the general power of competence for local authorities, because those elected in an area should be able to do what is in the interests of the communities they serve. With no mention of local economic partnerships in the Bill and in the absence of any other plans for growth, giving local authorities greater flexibility on business rate relief to encourage new start-ups and help local businesses is one small step in the right direction. It builds on Labour’s introduction of small business rate relief.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Caroline Flint]

We welcome the principle of greater involvement for local people in how their communities are developed. Broadly speaking, we support the transfer of powers and functions from unelected bodies to the Mayor of London—provided there are sufficient powers of oversight and scrutiny for the Greater London authority.

I am sad to say, however, that as a whole this Bill represents a massive missed opportunity. When reading it through, it is difficult not to be struck by the sense that, for all the agonised intellectualising of the Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), this Bill is little more than a rag-bag collection of press releases from Tory HQ. Giving local people and communities a greater say in and more control over the future of their local areas and building an open and less adversarial planning system is to be welcomed, but when the Secretary of State’s own Department estimates that neighbourhood plans could cost as much as £250,000, we remain to be convinced that those plans are anything more than a gimmick or a vehicle for those with the loudest voices and deepest pockets to impose their will on the rest of the community.

[Hazel Blears]

The Secretary of State purports to say that the planning system will be simpler and more open to local people. How does that square with his decision to abolish planning aid, which has provided tremendous support to people right across this country? Those with he loudest voices will continue to have the biggest say.

[Caroline Flint]

My right hon. Friend echoes the point made earlier in Communities and Local Government questions. Planning aid is one vehicle to enable communities that might not have architects, solicitors and accountants among them to engage in the process. It is worrying when people’s hopes are raised and then dashed when they are effectively unable to take part.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Caroline Flint]

I give way to the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), who has been trying to intervene for some time.

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

I thank the right hon. Lady. As a councillor from 1998 to 2009, I watched councillors and residents become frustrated time and again because councillors could not properly represent residents on a range of issues owing to Government guidelines, particularly on planning. Surely the right hon. Lady would agree that the Bill gives back one very important power—the power of councillors truly to represent their residents without having to worry about any sort of guidance put out by the Government or a quango?

[Caroline Flint]

I am sure that, as a former councillor, the hon. Gentleman agrees that different communities have different capacities to engage. Often, in planning and development as in other contexts, it is the voices of those such as the homeless that are not heard. We need to think of ways of supporting those silent communities. The part of the Bill relating to councillors is interesting, but, again, questions will have to be asked in Committee. We shall need to ensure that it works properly, and enables councillors to represent people in their areas without affecting any quasi-judicial position in which they may find themselves when decisions must be made.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Caroline Flint]

I will make a little more progress, and then I will take a few more interventions. The record will probably show that by the end of my speech I had taken more interventions than the Secretary of State.

I mentioned the possible cost of the proposed neighbourhood plans, which might prevent those without deep pockets from being able to participate. The same is true of the much-vaunted provision relating to community assets, which is being billed as a community right to buy. Before the Bill was published we were told that, by giving communities a right of first refusal whenever local assets were being sold or closed down and by guaranteeing them a fair price, we could save pubs, post offices and village shops from closure; but the Bill does no such thing. There is no right of first refusal, there is no right to a fair price, and there is no help for communities seeking to save local assets that the Secretary of State’s cuts threaten with closure.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

May I return the right hon. Lady to the issue of neighbourhood development plans? As she will know, parish councils already have to produce parish plans which are part of the supplementary planning guidance. She said that neighbourhood development plans would give a voice to people who wanted to force their will on other people. Does she not understand what an insult that is to serving parish councillors such as me? Many parish councillors spent a great deal of time producing parish plans which were not bigoted and not about forcing our will, but were about protecting our local communities. All that neighbourhood development plans will do is give that more force.

[Caroline Flint]

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I was not referring to parish plans. I have met representatives of parish and town councils, and one of the questions that they have raised—fairly, in my view—is how parish plans might work in relation to neighbourhood development plans, and which would take priority. I am sure that we will examine such issues in Committee in order to ensure that we do not end up with over-duplication.

I know that parish and town councillors do a fantastic job. My constituency contains many parish and town councils. However, we need to ensure through neighbourhood plans that it is not possible for a few people who are not elected representatives to create a forum in which they can impose their will on others in various ways because of their clout and their finances. We need to ensure that the plans allow communities to be represented fairly. We also need to consider the implications for councils in terms of the cost and the additional responsibilities that will be expected of planning officers and others who service the neighbourhood plans. It is not that the idea is necessarily wrong, but we shall need to establish how it will work in practice, and whether it actually amounts to much. Is it all that meets the eye? That is what people want to know. They do not want to be led up the hill only to be marched down it again. That is not the sort of politics in which we should engage.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Lady think it better for planning decisions to be made by unaccountable regional quangos or by local people?

[Caroline Flint]

I do not think that the answer should be more powers for the Secretary of State, for a start.

What I have said also applies to the community right to challenge. We are in favour of empowering front-line staff. In many instances, not just in local government but in the health service and elsewhere, our staff should be at the forefront in coming up with ways of improving services. Those on the front line often have better answers than some managers. Many councils of all political persuasions already engage community organisations and voluntary groups in the delivery of local services. That is not new, and we think that it should be encouraged. However, those organisations need support. Given that their resources are being cut throughout the country, and given that there is no provision other than the right to be considered, we remain to be convinced that this part of the Bill will mean much in practice.

The Secretary of State tells us that this Bill is the centrepiece of what the Government are trying to do to shake up the balance of power in the country fundamentally, but perhaps what is most striking about it is what it fails to deal with. Across every community in the country people often feel that they do not have enough of a say about what happens in their local area, whether in local bus services, community policing, the district hospital, or in the jobcentre’s tackling unemployment. This Bill says nothing about that; it offers nothing to remedy that. Giving elected local representatives the power to summon people before their committees much as we do in the Committees of this House would be one simple, practical thing to give local communities a real say in the services that they use, but the Bill fails to do that.

In turning to the proposals—[Interruption.] Well, I understand from reading the Bill that scrutiny committees can summon an officer of the council, but they can merely invite someone from another organisation. There are no summoning powers over representatives of the utilities, for example, or over the district commander. That is what we are talking about: proper accountability, and proper powers for scrutiny committees.

On the Bill’s proposals on housing, it is again difficult not to be disappointed. For some homeless households, a home in the private rented sector may be a better option than social housing if that avoids long waits in temporary accommodation and provides greater flexibility of location than social housing, but that should be a choice for the household involved, so we will not support a proposal if it allows the most vulnerable members of our communities to be forced into unsuitable accommodation.

What else is missing from the Bill? There is a complete absence of reforms to the private rented sector—the Bill does not even touch on the subject—and we remain to be convinced that there is sufficient quantity of decent homes in the private rented sector to house those in need.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend share my concerns about passing to local government the responsibility to house people in the private sector? Rents are not regulated, tenancies are limited, conditions are often poor, and the tenant’s power to control the way the landlord behaves or maintains the property is very limited. What we need is more council housing with secure tenancies at economic rents, as are currently charged. That is the real way out of the housing crisis.

[Caroline Flint]

Supply is important on all counts: supply in social housing, supply in rented housing, and, indeed, supply of affordable homes for people to buy. There is, however, absolutely nothing in this Bill about the private rented sector. In fact, in the name of protecting home owners—he referred to this earlier in departmental Question Time—the Secretary of State was all too keen to confer on private landlords with empty properties a general power to neglect for up to two years, rendering local councils powerless in the face of blight or antisocial behaviour. That is a dilution of local authority powers, as we enabled councils to take action after six months, and it was announced just three days before the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) urged swift action to tackle empty homes, warning that empty properties attract squatters, vandalism and antisocial behaviour. The Minister even went to Oldham on a visit related to the policy, for which he had to apologise. It did not do the Liberal Democrat candidate much good. What we have here, therefore, is a chaotic policy and a hapless presentation, and it would be comic if the results were not so devastating.

The Secretary of State knows that I support sensible reform of social housing, but it must be reform that encourages employment, supports families and helps to create strong communities where people feel safe. Simply abolishing secure tenancies and kicking new tenants out of their homes when they get a promotion or a pay rise would just create fear and uncertainty. It would disrupt family life, and it could provide a disincentive to work. We on this side of the House could never support reforms that put a break on aspiration

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

I fear the right hon. Lady is overegging the pudding, given that she must surely acknowledge that in her time as Housing Minister she very courageously brought up the issue of social rent tenure. She was faced with a hailstorm of opprobrium from her own party because of that very brave decision, and her party did nothing about the issue in 13 years in power.

[Caroline Flint]

My worry was about single men and women without dependants who were not in work, who had not received the right training and who, often, were going from foyer projects into social housing with a secure tenancy but no support to get them into work. For me, social housing should be a springboard into work—it should be a springboard for people to change their lives. I find it odd that the much-vaunted proposals of the Minister for Housing and Local Government were all about saying that councils will check someone’s pay packet to see whether they have had a pay rise. People may use a pay rise to improve their home, for example, by buying new curtains or decorating, but they could now face eviction. I do not understand that approach. It is not about creating strong and stable communities; it is about stopping people realising their aspirations and stopping the self-sufficiency of many families in future.

The cuts to the housing budget have already dealt a hammer-blow to the hopes of hundreds of thousands of families who are trying to get their own home, and on the big issue of how we get more new affordable homes the Bill is ominously silent. The Government seem unmoved by the fact that the number of planning permissions for new homes in the last quarter of 2010 was down 18% on the record low of the same period in 2009. They seem unmoved by the fact that the housing waiting list figures rose by 12% between July and September, and the Secretary of State is unmoved by the fact that his proposed reforms to the planning system in this Bill could make things worse.

Labour would support reforms that gave local people and communities a greater say and more control over the future of their local areas, because a fair and open planning system that involves local people does lead to better decision making and greater consensus about development. However, every community cannot thrive if the system is biased against change, and every community has to look to the future to create new homes, new workplaces and new jobs. A planning system that is devoid of any obligations to provide for the future, rather than just to protect the present, is destined to fail. There is a danger that the reforms in this Bill, including the scrapping of regional housing targets, could mean that the homes that this country so badly needs will not be built. Indeed, since this Government came to power local authorities have already ditched plans for 160,000 homes—that represents 1,300 homes every single day. Although the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) tells us that the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister want “chaos” in the planning system, that is not what local people want. They want a planning system that respects the wishes of local communities but is able to deliver the homes that are so badly needed.

Last week, the voters of Oldham sent a very clear message to the Government about the rise in VAT, the trebling of tuition fees, the cuts to the police and the loss of vital community services. To those people, and those across the country, this Bill has nothing to say. For the council coping with huge front-loaded cuts, and facing rising costs for child protection and growing demand for social care, the Localism Bill has no answers. For the community that will see its potholes unrepaired, its streets unswept and its libraries shut down, the Localism Bill offers no help. For the councillor hoping for new jobs in their area, wishing to hold local agencies to account or wanting new affordable homes, the Localism Bill is worthless. For the resident who is worried about care for a loved one, living in fear of antisocial behaviour or concerned about their children’s youth club closing, the Localism Bill gives no assistance.

Labour knows that localism must mean more than dismantling local services and putting blind faith in volunteers picking up the reins, and that localism must serve more than those with the loudest voices and the deepest pockets. We are on the side of local people when it comes to the issues that they really care about. It is to Labour that they will look when this Bill fails to deliver, because they know that the Tories’ claim to believe in localism is a sham. Let the record show that we urged the House to decline to give this Bill a Second Reading.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. As Members can detect, a considerable number of Members wish to attract the Chair’s eye during this debate. A limit of eight minutes has been set. Members do not have to use the entire eight minutes and, clearly, the time limit will be reviewed later on.

15:41

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

I shall heed your words, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I must tell the Secretary of State that I really welcome this Bill, which has been a long time coming. I listened to the shadow Secretary of State, and I must say that she has had a convenient memory loss—about 13 years of it. She must recall that the major part of this Bill results from what her Government did to local government from 1997—they smothered it. Under her Government local authorities suffered: a constant flow of directives; a flowing river of statutory requirements; and expensive and time-consuming audits that looked at processes, rather than outcomes. Local authorities’ staffing levels increased, but the jobs were non-jobs or non-productive jobs created merely to meet the heavy strictures of the Labour Government.

Those all added to costs; they did not add to service provision. Related to that was the cynical manipulation of grant funding, as grant was moved from London and the south-east to Labour areas in the north. As I said to the shadow Secretary of State on a previous occasion, in a third big change the local grant assessment meant that Surrey lost £36 million year on year. The shadow Secretary of State said in response that the grant had risen year on year under Labour. She was right, but that was the national grant, not the grants that were subject to the selective manoeuvring up and down the country. In addition, the grant percentage increase for many local authorities had a very low base, particularly in London and the south-east.

Increases in council tax or grant were generally swallowed by local authorities’ being required to meet Government demands—demands based on centralised policies, not on local needs and not on needs as seen by locally elected councillors. I am delighted that the Bill, once enacted, will go a long way towards freeing councils to think and act for themselves according to local needs. I remind those who were Communities and Local Government Ministers in the last Government of the string of reports from the Select Committee advising and almost pleading with the Labour Government to remove layers of bureaucracy, hundreds upon hundreds of targets and the control of minutiae. Those Ministers paid homage to the reports but did nothing.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

I served on the same Committee, and my recollection is exactly the same as my hon. Friend’s. The Ministers were indicted in those reports for failing to deliver on social housing, failing to let local communities decide and failing to give planning guidance that local communities wanted to deliver. Time and again in that Committee we heard robust arguments from people who were very unhappy about what they were being asked to do locally.

[Sir Paul Beresford]

I thank my hon. Friend for that reinforcement.

The Bill reverses that and proposes the removal of further expensive central Government systems of data collection, targets and inspections following the earlier removal of comprehensive area assessments, local area agreements and the Audit Commission—I could go on. At last, we have a move towards diversity in the supply of public services, which has already been taken on positively in Surrey by councils, including the county and parish councils, by councillors and by residents groups.

I hope that the Government are taking radical measures to remove the Labour Government-imposed obstacles to fair, competitive tendering. When he winds up the debate, perhaps the Minister can comment on that concern. Whether the service is provided in-house or by a private franchise, a properly drawn-up contract, properly managed, enables better services to be provided at less cost, which is increasingly important at this time. Tendering must be fair and effective and the obstacles must be removed.

Since 1992, Labour Ministers questioned by the Communities and Local Government Committee seemed unable to comprehend the damage caused by their top-down imposed bureaucracy, which was supported by a very strong Labour local government contingent on the Committee.

It is a great relief to councils to be rid of regional strategies, with their millions of words and tomes of documents. At last, local councils will again be making local planning decisions. Councillors will be able to have opinions without risking the accusation of bias and being unable to act.

Moves on retrospective planning permissions will be welcomed, particularly in my area where we are plagued by Travellers abusing planning legislation. To be fair, many Travellers in my area are law-abiding people who fit in with our communities. A few are not. The claim by those few that they are a special racial minority and therefore apparently beyond planning laws is sickening. The cost to my local planning authorities of a constant flow of actions from those few individuals is notorious and outrageous.

I am delighted that councils will be able to return to the old committee system if they wish—if they wish, an unknown thing for Labour. For many councillors, it meant that they were able to have a say in decisions rather than feeling left on the sidelines.

I shall watch the move for mayors with agnostic interest. Success will depend on the appearance of strong characters to take on the task. They are around and always have been. I recall some from my days in local government, some of whom were good for their local areas and some of whom were not. They include David Bookbinder, Shirley Porter, Peter Bowness and, of course, two Members of this House from Sheffield, one of whom has just left the Chamber, the other of whom is still here.

For me and many councils, the Bill’s enactment will be a great start for local people, returning local government to councils and concerned local people. It is a huge and positive start, but councils need to act fast to use the opportunities it presents; they should be acting now in readiness for when the Bill becomes an Act.

17:10

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford). He and I had some very interesting years together on the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government in the previous Parliament. Let me say to him in a friendly way that memory loss can be longer than 13 years and that compulsory competitive tendering was hardly the most decentralising policy that any Government have brought in.

By instinct and philosophy I am a localist, so it gives me no great pleasure to say to the Secretary of State that the Bill is a missed opportunity. I simply do not see in the proposals a coherent philosophy telling us what localism is all about. The Select Committee is currently conducting an inquiry into localism, and I do not want to pre-empt or prejudge its findings, but one thing that a number of witnesses have regularly asked is whether local authorities are at the heart of localism or whether they are bypassed by the Secretary of State going directly to communities and ignoring elected representatives. The answer is that the Government do not really know because there is a mixture of proposals that treat localism and local authorities in a totally different way.

The Secretary of State was dismissive when he was challenged about the number of order-making powers, of which there are 140, but it is no answer to say that there were more in previous legislation. If this is genuinely a decentralising measure, why is it necessary to have all those order-making powers and so many regulations about how local authorities should exercise scrutiny? There might be elements of genuinely good policy in neighbourhood planning, the community right to challenge and in dealing with community assets, but why is there so much prescription from the Secretary of State and Ministers about how local authorities may use their new powers? Why can we not allow local authorities to get on with the policy within a general broad framework? I am disappointed that we have not taken further local authority involvement in the remits of the Departments of Health and Work and Pensions—those are genuine missed opportunities.

I welcome some aspects of the Bill, such as the power of general competence, although I wish we had set it more clearly in a new constitutional settlement for local government—we will come back to that in due course. I am concerned about the Secretary of State’s power to revoke any council’s ability to do anything it wants to do under the power. I am pleased about the reforms to the housing revenue account, but concerns have been expressed that local authorities will not be able to keep all their right-to-buy receipts and that extra borrowing controls beyond prudential borrowing controls will be imposed on them. I do not think those measures are particularly localist or decentralising.

I welcome the transfer of powers from the Infrastructure Planning Commission so that it will be elected politicians who eventually sign off decisions on major infrastructure projects. I argued for that when I was on the Government Benches in a previous Parliament. I am pleased that local authorities will be able to return to local committee systems if that is what they want, but why can a local authority with a committee system not have the same devolved powers as an elected mayor? Why does the devolution of those powers depend on which system of governance the local authority chooses? That is not a particularly localist measure.

[Angie Bray]

Does the hon. Gentleman also welcome the abolition of the Standards Board for England? Under that dreadful, anti-democratic device, which was brought in by the previous Labour Government, all sorts of decent, hard-working local councillors were always under the threat of petty allegations being made, often for partisan reasons, undermining local authorities.

[Mr Betts]

There was a problem with the initial design of the board, but it was subsequently reformed and now works an awful lot better. My concern is that if a local authority chooses not to have one, there will be nothing between the action of pulling a local councillor up and questioning their actions in some way and taking criminal action against them for failing to deal properly with an issue in relation to which they have a registered interest. There could be a real problem there with a void in the system.

I have other real concerns. The Government are embarking on a fundamental change to the planning system in this country, which Government Members cheered because that is what they believe in. With regard to the abolition of the regional spatial strategy and the development of neighbourhood plans, my concern is that change of this kind brings uncertainty and, to an extent, a lack of clarity, and that it could bring delays and, potentially, unintended consequences.

What will happen ultimately? The Government say that their policy is to build more homes than we were before the recession. They have obligations on renewable energy and ensuring that wind farms are developed to meet them, but what will happen if the sum total of all those local decisions is that fewer homes are built and not enough wind turbines are built to meet our renewables obligations? What is their fall-back position? Is it at that point that the Secretary of State will intervene, or is it that they will accept the sum total of local will across the country and fall down on their national house-building targets and their renewables obligations? What is the Government’s position? I have not heard a coherent explanation of it.

[Toby Perkins]

It was a tremendous privilege to be a member of the Select Committee alongside my hon. Friend for a short time. During one of its meetings that I attended, a number of witnesses expressed different views on the strength or otherwise of regional spatial strategies, but every one of them, to a man, agreed that the proposals being produced by this Government would lead to fewer houses being built, not more.

[Mr Betts]

Ultimately, the test will be whether the policy works. My question is this: if the policy does not work, what is the Government’s fall-back position? The Bill includes a duty on local authorities to co-operate on a range of issues, and it is important that they do so, because many of those decisions will have an impact beyond the boundaries of an individual authority. What will happen if local authorities do not co-operate? The Bill is vague about what will happen in that case.

I have mentioned that local authorities stand at the heart of localism. I believe in elective, representative democracy, so I do not understand why it is necessary for the Bill to spell out what the Secretary of State thinks is a proper increase in council tax and for there to be the power to have a referendum in such cases. Rather than a referendum on whether local authorities should cut services, there can be only a one-way referendum if a Secretary of State thinks that a council tax increase might be excessive, as defined by him. Why can we not just leave it up to elected local representatives to make such decisions? I continually refused to vote for the previous Government’s proposals on capping council tax because I did not think that they were right either.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Betts]

I will not give way again, because many other Members wish to speak.

As for local democracy and decisions being taken at local level, why is it necessary for the Secretary of State to take a raft of powers relating to shadow elected mayors? Why can we not leave it to local people or councils to hold a referendum so that local communities can decide whether they want an elected mayor? Why must the Secretary of State take powers to bring in shadow elected mayors? The proposals do not seem very localist or democratic.

On the reform of council housing, I am not against different forms of tenure. I believe that they have a place, but if the proposals on flexible tenure are put together with the 50% cut in funding for social housing—that is the Government’s policy—the only social houses that will be built, after those that the previous Government committed to, will be those built on flexible tenure at rents related to market rent levels. The Government are thereby effectively ending the provision of any new social housing as we know it in this country, and I cannot agree with that. By all means let us have additional forms of tenure, but not at the expense of removing altogether the existing forms of social housing tenure for new build.

I know that other Members wish to speak, so I will conclude. I regret that the Bill does not really deliver on a holistic localism agenda. It is a missed opportunity. There is no coherent philosophy. It is very unclear whether local councils are at the heart of the process or whether it is the Secretary of State, bypassing local councils on a range of measures and imposing the way localism operates locally, which is wholly contrary to the meaning of the word.

16:04

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

This debate is extremely important. For those of us who stood on an election manifesto of more power for local people, this is an important and welcome day. I say to the Secretary of State and his colleagues that people throughout England and many local councillors and council officers will be grateful for the Bill.

Over the past 13 years central Government held on to far too much local power. As I listened to the speech by the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), I recalled that her leader said in his conference speech:

“We need . . . local democracy free of the constraints we have placed on it in the past and free of an attitude which has looked down its nose at local government.”

If she and the Labour party are now signed up to that, that is welcome. It is a conversion because it is not what was happening when I was sitting on the Opposition Benches and she and her colleagues were sitting on the Government Benches.

One of the tests is whether there is confidence in local government, and whether people think local councils have powers. The signs, as she and House know, have not been good on those indicators. People feel that they have had less power, not more, and less influence, not more. Confidence in local government has dropped in the past decade, rather than risen. One of the tests for me will be whether, by the time the Bill has passed through both Houses and been amended to improve it, confidence in local government is improved.

I agree with the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) that one of the welcome small but important changes is that local councillors will in future be able to vote and speak on the things that matter most to their electorate. It was always nonsense that they had to say they were disbarred from speaking on the planning application round the corner in the middle of their ward. We can speak, as we should do, on local matters, and they should be allowed to speak on local matters too.

[Mr Raynsford]

It is an interesting principle that the right hon. Gentleman has enunciated. Can he tell the House whether he believes that his colleague, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, should have been moved from his current brief to a different Department because he spoke about something in which he had, potentially, a quasi-judicial interest?

[Simon Hughes]

Tempting, but completely irrelevant to the Bill. I will talk to the right hon. Gentleman about that on another occasion.

The Bill has six substantive parts and one additional part which is about EU fines, a slightly esoteric subject about which I know there is controversy. I shall deal briefly with what seem to me to be the good things and make the occasional plea for the Government to go further.

On local government, the power of general competence is welcome, but I hope the siren voices suggesting that there should be frequent exceptions are resisted. We need to make sure, as I have heard the Secretary of State say, that we give councils the power to act except when the law says they cannot. That is what the measure should be about. Getting rid of the Standards Board is popular and right. Introducing a better system for making public how senior pay is decided will raise confidence among local communities. The right of councils to choose their own committee structure is welcome: many councils will want to go back to a committee system to involve their back benchers more. Making sure that councillors play a full part is especially welcome.

One thing about which we on the Liberal Democrat Benches have some concern is the shadow elected mayor proposal. I know what the coalition agreement says and I know that the coalition is committed to holding a referendum in the 12 largest cities outside London. I am not dissenting from that, but we ought to allow those cities to have that debate and then, if they vote for directly elected mayors, so be it. There are arguments on both sides.

On local government finance, the Government are starting down the right road. I welcome the fact that there is to be a much greater power of discretionary relief for businesses, and a new power for small businesses. Those are important matters. The big change has not yet happened and is far too controversial to be hidden away in such a Bill, but eventually I hope we will come to a much better form of local government finance generally. The Secretary of State knows that my colleagues and I believe that something like local income tax and, for land, something like site value rating, will be a much fairer system. I realise that that is too much to bite off and chew in the first Bill, but progress is being made in the right direction.

[Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Simon Hughes]

One more time, then I will press on to the end.

[Mr Carswell]

I do not wish to intrude on that celebration of the Bill’s sound localist credentials, but might the Bill be more effective—and offer more real localism, rather than lip service to it—if it offered to devolve control over revenue, something that has been Lib Dem policy for many years? Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the Bill should disperse power over local government finance to the same extent that it does the power over planning?

[Simon Hughes]

I of course support my party’s position, which we will say something further about this year, but, having spoken to Ministers, I know that during this period of government the plan is for a much larger transfer of powers for councils to raise and spend their own money. To put it bluntly, the Government could have not dealt with that in a year, but it is on their agenda and they are starting the reform of local government finance. I welcome their commitment to that, although we cannot do it yet. When we do it, we have to get it right—and be radical about it as well.

I welcome the really important part of the Bill, on community empowerment. I am really pleased that, for example, the community will have the chance to say, “We want to keep this shop, or this pub, or this other community facility.” It is really important that the community will be able to say, “We don’t want that parade to end up all off licences or betting shops. We want there to be a greengrocer, a fishmonger or a baker.” To be able to be involved in the process is really important. It is important that we build up the real engagement of people locally in the planning process, and I welcome the moves to do that.

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Simon Hughes]

No, I will not, only because we have so many constraints on time—understandably.

It is important that in the end decisions are taken accountably. There is a danger, which the Secretary of State is aware of, but we must not allow local decisions to be hijacked by a vocal minority with the qualities, the education or the ability and time to run their own campaign. We have to make sure that decisions are taken on behalf of the whole community and not the vested interests. Sometimes the nimby argument can prevail over the right one and we have to ensure that that danger is resisted.

I welcome the community infrastructure levy, and I shall seek clarification in the winding-up speeches on whether it gives the local authority the full freedom to spend the money on, for example, the housing estate next door to the planning application site, either to do it up or to build more housing. There ought to be maximum freedom.

I also welcome the abolition of the Infrastructure Planning Commission and the return to a planning system whereby the ultimate decision will be taken by a Minister accountable to Parliament. In Greater London we have just had our consultation deadline for responses to the Thames tunnel sewer, and there is a huge proposed mains sewer site in my constituency. We are perfectly happy to go through the consultation, but I have argued very strongly that the final decision on the planning application for such a major scheme should be taken by someone accountable to Parliament and not by a body accountable to no one.

I welcome the fact that national planning statements will be revised, and I welcome the community right to buy. That is a very important additional power, which I am sure will be very well used. My little request to go further was reflected in the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell): I think there is a good case for what has come to be called the third-party right of appeal. I heard the answer from the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), but, respectfully, I do not think that it was a persuasive one. We have to balance the developers’ power, influence and money with the community, and at the moment there is not a balanced appeal system.

On housing, the deadline for responses to the Government’s consultation paper was a minute or two ago. The Housing Minister will have had my response and, as he can imagine, it was robust and clear and committed to the continuation of the maximum amount of social housing in my constituency and throughout the country. It is really clear to me that we must get those housing provisions right. I understand and respect the argument for localism, but it has to be localism within parameters guaranteeing that we build and increase the number of social homes, and at prices that people can afford. I will reserve my comments on the detail, because we will have other opportunities for that, but we absolutely need to deal with the queue of people who are not being adequately housed.

I welcome the London provisions, which are very gratefully received by those of us in London.

I shall end with two points. Do the Government envisage that someone will have the job of promoting local democracy, given that it is being taken away from local councils? We need to encourage people to participate and not to reduce participation. Lastly, this might sound an esoteric point on which to end, but we have to do away with the nonsense whereby, because of different rules, people can be charged ridiculous amounts for burial if they have moved from the place where they originally come from. There are little things to improve, but it is a good Bill, and I hope that it is even further improved in the next few months.

17:29

[Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

I start by drawing attention to my interests as declared in the register.

I endorse the view expressed by the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) about the importance of localism being matched by provisions that ensure that overarching, overriding national priorities are met. He made that comment in the context of housing, but it applies even more widely. That should be the basis of localism, to which almost all of us subscribe as a concept, but it must not lead to national responsibility for crucial services and to people’s needs being ignored.

The first question that the Government should be asking is why the Bill, which ought to command widespread support because the principle of localism is widely supported, has generated such a tide of concern and suspicion. Having read through the large number of submissions that I and, no doubt, other Members have received in advance of today’s debate, I found the absence of any papers giving unqualified support to the provisions very telling. The tone was very much “Yes, but”, and that applied to a striking number of them. The more one dug down into them, the more one realised just how serious and extensive were the buts—the concerns and objections that were raised.

How have the Government got themselves into this position? They have done so partly through their own actions, as we highlighted earlier in Question Time and in other contexts. The Secretary of State and his Ministers might like to proclaim the virtues of localism, but they find it very hard to remain virtuous and they wade into any debate when they see the opportunity. Like St Augustine, the Secretary of State says “Let me be localist, but not yet” when a local authority makes provision for refuse collection that he does not agree with, pays its officers more than he believes they should be paid, makes arrangements for parking charges that he does not agree with, or issues a newsletter—or fails to do so. The Housing Minister became involved in Liverpool city council’s decision to demolish a terraced house once briefly occupied by Ringo Starr. All those decisions are clearly about local issues and should be taken locally, and Ministers should have a self-denying ordinance to keep quiet about them. If they did, they would be taken more seriously as advocates of localism.

[Mr Carswell]

Does the right hon. Gentleman draw a distinction between someone expressing an opinion on what an outcome should be and micro-managing through statutory instruments what it should be?

[Mr Raynsford]

As the hon. Gentleman will realise if he reflects on this, there is a continuum that makes it difficult to identify where one stops expressing an opinion and where one tries to produce the outcome that one is advocating. Front Benchers should remember that they have responsibilities and that their comments are often interpreted as a wish to see an outcome.

The drafting of the Bill is very unhelpful to the Ministers’ cause of trying to win support for it. I challenge anyone, even the most experienced parliamentarian, to have an easy evening’s read if they try to wade through its countless clauses and schedules. Its drafting—overwhelmingly by way of amendment to other legislation, and with the absence of detailed provision in many of its clauses, which, we are told, will be supplemented by regulations—makes it difficult to have a full feel for what exactly the Government intend. We understand their aspiration, but what will be the detailed implications? That is far from clear, and inevitably lots of suspicions abound that while their intentions may be good the outcomes will not be.

Whether we are talking about how neighbourhood plans will be shaped or how the new insecure tenancies that the Government are imposing on social housing will operate, we do not know the full implications because no provisions have been published or, in the latter case, because the consultation concluded only today, so of course we do not know what the details will be. That suggests a Bill put together in a hurry, without adequate consultation or proper consideration of some of its provisions. If ever a measure cried out for pre-legislative scrutiny, this is it. It is a tragedy that it is being rushed through without proper consideration of its detailed implications and of how the Government’s good localist intentions—I give them that—will work in practice.

The lack of certainty over the Government’s plans and over the effect of the Bill is obvious throughout. On the theme of localism itself, the Government have put an emphasis on neighbourhoods. That might imply a commitment to neighbourhood decision making, or to devolution to a local authority or, in London, to the Mayor, but what happens if those bodies come into conflict? What happens if the Mayor pursues an objective with which the borough council or the local neighbourhood does not agree? There is the added problem that in areas without parish councils the neighbourhood forum that may come into existence under the Bill will not have a recognised form of democratic accountability. Who will prevail when there is a conflict between the various bodies?

Clauses 168 and 169 will allow the Mayor of London to designate any area in London as a mayoral development corporation, which will take over the local authority’s planning powers. Let us imagine that the Mayor of London changes—an election will be held next year. What if the new Mayor is not from the party of the Government? He might look at house building performance in Bromley, for example, and decide that not enough homes are being built there. He might say, “I see some interesting powers in the legislation and I propose to set up a mayoral development corporation in Bromley to get more homes built there.” Under the provisions of the Bill, with which Ministers will be familiar, the Mayor has to consult on his proposals, but he does not have to act on the views of the consultees if he does not agree with them. In the consultation, he would no doubt hear screams of protest from Bromley council and the residents, but he would also hear many people in London saying that they want more homes and that he should do his utmost to build them. What would happen if the Mayor presented a request to the Government to bring in an order to give effect to a mayoral development corporation in Bromley? As I read the Bill—I challenge Ministers to tell me if I am wrong—the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), would face the delightful proposition of enacting the order, because the Bill says that the Secretary of State must act on any such request from the Mayor, even if the local council and the local neighbourhood do not like it.

That brings us back to the tension between competing views of localism, on which, I am afraid, the Bill is entirely silent. If I were a Minister, I would not want to be tied to introducing something on the say so of a mayor who might have very different objectives from those of the Government.

Some provisions in the Bill, such as that one, are slightly bonkers, but others are seriously damaging. The housing and planning provisions will destabilise the planning and housing process at a time when, above all, we need confidence and certainty to get the new homes that we need. The housing market was badly hit by the recession and recovered strongly in early 2010, but the Government’s maladroit and unlawful interference in the planning system has undermined that confidence. The market is now tottering along on the bottom, there is no confidence, and millions of people know that the prospects of getting a decent home at a price within their means are terribly short. The Bill’s ill-considered and untested changes to the planning regime will make an already bad situation worse.

The unwanted changes to social tenancies and the weakening of protection for homeless people are misconceived and should be opposed. Before the election, the Conservative party pretended that it had no plan to introduce those measures, and the Liberal Democrats would have denounced the idea of introducing them as part of a coalition.

[The Minister for Housing and Local Government (Grant Shapps)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Raynsford]

I have only 10 seconds, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. I have time to say only that the Bill is riddled with anomalies. It is a rag-bag of ill-considered—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I call Rory Stewart.

17:39

[Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

This debate is an example of why changes such as those in the Bill are so difficult. All the arguments that Labour Members are making—all the “Yes, buts” we have just heard—show that we live in a strange world. Many Labour Members have said how much they support initiatives such as those in the Bill, but the obstacles that they are mentioning show why, for 13 years, despite their best instincts, they were unable to introduce them.

A fundamental problem faces Members of all parties—the difference between the expert, with all the “Yes, buts” and ideas, and the reality on the ground. There seems to be a fundamental gap in our culture between rhetoric and reality. I experienced it myself every day in Afghanistan, where I heard people say, “We are committed to a gender-sensitive, multi-ethnic, centralised state based on democracy, human rights and the rule of law”, whereas in fact 98% of Afghan women cannot yet read or write. Such disjuncture characterises life, whether abroad or locally, and we experience it every day.

This is not, however, a question of theory. Despite our best intentions and protestations, we daily encounter waste and situations in which we achieve exactly the reverse of what we intended and in which local communities are prevented from doing perfectly sensible things. To put it in pompous, philosophical language, those are problems of power, knowledge, will and legitimacy. That is why the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), is to be congratulated. At the moment, we have a culture not just of experts but of soundbites, and my right hon. Friend has put 10 or 12 years of focused thought into the Bill.

We could talk about many matters, and Members have mentioned some of them, such as the good moves we have made in relation to councils, but I wish to focus on parishes and communities, the hidden strata on which people do not necessarily focus, perhaps because they are seen as old-fashioned. In the context of a rural community, however, they are vital.

From the point of view of the expert, the parish appears to lack knowledge, power and legitimacy. There is an idea that we should not have a community right to buy, that we should not introduce neighbourhood plans and that we should not allow such localism in the Bill, because communities do not know what is best for them. Of course, as Members of Parliament, we all see daily that that is not true. The shadow Secretary of State made exactly that point when she talked about meeting parish councils. What we observe, and what I daily observe in Cumbria, is that communities should be allowed to carry out neighbourhood planning because they care enormously about their neighbourhood.

If someone sends their child to try to find a house and they cannot, it motivates them to seek affordable housing. That is concretely illustrated in Crosby Ravensworth, where the community is building its own affordable housing. Those people are not nimbys trying to obstruct building—they are doing it themselves. I see the same happening in Kirkby Stephen, where people are getting together to do all the things that planners think they can do with their knowledge of heritage, economics and development. The community is doing them in a much more sophisticated and integrated fashion that is linked to the local area. The people involved are in the area, so they know things that people in Penrith, Carlisle or London do not. Despite all the rhetoric, I do not feel that such communities are ignorant or ill-informed, and they do not ignore local connections.

Why, then, are we pushing ahead with neighbourhood planning, reforms to home building and the community right to buy? It is partly because, in my area, communities show that they can always go further than the Government think. It happens everywhere I go. In Alston, the community has just taken over a snow plough and there is a community ambulance. Those were not things that it was allowed to do—it had to fight to do them. That goes all the way through to smaller things. For instance, we had this country’s first community buy-out of a pub. The communities in my 110 parishes are organising themselves.

Most ambitiously, those communities are looking to the future and to the most difficult issue I can think of—broadband. One might think that communities and decentralisation had nothing to do with that, and it seems like a nightmare for a community to address. There are legal, technical, state aid, engineering and landscape issues to consider, which is why for the past 20 years—it was not just under the previous Government—such infrastructure projects have been conducted in an extremely expensive, slow fashion through semi-monopoly providers that have consistently failed to provide for my community. However, the community knows more. It maps every cabinet and exchange from Leith to Lyvennet. It cares more. It puts the transmitters up on the churches. It can do more and do it more imaginatively—it gets people online and pilots new forms of services. By doing so, the community achieves something that nobody would have thought possible.

That does not happen without Government support. Some Government money is needed, but probably about a 10th as much as would be necessary if the community did not lead the process. Without the community leading the process, the project I am talking about would probably have cost £1.5 million of taxpayers’ money, but with the community in the lead, it could probably be done for £500,000.

Communities can do other things because of their legitimacy. We associate knowledge, power and will with them, but legitimacy is vital. To take the broadband example, the community’s legitimacy allows it to ask people in the parish, “Will you allow us please to put a transmitter on the top of the church? Will you dig from your house to the M6 cable network? Will you contribute money?” The community can ask every farmer, for example, in the district of Crosby Ravensworth, “Will you waive the wayleaves to build a community network that the community will own?”

This is a strange time and place because all hon. Members believe in that decentralisation, whether we call it localism, hyper-localism or double hyper-localism, but we are obstructed by our anxieties about power, knowledge and legitimacy. Let us remember the basic instinct and work together. We should support the Bill because we know that communities know and care more, and that they can and ought to do more than distant officials in Penrith, Carlisle, London or Brussels.

17:47

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) that we want in local government people who really care about their neighbourhoods. We need legislation that allows them to continue to do what is best for their communities, but my concern is that as wonderful as localism sounds—like motherhood and apple pie—by giving competence to local councils but not resources, know-how and capacity, we are saying to local people that they can go ahead and get elected in May this year, but they will be unable to do what they set out to do. For that reason, I have great concerns that this huge Bill, which has not been subject to proper pre-legislative scrutiny, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) said, will end up as hotch-potch, sham legislation. We want to encourage citizenship and encourage people to match at local level the vision of the UK Government and Parliament.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

The hon. Lady mentions citizenship? What is citizenship if it is not encouraging people to take responsibility for their lives?

[Joan Walley]

Citizenship is absolutely about encouraging people to take responsibility for their lives and training them to do that, but we must also recognise that they need resources.

On the Bill’s provisions relating to elected mayors, my advice to local areas is: do not touch them with a barge pole. The experience in Stoke-on-Trent is that elected mayors—this also relates to citizenship—undermine the position of local councillors.

On social housing, many years ago, I was honoured to be at the launch of Crisis. I refer the House to its concerns that the Bill might well weaken housing choices and security for some homeless people. It is important that we get that right.

I am concerned about the proposals to abolish the regional spatial strategies. It would be a great disservice to Stoke-on-Trent if it ended up with development on greenfield land without it being able to develop, first and foremost and in a sequential way, the brownfield sites. We need to make those sites a key priority in regeneration.

[Dan Byles]

It was a regional spatial strategy that forced building on to green belt land in my constituency by putting a ridiculously large number of houses into the plan.

[Joan Walley]

It was a regional spatial strategy that could have safeguarded the regeneration that Stoke-on-Trent needs in its inner-urban areas.

As a Unison member, I have grave concerns about the community right to challenge. I am anxious that it could lead to privatisation by the back door. As the Bill goes through the House, questions will need to be asked, including about the criteria in regulations for rejecting an expression of interest. Without the regulations, however, it is difficult to know how that will be taken forward. Given the complexity of EU law, how will the Secretary of State ensure that procurement processes result in community organisations winning contracts rather than the major companies, such as Serco and Capita, that have done so much to take over local government services?

There are also issues about a community’s access to quality advice. Yes, neighbourhood planning sounds wonderful, but because of cuts organisations such as Urban Vision in Stoke-on-Trent are losing their funding. Communities must have access to legal planning law. Where will funding for these services come from? My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich referred to pre-legislative scrutiny, but the Backbench Business Committee is considering new ways of using the House’s procedures. For example, Select Committees, including the Communities and Local Government Committee and the Environmental Audit Committee, of which I am a member, can consider ways of influencing a Bill as it goes through the House. The Bill makes absolutely no reference to sustainable development, so how will its hotch-potch provisions link with and tackle concerns about the climate change agenda and the zero-carbon societies that we need to be building? Will the Minister set out the sustainable development issues? How can we ensure that opportunities for proper climate change policies are co-ordinated?

I have a private Member’s Bill proposing a code for sustainable food, but because of the way in which the House works I will not be able to speak to it on the Floor of the House. A local referendum might well enable councils to consider ways to ensure that when food purchased using taxpayers’ money is served in the public sector—for example, in hospitals and old people’s homes—those involved abide by certain standards. As this Bill proceeds, will the Government consider ways of ensuring that private Members’ Bills can be secured through referendums?

There are many concerns about the Bill. We had reference earlier to people saying, “Yes, but”. It seems to me that many national organisations are going along with the principles of the Bill because they want to be involved, and not be ostracised by the Government, but in private they have major concerns about local capacity. I urge the Government to consider ways of ensuring that we end up not with a sham Bill, but with something that will encourage local people to stand as local councillors and ensure that, when they do, they can make a difference in their areas.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Despite the fact that I am reducing the time limit to five minutes plus two interventions at a minute each—seven minutes—not every Member will be able to catch my eye, I am afraid. I apologise in advance.

17:54

[John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this extremely important debate. The Bill is undoubtedly one of the coalition Government’s flagship policies.

In many respects, the Bill is long overdue and a badly needed piece of legislation. I think that all Government Members accept that the balance of power between local and central Government has been out of kilter for many years and clearly needs to be redressed. Over the years, central Government have become rather suspicious of local government, seeing it as incompetent and rather ineffective—many in the Chamber who have been involved in local government will recognise that situation. Indeed, over the past 30 years, Whitehall involvement in local government has amounted almost to the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it wrongly and applying unsuitable remedies. I hope that the Bill will start to change that.

Local government was not necessarily loved in the ‘80s and ‘90s, but it did function properly. Over the past 13 years, however, it has been taken to a completely different level: the town hall has effectively become a department of Whitehall and part of the apparatus of the state. We have had targets, ring-fencing, regulation and a “Whitehall knows best” attitude: “You’ll only do it one way, and that is our way”. As a consequence, we now have weak local government; it is seen as irrelevant by many people. We have non-participation in elections, a lack of involvement, poor decision making and, in many respects, fear of actually making a decision. Redressing that imbalance is hugely important.

Reform, however, is about not just about creating new powers or shifting old ones, but repeal, which is why I welcome the abolition of the Northwest Regional Development Agency, the other regional development agencies and regional government, and the scrapping of regional strategies, the bin tax and so on. That is all very welcome. I spoke at a conference this weekend with about 100 parish councillors, whose responses to the introduction of the Bill were interesting to hear. They were enthusiastic, receptive and encouraged by the proposals, which demonstrated that people want to be involved and to take responsibility.

[Rory Stewart]

As a fellow Cumbrian Member of Parliament, will my hon. Friend please join us in supporting the community buy-out of the Penrith cinema, which is a great example of localism?

[John Stevenson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; it is a demonstration of localism. Indeed, I was lobbied about that very topic at the weekend. I will certainly give it my support.

I am sure that hon. Members will refer this evening to many different aspects of the Bill, but I will touch on just one or two. First, we have governance and the general power of competence, which has already been alluded to, and which is an opportunity for authorities to be radical and innovative. I believe also that the referendums on council tax will have a restraining influence on the excesses of some councils, although they will not prevent councils with a popular mandate from taking on a project and proceeding, even if they need a referendum to support it. Also important in my view is the potential introduction of 12 new elected mayors. I have been a long-time supporter of elected mayors, believing that they bring to local government visible leadership, accountability and transparency—people know who is in charge and, in many respects, it is the modern way of doing things.

I fully support the Bill. However, I will be interested to see what the Government do when it settles. Will they introduce and transfer more power to local authorities? I hope so. I am also encouraged that the Government are looking at how we fund local government, because that is critical to the future independence of local government. I would encourage, where possible, the transfer back to local authorities of responsibility for business rates. One good reason for that is that if businesses are paying rates to a local authority, they will have a stake in that local community and the decisions made by that local authority, and they will engage more. Currently, many businesses take an ambivalent view of what goes on in local government, which is not good for communities.

My final point is probably almost as important as the Bill itself: there has to be a culture change. There has to be a culture change in central Government whereby they accept that different parts of the country will make different decisions about different topics. They have to accept that even though they might not like it. However, there also has to be a culture change in local government: it has to take on responsibility to embrace these powers and build its own communities in the way that it wants. However, I fully support the Bill. It is a great work in progress, and I look forward to supporting it through its later stages.

18:09

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to make a contribution to the debate. I would like to focus on three elements: first, my concerns regarding the impact of the devastating cuts to local government in the recent financial settlement, which I believe do not correlate with the Government’s professed desire for localism and giving more power to local people; secondly, the arrangements in the Bill for directly elected mayors in 12 major English cities, including my own city of Birmingham; and thirdly, the provisions in relation to housing.

I support the principle of giving people a greater say in how their communities and services are run, but that has to take place in tandem with two things: fairly funded local authorities, and thereby fairly funded local services; and investment in the capacity and skills of local people to enable them to take control regardless of their social background. Through the Bill, the Government try to talk a good game. However, it comes at a time when the Government at the centre have made a choice, giving local authorities a devastating financial settlement that was far worse than expected, with the worst cuts for a generation.

The Government seem to think that merely by saying that they are committed to localism, and by repeating their lines in support of local people taking control at local level, that somehow, as if by magic, true localism will emerge. However, without a fair settlement for local government, no such localism can emerge. The Bill seems to give a huge amount with one hand, but the Government, through the financial choices that they have made, are taking a lot more away with the other. The simple truth is that localism cannot deliver for local people if all the decisions being made at local level are focused on implementing centrally imposed cuts that are going too far and are too deep.

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady not recall that it was the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, in the previous Labour Government, who left a letter that said there was no money left?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am afraid that that is a rather poor attempt at hiding the deep unfairness of the settlement imposed on local government by this Government. That was a choice that could have been made differently, but was not.

[Toby Perkins]

On the basis of what the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) has just said, is it not surprising that a council such as Dorset should have a rise this year, when most councils in the most deprived areas have seen massive cuts? If the problem is a lack of money, why is it that the authorities that are most able to bear that burden are the ones that are better off under this Government?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I agree with my hon. Friend entirely, and I was just coming to that point.

I fear that it is the cuts that will define the future shape, life chances and success, or lack thereof, of Birmingham residents, not the Localism Bill. The provisional local government settlement for Birmingham was a confirmation of the worst-case scenario. Birmingham has to make savings of approximately £170 million in the next two years, and is one of the hardest hit local authorities. In fact, “one of the hardest hit” is a depressing and hideous phrase that the people of Birmingham are having to get used to, after being one of the hardest hit areas in the police settlement.

The sheer size of the cuts in Birmingham will prevent the people of Birmingham from getting the most out of the localism agenda. More affluent areas, which have perversely done better out of the local government financial settlement, have greater scope to gain more from localism. I fear a prevailing culture where those with the deepest pockets will be more able to make themselves heard. If the Government truly want localism to be a success, and want strong local communities up and down the country, they first need to revisit the unfair settlement for local government. Anything less than that is a hollow and unworkable localism, which will not deliver for every community.

The Bill also creates arrangements for directly elected mayors in 12 major English cities, including Birmingham. I am in favour of giving local people a choice as to whether they want a directly elected mayor for their area. An elected mayor could offer highly effective local leadership, and I supported the introduction of this model of local government when it was introduced by the Labour Government. However, I am against imposition. The Bill imposes a shadow mayor on the people of Birmingham, subject to a confirmatory referendum. That aspect needs to be considered again. The people of Birmingham are quite capable of deciding for themselves whether they want a directly elected mayor, rather than having one imposed from the centre by the Secretary of State, subject to later endorsement. Where, may I ask, is the localism in that? If the Secretary of State truly trusted local people to exercise their own judgment about what is right for their area, he would not choose this path.

Earlier, the Secretary of State was asked about his motive for introducing shadow mayors. He said that it was so that people could get ready for having a mayor. People are not stupid. They do not need a practice run dictated to them by the Secretary of State. Let them make their decision and simply get on with it. I am concerned that the shadow arrangements—making the leader of the local authority in the 12 cities the shadow mayor—will create a systemic bias in favour of the shadow mayor, and will make it more difficult for people from all walks of life to put themselves forward for mayorship. That creates an imbalance in favour of the shadow mayor and, regardless of whether that individual is a Labour, Tory or Liberal Democrat councillor, the principle is not sound and is anti-democratic.

The Bill also makes a number of changes to the duties of local authorities in relation to housing. Every single week since I was elected in May, I have met constituents at my advice surgeries who are desperate for housing: people who are on the waiting list for social housing; people who have been waiting many years for a transfer to more suitable social housing accommodation; people on the verge of being made homeless; and young people despairing of ever getting on to the social housing ladder. I am therefore reminded every week of the urgent need to increase the stock of social and affordable housing.

Given that, I wish to make two points about the current changes. First, the changes to the current system are not taking place in isolation. They are doing so with huge changes to housing benefit rules, and therefore councils and social landlords will be under huge pressure. I am not convinced that the changes introduced in the Bill will do anything to alleviate that pressure. The proposals will have to be looked at carefully in Committee.

Secondly, the real challenge is to ensure that more homes are being built. I am alarmed at the reduction in funding for new social homes, and the warnings and figures from various groups involved in building homes. Research recently published by the National Housing Federation shows that, since the general election, local authorities have ditched plans for 160,000 new homes. It believes that, once the homes that Labour started building are complete, no new social homes will be built for the next five years. That would be a complete disaster and I suggest that that should be looked at urgently. No amount of changes to the current system can compensate for the lack of available social and affordable homes. Getting to grips with that should be the priority at this stage.

In conclusion, the Bill has promised much, but the scale of the cuts being imposed on local government, and the deficiencies in some of the Bill’s proposals, will mean that it delivers very little.

18:07

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

I am pleased to be able to speak in the debate, although I have been somewhat taken aback by some of the comments from the Opposition, particularly on the need for savings in local government. The collective amnesia about why the savings are needed in the first place is one thing, but there is also the complete hypocrisy, when it was the previous Labour Government who reduced millions and millions of pounds of neighbourhood renewal funding to Leeds, which has some of the most deprived wards in the country, yet continued to give millions of pounds to Sedgefield—surprise, surprise.

For far too long, we have lived in a system that fails to trust people to get on with their own lives and to run their own lives. Instead, communities up and down our country have had diktats from on high telling them what is best. The Bill is a landmark piece of legislation that will, at last, enable a fundamental shift of power from Westminster to local people. Having been a local councillor for about seven years—maybe not as long as some of my colleagues—I know how frustrating it has been to realise that so little power is given to the local council and councillors, because they have had to adhere to the legislation that has come from this place.

The one area that I am particularly interested in, and which I would like to talk about, is planning and housing targets. I am sure that many constituencies have suffered because of the top-down targets that have been imposed on them. Time and again, when local people in my constituency are given the opportunity to ask what issues concern them most, the overwhelming response is always overdevelopment, and there is little wonder why. Many of the towns that make up my constituency of Pudsey were once mill towns and factory towns. Sadly, those industries have gone, as have companies such as Silver Cross and Greenwoods and, over the years, the industry in those areas has been replaced by residential estates.

Of course brownfield development is a good thing, but the two specific problems that these areas suffered as a result were top-down targets for density, which saw small houses being built on large sites, and the huge housing targets contained in the regional spatial strategy that left local people feeling completely powerless to oppose them.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

I concur with the thoughts of my hon. Friend and Leeds colleague. Does he agree that it is extremely welcome and hugely important for an area such as ours that the regional spatial strategies are being abolished? Does he also agree that it is disgraceful that developers such as David Wilson Homes are trying to get forthcoming developments such as the one at Adel in through the back door before the new guidance comes in? Does he not agree that the people of Adel should have the power to stop such a development now?

[Stuart Andrew]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Communities in his constituency and mine have faced these problems time and again.

In Leeds, the previous Government’s regional spatial strategy doubled the target for house building from around 2,500 a year to more than 4,500 every year. At that level, we would have created the equivalent of a new parliamentary constituency within a decade, which would have been completely unsustainable. These targets resulted in not only the brownfield sites in our communities being built on, but a significant threat to the greenfield sites. Time and again, developers came forward with plans for more building. In recent years, permission has been granted for thousands of new homes in Guiseley, but little investment has been made in the infrastructure to cope with so many new residents.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the previous Government’s push to allow greenfield sites to be used for housing completely undermined the regeneration in cities such as Leeds?

[Stuart Andrew]

That is an incredibly valid point. I shall say more in a moment about the problems experienced by the city of Leeds.

[Toby Perkins]

Does the hon. Gentleman believe that fewer houses will be built in his constituency as a result of the abolition of the regional spatial strategies, and, if so, does he think that that is a good thing?

[Stuart Andrew]

We will have the number of houses that we can cope with. In Leeds, we recognised that certain areas needed more social housing, and the local council increased its target from 25% to 35% of all new houses being social housing. That showed that local people could respond better to local needs, and that is what is important about the Bill.

All the problems that we have experienced have pitted residents against developers, leaving the residents feeling powerless to plan the direction of the towns and villages that they know so well. The recognition of this fact at the heart of the Bill is precisely why I welcome it so much. At long last, the Government here in Westminster recognise that local people are best placed to understand the needs of their towns, as well as the impact of any developments on their communities. Trusting and empowering local people by introducing a neighbourhood planning regime and allowing local knowledge to develop neighbourhood plans and development orders are to be welcomed.

My constituency has a vibrant set of community groups that have joined forces to campaign on this very subject. The Wharfedale and Airedale Review Development —WARD—has already produced an excellent document that highlights the specific issues that need addressing in the local area. I believe that the group will welcome the Bill, which will give it an opportunity to get its voice heard and set the future direction for the area for the first time.

Sadly, the Bill comes too late for some greenfield sites in my constituency. We have already lost fields in Farsley and Yeadon. Both those applications were turned down by the local council, but the decisions were overturned by the inspector, who cited the regional spatial strategy as the reason for allowing them to go through. The planning policies and top-down targets of the past have had a detrimental effect on many of my local communities, and the loss of confidence in the planning process has left many feeling angered and powerless. With this Bill, I hope that we can start again, trusting local people to deliver local planning that understands local needs.

18:14

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

The Localism Bill has received a great deal of attention in England because of its supposedly radical intent. It has received slightly less attention in Wales, as the parts of the Bill that are currently relevant to Wales might not be relevant by the time it receives Royal Assent later this year. That is because of the referendum on the powers in part 4 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 that is being held in Wales in six weeks time. A yes vote would transfer responsibility for legislation on almost all matters in the Bill to the National Assembly for Wales. Bearing in mind the strong possibility of a yes vote—for which I will, of course, be campaigning—may I ask the Minister what effect this would have on the passage of the Bill?

Members who are familiar with the transfer of powers to Wales under the Government of Wales Act will know that there is a variety of means of making the transfer. The most commonly mentioned are the legislative competence orders—LCOs—in the form of Orders in Council, but possibly the most efficient is the transfer of framework powers in a Bill that already has parliamentary time. There are three sets of framework powers in this Bill, relating to housing payments, council tax referendums and planning matters, although I shall make the point later that there should perhaps be more.

Beginning with the powers relating to housing payments, I welcome the consultation that has taken place between Members of this place and Ministers from the Welsh Government on certain subjects. That is a positive step from which other Government Departments could learn. Since my arrival in this place last summer, I have consistently drawn attention to the injustices of the housing revenue account subsidy system in Wales. This dreadful system, dubbed by a former senior special adviser in Wales as the “great Welsh rent robbery”, has seen Welsh council house rent payers contribute more than £1 billion to the Treasury in London in the past decade alone. I must give the Department for Communities and Local Government its due for recognising this problem and accommodating it as far as possible—hence the inclusion of clause 152, which provides the National Assembly with powers regarding the housing revenue account scheme in Wales.

Sadly, though, our problem is not with the Members on the Government Front Bench but with their colleagues in the Treasury, who have yet to reach an agreement with the Welsh Government regarding the £80 million to £90 million that go into the Treasury’s coffers each year from Wales. The housing revenue account subsidy in England is scrapped in the Bill, and there can be no justification for continuing the scheme in Wales or for the Treasury siphoning off the rents of council tenants there. It has become the norm in recent years that, when a power is created on a devolved matter in England, a mirror clause is introduced for Wales. However, there are areas in the Bill for which no such mirror clause exists, even though one might be expected. For example, the general powers of competence given to local authorities in part 1 should also be given to the National Assembly to determine.

Elsewhere in the Bill, we welcome the abolition of the Infrastructure Planning Commission, whose introduction in the Planning Act 2008 we opposed as undemocratic as it transferred out responsibilities and scrutiny that belonged with the Secretary of State. We also welcome the provisions on predetermination, senior pay and business rates, which will apply to England and Wales. However, we share the concern expressed by Citizens Advice about the changes to the homelessness duty.

I must also ask about the effect of the abolition of the regional spatial strategies on Wales, and specifically on those areas in the north-east of my country closest to the border, such as Wrexham and Flintshire, that are impacted on by the north-west England regional strategy. How will this affect cross-border workings? I would be interested to hear from the Minister what discussion has taken place with the Welsh Government on that issue. As I said at the outset, this might be my only substantial contribution to the debate on this Bill, due to the Welsh powers referendum. I certainly hope that that is the case. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

18:18

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

I am grateful for this opportunity to speak in this important debate, having had to leave it earlier to attend a meeting with my noble Friend Baroness Hanham to discuss the local government finance settlement for the borough of Enfield. The issue of finance would normally dominate our debate on local government, as it has a significant impact, but, having been a local councillor and a Member of Parliament for a number of years, and a resident of the borough of Enfield all my life, I believe that this Bill will have a very significant impact on the quality of life of the people there. It contains the most significant devolutionary and localising measures that the House has ever had the opportunity to pass.

I listened with some regret today to the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) and others who have been involved in local government and who often speak loudly about localism. I can think of pamphlets published by the all-party group on local government—I co-signed one on primary justice, which was looking for greater devolution and localism—and in Adjournment and other debates Members often pray in aid the activism of local groups and express the need to give them more power, but when it comes to the crunch and we can vote in favour of localism tonight by supporting this Bill’s Second Reading, when we have the chance to side with local people, local groups and those who want to take greater control over their lives and those of the people around them, and when we can not just talk about localism but deliver it, in which Division Lobby will Opposition Members vote?

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about the stance that Opposition Members will take, so would he like to comment on the four clauses that give immense powers to the Secretary of State over the general power of competence? If the hon. Gentleman is comfortable with the extent of the powers accorded to the Secretary of State to control that general power, I have to tell him that we are not.

[Mr Burrowes]

I took part in Committee proceedings on the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill—a Bill of over 200 clauses, so I bear the scars of considering them—and although there was some tinkering around the edges to give greater power to local people, at its heart and at the heart of the previous Government was big government and a big Secretary of State. I shall not go into the issue of size when it comes to the current Secretary of State, but he wants to replace a big Secretary of State in terms of powers with a big citizen.

[Angie Bray]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the most welcome provisions of the Bill include not only the restoring of local ward councillors to their proper place, where they can take part in decision making on planning, but the measures on licensing, on which we have not touched so far? One of the worst legacies of the Labour Government is the result of their foisting late-night licences on so many communities, while at the same time taking away through new national guidelines the power of local ward councillors to speak up on behalf of their communities.

[Mr Burrowes]

I am grateful for that intervention. It is important to get the message across that this Bill is about giving power not only to the people but to elected representatives—a concern expressed by Opposition Members. We will see this across the board. It is important to recognise that, rather than take note of typical sceptics in the media. On 17 December, The Observer said of the Bill that

“the tendency for partisanship and strife will be great”,

while Planning talked about our entering

“a period in which planning discourse is dominated by sharp-elbowed, well-resourced, well-heeled busybodies”.

Indeed, around the same time, The Independent talked about “a Nimby’s charter”. What we need to do is recognise that the present circumstances are in need of reform. I take seriously the words of one of those in the vanguard—David Evans, the chief planner at West Dorset council, who said:

“The planning system of old was too complex, too prescriptive and too slow…Communities felt that planning wasn’t something for them, rather it was something done to them and as a result there was increasing concern from local residents that overdevelopment was affecting their neighbourhoods.”

That is my experience.

[Hazel Blears]

rose—

[Mr Burrowes]

No, I will not give way. The right hon. Lady had her opportunity in government, so I will continue.

When my residents go to their planning committee, what they often see—sadly—is a lack of meaningful engagement. They are squeezed into a five-minute deputation to have their voice heard. The process is often based around the negative—about what people can try to keep hold of for their community—rather than on engaging people from the beginning in shaping communities as part of a neighbourhood plan. Yes, there may be those with sharp elbows, but we are increasingly seeing those who are dispossessed but who want a louder voice.

Let me quote Mark Eaton of the BBC, who is not always a supporter of the Government. He said that this Bill

“may well amount to the biggest change to grass-roots politics in England since universal suffrage.”

He recognises, as do others, that the Bill gives real power back to communities, and it is based on pounds, shillings and pence. For example, the community infrastructure levy will provide an opportunity properly to ensure that money is in the hands of local communities so that they can make and shape their areas. It is about empowering communities, whether it be in the most important power of competence, in the community right to buy or in the neighbourhood plan. Whether they are referred to as “easy Councils” or “John Lewis councils”, diversity in provision will be important.

It will be important to look at the details of the Bill, such as those relating to business involvement. Questions can be asked about where the businesses are in the neighbourhood plan. One need only look at the local growth White Paper, which recognises that every local authority will be able to put in the foundations for local economic growth. As I see in my high streets—the lifeblood of my Enfield community—businesses will have a crucial role to play.

It is important to allow communities to be able to question, for example, the prospect of an A and E closure, such as at Chase Farm, opening up the decision to the community by way of a referendum. Greater transparency is important—at last, Transport for London will have a degree of transparency, matched by that of local communities. That is what is needed for our communities.

We need to be bold; we need to ensure innovation, efficiency and diversity. We also need to recognise and give three cheers to local activists, whether they be sharp-elbowed or not. These are people who for too long have been shut out from decisions in the community and decisions in local authorities. They should be able to help to challenge and shape their communities. We have often referred to the need to shout out, “Power to the people”. At long last, we can ensure that we deliver that rallying cry through the Bill.

18:26

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I fear that the Bill is a hotch-potch of unco-ordinated policies, as Labour Front Benchers have said, and it will not deliver a strengthened voluntary and community sector. It will instead deliver punitive sanctions on those least able to stand up to them, particularly in the area of housing. I know that from experience in my local authority of Hammersmith and Fulham, which is doted on by the Secretary of State and Ministers. As mentioned previously, that council was said to have showed the way by merging backroom services and cutting senior salaries rather than making front-line cuts.

I urge the Secretary of State to look at the budget for the next three years, which last week was published—or sneaked out, I should say—by the council. Less than 1% of cuts will come from mergers with other councils, as was trumpeted, and less than 1% will come from cuts in senior salaries. Yet fully 50%—more than £13 million in the first year—will come from cuts in children’s services and adult social services, including the closure of most Sure Start centres.

The Mail on Sunday reported just before Christmas that one officer in Hammersmith and Fulham has been paid £1,000 a day for three years—£700,000 paid into a private business run by that single officer, which is more than all the other cuts in senior management put together. That has been described as “good value for money” by the Conservative council. Since this officer’s job is the systematic demolition of council estates in the borough and the redevelopment of needed community assets, I suppose that the Conservative council would think that that was good value for money, but I wonder whether that is what the Secretary of State meant by looking at high salaries.

Three aspects of the Bill have been greeted by hollow laughter by my constituents. One is the community right to challenge. What local organisations taking over community assets means in Hammersmith and Fulham is that all the money is withdrawn, the staff are sacked and in some cases the premises are sold—Sure Start centres and libraries, for example. Then the community is told, “If you want to run these centres on your own behalf with no money from the council, and sometimes with no premises, then go ahead”. That is called the big society.

As for assets of community value, what use is that policy if there is no right of first refusal and no support from the council? What we have seen in Hammersmith is a fire sale of all community buildings—buildings in which literally hundreds of voluntary sector organisations operate. I heard just this morning that Palingswick house in the middle of Hammersmith—a building that 22 active local voluntary groups have made their home for many years—is to be sold off to open a free school for children from outside the borough. Nobody in the constituency has asked for that. The same is true of the Irish cultural centre in Hammersmith, of Shepherd’s Bush village hall and the Sands End centre. Those are vibrant and successful community assets and there is no opportunity for the local community to continue to run them.

As for neighbourhood planning, almost every planning scheme is a joint venture between the council and a developer. In order to build new luxury offices for councillors and senior officers, we have 15-storey tower blocks along the riverside on the site of a community cinema and homes provided by the Pocklington trust for people with visual impairments.

The 100-year-old Shepherd’s Bush market is being destroyed to make way for luxury housing. The air rights relating to the car park of an old people’s home in my constituency are being sold to a private school, which means that no light will reach the old people, but it will make £200,000 or so for the council. Furthermore, in west Kensington the right of local people to take over their own estate, provided by legislation that the Government claim to support, is being vetoed by the council so that a private developer can demolish 750 good-quality council homes in one of the largest developments in the country. I wish that I had more time in which to talk about the impact on my constituents’ housing: about the lack of security of tenure, and about the lack of a duty in relation to homeless people.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

My hon. Friend’s constituency and mine have similar characteristics. For instance, 30% of members of our communities live in private rented accommodation. Does my hon. Friend share my horror about the prospect that the Bill will force more people into unregulated private tenancies?

[Mr Slaughter]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I hope that Government Members have read the comments of Shelter, which has said:

“The proposed changes sever the link between homelessness and recognising the need for a settled home by allowing councils to discharge homeless households into the insecure PRS”

—the private rented sector—

“rather than find them a settled home.”

It is a shameful day for the country when a tradition that all parties have supported for many decades is abandoned: the tradition of ensuring that poorer families have stable and affordable homes. Given all that they have said over the past five years about the need to provide more good-quality affordable housing, the Liberal Democrats above all should not vote for provisions that will destroy security of tenure and the opportunity for people to live in stable homes.

Let me end by making two points that I shall have no time to amplify. The Bill’s provisions for Gypsies and Travellers are also shameful, because they constitute a cynical way of not providing Gypsy and Traveller sites. That is dog-whistle politics.

[Barbara Keeley]

I believe that the Bill contains the first indication of cuts in Sure Start, which we expected despite what the Prime Minister said about protecting it.

[Mr Slaughter]

I am grateful for that intervention, because it has given me a little more time to amplify the point that I was making.

In view of what has been said today about provision for Gypsy and Traveller sites, I think that Members should sometimes examine their rhetoric. The single most important issue is that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs wishes to cut all provision for Gypsies and Travellers: both the capital funding and the requirement for local authorities to provide sites for them. If there were enough sites, there would not be unlawful encampments. It is shocking that the Government should wilfully close their eyes to that fact and simply introduce civil and criminal penalties for Gypsies and Travellers, and they should examine their conscience.

Finally, let me echo the words of Sir Christopher Kelly, who said that the end of the standards regime allowed councils, such as Hammersmith and Fulham, to get away with what they were doing. That provision should also be rejected.

18:33

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

Let me begin by saying that, given the state in which the Labour party left the country, it is preposterous to use the word “shameful” about a Bill of this nature, whether or not it does everything that the Government claim that it does. Let us have a sensible debate.

I welcome this important Bill. I welcome the sentiments behind it and the purpose that has led two parties to work together, believing in decentralisation, and I welcome much of its substance. Let me say in particular—in the regrettably short time that I have been allowed—how delighted my constituents and I are about the abolition of regional spatial strategies, which I have already mentioned. However—just as the Secretary of State returns to the Chamber—I must record the disappointment that I share with local communities about the indication that the planning system will continue to allow developers an automatic and unlimited right of appeal, while not allowing communities even a limited right. I urge Ministers to think again.

In the very short time available to me, I wish to point out, as chair of the all-party parliamentary save the pub group, that the Bill will clearly have an impact on pubs. At present, planning law gives pubs virtually no protection, and communities have virtually no say over their future.

[Hazel Blears]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Greg Mulholland]

I should be delighted.

[Hazel Blears]

The hon. Gentleman has a good record of promoting community pubs. Does he support the Government’s decision to abolish the £4.3 million programme introduced by the last Government to help people to take over and support their local pubs?

[Greg Mulholland]

I would support any measure that helped pubs, but, as the right hon. Lady knows full well, that was one of the disgraceful blank cheques written in the dying days of a Labour Government who were trying desperately to cling to power, and people saw through it. Let me now make some sensible comments about the issue. I think that Members in all parts of the House recognise not only the legal but the moral ownership of pubs by local communities.

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

I agree. In Hereford we have seen a perfect example of the abuse of the current system. Last year the Gamecock pub in South Wye was sold to Tesco, in the face of local objections and without consultation. The sale went through because of a loophole: pubs and supermarket chains are both zoned B2, although, as we all know, pubs are enormously welcome and supermarkets are not. I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees that the Bill should deal with that loophole.

[Greg Mulholland]

Indeed. I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue, which I was about to mention myself. As he has pointed out, it is perfectly legal to change a pub into a supermarket, a bank or a betting shop, or to demolish it altogether if it is free-standing. That loophole, which applies also to other services, must be closed, and it can be closed if the Government support the Protection of Local Services (Planning) Bill on Friday. The Bill is promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams), and I urge Ministers to take it seriously. If they are not willing to do so, they must deal with the matter through the Localism Bill, which is not possible as the Bill is currently drafted. Otherwise, the community right to buy will be tokenistic. An unscrupulous developer could demolish a pub overnight and change it into a Tesco before a realistic opportunity to buy had been provided. I consider the demolition loophole particularly extreme: it would be absurd to suggest that a community would still be interested in a pub site once the pub had been demolished.

Given the way in which the community right-to-buy provision is currently worded, there is a danger that other potential operators—small pub companies, individuals, entrepreneurs or small breweries—would find it more difficult to buy and run a pub that represented what the community wanted. In many cases, the right to buy is not only unrealistic but undesirable. It would affect only a few pubs, and I think that the Government should look at the drafting again.

In fact, we are not talking about a community right to buy. Let us be honest: what we are talking about is a community right to try—to try to buy a pub and put it together. Once a community has a realistic and fully backed bid at market value, the owner has no obligation to sell it to the community. I urge the Government to look at the Scottish Parliament’s Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, which gives communities a genuine right to buy.

On behalf of the parliamentary save the pub group, I have written to the new community pubs Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill)—informing him of our thoughts and proposals. We believe that the idea of a moratorium is excellent, but we think that it should be triggered not when a pub or other local service is about to be sold, but when plans are presented for its use to be changed or for its demolition.

A six-month moratorium would give communities a real chance either to seek to raise the finance for a community right to buy if they wished to do so or to try to find small companies as partners. That would also benefit the excellent small companies concerned. I am delighted to say that small companies have now started to buy pubs, as the big companies, with their discredited models, are struggling. That should be encouraged, but there is a concern that it will not be encouraged under the Bill as drafted. Two things should happen during the six-month period. The local authority should conduct an independent viability test of any pub that seeks change of use. Some councils already do that. There should also be a genuine independent community consultation process. Again, a few councils do that, but if it were made part of the process, it would give the Bill teeth and the community a right to say.

Finally, there is an idea that communities simply being able to apply to put pubs on a community asset list will solve the problem, but that is not the case. The save the pub group believes that we should try to work towards a definition of a community pub that would then apply to all pubs that communities deem to be important community facilities.

The Prime Minister has said that this is to be a pro-pub Government. I want that more than any Member, but unless this Bill is strengthened, communities will not have a real say over the future of pubs, and I look forward to working with the ministerial team to change the Bill to make that happen.

18:41

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I want to give the Government the benefit of the doubt and welcome the thrust towards localism in the Bill, and I hope to make it on to the Committee and therefore to be able to scrutinise the detail of the proposals. As the Bill is a thick and huge document however, I have not yet been able quite to get into it, but as I represent the second poorest constituency in London, I have some profound questions.

This Bill is being introduced against the backdrop of cuts to the vital services of some of the poorest people in London—a Somali woman, perhaps, or a Turkish woman, or someone who has arrived and settled here from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. All of them come from communities that have settled in my constituency. It has traditionally been a constituency that many communities have used as a gateway, as they settle and find their feet in this country. What does localism mean to them? It does not mean much if they are losing their library or their community support, or if the centre where their community is based is being shut down.

[Mr Burrowes]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Lammy]

I will not give way, because time is limited.

Two issues remain deeply relevant to my constituency, both of which I have previously raised in the House. I welcome the proposals for a neighbourhood plan. I have discussed that with the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark). I welcome the capacity for communities to determine the look, shape and feel of their area, and particularly of their high streets. In my constituency, we have seen the disappearance of independent shops, pubs, community centres and vital services, especially banks, and the escalating proliferation of betting shops. Why does Tottenham have 39 betting shops and not one bookshop? Why is there an application for a 10th betting shop on Tottenham high road?

[Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)]

rose—

[Mr Lammy]

I hope the community will be able to determine these things, and stand up to the betting industry, which, frankly, is preying on poor people in Tottenham.

[Stephen Gilbert]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Lammy]

That is wrong and it needs to stop, but I am very concerned that it is clear in the Bill that—

[Stephen Gilbert]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. If the right hon. Gentleman is not giving way, the hon. Gentleman cannot stay on his feet and keep on asking; instead he must sit back down.

[Mr Lammy]

It is clear from clause 97 that there are excessive charges in bringing in a neighbourhood plan. How are ordinary people in Tottenham—the very same people whose housing benefit is being cut, and who on the basis of the coalition’s plans are to be turfed off jobseeker’s allowance if they do not find a job—going to be able to pay the charges to bring in a neighbourhood plan and thereby be able to determine the look, shape and feel of their high street? Those are the questions my constituents will want to ask, particularly against the backdrop of this Bill also introducing the end of secured tenancy.

Tottenham has the highest homelessness rate in London, and it is a shame that this Administration seem to assume that our landlords are paragons of virtue. These proposals will lead to overcrowding in London. They will lead to the kinds of scenes we see in cities such as Paris. I predict that harm will come to communities because of this atrocious part of the Bill. I welcome the neighbourhood plan and I look forward to questioning in detail what it means for communities like mine, but I condemn a situation in which we are casting the very poorest of Londoners on to the streets and into overcrowded living conditions, with landlords who will surely prey on them.

18:46

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I must first declare an interest: I remain, until May, an elected member of North East Lincolnshire unitary authority, having previously spent 14 years as a member of the former Great Grimsby borough council. The total amount of time I served is 26 years, during which I would like to think there was a certain amount of modest success, but I can assure Members that there was also a lot of frustration caused by the gradual drift towards increasing centralisation. Needless to say, I welcome the Bill’s general thrust to reverse that, but I wish to draw specific attention to the proposals for local referendums and elected mayors, and to express one or two reservations in respect of tenancies and the proposed fines in the context of air quality issues.

The ability of local people, as well as individual councillors, to initiate local referendums already exists, of course. I succeeded in achieving one after a long campaign, and in getting a two-to-one vote in favour of abolishing a town council that was precepting band B properties in excess of £100 per year, only to see that result overturned by the top-tier authority. Bearing in mind that frivolous proposals for referendums will be eliminated at an early stage, I hope that we will eventually come to the conclusion that the result of such referendums should be binding. The people did have a modest amount of success, however, as Immingham town council has reduced its running costs, and in 2008 reduced its precept by 20.9%. I rather suspect it would not have done so had it not been under threat of abolition.

I strongly support the moves towards the introduction of elected mayors, but why only 12? If, as stated, the Government consider elected mayors to provide strong leadership and improved clarity in municipal decision making and to enhance the prestige of their cities, why limit the number to 12, and why only for cities?

[Barbara Keeley]

Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the fact that mayors are going to be imposed? Indeed, another power that the Secretary of State is taking is the power to impose this on any city or local authority. The current power to have mayors was brought in by the Labour Government, and it can be by resolution or referendum.

[Martin Vickers]

Personally, I would always support the decision of a referendum over an imposition.

Why only 12 mayors? Why are the provincial towns not being given the opportunity to have an elected mayor? Local councillors are not generally enthusiastic about elected mayors, as that is seen to risk breaking up the cosy arrangements that exist, particularly if there are two strong parties in an authority. It needs to be made easier for the electorate to kick-start a referendum. Obtaining the support of 5% of the people does not sound like a great deal until one gets out on the streets to try to secure those genuine signatures. In the two unitary authorities that serve my constituency, that equates to about 6,000 people and I can tell hon. Members that getting that number is extremely difficult, because I have tried it.

[George Freeman]

On kindling community interest in local planning matters, does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill and, in particular, its housing provisions, has the potential to act as a serious catalyst for community engagement in local politics? Does he further agree that the pilot scheme that has taken shape in Attleborough, in my constituency, which involves asking some deep questions about the future of the town, is a model of what might come through the Bill?

[Martin Vickers]

I accept the point that my hon. Friend makes. Elected mayors are another advocate for the area that they represent, and provincial towns, particularly those neighbouring cities that will subsequently have elected mayors, should be given an early opportunity in this regard.

On the overview and scrutiny role in local councils, a decade of trying to achieve a satisfactory system has, to the best of my knowledge, failed. There may well be some councils where there has been success, but not many. The biggest problem is to do with officer resources. Scrutiny officers, however hard-working and dedicated, are answerable to senior officers who are rightly charged with implementing the policies of the ruling group. Where is the incentive to create a powerful group to scrutinise and criticise the work of the controlling group? Senior scrutiny officers need to be more independent. They should be appointed by a panel of the chairmen of the scrutiny chairs and be responsible to them, rather than to the senior management of the authority.

On the involvement of communities, I have a general rule of thumb: if people want to take decisions affecting their communities, they should seek election. That is different from encouraging them to become involved, which I fully support because we need maximum participation—I welcome the moves in the Bill that will contribute to that.

May I also draw Members’ attention to the proposals to pass European Union fines, particularly those relating to air quality—a particular issue in the port of Immingham, in my constituency—to local authorities? I seek guidance from our Front Benchers on what the potential is on that front. I speak for my local community in Immingham, which faces a coal dust problem and which may welcome moves that make it more difficult for the regulatory authorities to duck the issue.

Finally, may I express some reservations about the proposed limits on the period of social housing tenancies? I recognise that the proposals will not apply to existing tenants, but I have reservations because the shorter a tenancy period, the less incentive there is for someone to contribute to maintaining the property and enhancing the area in which they live. People become attached to their bricks and mortar, and a short tenancy discourages that. The postcode lottery is a potent political weapon and, as the culture of our voters is that they expect a certain standard of services, it could be difficult to overcome with the differences that will inevitably result in neighbouring authorities.

18:53

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

We could be forgiven for thinking that the Government have, all on their own, discovered community empowerment and social action. I just want to place it on the record, right at the outset, that not only I but many Labour Members have for years embraced the ideas of giving individuals and communities greater power over their own lives. That is why hundreds of local authorities up and down the country are doing participatory budgeting, why the transfer of assets has got off the ground and is now happening, why councils are responding to petitions and why the social enterprise and mutuals sector is growing. This Government are not the first to have these ideas.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Surely my right hon. Friend is not going to miss off that long list antisocial behaviour orders, which this Government are seeking to do away with.

[Hazel Blears]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. Not for a moment would I seek to miss out something that I believe has been of great assistance in empowering local communities. Success has many parents and the Bill contains some things that I support, but I want to make one central point this evening: I believe that there is a deep schism at the heart of the Government between those people who genuinely believe in this agenda and want to make the most of the skills and talents of local people, and those who see it as a convenient step in an intense political strategy to shrink the state, slash costs and provide respectability for the transfer of assets from the public sector, possibly into the private sector, using the guise of social enterprise as a respectable halfway house.

I have great concerns about that. The Secretary of State for Health is on the record as saying that what he regards as social enterprise is anything other than the public sector. That is a very wide definition, and I say to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, whom I am pleased to see in his place, that I would welcome the Minister giving a cast-iron commitment in his summing up. I would like the Minister to confirm that, under the expressions of interest part of the Bill, the Secretary of State will not be using his order-making powers to change the framework to allow commercial organisations simply to bid to run services and take over assets, and that there will be a genuine commitment to real social enterprise, with asset locks, stewardship and community ownership at its heart. It is vital that we get that on the record.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that an additional element in a community takeover of assets is its having the agency to do so and the resources even to get near those assets in the first place? Does she think that the Bill fulfils the promise of communities taking over assets in a way that that might be possible, bearing in mind the finances involved?

[Hazel Blears]

Not by any stretch of the imagination could this Bill genuinely be said to be about empowerment. If people are to be given rights, they need the means to take up those rights. The Bill does not contain the back-up, support, funding and guidance necessary genuinely to give people the sense that they can take on these services.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Hazel Blears]

In a moment.

We are setting out for the worst of all possible worlds. We will raise expectations and then set people up to fail, thus setting this whole community empowerment agenda back years and years; I think there will be an awful lot of disappointed people. If we look at the pubs support package, we see now that no support is available. A community in my constituency wants to take over the Woolpack in Salford. These great local people need help with a business plan, finance and mentoring, but no support is available from this Government to enable them to take over that pub.

[Angie Bray]

rose—

[Hazel Blears]

I will not give way.

I set out three tests last October, saying that if the Government met them, their localism and empowerment agenda would have my support. Those tests related to funding; having a proper framework for local government; and fairness. On funding, the Government have failed miserably. My local council faces cuts of £47 million, and 15% of those cuts are to come in the first year. Manchester city council faces cuts of £100 million, with 25% in the first year. Voluntary sector organisations face cuts of upwards of £3 billion, with a paltry £100 million transition fund. Whether for local government, voluntary organisations or community groups, the Government have failed entirely on funding.

My second test was about having a proper framework and a long-term partnership with community groups. What I have seen is councils in a headlong rush to divest themselves of responsibility, and they are dealing with big national organisations, not building the small community groups that really want to bid on this agenda. For example, the big national framework contracts for the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Work and Pensions are going not to small social enterprises or small local organisations but to big national companies. The people who are getting the DWP contracts in Greater Manchester are based in Leeds, Birmingham and Newcastle—so much for growing the small local sector.

My third test was about fairness. I am genuinely horrified at the unfairness of the cuts that have been put in place. They are particularly directed at the poorest neighbourhoods—the people who are eligible for area-based grant. They have seen those grants slashed completely, which is why the poorest areas have fared the worst. What is really needed on this agenda is funds. I moved a ten-minute rule Bill just a couple of weeks ago, proposing that instead of paying themselves bonuses bankers should enter into a long-term relationship with community groups to give them not only funding, but business expertise, support, mentoring and back-up. Again, I ask the Government whether they are prepared to support those measures. We need a commitment to true social enterprise and we need to ensure—

[David Rutley]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Hazel Blears]

No, I will not. Time is short.

When those enterprises are spun out into the social enterprise sector, we have to ensure that that does not happen on the back of people’s terms and conditions. I would welcome a commitment from the Government that when organisations take over, the conditions for the people who work in those enterprises will be maintained at the highest possible standards.

I recommend to the House an excellent example I have seen recently of a council empowering people, which is Lambeth’s co-operative council proposal. Across the country, 100 local authorities have signed up to the co-operative council idea, with citizenship-led commissioning, the transfer of assets, protection for employees and a safeguarding framework that safeguards equity so that we do not get the postcode lottery referred to by the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers). That example would be very worth while.

On this agenda, we need to ask some simple questions, but they are very revealing. What is the point of a general power of competence if there is no money to do anything to improve the community? What is the point of allowing people to bid to run services or take over assets when there is not the back-up and support to enable them to do that? Why involve local people in planning and at the same time abolish planning aid, which gave poorer communities the ability to raise issues, to have technical support and to play their proper part in the planning framework? I genuinely believe that these proposals are the worst of all worlds—raising people’s expectations and then dashing them in a pretty appalling way. There are many reasons why we cannot support the Bill this evening. The principle is right, but the way in which this Government propose to exercise it is utterly wrong. It is not community empowerment, but community demolition.

19:01

[Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)]

As a former leader of the council—and obviously a councillor—of the great city of Bradford, I welcome this Bill. I have some reservations and I am sure that as time goes by we can thrash out some of those issues, but my local council will no longer have to doff its cap to a regional development agency to ask for its own money. My local council will not have to argue about ridiculous housing figures or argue the toss about child pregnancy figures when every professional said they were unachievable and primary care trust chairs and directors had to intervene on the Government to explain the ridiculous targets that had been set. There was paper-chasing, whole departments had to be established to facilitate inspectorates, initiatives came through where one-off moneys were chased and a few days’ notice was given to bid for millions of pounds. Such ridiculous initiatives—

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Kris Hopkins]

No, I will not. The shadow Secretary of State said earlier that she was concerned that the Secretary of State had sent a note about the Queen’s jubilee coming up. I got a note reminding me that it was St George’s day. I did not need to receive a note from the Secretary of State to tell me that it was St George’s day, because we celebrated that in Bradford with great pomp and with all the community behind us.

The Bill will end the farce of the Standards Board for England and the cost of the eternal process of the regional strategic planning regime. I welcome the idea that we can tackle rogue developers in the planning process and that we will not have to facilitate retrospective planning permission. The cost to individual councils of pursuing individual developers is outrageous. I am concerned that we should really mean localism and local determination on planning. My local parish council rejected a Tesco application and my local district council unanimously rejected it, but it then went to the inspectorate, which overturned that decision. Those decisions were overturned in the face of the local populace. I want some clarification on how we are going to address the anomaly, whereby local people are refused what they want.

I am concerned about housing. People can argue the toss about tenures, but we need to build more houses. Affordable housing must be facilitated. The recession has wiped out a whole skill base as far as housing is concerned and I want to see how Business Link, business development and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will support local government in utilising that housing land.

I am very concerned about elected mayors. My constituency was put into Bradford and although I like the city and people of Bradford, the people of Keighley are not too enthusiastic about being part of Bradford council. The idea that there is a very good chance that somebody from Bradford might be the mayor of Bradford will further alienate the people of Keighley, who will be further detached from that administration. I look forward to using one of the referendum options so that the constituency of Keighley can break away from Bradford council, if it needs to, and form its own administration.

As for the devolution of powers, it is quite easy to devolve powers when there is no money left in the kitty. I look forward to the time when there is more in the kitty, when we have put the economy right and when our local people can make those decisions. Individual departments need to respect their responsibility, as central Government have been an absolute nightmare for local government, trying to join it up to make decisions.

Finally, all the great things proposed in the Bill are undermined by the fact that democracy has been undermined. The postal voting system is undermining local democracy and must be addressed.

19:06

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

There have been a large number of philosophical speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House, but I want to talk specifically about clauses 124 and 125. I want to ask the Secretary of State and Members of all parties to consider whether we want to change 40 years of homelessness legislation and give local authorities the power to discharge their duty to homeless families to the private sector, whether or not the family accepts that option.

In response to “Cathy Come Home” in the late 1960s and early 1970s, parts of all our communities rose as one—irrespective of the party that they supported—to say that local authorities needed a framework for vulnerable homeless families. No longer could councils of all political persuasions ignore families in housing need. At the same time, we saw the rise of one of the greatest acts of localism since Victorian times: the formation of housing associations, principally through Church and faith-based groups that wanted to do their bit to contribute to dealing with homelessness.

Is it right that we should let go of one of the fundamental tenets of our homelessness legislation, which is to discharge the duty to provide accommodation that families can afford? Private sector accommodation in south London is certainly not affordable to the vast majority of homeless families.

[Barry Gardiner]

My hon. Friend has been assiduously in the Chamber all afternoon, so she might not have seen the front page of today’s Evening Standard, which, for the first time, talks of people being found sleeping in rubbish bins in London.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

That would be a shocking spectacle and I cannot imagine that any person in this House would find it acceptable.

We must consider the consequences of our actions. Private sector accommodation is, for most families, completely unaffordable. Most families who approach local authorities as homeless are young families at the start of their family life and with the lowest earning potential that they are likely to have in their lifetime. They will have to go on to housing benefit, so we will make families who could otherwise afford to pay their way welfare-dependent. We are saying to families, “You will be on housing benefit and if you try to better your life—if you take the extra day’s work or the promotion—you will lose so much housing benefit that it will not be worth your while.”

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that that does not fit well with the Government’s apparent concern about the size of the housing benefit bill?

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend and I wonder whether we are seeing joined-up government. What is worse than the pointless spending of that money is the fact that we are doing it to the detriment of those families. I appreciate that this is a slogan, but it means a great deal and many hon. Members of all persuasions could sign up to the idea that any social policy should be considered through the prism of whether it is giving “a hand up or a handout”. If the Government discharge homeless people into the private sector, they will be giving them a handout that will keep their aspirations low, because those people will know that they can never afford to go into work. Professor John Hills calculated that a couple with two children and a private rent of £120 a week would be only £23 a week better off if their earnings rose from £100 a week to £400 a week. That cap on aspiration will not only force people to stay down but will make them risk-averse. Would a single mum with two or three children who pays rent of £1,000 a month take a job that she might not be able to manage, or do the extra hours that might make her children’s care collapse, if it meant she would then have to give up that job, go back on to housing benefit and experience the delay that we all know happens with benefit assessments?

I ask Government Members to consider whether that is what they want to do to the most vulnerable families. Does it help to have taxpayers paying more in housing benefit and to alienate more families? Our job should be to encourage, and perhaps sometimes to force, people to work if they can, but this measure will prevent that from happening to hundreds of families.

19:12

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

In my maiden speech last May I spoke about the important principle that where services are delivered mainly locally, they should be decided mainly locally, so I strongly welcome the Bill. I was a councillor for 13 years before coming to this place, the last seven of which I was leader of West Sussex county council, so I have seen at first hand the top-down, centralised control from Whitehall that the Labour party exerted. It was determined to treat every part of the country the same—from the City of Westminster to the county of West Sussex and from one end of the country in Cumbria to the other in Cornwall—and its demand for compliance stifled localism and local communities.

[James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the general power of competence in the Bill, which has been much derided by the Opposition, signals that local government will no longer be an arm of central Government but will be able to pursue and develop its own policies and services?

[Henry Smith]

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. That is precisely what the Bill does and that is why the reforms represent a radical change. It is interesting that the two parties of the coalition Government are coming together not only in the national interest but in the local interest on principles of individuality, community, libertarianism, greater accountability and democracy.

In my experience as a local authority leader, three things got in the way of true local government, and our role was more about local administration than government. The first of those things was the local government finance system, and I am delighted that there will now be a chance for referendums on council tax and that there will be a greater link between local taxation and local representation.

[Tristram Hunt]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for showing such respect to the Chamber, unlike some of his colleagues.

On local government financing, why not go the whole hog? What is the Government’s weakness? Why do they not return the business rate that the Tory party took away from local government?

[Henry Smith]

We are about to do just that in the Bill. The Government have not waited for legislation and have already un-ring-fenced a lot of the budgets that were constraining local authorities’ ability to spend money according to local priorities.

The second thing that has kept down local governments in the past 13 years—and, to be fair, in previous times as well—is the seeping of authority and power from directly elected local government, often to regional and unelected quangos. Again, I am delighted that the coalition Government have made an early start in that respect as well.

The thing that I particularly want to highlight as having stifled local government’s ability to represent the needs of local communities is the unbearable regulation and the bureaucratic tick-box exercise that local government was forced to go through. When I was a local authority leader, I asked my officers to put an audit code next to every item of expenditure that related to that bureaucratic tick-box exercise and at the end of the financial year I was astounded and shocked to see that my local authority had spent more than £1 million just on going through an unnecessary exercise that often had little relevance to the needs of my local community. Not one penny of that £1 million went to provide a book in one of our libraries. [Interruption.] My Conservative local authority has just opened a new library and I am delighted about that. Not one penny of that £1 million went to provide a personal computer on a desk in one of our schools or to provide a home care package for a vulnerable or elderly individual. Not one penny of it was spent on fire service call-outs or any other front-line service that the local authority for which I was responsible wanted to deliver.

The Bill represents a radical shift and a turning around of priorities. Instead of top-down, Whitehall control, there will be bottom-up control whereby individuals, local communities and democratically elected and accountable local government can provide those services. Where government is more transparent and more accountable at all levels, it is more efficient. Given the disastrous economic situation we have been bequeathed by the previous Government, that is something we need to achieve.

One issue that I would like Ministers to clarify is the way in which European Union fines for air pollution, for example, may be divided up. My constituency and local authority include Gatwick airport—the nation’s second-largest airport and the world’s busiest one-runway, two-terminal airport—as well as a significant section of the M23. As a former local authority leader, I am once bitten, twice shy when it comes to local government formulae and I am interested to know how the formula for dividing such fines will operate so that it does not militate against local authorities with national assets such as airports and other facilities in their area.

Broadly, the Bill is to be greatly welcomed. It has often been said that when this country gave up its empire, Whitehall, in an effort to find things to do, simply turned its attention inwards and decided that instead of administering Nigeria or India it had better administer Norwich or Ipswich. The Bill represents, for the first time, a freeing up of control and greater self-determination for our local communities in the same way as other nations achieved self-determination at the end of the British empire. I appreciate having had the House’s time, Mr Deputy Speaker.

19:19

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

Having been a parish councillor until a few weeks ago, I welcome those parts of the Bill that seek to reduce centralisation and strengthen local democracy, but the Government appear to give with one hand and take away with the other. To give powers to local government with one hand and slash budgets, through the local government settlement, with the other is disingenuous and simply will not deliver localism in any form that I understand. I welcome the excellent sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart)—he is no longer in his place—who chairs the all-party group on town and parish councils, of which I am the vice-chair.

On the very day that the coalition announced the deepest cuts in local government history, which will result in an estimated 140,000 public sector job losses in one year alone, they also announced the Localism Bill. Forgive me, but the cynic in me finds a sad but strong link between the two. My concern is that the big society Localism Bill is simply a cover for thousands of job losses. My local authority, Durham county council, is being forced to axe 1,600 jobs and make £100 million of savings over the next four years, and my local police authority is having to cut 80 jobs this year.

The Secretary of State rather smugly told us earlier today that Durham county council has £80 million in reserves. He knows well that for a county the size of Durham, that is not an unreasonably sized reserve. He knows that local authorities are under a legal duty to hold back a percentage of reserves for emergencies and, therefore, are not free to spend that money on front-line jobs. He is also aware that, if Durham county council spent that element of its reserves which it can spend, it can spend it only once, yet it has cuts to make next year, the year after and the year after that. He should also be aware that that element of the £80 million reserve that it can spend will largely fund redundancies this year.

[Nicky Morgan]

Perhaps the hon. Lady can help me with a little point I am confused about. The leader of her party said over the weekend that had Labour won the election there would have been cuts to local government finance, and in the amendment to the motion her party confirms its commitment to localism and devolution. Are we not just arguing about semantics, because hon. Members on both sides of the House appear to agree on localism, devolution and cuts to local government finance? Where does she think the cuts would have fallen had there been a Labour Government?

[Pat Glass]

The hon. Lady has obviously read my mind. The leader of Durham county council has told me that, had the reductions in grant funding been limited to the level that Labour would have made, all the cuts to the council could have come from existing back-office services without hitting front-line services. However, cuts of the magnitude and scale of those proposed by the Government simply cannot come from anything other than front-line services. Front-line services will be hit, and hit hard.

[Barbara Keeley]

In answer to the point about Labour’s policy, one of the key points is that we would not have front-loaded the cuts. Salford city council has two to three months in which to deal with £47 million of cuts and is struggling, and I am sure that Durham county council is in a similar boat. I am sure my hon. Friend agrees that it is impossible to make structural changes that can help with that situation.

[Pat Glass]

Yes, I agree. The Association of North East Local Councils has issued figures that show clearly that the pound per person cut in spending power for those who live in the north-east will be significantly higher this year and in the following three years than it will be for those in the south-east. We have already heard today that in Hartlepool the cut per person will be £113. In the Lib Dem-led local authority of Newcastle, the figure is £99 per person, and for those who live in Durham it will be £70 per person. However, those who live in the deprived community of Richmond upon Thames will be hit by a massive cut of £5 per person, and those who live in Buckinghamshire, that well known centre of deprivation and poverty, will be hit by a cut of £4 per person. Sadly, those who reside in deepest poverty-ridden Surrey will find their council spending cut by a crippling £2 per person. How is that fair, and how will that support localism? It is Robin Hood in reverse; it is unashamedly taking from the poor to give to the rich. It is not fair and not progressive. Quite frankly, it is not fooling anyone.

My community already organises and runs many local projects, but it cannot do it alone. The voters of North West Durham, and voters generally, are already working out that the big society is nothing but a big sham. Public and community services simply cannot run on empty. They need investment and support as well as reform. People are realising that the only real choice they are being given is to run services themselves or watch them be cut to shreds. It is all very well in theory to say that local services should be delivered by local citizens, which I agree with, but what happens when those vital services fail?

Services such as talking books are vital to the elderly and the visually impaired, and the careline services are vital to the elderly and disabled. What happens if those services fail or those volunteering to run them simply walk away, get another job or move elsewhere? Such services cannot be left to God and good neighbours. There must be safeguards for when things do not work out.

I welcome parts of the Bill, but I have real concerns about other parts. It could result in a postcode lottery, with some communities able to support a higher level of social services than others, and the poorest and most vulnerable in challenged communities being left to fend for themselves.

Who will be the localists running the big society? They will be those with the time and money to get involved. Wealthier and more middle-class members of society will run services on behalf of the less well-off or the less able. What will happen to the concepts of fairness, entitlement, inclusion and standards? We have already witnessed in some Sure Start centres what happens when more middle class parents get involved: the families that those services are targeted to support—the disadvantaged—are simply overwhelmed, turned off or stay away. That is the danger of having a wealthy, middle class volunteer running vital public services targeted at the most disadvantaged.

There are things in the Bill that I approve of, but they are masked by a Government who are using them as cover for massive public sector cuts, the dismantling of local democracy and a methodology for shifting resources from the poor to the sharp-elbowed better-off.

19:27

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

There speaks the authentic dinosaur aspect of the Labour party—class war. The view of the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) is that those who want to do the best for their local community are middle class and sharp elbowed. It is sad that the Opposition amendment is so churlish, so grudging and lacking in any coherent alternative. Within its historical context, the Bill is both radical and transformative of local government, and I think that it stands comparison with some of the greatest legislation of the past 200 years, including the Municipal Corporations Act 1835, the Public Health Acts 1872 and 1875, and the Housing Act 1980, as it will make significant changes in the balance between local government and central Government. It is a reversal of Labour’s ratcheting, centralising tendency, which we have seen with the tsars, the guidance, the strategy, the inspections and the audits, which have traduced the best aspects of local government over the years.

The Bill has a coherent philosophy, because in the aspects that speak to the big society it tackles something that Labour never did—the issue of capital inadequacy and capital inequality. Labour presided over a widening of the gap between the richest and poorest 10% in its 13 years in power, because it did nothing about the ownership of capital, which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt), the expert on Engels, no doubt knows much about.

The Bill also puts forward a significant commitment to mutualism at the same time as it heralds a civic renewal of local government through our commitment to localism. The New Local Government Network—I have the privilege of serving on its management body—sets some key challenges for the legislation. Is it about a coherent localism, and will it link together coherently as a strategy for policy making and political decision making for citizens? Yes, it is coherent as a philosophy because within the context of GP commissioning, the integration of public health, local enterprise partnerships, directly elected police commissioners, and school and welfare reform, it sits as a coherent strategy for the future.

[Hazel Blears]

Does the hon. Gentleman support limiting the expressions of interest to be made by communities to run services to organisations that have a social purpose? Does he also support the regulations not being changed in future by the Secretary of State to include commercial organisations that would seek to make a profit?

[Mr Jackson]

The big society is about empowering local people to make decisions at local level. It should be seen not as lots of disparate, discrete initiatives at local level, but within the context of the Bill’s provisions. I see the general power of competence, for example, as a key unlocking a huge amount of progressive development by local authorities. The New Local Government Network specifically praised the general power of competence and said:

“This represents both a significant philosophical shift towards local democracy and a practical transfer of power to the local level.”

That is something that Labour never did in its 13 years of power, although it promised to do so in its 1997 manifesto.

The other important issue—unfortunately, one cannot look in detail at the 406 pages of the Bill and its 201 clauses and 24 schedules in five minutes—is whether it is permissive, as opposed to prescriptive, as an approach to local government? On any objective test it is an extremely permissive piece of legislation. The general power of competence will give local authorities autonomy by unlocking accelerated development zones, tax increment financing, asset-backed vehicles and real estate investment trusts.

[Dr Whitehead]

In his exposition of the overall coherence of the Bill, is the hon. Gentleman in favour of stripping out of the Bill as it progresses through the House those 126 clauses whereby the Secretary of State can remove the powers that have been put into the Bill, if he so requires?

[Mr Jackson]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. The TaxPayers Alliance, in its publication in March 2010 entitled “The fiscal and economic case for localism”, speaks to an issue that unites the whole House—the fact that we are too centralised in the power balance between central and local government. Clearly, that is the case. The UK has one of the most centralised systems of government, taxation and spending in the western world. Less than 20% of our revenue is raised locally, as opposed to a G7 average of 60%.

An econometric study in Germany found that Government efficiency increased in direct proportion to decentralisation and could drive it up by up to 10%. That would release in this country the equivalent of £70 billion. The Spanish institute of fiscal studies found that fiscal decentralisation could boost growth in the economy by 0.5%. The Bill speaks to that concern. If Opposition Members ask me whether we are going far enough in fiscal autonomy and decentralisation, the answer is no, but the Bill is a bigger and better start than what went on before.

Opposition Members will notice that we have been consistent from the publication of the control shift document in February 2009, which is the theoretical and philosophical basis for the Bill. We have been pushing the concept of localism. When I served on the Public Bill Committee with the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) two years ago, we did not oppose multi-area agreements or leaders boards because we believed in localism.

[Tristram Hunt]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Jackson]

I do not have time to give way, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.

The Bill is coherent, although I have two caveats. One is about shadow elected mayors, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), who is not in his place at present. I have concerns also about councils’ culpability for the payment of EU fines. There will no doubt be contentious debate about that in Committee.

The Bill stands comparison with our party’s historical commitment to civic renewal and civic pride, a golden thread which runs from Disraeli through to Joseph Chamberlain in Birmingham, Macmillan and the house building of the post-war Conservative Governments to this Bill. That is why I will vote for it later tonight.

19:34

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

To describe the Bill as one of the great historical Bills put before the House is to take historical hyperbole to new heights. It is ludicrous. There are more than 100 caveats on the powers that are devolved to local government, and the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members who keep on about the joy that they have from the freedom for their local authorities will be back in the Chamber in two or three years complaining that the fire standards are worse in Dorset than they are in Warwickshire, that homeless people are more generously treated than they are in Bristol and so on.

National Government have a responsibility to ensure that there are some national standards in what is done. It is important that Government Members understand that. In addition, since 80% of all local government expenditure comes directly from central Government, the freedoms associated with the Bill are more than a little bit limited.

[Hazel Blears]

My hon. Friend makes a good point about the possible inequity of services in different parts of the country. Is he aware that, as a result of the cuts to local government funding currently taking place, in many areas social care is being denied to people with moderate needs and going only to those with critical care needs? Does he regard that as a good effect of localism?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

That is an effect of localism. That is why national standards, particularly in areas such as social care, access to pre-school education, and education in general, are so important for everyone in our society. People should be cautious of what they wish for from the Bill.

The Secretary of State, in introducing the Bill in a particularly inept and rather unsensible speech, went on to describe how Islington was not going to develop a nuclear bomb. That got a good laugh, I am sure, but it was a particularly silly thing to say. His Government are cutting £300 million from Islington’s budget over the next four years. We are one of the poorest boroughs in London and we come in the top eight poorest communities in the whole country, with high levels of homelessness, high levels of dependency and relatively high levels of unemployment. A newly elected Labour local authority has taken over from the Liberal Democrats, who spent most of their time in control of Islington council on a fire sale of valuable local authority properties. So they have form in how they behave towards local government and local authorities.

My main concern in respect of the Bill and in general is about housing. The legislation enacted at the time of the first world war, and the Public Health and National Health Service Acts of the post-war Labour Government have done more than anything else in this country to eliminate bad housing and homelessness. The Bill destroys that thread of public provision of good quality housing at an economic and affordable rent. Instead, it requires local authorities to force people into unregulated, expensive, badly managed, badly maintained housing provided by private sector landlords.

[Henry Smith]

Will the hon. Gentleman concede that in the past 13 years we have seen the lowest amount of housing built in this country since 1924, and the lowest amount of social housing as well?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I understand what the hon. Gentleman says. He was not in the previous Parliament. I was one of those who frequently demanded much more building of council housing. In the latter days of the Labour Government, more council housing was being built, and is still being built in my borough. To be fair, the Government inherited a massive bill for unrepaired estates and bad community areas, and put a great deal of money into the decent homes standard. The Labour Government should be commended for that.

The Bill undermines the principle of public provision of housing for those in desperate housing need. Instead, as I said, it requires local authorities to put people into the private sector. Imagine the situation when a homeless family appears before the local housing authority, which fulfils its duty by encouraging the family to accept a two-year, or perhaps shorter, tenancy in a private sector flat. That is the end of its responsibility. If, at the end of that minimal period, the landlord increases the rent to an astronomical level, that family will become homeless as a result of being unable to afford it, and then, according to my reading of the clauses, they will not be eligible for any further assistance from the local housing authority.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) talked about rising homelessness, which is a major concern and, I think, one of the consequences of the Bill, so I urge Government Members to think very carefully about that. We have a whole generation of children growing up in inner-city areas, often in overcrowded council accommodation and sometimes in overcrowded housing association accommodation. Increasingly, however, they are in very expensive private rented accommodation, paid for by housing benefit, where the landlords do not do the repairs and there is no security of tenure. Those families are the most vulnerable people.

What is the effect on those children of sharing a bedroom with three or four siblings, of heating that does not work, of windows that are not repaired, of a gas cooker that is dangerous and of a fridge that does not work? They grow up with a sense of shame, cannot bring friends home and do not grow up the same as all the other children in their school. We have a national responsibility and duty to invest more money in housing with economical, responsible and affordable rents, and that is best achieved by investing in council housing, which has done so well for so very long in this country.

My final point on housing is that we spend billions of pounds of housing benefit on subsidising the private rented sector. The Government’s solution is to cap and limit housing benefit, thereby forcing people out of what they describe as the “high-cost areas,” such as those that my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and I represent. The people being forced out will move somewhere else, and as a result communities will be damaged. Other countries regulate, control and operate the private sector far better, far more efficiently and far more humanely. It works in Germany and, to some extent, in the United States, so why can we not do it here? We cannot because of the Secretary of State and his Ministers’ obsession with market solutions to all problems. There are no market solutions for homelessness; there is social intervention, community investment and public operation. That is what can deal with homelessness, and that is what can lift the life chances and opportunities of some of the poorest and most vulnerable children in our community.

19:42

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I welcome the Bill as a catalyst to support, release and empower the vibrant and often untapped resources in our local communities. In recent years, many individuals and community groups have been hindered in making valuable contributions to community life by impenetrable bureaucracy and the centralised setting of priorities, or simply by a sense of disconnect between what happens in the confines of the town hall and the rest of the community. The Bill seeks to bridge that gap, and I believe that it will succeed, provided that the determination and vigour with which it has been introduced into the House is matched by similar determination and vigour to make it happen. We should be realistic about the cultural change needed to make this a reality.

I spent six years as a local councillor before arriving in this House, during which I was amazed to discover such things as the fact that the local area plan contained approximately 40 targets, but only seven of them were locally determined—the rest were centrally set. Those were six years during which I witnessed continual frustration on the part of community groups, who had much to offer but struggled to have their voice heard. One such group runs The Oaks community centre in my former ward of Penketh. The group converted a school into an excellent all-age community centre, which is popular and in daily use, but it has told me that it has struggled to obtain even the tiniest degree of public funding or support, while two other local authority community halls in the same ward have languished under-used and largely unloved—expensive capital resources, the poor use of which a community right-to-buy bid, provided for in the Bill, could have addressed.

I recall residents feeling almost a sense of grief when their historic primary school building was demolished in order to be replaced by a modern box. A local referendum, the power for which is provided in the Bill, could well have allowed those residents to have their voice heard. As it was, a local petition against the demolition, signed by thousands of residents, was all too easily dismissed, and, as if to add insult to injury, as a local councillor I was unable to vote on the issue because I had previously spoken to some of the residents about how to make their voice heard. The revision in the Bill of the rule on predetermination is much needed.

I am fortunate now to represent a constituency with a high degree of community participation. The Congleton Partnership, for example, is an impressive, well-organised and visionary group, working to ensure the sustainability and success of Congleton as a vibrant market town. Provisions in the Bill will, I hope, pave the way for the Congleton Partnership to make an even greater impact.

Provisions enabling groups such as Crossroads Care Cheshire East, of which I am a patron, to express an interest in running such services, as part of the adult social care service in which it has developed real expertise, could contribute considerably to resolving one of the local authority’s key challenges and, at the same time, enable Crossroads Care to fulfil its aspiration to grow its services substantially.

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

I am sure the hon. Lady is right that many excellent local community groups would like to fulfil a greater role in supporting their local communities, but does she not accept that, where those groups do not exist or cannot take on such additional responsibilities, the Bill’s problem is that it creates a real gap in provision in some communities?

[Fiona Bruce]

I have confidence in my local authority’s ability to make discerning decisions about the services required and, wherever possible, to take advantage of the excellent professional expertise that many local organisations and community groups now offer.

[David Rutley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I know that she is very involved with the Crossroads Care charity and does an incredible amount of work in Congleton. In Macclesfield, the Bollington leisure centre is owned and run by the community, the Gawsworth village shop is owned by the community and the successful treacle market is run by the community. Is not that the way forward, rather than looking to state-based solutions every time, as the Opposition suggest?

[Fiona Bruce]

I so agree. The Bill provides mechanisms for greater partnership working and that, in turn, will help to release greater community energy.

The Bill sends out a signal to residents, community groups and local businesses that their views and contributions really matter—indeed, that they are invaluable if we are to enjoy the kind of local communities in which so many people whom we represent want to live. There is no other way for society to flourish, and everyone’s contribution matters. No insignificant person has ever been born. It is a signal that local residents need and, I believe, deserve to hear today.

I am particularly encouraged to see in the Bill the community right to challenge. The very fact of its inclusion will promote improved dialogue between residents’ groups and the local authorities that represent them. They includes groups such as Alsager Sports Partnership, representing a swathe of local residents most keen to have their voice heard about the use of the former Manchester Metropolitan university campus in my constituency as a community sports facility. The power to instigate a local referendum might also enable such a group to highlight the high level of public support for that proposal.

Small shops are essential to thriving communities. People want and value a busy high street and local employment, with the colour and character that they bring, together with the individual service and valued customer relationships that they provide. The measure enabling a local authority to demonstrate its local community’s support for such enterprises by providing a business-rate free period or discount is most welcome, especially at a time of such economic challenge for many local businesses.

As I said at the outset, this Bill is most importantly a catalyst. The proposals within it for greater public participation in local democracy, the expenditure of funds to be more representative of local priorities, and the release of the immense and often untapped contributions that voluntary, faith and community groups make in even greater measure than they already do, will happen only if we make them happen—if we, as elected representatives at national level, together with our colleague councillors and officers at local level, have a determination to communicate the provisions in the Bill and the opportunities that it offers clearly, effectively and convincingly to residents, businesses and community groups. We must work practically with them to make localism happen and to ensure that the signal in the Bill saying “You matter” is sent out to local residents, so that an opportunity to make a positive difference in our local communities is offered to all. Then people will see that under these proposals, real localism is there for the taking. In voting for the Bill, let us commit ourselves—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Time is up, I am afraid.

19:50

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

When the Secretary of State introduced the Second Reading of this illuminatingly entitled Bill, I was reminded of Humpty Dumpty’s phrase in “Through the Looking-Glass”:

“When I use a word…it means just what I choose it to mean —neither more nor less.”

For the avoidance of doubt, I do not wish in any way to associate the Secretary of State with Humpty Dumpty, nor to suggest that the word “localism” is capable of as many meanings as one wishes to put on it. However, the Bill’s title—incidentally, this is the first time that I have come across a Bill named after a tendency—suggests to me that it is intended, to some extent, to persuade people that opposition to it is fruitless, because if one is not in favour of localism, one must be in favour of centralism, and that is a bad thing.

I am very much in favour of, and have long proposed, localism and decentralisation from central Government and to local government. However, it has to mean something. The Bill contains several things that are very much along the lines of the move towards localism and devolving power from central to local government, but for those on both sides of the House and Governments of both colours, current and previous, there has always been a tension between the extent to which power can properly be devolved from the centre and the wish of the centre to hold on to elements of reserved powers or financial control. This Bill departs not a whit from that dilemma, and that is not only because it includes 126 powers that the Secretary of State can use in order to remove its potential effects. Localism, at its heart, must have about it the idea of agency—that is, the agency of a local aim or project to achieve its end. In this context, that is akin to the consideration of whether one can dine at the Ritz or dine in the shop doorway next to it. If one does not have the agency to afford to dine at the Ritz, one dines in the shop doorway.

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

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is possible that those on both sides of the House are right and wrong, in that some communities will flourish and fly with new-found freedoms and rights, while others without resources, leadership capacity and social capital may be left untouched and probably further behind?

[Dr Whitehead]

I do agree with that difference. Also, however, if the agency is not there in order to make those changes, if there is not the necessary financial devolution, and if there is the current extent of cuts to local government services, then many of the aims and wishes for devolution of power to local government are meaningless. The Bill provides for no financial devolution away from the current system of considerable centralism as regards council tax raising, and the Secretary of State has the power to change any figures that the local authority comes up with in the way that it defines council tax.

Localism means ensuring that decisions are made at the right level. Under the Bill, there appear to be two types of decision on planning—the neighbourhood decision or the national decision, with nothing in between. The truth about localism is that decisions do not always have to be taken at the very lowest level, but they should be taken at the appropriate level. I, for one, want to live in a sustainable community. I want my waste to be dealt with efficiently and my transport to be run efficiently. All those things involve decisions planning and operation that are larger than local. Bearing in mind that the regional spatial plans and the national plans have been removed for everything but national infrastructure proposals, unless the Bill contains effective measures that enable effective co-operation to take place between local authorities, that gap will exist, and I am afraid that people will come to regret it in future years.

[Barry Gardiner]

Does my hon. Friend agree that in order to resolve that issue it is important that the Bill should have a presumption in favour of sustainable development within the national planning framework?

[Dr Whitehead]

Indeed, I completely agree. There should be such a presumption in the Bill and there should be considerable strengthening of the requirement to co-operate between local authorities, because the requirement in the Bill merely means that people have to talk to each other a bit.

If we are really localists in what we are doing, it is essential to get the different levels of planning right. It is not just about a neighbourhood decision or a national decision, but about getting the decision right in terms of what it means. If we come back to this House in a few years’ time having not built the houses and not given ourselves sufficient capacity to deal with this new era of waste and resource management, and if we have found that some of the decisions that we have taken at very local level mean that we have moved away from our climate change targets instead of making the necessary concerted effort to move towards them, we will seriously live to regret that gap in the Bill.

At the very least, we should ensure that this Bill is not enacted until a national planning framework is in place and the national planning statements have been discussed and sorted out by this House. The Bill must sit in a proper framework that means that local, regional and national planning work together for the benefit of the people who stand to gain most at local level.

19:58

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

The lovely English countryside of my home county of Northamptonshire was the scene of many battles during the English civil war. Over the past 13 years, it has felt embattled by the previous Government, with the regional spatial strategy determining, top down, the number of houses and where they should be. I have knocked on so many doors where people have told me the horrors of being stuck in their houses, with traffic gridlocked, unable to get out or to get their children to school. I even had a pregnant lady tell me that she would not be allocated a midwife because there was not enough infrastructure in place to provide the basic core services. All that is top down, with no possibility of local communities having a say in what goes on in their area. I applaud the Bill, and I am very glad that we have brought it to the Chamber at an early opportunity. I welcome the fact that Front Benchers have been to my constituency to try to explain to people how it will work and give them back some say over their own lives.

I will use my few minutes to focus on one aspect of the Bill: wind farms. They are dealt with in the Bill almost by default. I will focus on wind farms because they are causing great unhappiness in many communities across the country. I recognise that the Government are committed to solving the big problem of the energy gap that will open up in the last part of the next decade, thanks to the failure of the previous Government to deal with the need for new energy sources. I recognise that we will have to use renewable energy as a key part of providing for our energy needs in the late ’20s, but we must allow local communities a say over where the wind farms should be sited.

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

Is the hon. Lady aware that all wind farms of more than 50 MW will be exempt from the local consideration that she seems to think they will receive?

[Andrea Leadsom]

Yes, I was coming to precisely that point. In the Bill, onshore wind farms of less than 50 MW capacity will become part of neighbourhood plans. Communities will have a say over the siting of wind farms, and over whether they are willing to have a wind farm in some of the sensitive sites for which developers are putting in applications. I intend to table an amendment to propose that the capacity of onshore wind farms that fall within neighbourhood plans be increased to 100 MW, in line with offshore wind farms, to avoid the consequence that developers might make applications for ever larger wind farms in the hope of circumventing communities and neighbourhood plans.

I would be grateful to the Minister for confirmation that my understanding of the Bill is correct and for a better understanding of the appeal process. If a local community does not have a wind farm as part of its neighbourhood plan, will the Secretary of State be able to overturn the plan on appeal from a developer, or will communities really be empowered to determine whether they are willing to have a wind farm in their vicinity? I urge the Government to consider the ten-minute rule Bill that was introduced by my hon. Friend for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), which I supported, and the Bill introduced in the other place. They both proposed a minimum distance from communities. All those points will serve to provide far greater local say over the siting of wind farms.

In summary, I welcome the Localism Bill. It is a huge opportunity for communities finally to have a say over what happens. At the end of the day, people have only their lives, their communities and their families. If they are unable, as has been the case for the past 10 years, to determine what goes on on their doorstep, it is a very bad day for democracy. The Bill seeks to change and transform that in one major and important piece of legislation, and it must be welcomed by the whole Chamber.

20:03

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The Bill draws two important aspirations of the Government into conflict. The Government have said that they want to be the most decentralising Government ever, and that they want to be the greenest. Those two aspirations are difficult to reconcile. To meet the renewables obligation and keep the lights on in the United Kingdom, the Government will have to deliver £200 billion of investment in energy infrastructure in just nine years. To meet their obligations under the waste directive, they will have to deliver up to £20 billion of investment in plant and equipment for new waste and recycling infrastructure in the same period.

Of course, it is right that local people have a say in local planning issues. However, the flaw in the Bill is that it peddles a myth that thousands of decisions taken by atomised local communities up and down the country will somehow amount to a coherent vision for the national and regional infrastructure that we all require. There is a false parallel between the responsibilities of elected parish councillors and Government Ministers. Parish councillors and the people who may constitute neighbourhood forums have an obligation to secure the best outcomes for their local community. Their vision is rightly limited to the immediate boundaries of their neighbourhood; so should be also their powers. Clause 90 specifies a duty on local councils to co-operate on the planning of sustainable development. I welcome that, but there is no obligation on them to co-operate positively to bring about sustainable development infrastructure.

The Government must take a wider purview. To relinquish that responsibility is not to devolve decisions about strategic infrastructure to local neighbourhoods, but to ensure that no one takes those decisions. It is not devolution of power, but abrogation of responsibility. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) spoke eloquently of the inequalities that may result in housing and the provision of other services across the country as a result of the Bill.

[Dr Whitehead]

Does my hon. Friend accept that the cumulative impact of the proposals on sustainability must inevitably be considered outside particular areas? Does he propose that a mechanism be placed in the Bill to reconcile local decision making, the duty to co-operate and the cumulative impact of the developments on sustainability?

[Barry Gardiner]

That is exactly what I propose.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islington North made a powerful point about the inequalities that will accrue across the country, but my point is different. The failure of Government to take strategic decisions will not simply result in inequality, but will be to the detriment of us all. Regional strategies were abolished by the Secretary of State. A duty to co-operate is no substitute.

The national planning framework must provide a clear direction to councils to enable a network of energy and waste management sites and facilities. Such a direction should not be left to secondary legislation. The Government should introduce in the Bill a presumption in favour of sustainable development that accords with the national planning framework. The Bill will create uncertainty in the business plans of those who want to invest in our country’s infrastructure. That will be as devastating a block on development as the increased voice for those whom outsiders sometimes call nimbys.

The Bill suggests that a neighbourhood forum could be constituted by as few as three individuals, and that such individuals need not live in the area. Does the Secretary of State not think that giving membership to those who merely want to live in the area is, even by his standards, a rather slack criterion?

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s focus on and work for sustainable development, but does he not accept that local people are capable of making decisions about their own interest in and desire for sustainable development, consistent with the can-do approach of the Bill?

[Barry Gardiner]

Of course it is perfectly possible for individuals and local communities to consider sustainable development needs, but it is not possible, and indeed not right, that within our democratic structure those decisions should be devolved to such a level. We need strategic planning on a national basis, and that cannot be provided by parish councillors.

[Neil Carmichael]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Barry Gardiner]

I will not give way further, because time is short and other Members wish to contribute.

The delays of up to 12 months in even holding a referendum on planning issues will introduce a new blight of delay into the process. Such delays can be fatal to major development plans, yet a referendum could be triggered by just 5% of the local population. I pray that the dangers that I believe are inherent in the Bill will not come back to haunt the Government.

In six or seven years, as the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) said, 30% of our energy provision will come off stream, which is a large gap to fill. The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), said earlier in Communities and Local Government questions that the Bill would be about enabling people to resist development in their area through the neighbourhood plan. How sad, how tragic, that that is the Government’s stated intention. I pray that they will not live to regret this Bill in government, because I pray that in six or seven years they will no longer be in office.

20:09

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

One of the messages that I hear on the doorstep is that for my constituents one of the biggest failures of the previous Administration was the culture of central Government control that they perpetuated. It was a restrictive and domineering culture that affected the local community detrimentally, with decisions being made in Westminster and Whitehall that bore no resemblance to local feeling and showed no understanding of it.

When the new Government pledged a fundamental shift of power from Westminster to local people in the coalition’s programme for government, it was therefore very welcome indeed. The Government have since promoted decentralisation and democratic engagement, and the Bill will end the era of top-down government by giving new powers to local councils, communities, neighbourhoods and individuals.

My firm belief is that the Bill will be a landmark piece of legislation. It will remove the inflated power of central Government in local decisions and the top-down control of communities, and it will liberate local people by restoring their freedom to run their own lives and neighbourhoods in the way that they and the local community see fit.

The Bill will give control back to local people and communities. It will give our constituents the opportunity to hold their local authorities to account, and they will have the power to take over services through a new right to challenge. As a result, local people and communities will have a real say in their areas, a new right to bid to buy local assets and a new right to veto excessive council tax rises through a referendum.

My local council, South Gloucestershire council, is offering the community the right to buy even before it has been implemented. It is giving the Save Conygre house campaign group, which is behind efforts to save the historic Conygre house, in Filton where I live, the time and space to build a business case for taking on the facility and making it a focal point for the Filton community. With this Bill, councils throughout the country will be encouraged to follow suit, which I know local communities will welcome with open arms. All the new measures can only be of benefit to our communities, and they will lead to a new era of public engagement in local government. The new rights will plant the seed of local commitment and responsibility for our local areas.

For councils, the Bill will fundamentally change the restrictions on their freedom and autonomy. It will devolve significant new powers to them, including new freedoms and flexibilities, and enable them to act in the interests of their local communities through a new general power of competence. Rather than needing to rely on specific powers, they will have the legal reassurance and confidence to innovate, drive down costs and deliver more efficient services.

It is clear that many councils have been calling for legislation such as this for many years. Back in 2009, South Gloucestershire council’s Conservative cabinet used the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 to call on the previous Government to scrap the regional spatial strategy, with its target of 32,800 houses for the district, and to call for small business rate relief to be paid automatically. The previous Government sat on the proposals, but the coalition Government have now confirmed to the council that both demands will be implemented through the current Bill.

I have long advocated the idea that large cities would benefit from elected mayors. I fully support the Government’s pledge to introduce elected mayors for the 12 largest cities outside London, subject of course to local referendums and full scrutiny by elected councillors. I believe that elected mayors would boost democratic engagement, as has been demonstrated in the London mayoral elections. An elected mayor for a city such as Bristol would benefit local people, because that person would enhance the city’s prestige and civic pride. The city would also benefit from the strong leadership that the position would enable its holder to enact, and from a clear demonstration that somebody was publicly in charge and taking responsibility. There would also be better clarity and accountability in decision making.

The reforms in the Bill will let councils and communities run their own affairs, which will serve to restore civic pride, democratic accountability and economic growth and build a stronger, fairer Britain. The Bill will mark the end of the era of big government and lay the foundations for the big society.

[Oliver Colvile]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. When I intervened earlier, I should have declared an interest as per the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I wish to apologise profusely.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Thank you very much. You have corrected the record, and I sure that the House is grateful. That was not strictly a point of order, but I understand your need to get it on the record and thank you for doing so.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. A lot of Members wish to speak. The time limit is at five minutes, but it would really help colleagues if Members could manage to speak a little more briefly than that.

20:16

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

Members may be familiar with the old adage, “If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.” The hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) talked about wind farms, and if all today’s windy rhetoric were capable of carrying the Bill to successful fruition, it would do so.

I remind Members that localism is not just a waffly concept. It needs to be seen in practical terms. We talk about bottom-up government, but what does that mean and how does bottom-up activity happen? We talk about co-operation and collaboration, and I point out to the House, and particularly to Ministers, that a whole swathe of activity that is absolutely essential to the prosperity, growth and collaboration of local communities has been completely ignored in the Bill: that is economic growth and the co-operation and participation of business in the process.

I come from what I call a second-tier town, Blackpool, in a coastal area. Regional development agencies have not had a good press, certainly not from Ministers, but without them towns such as my own would not have got on to the first step in regeneration. Money was put into transport and the tower headland, and the local council imaginatively took over local assets such as the Winter Gardens.

We need proper mechanisms to replace the ability of the RDAs to work for economic growth and progress across parochial council boundaries. Sadly, the Government have so far been singularly inept in that regard. The local enterprise partnerships—the sickly infant that they have brought forward as part of the process of getting rid of the RDAs—have not even merited a mention in the Bill, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) emphasised. Members talk about generating growth and are rightly concerned about how small businesses can contribute, but their communities will suffer unless the voice of business is listened to and the matter is taken seriously and covered in the Bill.

I want to remind the House of what some organisations have said about the need for a greater emphasis in the Bill on powers to involve businesses in local projects. Part 5 of the Bill deals with planning and the duty to co-operate. The Federation of Small Businesses believes that LEPs could be an appropriate level for such involvement, but has concerns about their capacity to take on the roles currently proposed for them because of a lack of capacity and funding. The FSB states:

“We are disappointed that in the Bill there is no mention of LEPs”

It says that LEPs “have significant potential” but that that

“would be enhanced if the partnerships were given basic start up funding alongside statutory recognition of their basic roles in specific areas.”

The British Retail Consortium says exactly the same sort of thing. It states that it is “vital” that regional development agencies

“are replaced with LEPs that are fully fit for purpose, with a strong business voice”.

On clause 90—the duty to co-operate—the British Chambers of Commerce says:

“The clause needs to be amended to include a stronger form of enforcement. It is within the scope of the Bill to amend this clause to grant Local Enterprise Partnerships a”

proper

“scrutiny role over the duty”.

The message to the Government is therefore loud and clear. They need to do something to make localism, and the dynamism that they want to release from it, a business fact on the ground. That should unite Members who represent rural, suburban and other areas. We have given the Government a lot of trouble and had some fun with them by describing the proposed process as Maoist and chaotic, but I remind the Minister and his colleagues of the words of Thomas Hobbes, who said that

“covenants, without the sword, are but words”.

If we do not have the sword—in the form of proper consultation with, and involvement of, LEPs—we will all be the poorer.

20:21

[Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)]

Hon. Members on the Government side of the House campaigned vigorously for more localism in the years leading up to the general election. We campaigned for returning genuine power to our local communities, and for allowing local people to have a real say over how their communities look and feel. Promoting localism is in the DNA of this coalition Government and a key hallmark of the Bill is reversing Labour’s 13 years of centralisation. This is a wide-ranging and ambitious Bill and I welcome it, but given the constraints on time this evening, I shall focus my remarks on the Bill’s proposals to reform the planning system.

During the general election, my Labour opponent spoke in favour of top-down housing targets imposed by unelected quangos and rubber-stamped by Whitehall bureaucrats.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

He lost!

[Alok Sharma]

Indeed he did.

Labour’s clear message appeared to be that we cannot possibly trust local people to make decisions on planning at a local level.

[Nicky Morgan]

Does my hon. Friend agree that that top-down approach has not worked? There are fewer houses being built now than in 1997.

[Alok Sharma]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Under the previous Conservative Government between 1979 and 1996, an average of 171,000 homes were built every year across England. By contrast, under Labour, with its top-down approach and targets, an average of only 145,000 homes were built each year between 1997 and 2009.

The problem with the current planning system is that it is not seen to be fair to local communities. It seeks to drown out their voices rather than to amplify them. Despite the clear wishes of local communities and local councils, the local view is that developers eventually ram through inappropriate developments on appeal.

[Stephen Gilbert]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one thing missing from the Bill is the third party right of appeal, which would be another tool in the armoury of local residents?

[Alok Sharma]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, and I am sure that the Minister will take it up when he responds to the debate.

The perception is that there is little upside for local communities in taking larger developments in their area. All such developments seem to offer is more traffic, more congestion, more pressure on local public services, the loss of valuable green spaces and amenities, and a detrimental impact on the local environment. Overall, the current planning system seems to lead, in many larger development proposals, to a gladiatorial contest, pitting local residents against the might and resources of developers.

[Neil Carmichael]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Alok Sharma]

No, I will not.

Some of those who are opposed to localism will argue that the Bill will encourage nimbyism, but I could not disagree more with them. Let me give hon. Members a couple of recent examples from my constituency that demonstrate that communities are willing to accept new homes that fit into the local area.

The Bath road reservoir site is a 5.4 acre green lung in the centre of Reading. It is owned by Thames Water, which first tried to get planning permission to build on it 13 years ago. Three years ago, it resurrected its plans to develop the site and proposed a scale of development that was completely unacceptable to the local community and out of character with the local area. With the fantastic local campaigners of the Save the Bath Road Reservoir campaign group, I met the then chief executive of Thames Water. As part of our discussion, we suggested that it may want to consider a smaller and more appropriate development, but the local community’s voice fell on deaf ears.

Thames Water submitted a planning application that did not have the support of the local community. The application was subsequently rejected by Reading borough council, but Thames Water appealed against the decision. We found out last week that—thankfully—the appeal has been rejected. What was the result of the 13 years of time, effort and money spent by all parties involved? Zero new homes were built on the site. A more collaborative approach might well have delivered some housing.

The Underwood road precinct site in Calcot in my constituency is another example. The site has lain derelict for many years. Local residents want it developed but it is the same story all over again. The developer refused to listen to the views of the local community and proposed a development on a scale completely out of keeping with the local area.

A hugely motivated local residents campaign group formed to oppose the inappropriate plans, and ultimately the planning application was rejected a few weeks ago by West Berkshire council. What was the sum total of all the work undertaken by the various parties? Zero new homes were built, and yet residents have been crying out for some appropriate development on that site.

Local communities recognise the need for more housing, but they want new houses to be built in a manner that is sustainable, that provides the infrastructure to support local residents and, above all, that gives them a real say in how their communities look and feel. I believe that the Bill goes a long way towards achieving those aims.

I welcome the abolition of regional strategies and the opportunity for local residents and communities to influence how their local area looks. I welcome neighbourhood planning, which will allow neighbourhood groups to turn a vision for their area into a framework with which developers and residents alike can feel comfortable.

I welcome the community infrastructure levy alongside the new homes bonus, which will allow residents who are directly affected by development to realise real improvements in their area to compensate for any effects of living alongside extra housing or other developments. I also welcome meaningful pre-application consultation, which will encourage a constructive dialogue between local communities and developers.

In conclusion, we need to trust local communities and let them take a lead in creating local neighbourhoods of which they can be proud. The Localism Bill provides the mechanism for just that, and I commend it to the House.

20:27

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

Of course, I welcome the intention of the Bill—we are all in favour of more local autonomy—but I have struggled to make sense of it. The Bill is a hotch-potch of ideas and prejudices that in many cases pander to passing fashions.

I have one underlying and unifying concern. There seem to be insufficient guarantees within the Bill for the poorest and the weakest and those without a voice. They are not sufficiently protected, and I very much fear that unpopular causes and disadvantaged communities will be left behind.

I want to highlight two issues that cause me particular concern. The first relates to social housing, which the Government seem to see as a residual housing solution only, and not the bedrock of strong families and communities that it could be. Removing regional spatial strategies, limiting the length of social tenancies perhaps to two years only and requiring homeless people to take up accommodation in the private rented sector—accommodation that might be unstable or unsuitable for their family’s needs, and accommodation from which they might be forced to move repeatedly—will be bad for communities, children and families, and many people will simply fail to put down roots. It makes more likely poorer outcomes for those families and communities, and I am at a loss to understand why a Government who have said they care about neighbourliness and community strength would want to go down this route.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Does it not strike my hon. Friend as odd that a Government who have said that above all else they want to encourage people back into employment are providing that someone who gets one of these desirable housing association properties and finds employment might lose their house? Will that not be a disincentive to finding employment?

[Kate Green]

My hon. Friend makes my next point: there is a complete lack of logic in people who better their circumstances by moving into employment running the risk of being moved out of their home. I cannot understand why Ministers feel that that supports their objectives and ambitions for increasing employment, and I hope that in responding to the debate the Minister will pick up on that point. I am also at a loss to understand what possible incentive there will be for people who think they might be in social tenancies for only a very short period either to maintain the quality of that housing—to care for it, keep it clean, well decorated and well maintained—or to participate in community activities, as the Government desire.

I also have questions about the proposals for the planning system. I want to question Ministers about the strength of their commitment and seriousness. I must warn them that local people are interpreting for themselves the references to considerable levels of influence and autonomy in making local decisions, and I want to know whether Ministers can guarantee—and intend—that level of influence and autonomy. I have an example of a live issue in my constituency: an active local campaign group, the Breathe Clean Air Group, has been campaigning against the location of a wood incinerator, against which hundreds of residents marched to object only last weekend. Local campaigners are already pointing to the Localism Bill as a means to give them the ability to stand up to what they see as a large commercial interest. Will Ministers give us clarity and assurances about what exactly they mean when they say that local people will have a voice?

I consider the Bill to be poorly thought through and irresponsible, often reflecting only knee-jerk populism and being in danger of raising false hopes. I am particularly concerned for people in Stretford and Urmston, who have lost out repeatedly in trying to ensure that under Tory-led Trafford council the poorest wards in my constituency are properly protected. I am very concerned that the Bill serves merely to legitimise such an approach.

20:33

[Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

Power is when the buck stops with the individual. If we are to give our councillors a real say over planning applications, it is councillors who must take the final decision, not a planning inspectorate. At the moment, all too often, our planning authorities are seen as a hurdle that developers must jump over before the Government make the final decision on appeal. This must change for all except projects of wider significance, such as motorways and railways, if local councillors, as those who are accountable to the people, are to have real power in their local area.

We need to stop micro-managing councils through inspectorates on local issues such as supermarkets and housing developments. We must also give power to councillors to delegate planning decisions where appropriate. At the moment, such decisions are delegated mainly to officials. In Cornwall, officers make more than 90% of decisions. One key way of bringing back more accountability to many smaller planning applications is to make use of our tier 1 parish and town councils. They are as capable of making decisions as any other democratically elected councillors, although one would not believe it listening to Labour Members say that these poor people are not able to make decisions.

[Oliver Colvile]

Does my hon. Friend recognise that urban conurbations do not have the same opportunities to engage as parish and town councils? The Local Government Act 1972 allows for referendums in villages, but they would not necessarily be held in urban conurbations and cities such as Plymouth. Would it not be useful to include that in the Bill?

[Sheryll Murray]

I take on board what my hon. Friend says, as, I am sure, will our right hon. Friend the Minister.

We have 213 parish councils in Cornwall that could be of great help to the planning process, both in statutory consultation on bigger applications and by taking decisions on smaller ones. Although planning documents, such as the structural plan, are important, local councillors should have the final say, case by case—for example, on unexpected proposals that will bring about genuine good for the area, such as an area of outstanding natural beauty bring suitable for a particular tourism development. Councils would be in a much stronger position in the all-important initial negotiations with developers, ensuring the best deal possible for residents.

I welcome the proposal to give local people a real say on important issues through referendums. There are many controversial issues in Cornwall, such as parking costs, that might warrant giving local people a say. I am pleased that my local councillors have listened and realise that a one-size-fits-all solution will not work, because there is a big difference between the small, struggling town centre that is desperate to attract more people and the large city car park with access to department stores. We also have many villages that were built before the car was even invented, where residents rely on communal parking facilities because of the narrow roads and lack of on-street parking. Moreover, there are tourist towns where demand varies throughout the year. It is clear that more decisions need to be made at a local community level, and referendums can play their part in making the more difficult decisions where people need to be consulted.

I campaigned on the issue of weekly bin collections and am delighted with the Government’s rhetoric. The last few weeks of bad weather have shown how essential this is. Local referendums would quickly show those who doubt the importance of this essential service.

[Alison Seabeck]

The hon. Lady is quite rightly talking about the importance of referendums to local communities, but if, as her colleagues on the Front Bench say, there should be a freeze on council tax, who will fund those referendums?

[Sheryll Murray]

I am sure that my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench can ensure that, if a little thought is given to the question, referendums take place at very little cost.

I strongly believe that we should have a referendum before any move to make weekly bin collections fortnightly. I hope that local councillors from all parties—although the Opposition seem reluctant to do this—will welcome referendums and give people their say when appropriate.

With greater power being given to councils, we must also ensure that they are in a position to act more appropriately. We have all heard about ridiculous rulings from over-zealous health and safety officers. We must give them, and the many other officers, the opportunity of better training, qualification and registration to ensure that common sense reigns.

Overall, I welcome the Bill and I look forward to giving powers from this place to our local councils and to the councillors who have been democratically elected to take them. That is why I will support the Bill tonight.

20:40

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Beware of Greeks bearing gifts—or perhaps it should be gifts of jars of pickles; I am not quite sure.

In Scotland, we have more than three years’ experience of what the end of ring-fencing means. Its end was welcomed by a lot of councils of various political persuasions, although I am glad that the Labour group on my own council did not fall into the trap of thinking that it would get more power as a result. That did not happen. At a time when a council tax freeze was being imposed on Scottish councils, taking away ring-fencing did not increase the freedom of local councils to make decisions; rather, it reduced it. More importantly, it prevented some important policy initiatives from being pursued. An example is the Supporting People programme, which was funded to provide preventive services to help people to stay in their own homes for longer and to prevent new tenants from being evicted because they did not have enough support to learn how to budget and manage their tenancies.

Ending ring-fencing in a financial climate in which a Government’s priority often has to be the statutory and crisis services has resulted in the slow-burn, long-term preventive work suffering. I predict that the same will happen up and down the country, especially as the past three years have been relatively benign in Scotland, compared with what is about to hit local authorities in England and, because of the Barnett consequentials, in Scotland.

We have also heard about the community right to buy, and, yes, we already have that in Scotland, as the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) pointed out. Without funds to buy, however, it becomes an empty gesture. A community group in my constituency is setting up a community development trust, and it is very keen to go ahead. It knows which buildings and facilities it would like to take over, but at the moment it has absolutely no hope of any funding to enable it even to get started. When I was down here last summer, I took the opportunity to visit Shoreditch community development trust, which I had heard a lot about. It has done some fantastic work, well in advance of the big society, but the crucial factor in getting it started was the £3.8 million of Government funding that enabled it to take the first steps towards acquiring facilities that it could use to lever in more investment and facilities. Without funding, these proposals could become an empty gesture.

On the housing provisions in the Bill, I have no objection to alternatives to traditional social housing if they constitute a genuine addition. If not, they will make the situation worse, not better. However, partly as a result of the Bill and partly through what has already been announced, the burden of paying for new housing is now going to fall on tenants, who will have to pay higher rents. They will also find it harder to get work, or might find that there is a disincentive to get work. There is a role for mid-market housing. We have some in my area, and there is a group of people who need and want it, but it is not a substitute for subsidised, low-cost housing.

Nor is it right that people who move into the new housing now being built should be expected to move on after only a short time. To those who say that that will apply only to new tenants and that it will not affect others, I say that this is just the start. Various Conservative think-tanks have made this proposal over the past few years, but when I told people in the housing movement about it before the election they just laughed and said it would never happen. People should not believe that this will stop at new tenants; before we know where we are, security of tenure will be gone.

20:45

[George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)]

First, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), the Chairman of the Select Committee, who made many reasonable points in his admirably non-partisan contribution. I shall leave it to Front Benchers—it is probably politic to do so—to work out which ones were reasonable, and move swiftly on.

The Bill provides us with the opportunity to change things locally. It could re-engage civic society in a way that we have not seen for an awfully long time. For too long, local politicians—those closest to local people—have been regarded as empty vessels, simply resonating to the words of Whitehall. I really think that the Bill presents an opportunity to change that, which I greatly welcome.

We are short of time, so I shall run through a number of the Bill’s measures very quickly. Getting rid of the Standards Board for England has to be the right thing to do. It was a cipher for partisan activity in local politics and its passing will not be mourned by anybody. On predetermination, the most ludicrous situation existed, whereby people could be elected to champion a local cause yet not be able to take part in the decision. What an unbelievably crazy situation that was! I greatly welcome the board’s passing.

Under new rules in the Bill, illegal occupation means that planning permission cannot be applied for. Again, that it is much to be welcomed. My local councillor points out that it is unlikely to lead to people being moved on any faster, but it will at least protect the land from being developed in the future. I think that that is also to be hugely welcomed.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[George Hollingbery]

I do not think I shall, as I have been asked to be extremely rapid.

Tenure reform was essential, and I believe that a change to a potential 80% of market rent in social housing is also very sensible for the simple reason that it is about recycling assets. It is about building more social housing; getting more income from people means more social housing being built in the future. That must be welcomed.

[Sheila Gilmore]

rose—

[George Hollingbery]

No, I am not taking any interventions.

Finally, let me end with a few remarks on neighbourhood planning. I very much welcome the clauses on neighbourhood planning, which could seriously re-engage local people in deciding how their area looks and feels. I have some specific issues with the drafting. What is a neighbourhood forum? Who is in it? Who do they represent? Is it based on geography, is it a political group or is it a religious group? The Bill does not speak to that. At the moment, it requires only a constitution, three people and the interests of local people at heart. It does not refer to all local people, just local people. I think that those terms need to be pulled together and local councils need a better rubric against which to judge applications so that they can be rejected securely. The same applies to local areas. At the moment, a local area could be as small as a single street, which is not terribly helpful. I believe that that provision could be tightened.

Finally, a referendum to approve a neighbourhood plan or a neighbourhood development order will have no turnout restrictions. Where a small street has only 150 qualifying members, only 20 or 30 people might need to turn out to approve a neighbourhood development order. We need to make absolutely sure that the Bill provides for consultation to be as wide and as in-depth as possible, which will not happen unless the orders are modified.

Given the time available and in the interest of other Members speaking, I shall finish there.

20:45

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

It seems almost an exaggeration to call the Localism Bill a Bill. It is really 400 pages of the Secretary of State’s incoherent streams of consciousness, largely unconnected and all focused on different parts of local government legislation. In so much as it is a Bill, it is a sham.

In the context of the massive cuts to local authority funding, it is disgraceful to suggest that local authorities now have more powers. Authorities know that the only power they have been given is the choice of what to cut. Whether they slash the voluntary sector or refuse collection, planning services or housing, the only authority that they will have is, as I say, the choice of what to cut. The poorest will be hit hardest by cuts to local authority spending—both because they use the services most and because the poorest councils have been the hardest hit.

[Neil Carmichael]

I should be fascinated to learn why Labour Members simply do not trust local people. In France and Holland there is strategic planning at one level, but at local level people have a huge amount of capacity and ability to shape their environment. I know France well, and I know Holland well. I have seen how the system works in those countries, and I do not understand why you do not believe that it can work here as well.

[Toby Perkins]

I do not know why you were the recipient of that attack, Madam Deputy Speaker, but, assuming that the hon. Gentleman was talking about the Labour Government, I think that he should have listened to what I was saying. What I was saying was that local authorities will not have the capacity to influence their areas when faced with spending cuts as great as those with which they have been hit at this point. That is the fundamental difference.

As we have heard today from speaker after speaker, the removal of the housing targets will mean the building of less housing. In the context of a massive housing crisis and a growing population—

[Sheila Gilmore]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is ridiculous to suggest that transferring the cost of new housing from the state to the tenant will give councils and housing associations more money with which to build houses?

[Toby Perkins]

Absolutely, but that is by no means the most ridiculous suggestion that we have heard today. According to the hon. Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery), there is to be an affordable housing boom. He believes that tons more houses will be built, although successive Conservative speakers have rejoiced in the fact that local authorities will now be able to tell developers to clear off and prevent the increase in housing provision that we so clearly need.

In the face of a savage housing crisis, when local authorities are being hit by the toughest funding settlement in living memory, we are expecting the enactment of legislation which—as the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) made clear—ensures that, ultimately, those in the greatest need will bear the greatest burden of paying off the debt. What the hon. Gentleman said at Question Time at the beginning of the current Parliament is coming true, and the Bill is just one example of the way it will do so. We are seeing the Government abdicating all responsibility for housing targets. We are seeing—

[Brandon Lewis]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Toby Perkins]

I have already taken a couple of interventions, and I know that a number of other Members wish to contribute.

We are seeing a Government who are no longer making housing provision a priority. Largely owing to the toxic legacy of a previous Tory Government, the last Labour Government spent their early years clearing up the disgraceful state of our social housing. As a result, so much money was invested in the decent homes programme that the housing shortage was allowed to become worse and worse. Only during the last three or four years could major social housing developments take place.

[Brandon Lewis]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Toby Perkins]

Briefly.

[Brandon Lewis]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way so graciously, but, notwithstanding his comments about social housing, does he accept that, according to Shelter, seven of the top 10 providers in the country are Conservative-controlled councils?

[Toby Perkins]

I certainly accept a comment made by Campbell Robb, Shelter’s chief executive, who said:

“It is unbelievable that at a time when every two minutes someone faces the nightmare of losing their home, the government is proposing to reduce the rights of homeless people who approach their local authorities for help.”

What I also understand about the housing crisis is that the state of the rebuilding programme that was beginning to be implemented is being fundamentally eroded by the Bill. The Government’s policies are leading to confusion and chaos and, according to the National Housing Federation, to the loss of 160,000 desperately needed new homes.

[Mark Pawsey]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Toby Perkins]

I am afraid that I am going to carry on now.

During the final sitting of the Communities and Local Government Committee that I attended, we interviewed eight witnesses about the regional spatial strategies. The opinions of those witnesses were diverse; some were deeply hostile, while others thought the measures were a step in the right direction. However, those eight people of different opinions were united on one thing: the strategies for house building proposed by this Government will, in fact, lead to a reduction in the number of houses being built, and to the homeless crisis getting worse.

These proposed Government policies have therefore united opposition from both ends of the spectrum of interested parties. Shelter says that the housing crisis will get worse and Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire chamber of commerce has written to me today saying that, while it welcomes the Minister’s intent to simplify and speed up the planning system, it has significant concerns that the Bill as currently drafted will act as a barrier to development and economic growth. It is therefore a concern not only of those who are most concerned about the housing crisis, but of those who are interested in development and commerce, that under the nimbyish aspects of the Bill we will see a reduction in house building, even though the building of more houses is required to end the housing crisis.

This Bill is a shambolic cover-up. It will mainly devolve to local government responsibilities on what to cut and who to target. It is a missed opportunity that will do nothing to boost the morale of the beleaguered local government sector, and it will inevitably make the housing crisis worse.

20:56

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the Bill, and I should declare an interest: I am an elected parish councillor in Shenley Brook End and Tattenhoe parish council. I want to use that experience, and that of Milton Keynes more widely, to illustrate why the Bill’s measures are welcome, necessary and, in many aspects, long overdue.

Milton Keynes is now pretty much at its planned size when it was designated a new town in 1967: it has now reached its proposed population of almost 250,000, and the initially outlined geographic boundaries. The debate in recent years has therefore been about how, when and where future development should take place. The policy of the previous Government could be defined as national selection and regional implementation, and under that, Milton Keynes was designated one of the areas of south-east growth. Tens of thousands of new houses were designated, not primarily because of Milton Keynes’ needs, but because it was a comparatively easy place to build new homes. As a result, without proper thought or adequate infrastructure provision, large additional housing estates were bolted on around the outside of Milton Keynes, a place that was carefully designed and constructed. That led to many of the unique design aspects that have made Milton Keynes such a success being diminished, the primary example of which is the grid road system.

The Bill, however, will allow us to determine our own housing needs locally, and devise solutions locally. For the first time, Milton Keynes will have truly liberating powers to shape its own future. Having always had its growth determined by one Government quango or another, for the first time it will be local people who decide our destiny. If I may use an analogy from nature: for the first time the cub will be away from its mother and making its own decisions. That will be powerful and liberating, and I hope it will rekindle a genuine local democracy, not just the party opinion poll contest that seemed to happen too often. I hope that there will be a robust debate about the future of Milton Keynes in terms of both the total strategic scope of future expansion and the detailed planning.

I particularly welcome the Bill’s provisions for genuine community engagement in the shaping and the nature of new housing areas—the density of housing, how many parking places are needed, the green spaces, what shops and services are required. That all comes with this Bill. As I have mentioned, I serve as a parish councillor in one of the fast-growing parts of Milton Keynes.

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend’s comments about parish councils. In respect of some of the urban areas, is he as pleased as I am that the neighbourhood forums that are to be introduced will give them a voice too?

[Iain Stewart]

I am delighted to endorse that point, because I was going to mention the urban areas, as well as town councils. The Bill will benefit not only the new growing areas in Milton Keynes, but the existing historical areas. Milton Keynes was built around many historical towns and villages, and so its older parts will also benefit. That gives me the perfect opportunity to cite the example of local libraries. The right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, seemed to allege that the Bill would do nothing for libraries and other local services that may be under threat, but that is not the case. In two parts of my constituency, Stony Stratford and Woburn Sands, the libraries are under threat and the town councils are putting forward exciting plans to take over the ownership and running of those vital local services. That is the kind of imaginative locally based solution that we need to protect the fabric and integrity of our local areas. I wished to discuss other parts of the Bill in detail, but time will preclude my doing so. Therefore, in the interests of letting other colleagues speak, I shall conclude my remarks at this point.

21:00

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

As others have, I shall declare my interest, which is in the book: I have reached the dizzy heights of honorary vice-president of the Local Government Association, after 21 years in local government. For the benefit of the Labour party, I should say that 17 of those years were spent in Britain’s poorest borough and two were spent in control in a coalition with Labour—perhaps I should keep quiet about that.

I shall deal, first, with the key issue, about which we have heard lots of complaints. I was a councillor from 2000, so I saw how the previous Government interfered and controlled. That point has been demonstrated tremendously by other council leaders and councillors. I was going to make the fair point that this approach began even before then; it seems that Governments have done this for ever. As an old Labour councillor who first taught me said, “Eric, your party will need you when it is in opposition but watch out when it is in government because it tends to forget about local government.” That has been a prescription in this country historically and there has been increasing centralisation.

That reached its apotheosis under the previous Government, who realised in their dying years that something was askew. When they carried out a survey in 2000, 60% of people said that they were satisfied with their local council, but after 11 years of Labour’s strictures the corresponding figure in 2008 was 45%. To see what has been happening, those of us who care about local government have only to examine the number of people who vote, which has been decreasing and decreasing. Voters are not stupid. They have seen that the people they elect as local councillors have less and less power to do anything, so they wonder about the point of voting. I totally support getting rid of this predetermination business and the standards boards, and giving this general competence to councils. That might restore the connection between the electorate and the candidate who is campaigning on something, and that candidate’s ability to get elected as a councillor and deliver some of what he promised. We might, thus, restore the trust that we used to have in local government.

Perhaps that would help all the political parties here to encourage a few more people to come forward wanting to be councillors. Instead of being hide-bound by standards boards, legal officers and central and regional quangos, they would be able to get on and do something for their local area. In the historic town of Lancaster, which is part of my constituency, the Victorian local councillors put an enormous amount of money and energy into their own town. People could not even dream of doing that now, but that potential exists and is provided for in the Bill.

I am aware of the time available to me, but I wish to stress, as others have done, the importance of parishes, and not only rural ones. There are 17 such parishes in my constituency, as well as three town councils and one urban parish. They are desperate to have a say over the neighbourhood plans, to vote on what is in them and then to enjoy the benefits of them. Labour’s amendment seeks simply to delay, as most of Labour’s amendments have done lately. I have no idea whether or not the aim is to fill in blank pages, but my local councillors and parishes want no more delay on the power over retrospective planning.

The fact that Travellers can arrive at a site near Preesall on a bank holiday Monday with hard core all ready and mobile toilets and then apply for retrospective planning permissions suggests to me that they knew full well that that they could not get through the normal planning application procedure, which everybody else would have to follow. That poor area has now waited nine months for the planning appeal and the situation persists. That is why there is no time like the present to pass the Bill.

[Mark Pawsey]

Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a case of a business approach to the occupation of land and that that is why the enforcement proposals in the Bill are so welcome?

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

As is the power for local councillors and ratepayers to see the decisions that they want carried out.

The last bit of the Labour amendment is not amusing—it is not amusing for local people—

[Alison Seabeck]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

Will the hon. Lady let me finish, so that we can get on with things? The amendment says that if the Bill is passed, it

“would cause the planning functions of local authorities to become incoherent and ineffective”.

We need only ask my electors whether, when they go to local planning committees, they find what is going on to be coherent. We need only ask any one of my parishes whether they find anything coherent or effective about the present planning position, which ignores every vote of that town or parish with impunity. My councils want this Bill passed, and they want it passed quickly, because it goes with the grain of their neighbourhoods and parishes.

21:06

[Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)]

This is an important debate on an important Bill, which will change the relationship between central Government, local government and residents.

In the short time available, I want to concentrate on part 5 of the Bill, which deals with planning. I welcome the proposals that will enable communities to put together neighbourhood development plans and orders. Since the debate started, I have received an e-mail from a resident of the village of Quorn in my constituency who says that an application has recently been made to redesignate land in the village to greenfield. That will mean that it cannot be used for allotments, which are desperately needed in the village. If neighbourhoods had the ability to put together a plan to designate how they would like local land to be used, that application could not have been made. I entirely agree with the comments that have just been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) —the Bill is needed and it is needed now.

We cannot possibly say that the current system is working in favour of residents and communities. Local councillors feel extremely frustrated. Too often, the only power that local communities have is to mount a vociferous no campaign. In his opening remarks, the Secretary of State talked about a confrontational and adversarial system and I am sure that we are all aware of that from our postbags and inboxes. I am sure that all hon. Members are aware of groups that have campaigned in their constituencies against proposed developments. In my constituency, I want to pay tribute to the Garendon Park countryside protection group, the Loughborough south-west action group and residents in Barrow, Hathern and Sileby.

If the planning system is not working, we must believe that there is an alternative. I agree with the comments made earlier—the difference between the Government and the Opposition is that we believe in the power of residents and communities to show common sense and to trust their judgment about what is best for their local areas. One example would be the Loughborough in bloom competition, which was led by the Loughborough Echo and supported by Charnwood council. It has transformed the way that Loughborough town centre looks and was entirely down to local groups and communities that joined the scheme year on year.

I can also cite the many neighbourhood plans and village design statements drafted by local residents. I firmly believe that residents will support development as long as their views on the nature of that development are listened to. That is the frustration with the system at the moment—views are not heard. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) talked about the views of communities falling on deaf ears and that is how residents feel now.

I also believe that residents can and will work with local businesses and retailers to ensure that there is sufficient employment land available and that there are sustainable town and village centres.

[Anne Marie Morris]

I note with interest my hon. Friend’s comments about the business community. Does she agree that we should see it as part of these neighbourhood forums?

[Nicky Morgan]

Absolutely, particularly in relation to my constituency, which includes a large town, a smaller town and various villages. The employers, businesses and the retail industry are critical to the area’s success and we must see that they are fully engaged with neighbourhood plans. I particularly welcome clause 102, which requires developers to consult local communities before submitting planning applications for certain developments.

Let me offer a few final thoughts so that colleagues will have time to make their points. First, there must be clarity around the decision-making process regarding the plan or order, and the process must be fair and transparent. It would be helpful to know at some point the grounds on which a local planning authority or examiner could turn down a plan or order. It would also be helpful to know who will bear the cost of preparing a plan.

There have been calls for a third party right of appeal. According to the Campaign to Protect Rural England, the UK appeal system cost £25 million in 2007-08, when there were almost 23,000 appeals. I understand that the Government are keen to reduce dramatically the number of appeals by having more up-front agreement to plans and orders, but will Ministers keep this area under review so that we can see whether that works for residents in practice?

Last April, the Prime Minister issued an invitation to join the Government. Part 5 and other parts of the Bill show that that invitation has been issued, and I firmly believe that residents in Loughborough and elsewhere will accept it. I urge Members to support the Bill today.

21:09

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

May I report the loud cheer from far-flung corners of Britain that accompanied the announcement of the Bill? To be honest, anything with the words decentralisation or localism in the title has generated significant enthusiasm. May I also report an even louder cheer from people in particularly isolated areas of Britain for whom the Bill is an important step forward? In those areas, political engagement is, perhaps, more important than anywhere else in the UK, and it is no surprise or coincidence that the turnout in general and local elections in those areas is somewhat higher than in their urban equivalents. That is despite the often considerable obstacles that people face at election time. It is not a coincidence that the areas to which I refer are the very epitome of the big society. They invented that expression, its content and, indeed, its whole context long before hon. Members picked up on the theme, and they did so despite the previous Government rather than because of them. That is what makes engagement in this measure even more important.

It was probably a consequence of a decade or more of frustration and exasperation that led a number of people in rural communities to conclude that simply devolving power was not necessarily the same as improving services. It is important to stress that point and to address it in the legislation—and we are doing that, thank goodness! Anything in the Bill that restores confidence and leads to better representation has to be a good thing. Anything that restores better government has to be a good thing, because that will, in turn, lead to better services.

I shall stick to two subjects today, one of which is the provision for local communities to retain important services and the right to buy, which has been mentioned several times already. The background is simple and stark: 30,000 independent retailers have gone in the past 25 years; 20% of rural post offices have gone; one primary school a month has gone; banks and petrol stations have gone; and 39 pubs a week are going.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has, like me, a very rural constituency. Does he agree that it is vital that the Bill will allow small communities to have sustainable development that will support those post offices and the vital services to which he refers?

[Simon Hart]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Those Members who were lucky enough to attend a recent Westminster Hall debate on the future of pubs will remember that a number of speakers from all parties and all quarters of the House championed the local pub. In doing so, they championed a lot more than the local pub: they championed anything that was the hub of the community. From speaker after speaker we heard that the issue was not just about buying beer and crisps, filling one’s tank with petrol or buying stamps. It was about the crucial social function that those institutions provide, which are under threat and remain so. The Bill steps in the right direction to shore up those vital institutions by ensuring that, where possible and viable, local communities are enabled to get in the way of people who might have other, perhaps financially driven, motives with regard to those services. I think of the great Farmers Arms in Llanybri, a lovely pub representing a crucial part of my constituency, which at the moment is closed, despite the fact that a number of residents see it as viable and important, and want it retained for the good of the community.

[Anne Marie Morris]

I absolutely endorse what my hon. Friend is saying. Does he share my concern that we must ensure that there is little red tape, because if there is too much red tape the right to take over services will become meaningless?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman answers, may I remind the hon. Lady that she is not supposed to have her back to the Chair, that she is not supposed to stand when another Member is standing and that many other Members are trying to get into the debate? If she could remember those, that would be good.

[Simon Hart]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. If there is one thing that drives those of us on the Government Benches in almost every measure that we consider, it is how we can make life simpler and easier for people in business and for everyday families. That is one of the major distinctions between the Government and their predecessors.

I conclude by touching quickly on planning and housing. It seems to me that we have missed something rather simple during the debate: the findings of the Affordable Rural Housing Commission, which was set up by the previous Government, to their credit. The commission has recognised a number of the issues that have been raised today and that feature heavily in the proposals before us. It put its finger right on the points to which we are referring and highlighted the fact that although volume is important, particularly in rural communities, the issue is as much about location as it is about anything else.

The commission, on one hand, calls on planners to be more flexible when it comes to the views of local communities—the Bill helps us with that—and stresses the need to locate affordable houses where there is a demand and where there are jobs, and on the other it refers to the fact that planners need to be more rigid in ensuring that unscrupulous developers do not exploit the planning system for their own financial gain at the expense of the community.

It is sensible that the planning element of the Bill refers to the availability of jobs, recognises the significance of culture and, of course, highlights the importance of community, which lies at the heart of localism and of everybody who cares deeply about their rural community, for whatever reason.

If there was an election message delivered to us all, whatever part of Britain we represent and whatever our political persuasion, it was this: “Get the Government off my back—in practice, in principle and in spirit.” I suggest that the Bill’s proposals are the first major and important step towards that objective, and any reasonable-minded person in the House should embrace it warmly.

21:18

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

Broadly, I very much welcome the Bill, which will tackle the bureaucratic burden, raise local accountability and empower local communities to start taking control of their own lives again, all of which are laudable aims and, I believe, highly achievable. However, as a Member who represents a London constituency, it is right that I question how the Bill will in practice affect my constituents and their fellow Londoners.

One of the most obvious of the many improvements that the Bill will introduce, as so many of my colleagues have said, is the freeing up of local councillors to be able to speak their minds on important matters. I have always though it absolutely bizarre that they should be elected on the basis of having strong views on local matters and then not be allowed to be part of the decision-making process on those matters. This bit of common sense is welcome, and about time too.

I am delighted to have been reassured that the change in predetermination also applies to local ward councillors and their local licensing issues. So it should. It is important that we put communities and their local ward councillors back at the centre of these important decisions. I am delighted to see us starting to unwind what I consider to be one of the worst legacies of the previous Labour Government—the rush to force late-night licences on us all. We need to move fast on this. Late-night licensing has proved to be a disaster for neighbourhoods throughout the land, causing them to be blighted by relentless noise and antisocial behaviour. Giving power back to neighbourhoods as well as to their local ward councillors to decide on important matters cannot happen too soon, allowing them to decide whether an area is appropriate for such premises, particularly where saturation may already have been reached. In my case, Ealing Broadway immediately springs to mind.

I hope that the Minister will be able to provide me with further information on the difficult issue of local planning matters. I fully applaud the plans in the Bill to hand a bigger role in local housing strategies to neighbourhoods and to local residents. It ought to be a no-brainer that those who will live closest to the consequences of a new development have a say in whether and how it might go ahead. Given that most of us are aware of the urgent need for new housing, it makes sense to harness neighbourhoods to help provide for that through the good old-fashioned principle of enlightened self-interest—that is, by making sure that those neighbourhoods can also profit from new developments through benefits such as lower council taxes.

However, I need a little help. I am not quite sure how that is supposed to pan out in London, which I suspect is rather different from most other regions because of its extra tier of government based at city hall and headed by a Mayor with a variety of regional statutory duties. One of those is to provide a London plan. That, as some in the Chamber may know, is a massive undertaking in which the Mayor plans for many years ahead on the complete shape of London, including where housing is needed and how much of it, and where there should be industrial or business zones, entertainment zones and so on.

The plan is the basis on which all local development frameworks are based. Ealing, for instance, is expected to provide 14,000 houses by 2026. Where do the local residents come in? What say will they have about that strategy? I suspect that many local residents will be reluctant to support new housing, much as they know that it is important, because they have a concern, which I share, that too often not enough long-term thought is put into the sustainability of many of those large developments. There is a fear that too often planning committees are not asking the right questions, probably because they want the housing, regardless. We need to ensure that sustainable plans are part of the planning process and that neighbourhoods are properly convinced on the matter.

Finally, I hope to hear more about the Government’s plans for local government funding and bringing back control of business rates to local authorities, allowing them to keep the revenue as well as to collect it. Handing back control would re-establish proper relationships between councils and their local business community, and would provide a useful local tool to help regenerate town centres such as Ealing and Acton.

I like the localism agenda. It is the right policy at the right time. There is far more that can and should be done in the name of localism, but this is a pretty good start. I shall certainly support the Bill.

21:23

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

At the outset I should state that before coming to this place I worked for 27 years as a chartered surveyor. I no longer practise and I have no consultancies. I have also been a district councillor and a county councillor.

I shall concentrate on the planning aspects of the Bill. I support the Bill, although there are areas that require further scrutiny. The Bill is radical and bold, and the Secretary of State and his team are to be applauded for thinking outside the box. Change is needed as the current system is not working. At a time when there is an urgent need to build more houses, we are building fewer than at any time since the war. Local development framework coverage is patchy. Only 15% of the country has an adopted core strategy. The country’s infrastructure is crumbling. Our roads, drains and power supplies are in need of upgrading. The planning system provides one means of achieving that. The Bill proposes a fundamental change in how the planning system works, representing a move from a top-down to a bottom-up approach. There is a need to accept that the man from the Ministry does not know best, and there must be a shift in responsibility to individuals and local communities. They, after all, are the people who know their areas best.

I shall comment on various features of the framework in which the new approach to planning will operate. We need to consider whether the principle of sustainable development is embedded in the legislation, and whether the requirement for such development is explicitly stated. Currently, the proposal is that the need to follow sustainable principles will be implicit because it will be included in the national planning framework. That has not yet been published, however, and sustainability needs to be at the heart of the planning system.

There is a need to ensure that local decisions and developments have regard to surrounding districts and fit into a county-wide and regional framework. The regional spatial strategy was too rigid a straitjacket, but is the duty on local authorities to co-operate sufficient to ensure that an adequate strategic overview is taken? That requires further scrutiny. In East Anglia, SCEALA, the Standing Conference of East Anglian Local Authorities, did the job adequately in the 1980s. To ensure that sufficient houses are built in a district, consideration should be given to asking local planning authorities to assess local housing need regularly. In that way, they will be able to monitor their success in bringing forward land for development and land on which to build the new houses that are so badly needed.

One of my main complaints as a surveyor for the past 10 to 15 years was that the planning system was getting slower and slower. There is a need to speed up the whole process, both in determining planning applications and in preparing local plans, and I look forward to receiving details of how the Government are going to do that.

I welcome the move towards neighbourhood planning, which will give people a real say in how their neighbourhoods evolve, but I would be grateful if the Minister took on board some observations. For neighbourhood planning to be successful, there is a need for capacity building in neighbourhoods and for communities to have access to advice, training and funding. With that in mind, the ending of planning aid this March appears short-sighted, so I would be grateful if consideration could be given either to reviewing that decision or to putting new arrangements in place. It is also important to ensure that all communities are able to participate, not just a few, so I would welcome further information on how neighbourhood planning will be promoted in those deprived areas where it is needed most.

There is a concern that some developers might hijack the system. For example, a food store might put forward in a particular neighbourhood an enticing planning-gain package that appeals to that community but has a negative knock-on effect on surrounding areas. How is it intended to guard against such scenarios? The Government should continue to promote the concept of the sustainable high street, and there should be sequential tests and economic development impacts.

Local planning authority costs should be taken into account, and I would be grateful if the Secretary of State confirmed that neighbourhood plans will apply not only to residential areas but to business districts.

21:28

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

There is much to welcome in the Bill, which at its heart has a belief that no one is better placed to determine the shape and nature of a community than those who live in it. That is a giant step in the right direction.

The first time that I spoke in this Chamber was to ask the Secretary of State whether he intended to repeal the perverse rules that prevent local councillors from standing up for their constituents. We have already heard about them today: the rules of predetermination. He answered positively, but when I went back to my constituents and relayed the answer, I was met with a look of disbelief. People are naturally sceptical of all political promises, so I am thrilled to see the measure in the Bill. Local councillors will now be able to stand up for local residents, which is exactly why they are elected in the first place.

Another area that deserves a brief mention relates to the Bill’s support for local shops and high streets. Small shops define communities; as they die off and are replaced by bland multiples and empty premises, communities themselves begin to erode. The Bill will help councils to buck those trends. Simplifying small business rate relief and giving local authorities powers to provide business rate discounts will clearly help, but as we move towards democratic decision making and new neighbourhood plans, I hope that local people and elected councillors will be able to decide for themselves how their high streets look, and not simply be forced to yield before every Tesco application. For many people, that will be the test for this Bill.

Control of the royal parks was going to be transferred from the Secretary of State to the Mayor of London, and I understand that there is still a strong possibility that the Government will introduce an amendment to continue with that plan. As the MP for the area with the biggest royal park, I want to put on record my strong support for this move.

[Mr Raynsford]

As a Member who also represents a constituency with a royal park, may I put it to the hon. Gentleman that this is a divisive proposition that will be strongly opposed by those of us who believe that the royal parks are well managed at the moment and that something that is not bust certainly should not be fiddled with?

[Zac Goldsmith]

I profoundly disagree. It makes perfect sense that whoever is responsible for the parks is accountable and answerable to London voters. Democratic accountability is the best, and probably the only, safeguard that we have against lunatic proposals of the sort that we saw last year. The right hon. Gentleman knows what I am talking about; I will not go into the details because of the time. I hope that it is not inappropriate for me to say that Members in the neighbouring constituencies of Twickenham, Kingston and Surbiton and Putney—they are all Ministers—are very much in favour of these proposals.

The central purpose of the Bill is to reinvigorate local communities and, in particular, local democracy. In this regard, the Bill could go much further. My party said before the election that we would enable people to instigate local referendums on local issues, and I believe that the Liberal Democrats said the same. However, other than on two or three specific issues such as elected mayors and council tax hikes, the referendums on offer are purely advisory and therefore have the status, in real terms, of the usual no-hope petition—although they are a hell of a lot more expensive. There is an argument, which I am sure will be repeated, that councils will necessarily feel obliged to adhere to the results of a referendum, but that is a hope, and one that many residents of local authorities around the country will regard as wholly unrealistic.

Non-binding referendums would be a damaging gesture. The only thing worse than not giving people a voice is the pretence that we are giving them a voice. That is not only disempowering but sends a message that when it comes to the crunch the Government simply do not trust people to make decisions for themselves. I strongly believe that if these referendums are non-binding, we would better off without them. I say that as a committed campaigner for direct democracy over very many years.

At the last Communities and Local Government Question Time, the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), said in reference to non-binding referendums:

“Sometimes it is appropriate to nudge councils to do the right thing. This will be perhaps more of a shove than a nudge”.—[Official Report, 25 November 2010; Vol. 501, c. 437.]

May I nudge him to do the right thing and bring in proper referendums that are legally binding and therefore meaningful?

21:33

[Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)]

I am grateful to have the opportunity—just—to speak in this debate.

I welcome the intention behind the Bill. Far too many people in this country feel as though they have no stake in their communities. They feel that they have no role in the decisions about their areas and that any attempt to challenge the status quo is doomed to failure, crushed by big bureaucracy and even bigger government. This pervasive sense of disempowerment is the source of much disillusionment and distrust in the political process. As one of the oldest democracies in the world, the fact that we have brought this to pass through accumulative bureaucracies and centralisation is a disgrace, and it is to this Government’s credit that they are choosing to break with the tradition set by the Labour party and are trying to use this Bill to devolve, rather than demand, power.

In my constituency, residents of north Oxford can testify only too well to the incredibly damaging effect of the current centralised planning system. In the face of massive and sustained local opposition, Oxford city council is persisting in its determination, under its core strategy proposals, to build 55,000 square metres of office space in north Oxford despite consensus among other public bodies that the local infrastructure will not sustain it. I pay tribute to local campaigners, particularly those at Engage Oxford, who have put their lives on hold to campaign against this unworkable programme.

I welcome the Bill because it will give those local campaigners the opportunity to have their voices heard. It is time that local campaigners and people had their voices heard and their concerns acted on.

21:34

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

We have had a lively debate, with some 40 speakers. There is a clear division between the Government and the Opposition on the Bill, and some Government Members have expressed concerns. There have been some excellent speeches.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) put it well when he said that the Bill was a missed opportunity. He said that the general power of competence should sit within a constitutional framework —of course it should—and that there would be a void in the standards of conduct for councillors. He questioned the powers that the Secretary of State wants to take for himself, in particular the power to impose shadow mayors, which many hon. Members have spoken about. He said that the Bill signalled the end of the provision of social housing.

Similar concerns were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), who said that the Bill was atrocious. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) reminded us of the era of “Cathy Come Home”. She said that her test was whether it was a hand-up or a handout, and that the Bill failed the test. Similarly, the housing section of the Bill was the main concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). Opposition Members think that the Bill has the potential to raise levels of homelessness, which is a serious concern. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) feared that the disadvantaged had no voice and said the Bill was bad on many levels for the poorest in our communities.

Hon. Members raised concerns about other aspects of the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) made it clear that although we understand the aspirations of the Bill, we have suspicions about the outcomes. There are problems with the drafting of the Bill. A big issue is that it is silent on how to settle competing claims. How will claims be settled among the views of a neighbourhood forum, a local authority and a mayor? My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) warned that mayors could undermine local communities and councillors. The hon. Members for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) and for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) and a number of other hon. Members disagreed with the imposition of shadow mayors. We heard a bid for the independence of Keighley. Unfortunately, that will not come about through a local referendum, as such referendums will only be advisory. Another matter of concern to hon. Members from all parts of the House was EU fines.

For many Opposition Members, the key issues that underlie the Bill are the unfairness of the local government settlement and the absence of the resources necessary to build capacity in communities. My hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Ladywood, for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins), for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) and for North West Durham (Pat Glass), my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham, and my neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), spoke eloquently about the problems caused by cuts.

[Mr Slaughter]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Barbara Keeley]

There is not time, I am afraid.

The Secretary of State told council leaders that they were in charge of about £38 billion each year, no strings attached. Since then, the Conservative-led Government have subjected council leaders to savage front-loaded cuts and to a stream of exhortations on what they should and should not do with their budgets. Ministers have told councils that they have a duty to preserve library services, that they should treat voluntary organisations fairly, that they have no justification to tighten eligibility for social care and that they should not issue redundancy notices immediately. Department for Communities and Local Government Ministers are telling councils to cut senior management posts, merge services with other councils and cut posts that Ministers see as non-jobs.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith told us that senior executive pay cuts and shared service cuts each contribute only 1% of the cuts that are needed, whereas 50% of the savings will be made by cuts to adult services and children’s services, including a disturbing 60% cut in funding for Sure Start—a service that the Prime Minister said the Tories would protect. My hon. Friend told us about an individual who was paid £700,000 in consultancy fees over four years, while drawing a £50,000 pension from the same council. On hearing such facts, we have to question why Hammersmith and Fulham is the apple of the Secretary of State’s eye. Indeed, the Secretary of State has called any council leader who could not predict cuts of £40 million to £100 million negligent

“to the point of stupidity”.

DCLG Ministers also want to direct councils on small details. They want to tell them how often they should empty their bins, ban them from putting out newsletters and tell them to reduce street signs and bollards. That is the background to the 126 new secondary powers that the Secretary of State wants to take in the Bill.

The general power of competence should give councils the freedom to act ambitiously on behalf of local residents, but the Secretary of State wants to take major powers to restrict how councils may use it and attach conditions to its use. He also wants the power to

“amend, repeal, revoke or disapply”

any statutory provision affecting or overlapping with the general power. That is a very broad power for a Secretary of State to ask for, and it undermines the concept of localism. It raises serious concerns, particularly because, as we have heard, he wants to direct councils on every aspect of their work, from how they manage their budgets through to what they should do about street signs.

The Secretary of State wants to order 12 of our cities to change their governance model to the mayoral model, and to appoint their current leaders as shadow mayors. Furthermore, he wants the power to order any local authority to start operating a mayoral governance model, subject only to a later referendum. Where is the belief in localism in all that?

The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell), said in September:

“This Government will let councils and communities decide how to organise themselves. We don’t presume to know more than local people about how their area should be run.”

However, the Government do presume to know more than local people, because the Secretary of State wants the power to dictate to councils exactly which model of governance they must adopt. Also, there is no level playing field for councils that opt to retain cabinet or committee systems, as they will not be able to bid for new powers in the same way as elected mayors using the new provisions in the Bill.

To Labour Members, the scrutiny powers of local government are a key aspect of democratic accountability. In the context of the Government’s massive and unnecessary reorganisation of the NHS, about which much has been said today, powers for local councils to scrutinise new health commissioning arrangements are more important than ever, and councillors should be given adequate powers to do that. It was interesting to hear hon. Members of all parties refer to that matter. Councils opting for the committee governance system will not even be required to have a scrutiny committee. We believe that to ensure accountability, those councils should have at least one scrutiny committee, in line with councils that have a mayor or council leader.

The Bill proposes local referendums, a community right to challenge, a community right to buy and a duty on councils to maintain lists of assets of community value. As we have heard, Labour would welcome some of those proposals if the legislation introducing them were better thought through. As it stands, the Bill provokes more questions than it answers. It will lead to extra burdens on local councils, which are already struggling to maintain local services in the face of the Government’s swingeing, front-loaded budget cuts. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) highlighted how the community right to buy, which has been tried in Scotland, is an empty gesture if it is without funding.

On local referendums, we support greater public engagement in the political process, but much more should be decided locally. For instance, we do not understand how it can be up to the Secretary of State to decide what is a local matter. The proposals on the new community right to challenge and the duty on local authorities to maintain a list of assets of community value are ill thought through. Despite there being no definition of the term “assets of community value”, 10 powers are proposed for the Secretary of State to make regulations on those lists.

The DCLG note on the extra powers proposed in the Bill, is a fascinating document and it states that the debates during the passage of the Bill will constitute the principal initial scrutiny of the scheme, and I have to ask Ministers why that is the case. There could have been pre-legislative scrutiny, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich said that it cried out for it. That would have been preferable to giving the Secretary of State powers to regulate, order and specify matters that would be better decided locally.

The Bill aims to allow communities a say on developments in their area through the planning system, but those measures are particularly poorly thought through. Indeed, the Royal Town Planning Institute says that work is needed on the Bill

“to remove those barriers in its drafting that deaden its effectiveness and hinder the ability of Government to achieve its own objectives”

and that

“the lack of a coherent strategic planning system combined with the complexity of the neighbourhood planning system”

that the Bill proposes will

“hinder…economic recovery…addressing climate change and enhancing the environment”.

On that last point, 17 organisations in the Wildlife and Countryside Link say that the Bill must:

“Introduce…strategic planning across local authority boundaries”.

They feel that the Bill risks creating a two-tier system in which

“only well-resourced neighbourhoods can take part”,

which echoes the comments that we have heard from many hon. Members.

The Government have made the wrong choices in their proposals on social housing and the rights of people who depend on it. On that and other proposals in the Bill, there has been scarce opportunity for scrutiny—indeed, a rushed consultation closed only today. Housing and homelessness charities have rightly criticised the desire of Lord Freud, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, to weaken the rights of homeless families. The Bill proposes to strip them of the right to any say over the accommodation that they are offered.

Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends spoke about the fact that the Bill will mean that social tenants lose their right to social housing if their circumstances change. Families who play by the rules and improve their lot could be at risk of losing their homes. The Conservative party said in April that it had no policy to change the current or future security of tenure of tenants in social housing, but the Bill contains provisions to do that. The Government have a record of breaking their word—on VAT, on the education maintenance allowance and on tuition fees—and now council and housing association tenants will see whether the Government keep their word.

If the Secretary of State were a true champion of localism, he would have proposed real freedoms for councils, rather than give himself wide-ranging new powers to direct them. He would have produced a Bill that engaged local people in planning their neighbourhoods at the same time as promoting sustainable development and protecting the environment, and he would have fought for a fair and manageable financial settlement for local councils. Had he done so, councils could work on giving their residents a real say in how their local areas are run, rather than focus all their energy on making cuts.

My hon. Friends said that the Bill is the worst of all worlds, that it will set community empowerment back years, that true localism will not emerge without a fair settlement for local government, that the Bill gives rights but no resources to back them up, that it is a shambolic cover-up, that it is not fair and not progressive, and that it fools no one. I urge hon. Members with concerns about the Bill to join us in supporting the amendment tonight.

21:47

[The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)]

You would not know it, Mr Deputy Speaker, but this is an historic day for the House. Opposition Members should have tuned into the TV this weekend to see the Leader of the Opposition say that he was abandoning the tradition of Fabianism in his party and adopting localism. There was precious little of that in the speeches of the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) and her hon. Friends.

The two parties in the coalition see the Bill for what it is—the first of many measures that will do something very different from those introduced by the previous Administration. We are using the powers of the Government and Parliament to give power away rather than to increase it for ourselves. That is the direction in which this Government will continue to go. We will give more and more power to the people.

Successive Governments have increased the power of the centre, which has led to Britain becoming one of the most centralised and rule-bound societies in the world. French local councillors would be astonished if we told them that local councillors here would be in breach of the rules if they passed a view on a local planning application—they would think that that is nuts. In America, they would think it ridiculous and barmy if a member of President Obama’s cabinet set the local taxation in a small American town; and in Australia, they would wonder what planet someone was on, if they told them that to judge a planning application one has to wade through planning guidance longer than the complete works of Shakespeare. This is the time to reform and bring us back in touch with the rest of the world.

The response from Labour Members made it clear that were it not for the election of this coalition, which is united in wanting to return power to the people, they would have continued in the direction they had previously taken us. That degree of centralisation did not work, of course, and we know why: there is something about the British people that means they do not like being told what to do; they have a quality that makes them want to push back when people try to boss and bully them, as the previous Administration did. It is costly, too. We can imagine the bureaucracy of enforcement that needs to be put in place to impose and send out the directives, to gather the statistics and to send in people to ensure that others comply. We cannot afford that in the circumstances left to us by the Labour party.

More than that, Government Members know in their hearts that the best way to improve society is to give people their heads, and to allow them to follow their vocation and use their initiative, rather than to suppress it with top-down impositions that merely demoralise people.

[Toby Perkins]

The right hon. Gentleman is telling us about how many powers the Secretary of State is giving away, but which of the 126 new powers that he is taking under the Bill does he think local people cannot look after for themselves?

[Greg Clark]

If the hon. Gentleman is under any illusion that this is not a Bill that transfers power to people, he should talk to the coalition of voluntary and community organisations that this very day launched a campaign to ensure that the Bill is not watered down by the amendments he would suggest.

If this is the occasion when the Labour party converts to the cause of localism, it has a long way to go. The right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) implied—breathtakingly—that when in government her party had tried to localise power. Even the Leader of the Opposition does not believe that. He said in his leadership campaign that the Labour Government looked down their nose at local government. So much for conversion! The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) said that the Labour party downgraded the role of local government when in office. First base for the right hon. Lady is to admit that her party got it wrong in the past—I thought that was what her leader tried to do this weekend—in order then to point in the right direction.

[Bob Russell]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that passing power down from the centre includes passing powers from county halls to town halls, where we have the two levels of local government?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The process we are engaged in gives a lot of power to local authorities, but, equally, imposes obligations on them to share their power with communities. That is the right approach.

The Opposition’s response, as expressed in the right hon. Lady’s speech, represents a split—they have not made up their minds. The right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) said that there was a schism in the Government. Far from it! We are emphatic about the need for the Bill. However, there is a schism in the Labour party because it is advancing two arguments: that the Bill is secret centralisation and that the powers that the Secretary of State is taking represent a covert attempt to recentralise—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) applauds. Other hon. Members, however, argued that this is a charter for dangerous nimbyism. Which is it? Is it that the Labour party does not trust local people to take decisions on their own behalf, or is it that it fears that Whitehall will lose power? It must make up its mind. Does it just fear any change, does it fear local choice, or does it fear any challenge by the powerless to the powerful?

[Hazel Blears]

Will the Minister take this opportunity to give an unequivocal confirmation that, as far as the expression of interest and the community right to challenge are concerned, he will not change the regulatory framework to enable commercial organisations to take over those services and to run them for private profit, and that the regulations will continue to require a community interest and a not-for-profit basis?

[Greg Clark]

The Bill was drafted deliberately to express that. This is a community right to challenge to allow community organisations to do something that Labour, during 13 years in government, failed to do, which is to let them have the chance to deliver services.

Let me refer to some of the speeches made by right hon. and hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) brought his considerable experience in local government to bear. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), my hon. Friends the Members for Carlisle (John Stevenson), for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), for Crawley (Henry Smith), for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti), for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris), for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray), and for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), and the hon. Members for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) and for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), the Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee, made passionate speeches about local government. They should not be concerned about the Secretary of State’s powers. The key power is the general power of competence. We thought very carefully about whether it was right to set out pages and pages of restrictions in the Bill on that general power of competence. We concluded that the better thing—the more empowering thing—was to change completely the default, so that the powers that a local authority wants to take should be available to it, and it should not have to go through pages of guidance on the Bill. We think that that is the right approach. I look forward to the scrutiny from the Select Committee, but that is the approach that we took.

One of the other powers states that if a council is in danger of becoming insolvent, it is reasonable for the Secretary of State to suspend the requirement to have a referendum for a council tax increase to cover that. Therefore, the Committee, when it scrutinises the Bill, will find that it is content with that.

[Barbara Keeley]

rose—

[Greg Clark]

There is no time, I am afraid.

Let me address the argument, which was depressingly common on the Opposition Benches, that communities are not capable of taking up such rights. What a bleak and miserable picture of communities the Opposition have. I believe in local government; indeed, I am a fan of it. The track record of local government in recent years certainly bears comparison with the track record of central Government, at least under the previous Administration, so it is absolutely right that we should give local government these powers and trust it. Of course we should give help to the most vulnerable communities to ensure that they can take advantage of the powers, just as everyone else can. However, the argument that people in local communities are so mean-minded that they will exercise their powers only in a way that Opposition Members have described as nimbyish, or that people who love their communities, and want to bring up their children and see them prosper in their areas are not capable of having the interests of their communities at heart is a bleak reflection on the Opposition’s world view. It is not a view that we share.

The Bill will put our politics on a different course. It will bring an end to the history of using power to take more power. It will give power to councils, power to communities, power to voluntary groups and power to the people, in the knowledge that the more powerful the people are, the stronger our society is.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

21:58

Division 169

Ayes: 228

---

Labour: 225
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 332

---

Conservative: 279
Liberal Democrat: 49
Plaid Cymru: 3
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 62(2)), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Localism Bill (Programme)

Monday 17th January 2011 Commons Chamber

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

That the following provisions shall apply to the Localism Bill:

Committal

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

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

2. Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 10 March 2011.

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

Consideration and Third Reading

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

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

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

Other proceedings

7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Mr. Vara.)

22:14

Division 170

Ayes: 329

---

Conservative: 279
Liberal Democrat: 49

Noes: 227

---

Labour: 215
Scottish National Party: 4
Plaid Cymru: 3
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1
Independent: 1
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

Localism Bill (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.

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

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Localism Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under the Act, and

(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act of money so provided, and

(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(James Duddridge.)

22:28

Division 171

Ayes: 316

---

Conservative: 264
Liberal Democrat: 47
Plaid Cymru: 3
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

Noes: 211

---

Labour: 207
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1
Independent: 1

Business without Debate

Monday 17th January 2011 Commons Chamber

armed forces bill

Ordered,

That Mr James Arbuthnot, Alex Cunningham, Thomas Docherty, Gemma Doyle, Mr Tobias Ellwood, Mr Mark Francois, Mr Kevan Jones, Mark Lancaster, Jack Lopresti, Sandra Osborne, Christopher Pincher, Mr Andrew Robathan, Bob Russell and David Wright be members of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

public administration

Ordered,

That Kevin Brennan be discharged from the Select Committee on Public Administration and Kelvin Hopkins be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Mortgage Regulation

Monday 17th January 2011 Commons Chamber

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

22:41

[Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

I intend to speak about the future of the mortgage market and, in particular, the current proposals by the Financial Services Authority in its “Mortgage Market Review”. When it was announced, Lord Turner said that it was a “major shift” in the FSA’s “willingness to intervene”. It is a serious review. If it listens to representations, as I hope it will, and is light touch, it will improve the market, but if it goes the way of some of the proposals that are being consulted on, it could have a profound and bad effect not only on the economy, but on the prospects for many of our constituents. I shall touch on those issues today and canter round some of the concerns.

The Council of Mortgage Lenders, the Building Societies Association and many other organisations are very worried about what the FSA is consulting on. We must therefore treat seriously the prospects and the proposals put forward. I support the objectives of the FSA, which are to create a mortgage market that is sustainable for all participants, and a flexible market that works better for consumers. However, it is crucial that the FSA recognises that in the context of the current financial crisis, problems in the European and UK economies today are primarily the result of liquidity and structural issues arising from global financial markets. They are not a result of a dysfunctional and widely irresponsible residential mortgage market. The FSA should be mindful not to focus its attention on fixing the wrong problem.

Despite the economic slowdown, FSA arrears statistics show that the overwhelming majority of mortgage borrowers in the UK are able to continue to make their mortgage repayments. The current low level of interest rates is a major help in this, but the statistics demonstrate that the vast majority of lenders have acted responsibly and have been positive and sympathetic to customers in difficulty. In a sense, the mortgage rescue scheme introduced by the previous Government towards the end of their term of office did not help many people, but it pointed many people with difficulties to their lender. That meant that their lender could deal with the problems. One of the good things emerging from the difficulties that we face is that a far more responsible attitude is being taken by many lenders.

I believe that it is desirable to have a market based on consistent, responsible lending and borrowing. However, the market failures that the MMR is designed to address affects only a small number of lenders that were in the market. Some of those are no longer active.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that some of the smaller lenders, such as the Furness building society based in my constituency—lenders who were not rogues, did not play fast and loose, and were always responsible—feel disproportionately penalised by the proposals currently on the table?

[Mr Syms]

I agree. One of the important things about the proposals is not always to focus on the five big banks but to ensure that there is a diverse mortgage market that includes many smaller building societies. I shall touch on that issue in a moment.

A measured and well-considered response from the Government, the regulators and the lenders is necessary to prevent an inefficient and unsustainable mortgage market. The current proposals will have a far-reaching effect on the wider economy, but the FSA’s impact assessment does not consider those wider consequences. They should be considered, because housing is an important component of our economy.

There are also fundamental concerns about many proposals that transfer responsibility away from the consumer and to the lender. We appreciate the lender’s responsibilities to verify application information and to have appropriate controls in place, but that must be balanced with the capability of customers to make sound financial decisions for themselves. The proposals do not achieve a balance; they take the very patronising view that customers need protecting from themselves—a view that could be insulting to many mortgage borrowers. In my experience, the people who get most upset are those who are refused a mortgage, a loan or some help from a bank. People take that personally, and if we are not careful, we will exclude many people from gaining access to finance.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does he agree that responsible lending should not exclude first-time buyers from accessing mortgages with loans-to-value ratios of up to 95%? The bigger issue is about lenders ensuring that they do not over-expose themselves to such loans. They should keep them proportionate within their mortgage book to ensure that first-time buyers gain that vital access to mortgage finance.

[Mr Syms]

It is good that we are moving away from 120% mortgages, which were clearly unsustainable, and it is probably good that people should have to put down a deposit, but I do not want to be too dogmatic, because all the surveys suggest that for first-time buyers the deposit is one of the biggest hurdles, so we ought to leave it to the market to make decisions, rather than being too dogmatic in terms of regulation.

Flexibility will be the key to delivering outcomes for customers, but if we are not careful, the proposed changes will undermine current flexibility. Setting prescriptive rules will inevitably lead to some creditworthy customers, with and without complex financial situations, being excluded from the market, and that is not an acceptable position in which to place borrowers. I also believe that the proposals will affect considerably more customers than the FSA expects. Tighter controls on affordability assessments will not weed out customers on the margins only; they could have a much wider impact on the market.

The MMR should aim to promote responsible borrowing by raising financial capability, empowering borrowers to take ownership of their personal finances, enabling them to make well-informed decisions, promoting best practice to raise standards across the industry and ensuring better outcomes for consumers through consumer choice, transparency and fair treatment.

The MMR should also promote competition in the mortgage market, so that lenders of all business structures, including those small building societies,which were mentioned earlier, can compete on a level playing field. It should further promote product innovation to meet the demands of a diverse and ever-evolving customer base. Innovation must stay with the market, because we should not have a regulator that stifles innovation, and the MMR should also ensure that lenders have the flexibility to provide support to their customers when they need it—for example, when they experience financial stress.

On the current direction of the MMR, however, there is considerable concern, first, about the wider impact on the economy and housing market, and how the proposals interact with wider Government ambitions and policy. There seems to have been a firm shift, apparently removing responsibility from borrowers and placing unreasonable responsibilities solely with lenders. Distortions in the market will sometimes affect large banks, and, as we have heard, building societies are concerned about that. If we want to have a diverse market, we have to have small as well as large lenders. The direction of the MMR might also have an adverse impact on social mobility. There are concerns about the interaction with existing and planned macro-prudential reforms, and about the potential conflict with regulatory reform initiated at European level.

Certain groups might be affected. First-time buyers could be expected to have higher deposits and to pay higher prices, because under the proposals they might have “risk” status, which would dampen their capacity and willingness to transact even more than we have seen to date. We know that there is a problem with first-time buyers. Those who have wealthier parents who can help them will get into the market; those who do not may be excluded. We have to bear in mind that important fact.

Existing homeowners with self-certification loans will have to prove their affordability next time around. For some of those with variable incomes from different sources that will not be straightforward, so some existing mortgage customers may find it difficult to remortgage, which could have a major impact on the housing industry. One of the industry’s responses may be that lenders become less willing to serve such complex prime cases because of extra administration and potential risk. There will be a major impact on the self-employed and contractor markets, as such people necessarily have difficulty in proving or certifying their earnings. There is also a group of prime mortgage customers who have become impaired owing to the impact of the recession on their finances. Recent short-term arrears will make it more difficult to refinance with their existing lender or to remortgage elsewhere; they are trapped until they can demonstrate that they are no longer “credit impaired” as defined by the FSA. We have to be very careful that reforms of any kind will not make it more difficult for those who have had short-term difficulties to stay within the market and to remortgage.

Many of the organisations that have contacted me are also concerned about shared ownership. In its sourcebook, the FSA specifies that as a high-risk area, and that could have a big impact. Shared ownership is one of the most under-exploited areas that we have. We could do a lot more in respect of that market, and we do not need restrictions or classifications that could make it much more difficult to help to grow it.

A large number of existing borrowers, the majority of whom are successfully meeting their mortgage repayments, will find it difficult under the proposed rules to remortgage in the future or to get new mortgages at all. This will have a major negative effects in terms of social mobility, particularly in the coming years. Restricting the ability of consumers to move home in order to take up new or improved employment will also have serious adverse consequences. The FSA should not consider implementing any changes to conduct of business rules until a full assessment of the impact of changes already made to prudential requirements and enhancements to the supervisory regime has been carried out. If there are still concerns once this has been undertaken, targeted action through rule changes can be undertaken. It is important not to go too fast in addressing this matter.

One important thing that is coming over the rainbow is European reform. In the first quarter of 2011, we expect a European directive focusing on responsible lending and borrowing. This directive may well have an impact on changes proposed in the consultation, and that might be an important factor.

I am concerned that if we are not careful, as a result of the excesses of a few lenders in the last property boom, we will have a set of rules that impairs some of those who are more marginal borrowers, makes it more difficult for people to get on the housing ladder, and penalises many lenders by putting up their costs, and that will not lead to a diverse, flexible market where there is innovation. The housing market is crucial to the future of our country and our economy. We all want people to be well housed and to have the ability to buy a home if they can afford it. We have to be very careful about the rules that are implemented.

I hope that this debate plus all the other representations being made to the FSA are listened to, because we have to get this right. If we get it wrong, it will be disastrous, and we will all find people in our surgeries who cannot understand why a few years ago they got a mortgage and now they cannot. This is a crucial issue. I know that there is still a consultation going on and we do not yet know the results, but I hope that the Minister takes on board the fact that there is genuine concern about this. We are not going to sit as late as the Lords, which I understand is going to sit through the whole night, but it is still quite late and there are a lot of Members in the Chamber for an Adjournment debate, several of whom take a special interest in housing issues and are well respected for it. That says something about the concerns that exist about these issues.

22:53

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms) on securing this debate on the important issue of the future regulation of the mortgage market. As he said, the FSA is conducting a wholesale review of mortgage regulation in the UK. He and I share the aims of that review. We want to see

“a mortgage market that is sustainable for all participants”

and

“a flexible market that works better for consumers”.

I think we should all be able to agree on those sensible aims.

It is vital to address those issues in the light of the failed regulation of the mortgage market before the financial crisis, when there was a huge expansion in the availability of credit and the number of lenders in the mortgage market. That led to a rapid increase in house prices without an accompanying increase in home ownership, and put more people at financial risk because of the greater debts that were taken on. My hon. Friend was absolutely right to highlight the current low levels of arrears and repossession, but that reflects the low interest rate environment, lower than expected unemployment and, as he pointed out, forbearance by lenders. We cannot be sure that the same conditions will occur in any future housing downturn.

There is a lot of concern about the mortgage market review, but there is also a lot of misinformation. I welcome this opportunity to set out clearly the FSA’s plans for the review. The FSA is conducting the review under the powers of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 to meet its statutory objectives, which include market confidence, financial stability and consumer protection. We must remember that Parliament set the framework for regulation, but that the FSA is operationally independent, although accountable to Parliament.

Mortgage lending plays a vital role in ensuring a stable and accessible housing market. As the Minister for Housing and Local Government has set out, it is the ambition of this Government to create a housing market with stable prices that does not exclude many from home ownership. Owning a home is an important ambition for many people in this country. It brings social benefits such as stronger and more committed communities. A flexible mortgage market is important for labour market mobility. Although the link between lending and building is complex, mortgages must be available to encourage the home building industry to provide the new homes that we need. Perhaps most importantly, an open mortgage market promotes fairness between generations and helps to smooth out the differences between the housing haves and the housing have-nots. It allows young people to buy their own homes, which in turn helps older people to trade down as they move into retirement.

However, increased lending can force up house prices beyond the reach of those who want to get on to or move up the housing ladder, putting home ownership further and further out of reach for many people. High prices can cause inequality, indebtedness and inertia, with young people having to take out bigger and bigger debts to buy their own homes or give up on the dream of home ownership.

It is therefore important to strike the right balance. A properly regulated mortgage market is needed to ensure that house prices remain affordable and that consumers are protected. It is worth remembering that consumer groups such as Which?, Citizens Advice and Shelter have warmly welcomed the mortgage market review. Those organisations highlight the number of people they see every day who struggle to make their mortgage payments.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Minister agree that an important element of financial provision in the mortgage market is diversity? I would welcome his views on possible recommendations by the FSA review that might impact disproportionately on small building societies and restrict such a diverse flow of funds to the market.

[Mr Hoban]

I know that the hon. Gentleman is a keen supporter of financial mutuals. He will recognise that there was a commitment in the coalition agreement to diversity in the ownership of businesses in the financial services sector, and that we are taking action to support mutuals. A mutual should be as safe and sound as a big or small bank. The customers of mutuals deserve the same protection as customers of other financial institutions. I want to see a level playing field in the regulation of the financial services sector, not just the mortgage market.

The boom and subsequent crash in the mortgage market cast doubt on the prudential soundness of lenders, and on their ability to take on appropriate risk. There need to be adequate controls over lending to ensure that the requirements for the retention of capital are proportionate. Without reform of the rules on mortgage lending, banks would need to hold more capital, thus restricting their ability to lend. We do not want lenders to put their solvency at risk through aggressive lending. We are working internationally to agree a new framework of prudential regulation, and capital and liquidity requirements. It is important that all these regulatory reforms are seen as one wide-ranging package to strengthen the stability and sustainability of our financial system and our economy.

I wish to give a few statistics about the mortgage market, to illustrate some of the challenges that we faced during the boom years. The volume of lending was fairly consistent from the early 1980s to the mid-1990s, at about £50 billion a year, but from the late 1990s there was a steady rise in lending, with the boom peaking at £360 billion a year in 2007. Many assume that the rapid expansion in mortgage lending during the boom allowed more people to become home owners, but the rate of owner-occupation actually fell between 2003 and 2008. That may reflect the fact that house prices grew very rapidly from the mid-1990s until 2008, matching the boom in lending, but for many, neither their income nor deposits grew at the same rate. The number of mortgages granted to first-time buyers decreased steadily over the period from 2000 to 2007.

After the boom, mortgage lending fell rapidly from mid-2007 through to 2009, and it remains below peak levels. That reduction reflects a reduction in both demand and supply. Banks now realise that they overstretched themselves and underpriced risk in the boom years, and are therefore increasing deposit requirements and tightening credit checks. On the demand side, household debt is historically high, so people are reluctant to borrow more and add to their debts. People are cautious about the economy and their jobs, and many expect house prices to fall this year.

We know that during the boom, a huge proportion of mortgage lending—about 40%—was for remortgaging. In 2007, of the £360 billion in gross mortgage lending, £150 billion was for remortgaging. Surveys suggest that about 60% of remortgages also entailed equity withdrawal. Although mortgage lending for house purchase has reduced to some extent since then, the 72% fall in remortgaging has made the most significant contribution to the fall in gross mortgage lending over recent years. With interest rates at historically low levels and house prices flat, there is little incentive for borrowers to release equity or switch their mortgage.

I acknowledge that the reduction in mortgage availability has hit everyone hard, particularly first-time buyers. The proportion of first-time buyers reliant on help from friends and family to put together a deposit has reached 85%, compared with 45% in 2006, which is not an equitable or sustainable state of affairs.

I turn to the details of the mortgage market review. In October 2009, the FSA published a discussion paper setting out its high-level objectives for the review. That has been followed by a number of discussion and consultation papers over the past year. In the course of the review, the FSA has produced a range of options and proposals for consultation and consideration, and it is considering the responses carefully and will publish further proposals later this year. Nothing is set in stone. The FSA has made it absolutely clear that it will assess fully the potential impact on the market before implementing any rule changes. Later this year, it intends to publish an impact assessment that will take into account the cumulative impact of all its final proposals.

The FSA is also committed to ensuring a smooth transitional period, to minimise the impact of changes and keep the mortgage and housing market stable. It has made it clear that it will not implement any rule changes until the market is back on a stronger footing. Its review process is an ongoing consultation, and it is important that all interested parties engage constructively in it. I encourage everyone with an interest in the debate to do so.

I shall respond to some of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Poole made. Traditionally, self-certification was a route for the self-employed to take a mortgage, but that has been abused by people for whom the scheme was not designed. The FSA’s proposals would required greater disclosure by the self-employed. For example, a borrower could submit their tax returns to prove their historical income, giving lenders better information on potential borrowers and enabling them to assess risk, and therefore price, more accurately.

As I set out earlier, in the run-up to the crash many first-time buyers were frozen out of the market. My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) highlighted the fact that the low loan-to-value ratios that we see today act as a barrier to those who want to get on to the housing ladder. Those ratios are a response to the crisis, not the MMR. The MMR’s emphasis on affordability should help in the long run to create a stable market with stable house price growth, which will bring home ownership within the reach of many more people.

The MMR should have no impact on the shared equity sector, as there is no in-built prejudice against it, but again, borrowers will need to demonstrate that they can afford to pay both the mortgage and the rent.

My hon. Friend the Member for Poole also raised the issue of European proposals on mortgage lending. He is right to say that the Commission intends to publish proposals on responsible mortgage lending and borrowing in the coming months. The Treasury and the Financial Services Authority have held a number of discussions with the Commission on those proposals, and we expect them to be broadly consistent with the principles of mortgage regulation in the UK. However, the FSA has acknowledged that it will need to consider that European initiative as it refines its proposals. It will ensure that the timetable for refining the MMR is consistent with developments at European level.

It is clear that mortgage regulation failed by allowing an unsustainable boom in lending and increasing house prices, followed by the inevitable crash. We do not want to see that repeated. We have a clear objective to create a sustainable and accessible housing market that sees a gradual rise in prices in line with people’s salaries. The mortgage market is a key part of creating that, but unregulated lending will not help us to achieve that aim. The MMR is an essential step to ensure that both consumers and lenders are protected, but that will always be balanced with the need to ensure innovation and competition in the mortgage market. The FSA will take a proportionate and balanced approach in order to help to build a stable and sustainable mortgage market for the future.

Question put and agreed to.

23:06

House adjourned.

Petitions

Monday 17th January 2011 Petitions

Monday 17 January 2011

Further and Higher Education Funding

Monday 17th January 2011 Petitions

The Humble Petition of Sarah Smith and students from schools across Wirral,

Sheweth,

that the Petitioners believe that the Government’s abolition of the Education Maintenance Allowance and the proposals to lift the cap on University fees will prevent students from poorer backgrounds having full and fair access to education.

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House rejects any proposals to remove the cap on university tuition fees and urges the Government to enhance equality of opportunity and equal access to education instead of cutting off support for students and creating some of the most expensive tuition fees in the World.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.—[Presented by Ms Angela Eagle, Official Report, 8 December 2010; Vol. 520, c. 490.]

[P000869]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, received 14 January 2011:

The Chancellor announced on 20 October that we would be ending the EMA scheme. The scheme will close to new applicants from 1 January 2011, and will close entirely at the end of the 2010-11 academic year. It is being replaced, from September 2011, with an enhanced discretionary learner support fund, enabling closer targeting of resource to individual young people who face a real financial barrier to participation.

Young people who are currently receiving the EMA will continue to receive it to the end of the academic year. Those students who need financial help with learning costs from September 2011, including those previously in receipt of the EMA, may be eligible for support from the enhanced discretionary learner support fund.

In coming to this decision the Government have looked closely at evaluation evidence and other research carried out by the previous Labour Government, which shows that around 90% of recipients would have stayed on after 16 even if they had not received EMA.

We are maintaining the commitment to full participation and to raising the participation age. In replacing the EMA, we want colleges, schools and training organisations to be able to make sure that those students who need support the most will receive it.

Our proposals to reform higher education funding and student finance incorporate a range of measures to ensure that students from poorer backgrounds can have full and fair access to a higher education. This includes the fact that the Government will provide the up-front finance for anyone eligible who secures a place at university so that graduates do not have to contribute to the cost of their higher education until they are earning more than £21,000.

We are also proposing a generous student support package to help full-time students with living costs. The poorest students will be able to get more non-repayable grant than under the current system and most full-time students should have no less overall support for living costs than they do now.

We are asking universities and colleges that want to charge above £6,000 per annum (and subject to a limit of £9,000 in exceptional circumstances) for any or all of their courses to first secure the agreement of the Office for Fair Access, and meet tough new access conditions. We have also announced a new £150 million National Scholarship Programme to attract bright students from disadvantaged backgrounds to help them access universities and guaranteeing them extra support to help them meet the costs of going to university.

Good quality and diverse higher education is a benefit to society and to the economy in the long term. These proposals will ensure that our world-class higher education sector has the sustainable long-term funding it needs and that all those who can benefit from a higher education have the opportunity to participate.

Education Maintenance Allowance (Wakefield College)

Monday 17th January 2011 Petitions

The Petition of Wakefield College and residents of the Wakefield constituency and others,

Declares that the previous Labour Government’s introduction of the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA), to students from households where the combined family income is less than £30,810, has increased the recruitment and retention of 16 year olds in full-time education; further declares that 58% of students at Wakefield College receive an EMA; further declares that for many families the EMA has become an essential part of their income; further declares that the EMA is a vital tool for raising attainment levels for 16-19 year olds and increasing social mobility; and further declares that this financial support to young people continuing their education and training is a valuable investment in young people across the country.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to consider the value of the EMA as a vital support to students from low income backgrounds; to recognise the importance of the EMA as a tool for raising attainment levels for 16-19 year olds and to increase social mobility; to recognise the devastating impact any cuts to the EMA would have on students at Wakefield College; and to therefore pledge that the EMA will not be subject to Government cuts but protected and maintained in the future.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Mary Creagh, Official Report, 19 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 920.][P000865]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Education, received 14 January 2011:

The Chancellor announced on 20 October that we would be ending the EMA scheme. The scheme will close to new applicants from 1 January 2011, and will close entirely at the end of the 2010-11 academic year. It is being replaced, from September 2011, with an enhanced discretionary learner support fund, enabling closer targeting of resource to individual young people who face a real financial barrier to participation.

Young people who are currently receiving the EMA will continue to receive it to the end of the academic year. Those students who need financial help from September 2011, including those previously in receipt of the EMA, may be eligible for support from the enhanced discretionary learner support fund.

In coming to this decision the Government have looked closely at evaluation evidence and other research carried out by the previous Labour Government, which shows that around 90% of recipients would have stayed on after 16 even if they had not received EMA.

We are maintaining the commitment to full participation and to raising the participation age. In replacing the EMA, we want colleges, schools and training organisations to be able to make sure that those students who need support the most will receive it.

Written Ministerial Statements

Monday 17th January 2011 Written Statements

Monday 17 January 2011

Integrated Merlin Operational Support Contract

Monday 17th January 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff)]

I am pleased to announce the continuation of the 25-year Integrated Merlin Operational Support (IMOS) contract with the agreement of the second pricing period with Agusta Westland valued at approximately £570 million. The IMOS contract was awarded to Agusta Westland in 2006 to secure the future availability of the Merlin helicopter fleet to the front line while saving the Ministry of Defence and UK taxpayers around £12 million per year compared to previous contractual arrangements. At a time when Merlin helicopters are deployed in Afghanistan and on maritime operations worldwide, agreement to the second pricing period from 2011 to 2016 has ensured that cost-effective operational support will continue, at the level required by the armed forces. I am also pleased to use this opportunity to welcome the first flight of the Merlin Mk 2, being developed by Lockheed Martin. The aircraft is due to enter service in 2013 and achieve full operational capability during 2014.

Trusts (Capital and Income) Bill

Monday 17th January 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

I am pleased to announce that having considered the response to the Ministry of Justice’s public consultation on the Trusts (Capital and Income) Bill, the Government have decided to take forward the proposed reforms, subject to minor modifications to meet concerns raised during the consultation, when parliamentary time permits.

These reforms are based on the three legislative recommendations made by the Law Commission in its 2009 report “Capital and Income in Trusts: Classification and Apportionment” (Law Com 315).

I have placed copies of the Ministry of Justice’s response document to the consultation, which is being published today, in the Libraries of both Houses.

Grand Committee

Monday 17th January 2011 Grand Committee

Monday, 17 January 2011.

Arrangement of Business

Monday 17th January 2011 Grand Committee

Announcement

15:30

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Colwyn)]

My Lords, let us start. The usual procedure applies: if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting in Committee, we will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.

Energy Bill [HL]

Monday 17th January 2011 Grand Committee

Committee

15:31

Amendment 1

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

1: Before Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Purpose of Part 1
(1) The principal purpose of this Part is to deliver energy savings from the domestic building stock, which will make commensurate contributions to—
(a) the achievement of the target contained in section 1(1) of the Climate Change Act 2008 and the carbon budget set for each budgetary period under Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008; and(b) the elimination of fuel poverty by the target date required by section 2(2)(d) of the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000.(2) In performing functions under this Part the relevant persons shall have regard to—
(a) the principal purpose set out in subsection (1); and(b) the recommendations made from time to time by the Committee on Climate Change, where these are adopted by the Secretary of State.(3) In this section “relevant persons” means—
(a) the Secretary of State;(b) any person or body required by this Part or empowered by the Secretary of State to carry out functions under this Part.”

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 1A and 1C. The amendment may seem long but I can assure noble Lords that its purpose is very straightforward. I think that it is also helpful in setting the Bill into the context of government policy and existing government legislation. The Government have indicated very great ambition for the Green Deal, and I will come to that during the course of today’s debate and further debates. However, what is not clear from this legislation is how those ambitions will be met. The intention of this amendment is to ensure that all aspects of Part 1 of the Bill—that is, the Green Deal, the private rented sector and the other measures—are grounded in the purposes that the Secretary of State has indicated in both the impact assessment and in various speeches and press releases that we have seen from Ministers in the department. The intention of the subsequent four clauses, and the three that I am speaking to, is to define a purpose for Part 1—to place a duty on the Secretary of State, as we will hear from my noble friend, and on Welsh Ministers to produce a plan for improved energy efficiency, and also to create a means of reporting on progress towards achieving the aims set out in that plan.

I will say something briefly about each clause. The Secretary of State has described the Green Deal programme as,

“the most ambitious energy-saving plan ever put forward”.

If that is the case and it is to be achieved, we need to see that ambition grounded in a concrete set of objectives so that it is more than just an aspiration and really does become a reality. The Government have indicated that the purposes of the Green Deal and the related proposals that appear in Part 1 are: to improve the energy efficiency of existing building stock in the UK, including household and non-domestic properties, in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions cost-effectively and fairly; and to contribute—I emphasise this—to our legally binding targets and improve the security of the UK energy supply. Under those legally binding targets, the UK is committed to achieving a 34 per cent reduction of CO₂ emissions by 2020 relative to 1990, and at least an 80 per cent reduction by 2050. As the impact assessment—a weighty document—makes clear:

“There remains a considerable amount of cost effective abatement potential from energy efficiency measures in the domestic and business sectors which, if taken up, will mean that Carbon Budgets are met at a lower overall cost to society”.

The Government have indicated in their summary proposal for the Green Deal that they need to cut emissions in homes by 29 per cent by 2022 based on 2008 levels, which they say will deliver on the target of 34 per cent by 2020. That is obviously an inadequate ambition, and it is not properly defined in the Green Deal document how they will ensure that this really is delivered. Therefore it makes real sense for the ambition of the Green Deal to be linked to the scale required for carbon budgets and take into account the recommendations of the Committee on Climate Change for the future budgets.

As the Green Deal is a programme that lasts into the 2020s and through to 2030, the Government will want to ensure that they are delivering at the scale and pace required to meet the carbon reduction targets. We know that the Government’s objective is to make the Green Deal work, ensuring serious carbon reductions. As the Minister Greg Barker said:

“The new Green Deal initiative will help us achieve, or exceed, the binding targets for carbon reductions set during the previous administration”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/7/10; col. 148W.]

He also said:

“We basically need to retrofit the entire housing stock”,

but he does not define what that retrofit would achieve. So there is a clear lack of detail. For the Government to state that they want to transform the whole housing stock and yet not indicate what this transformation will look like or what this means for carbon reduction energy saving is quite a significant omission.

The Government are not short on ambition for this legislation. Greg Barker stated that they want to retrofit 14 million homes by 2020. Chris Huhne described the Green Deal as:

“A once-and-for-all refit that will make every home in Britain ready for a low-carbon future”.

He added:

“No more half-measures going off at half-cock”.

Those are his words, not mine.

I have been through a number of ministerial speeches, comments and press releases—as the Minister knows, I look at the DECC website every day—but I cannot find anything about what energy carbon savings the Green Deal is anticipated to deliver even if the take-up is high, as the Government anticipate that it will be. So the Secretary of State has not stated what the carbon reductions from the housing sector need to be or what the standard of an individual home must be in order to contribute to the carbon reduction. So, defining the energy saving to be achieved to meet the reduction will provide more clarity on what will then need to be delivered in terms of improvement to properties.

Perhaps I may also address the fairness issue which the Government raised as an objective in the impact assessment. The principal purpose of these provisions should be in line with the statutory target date for elimination of fuel poverty as provided for by the provisions of the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000. Aspects of the Green Deal programme—the energy company obligation in chapter 4—are partially aimed at assisting the most vulnerable. During the course of debates and deliberations on this Bill, the Government will need to decide whether the most vulnerable can be assisted early on in the new deal.

The intention of subsection (2) of the proposed new clause is to ensure that the Secretary of State and anybody he empowers to carry out anything under Part 1 of the Bill—the Green Deal providers, the energy companies, et cetera—will have to have regard to what will be delivered and provided towards the principal purposes outlined.

I turn to the new clause proposed in Amendment 1A, which deals with the Secretary of State’s duty to improve energy efficiency. By 2020 we should reduce carbon emissions from the housing stock by at least 42 per cent in line with the intended carbon budget proposed by the Committee on Climate Change. As I am sure we will repeat often during the course of this Committee, the Secretary of State has said that this Green Deal,

“is going to be a revolution … the most ambitious energy-saving plan ever put forward”.

Yet there is not really a plan. There is, however, an intention, and I think there are some good words around the ambition which are welcome. We will do our bit to work with the Government to ensure that we can realise that intention and that ambition. That intention and that ambition, however, is not a substitute for a clearly defined plan that is on paper, that is published and that outlines a policy measure to be introduced.

So, publishing a plan that defines that ambition could make real sense. It also gives to business and those seeking to introduce and deliver the Green Deal the certainty that they need to get themselves geared up and ready. I am sure that the Minister has seen the statement from a number of businesses and NGOs, from the Federation of Master Builders, the World Wide Fund for Nature, Marks & Spencer, B&Q and the UK Green Building Council, which all welcomed the Green Deal but emphasise the need for certainty and ambition. It is in seeking to provide that certainty that we put forward this amendment today.

The plan has to include a clearly stated level of energy savings to be achieved in each carbon budget period and the level of carbon budget reduction to be achieved. The complementary policies, such as the financial incentives and the means of ensuring that the cost of capital is kept low, will be key in this. How the Government expect it to be delivered and achieved will be outlined in the plan.

At present the Government have not outlined how they intend to report on the progress on what has been achieved as we move forward on the Green Deal. The plan can outline the frequency and measures that the Government will introduce to monitor progress towards achieving the plan and carbon reduction targets. This will outline the impact indicators that the Government will introduce.

The plan will also have to take into account other plans because the UK energy system is UK-wide. Demand reduction in one part of the system will impact on another. The Government should ensure that the plan takes into account and has regard to what the Scottish Government intend to deliver in energy saving and what the Welsh Ministers intend to introduce as part of their contribution to meeting the carbon reduction targets under the Climate Change Act. There should also be included a means of review. The Green Deal policy will not just exist for a few years. It will be with us until 2030, over several Parliaments and several carbon budget periods. The recommendations of the Committee on Climate Change will change and develop over time. The Government need to have regard to that advice and any increase on the carbon budget targets that will impact on the level of energy saving that will need to be achieved under this programme.

I move on to Clause 4, on the annual report on progress. As it says on the tin, the provisions in this section in the new clause seek to integrate the reporting on progress under this plan with those reports already published under the provisions of the Sustainable Energy Act 2003. This will integrate reporting on the progress achieved on energy savings through the energy efficiency provisions in this Act with other sustainable energy reporting requirements. That does not preclude the Secretary of State from defining further reporting requirements in the plan that he is required to produce under Section 2.

I believe that the Government are serious in their intent for the Green Deal. However, this intent to achieve carbon reductions needs to be made clear. It needs to be an explicit and real commitment and not just a target or an aspiration. I hope the Minister feels able to support these amendments. I look forward to his support and comments.

[Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan]

Thank you. I was expecting some of the Government’s Back-Benchers in their varying forms to jump up and to defend this Bill in its present form. There are always criticisms made of Bills but, apart from Ministers who are paid to defend them, there are always people—

[Lord Marland]

For the record, I am not paid.

[Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan]

That is fine. Every man has his price. Some are well enough off to be able to do that. Many of the people we are concerned about in this Bill and who are looking to this legislation for assistance would be very happy to be in that position. A lot of them work for nothing on the basis that they are unemployed. That is why they live in fuel poverty.

As I say, the purpose of this amendment—coming from people who in the past have sought to pin down Governments to make sure that they will meet their requirements whether by international law or by British legislation—is to improve the Bill. We have had people on the Benches opposite cheering in the wings when the previous Government were taken to court because they had not met, in the eyes of some people, the requirements of the legislation of the 1990s and of 2008 to meet some of the fuel poverty targets. One would have thought that they would have been happy to make more explicit the commitment of the Government to these aims and objectives, because there is nothing which we are advocating here that is at variance with government policy.

15:45

It is certainly the case that it is desirable to make explicit at every opportunity the Government’s intentions to tackle both climate change and the contribution that is made to CO₂ emissions by the inadequate housing construction that we have in the United Kingdom at present. This amendment, very briefly and very effectively, draws attention to the commitments that this Government have accepted from their predecessor and to the new objectives that are incorporated within the proposed legislation as a consequence of the proposed Green Deal. If we are to make progress then it is essential that we do not at any stage lose sight of the fact that we require a 34 per cent reduction in CO₂ emissions by 2020 relative to 1990 and that we need to move on to even more substantial reductions using the 1990 base figure when we get to 2050.

Certainly these matters will be monitored by the Committee on Climate Change. They will be looked at by a variety of people and they will be the subject of annual reports to Parliament. It certainly does not do any harm for the annual reporting process to be incorporated in this legislation—which, of any, seems to be the most appropriate at the moment to reinforce that message. Certainly it does not do any harm for the duties of Secretaries of State to be repeated in legislation and to make clear that there is no possibility of backsliding—or, if there are to be issues relating to backsliding, that they can be the subject of parliamentary debate when the annual report is presented to Parliament.

Moreover it is important that we recognise that there are somewhat clear—and, in some ways, rather difficult—relationships between the Welsh Assembly and this place. That is particularly so when ambitions embraced by the Welsh Assembly are not necessarily matched by access to funds. However, it may well be that, as a consequence of the referendum which is to be held later this year, they will have access, or a greater degree of freedom, to spend the allocations from Whitehall. Certainly it does not do any harm to have the Welsh Executive on the same page as the Secretary of State, outlining their responsibilities, and ensuring that the Welsh Ministries are included in the annual report.

The three amendments in this group would enhance the Bill. They would enable those who perhaps suffer from insomnia and who read parliamentary legislation as an aid to sleeping at night to get through the first part of the Bill in which it would be made quite explicit what are the objectives and ambitions of this legislation. It is fair to say that this Bill is very ambitious and for that we give the Government credit. But it is one thing to have pre-election promises, immediate post-election legislation and Second Reading speeches, and another to realise those ambitions. That is where we have to hold them to account. It is therefore very useful for the Government to be held to account in the first clause of the Bill. That is why I am very happy to see this clause proposed and to support these amendments. They are more than just a reiteration of past policy and current ambition; they are a clear indication of what the Government have to do if they are to meet their responsibilities to the people of Britain and to those who live in inadequately insulated houses and if they are to meet their wider international responsibilities in the fight against unnecessary climate change.

I am very happy to support my noble friend in her attempt to amend the Bill. I would like to think that the amendment is so uncontroversial that those who have previously sought to make the Government’s intentions explicit, and who have sought to require Governments to be more accountable, are able sign up to it. I realise that we will not be voting for it at this stage. It may well be that at Third Reading such an opportunity will arise. But it is important that we get an indication from the Minister—paid or unpaid—that there is an intention to enter into the spirit of this legislation in a more meaningful way than the somewhat inadequate words of the first clause would suggest.

[Lord Dixon-Smith]

My Lords, I feel tempted to rise for the fly that has been flicked over us, as you might say, even though I suspect that it is probably uncatchable. To explain my attitude to all this—particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon; she and I share a certain amount in our background—I should explain that I was once responsible for the total built estate in Essex. Part of that responsibility was structural maintenance, and the other part—even 30 years ago when I was doing it—was energy efficiency, not least of the problems being because we had many buildings erected under a very different regime in the 1950s that were extremely energy inefficient.

The point that I really want to make is this: in those days, energy efficiency was constantly measured and schemes for improving the energy efficiency of buildings flew in and out of our programme with monotonous regularity, because they were always dependent on showing an economic return. Interest rates in those days changed with monotonous regularity, and the consequence was that a scheme that might be eligible for consideration one month would go out six months or even three months later, because there was no longer an economic return. However else we look at the question of energy efficiency in housing, economic return will still be the driver on which individuals will make up their minds whether to participate in the scheme. Not least of the problems that the Government face in proposing a scheme of this nature, particularly at present when interest rates have been consistently low for a long period, is that it is almost impossible to judge what view people will take if interest rates go up to 5, 6 or 7 per cent. That would not be unforeseeable if the economy changes, particularly if inflation stays consistently high. That is one difficulty that the Government definitely have to face.

My problem with the amendments comes down to a slightly more difficult point. It is all very well for the Government to propose a scheme, but it depends on voluntary participation. People have to say that they wish to take part; there is no mechanism for compulsion, and rightly so. To ask the Government to predict what sort of savings in carbon emissions they expect as a result of the scheme is setting an impossible task. I do not see how it can be done. In any event, however significant the scheme may be in the context of the Climate Change Act and its 2050 target, it will play only a minor part. That target was specifically mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, as a reason behind her amendment, but the critical issue in relation to it will be what happens to carbon dioxide.

If you remove carbon dioxide from electricity generation, you can turn a house totally into a zero-emissions house. The energy efficiency does not need to alter one iota if it is an all-electric house. At that point, you fall back on what I have already said—that the decision on whether to participate in an energy efficiency scheme is entirely and properly a responsibility of the householder. Therefore, I have a fundamental difference in approach.

I sometimes wonder when I see amendments like this how the proposers thought we would ever achieve the present state of development that we enjoy in this country, which is very sophisticated. The more sophisticated our society becomes, curiously, the more sophistication and complexity seems to be demanded in our legislation, which in fact makes legislation more difficult to implement. We have something here which depends on volunteers, and we already have a mechanism for annual reporting because the Government’s carbon performance has to be reported annually to the climate change committee. It seems to me therefore that the background to these amendments is superfluous. In order to keep legislation simple and understandable, I hope that the final decision will be that these amendments should not become part of the Bill.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Lord Marland)]

My Lords, this is the first Bill that I have been involved with, so please be patient with me, if you would be so kind. It is good for this House that the Energy Bill is starting here, and I thank all noble Lords for their well thought out and helpful amendments. We may, of course, resist some of them, but they will be given respectful consideration and full discussion. I would also like to thank the opposition Benches for their constructive approach to this through the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon. I would particularly like to thank my officials, who have worked through the weekend and have had to respond to amendments tabled as recently as this morning. So they have put in a tremendous amount of hard work. I would also like to thank my unpaid friend Lady Northover, who joins me not as a rich person who can afford things—as the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, thinks—but as someone who believes in public service.

Throughout our consideration of this Bill my door is always open, as is my limited mind, and should you wish at any time during this Committee to discuss any issues, I would be delighted to do so. So thank you in advance, all of you, for your support. I would also like to thank the noble Lords and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, for bringing forward these amendments which seek to provide clarity about the purposes of this part of the Bill, to ensure that those delivering the Green Deal have regard to those purposes, and to require annual reports on progress.

Amendment 1 seeks to put in statute the purposes of the Green Deal and to require relevant persons to have regard to these purposes in fulfilment of their functions. The Green Deal is indeed central to the carbon reduction target contained in the Climate Change Act and to the elimination of fuel poverty. I welcome the opportunity provided by this proposed amendment to provide clarity on the purposes of the policy.

There are, however, difficulties with this proposed clause as an operational clause, many of which my noble Friend Lord Dixon-Smith has alluded to. The Green Deal is about establishing a commercial framework in which businesses can take the lead in delivering a new type of finance package designed to address climate change and fuel poverty. However, most of the regulatory functions which will be performed by specific bodies under this Bill are for consumer protection. For example, those persons running accreditation schemes ought to be focused on setting and enforcing standards to protect customers, not having to have regard to a trade-off between high-level policy aims such as carbon reduction and operational issues such as enforcing standards. We should resist an overarching purpose because we do not want to open an opportunity to challenge inappropriate commercial practices on the basis that the end justifies the means if the overarching purpose is achieved.

16:00

We are also concerned that this amendment might cover all parties to the Green Deal—including installers, assessors and Green Deal providers—and, if so, places obligations most fitted to government onto commercial agents. For example, I do not consider it appropriate to ask an insulation installer to have regard to the recommendations of the Committee on Climate Change. Furthermore, Green Deal participants will quite legitimately hold commercial objectives that are not reflected in subsection (1) of the proposed new clause— ie, business motives but which indirectly contribute to public policy aims. By defining the purposes in this way, we risk creating unnecessary complications that could have unintended effects.

I hope the noble Baroness will therefore agree on this basis to withdraw her amendment, while taking comfort in the fact that we are in complete agreement on the relevance of the Bill to carbon targets and fuel poverty.

The key principles behind Amendments 1A, 1B and 1C are also ones where I support wholeheartedly the sentiment. There is no question but that we would want to explain how our energy efficiency policies will deliver our carbon saving and fuel poverty goals. However, the aims of these amendments are already provided for by existing legislation. Later this year we will publish a carbon plan to set out, department by department, the policies and deadlines that will ensure real action on climate change. Our energy efficiency policies, not least the Green Deal, will be a key element of this plan. Also, as required by Section 2(1) of the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000, the Government have in place a strategy for delivering their fuel poverty targets.

The Government are obliged to report each year on progress towards our carbon and fuel poverty targets, and, as my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith referenced, our progress against these objectives is scrutinised by independent bodies, namely the Committee on Climate Change and the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group. In the light of this, I believe that the aims of this amendment are already provided for through existing arrangements, and I am not keen to unnecessarily multiply statutory duties to create plans and report progress. I therefore invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I am grateful to the Minister for his response. He says that this is his first Committee stage in this House. It is also my first Committee stage in this House, as well as my first Committee stage in opposition, so I hope that we both find it an enjoyable and rewarding experience. I also thank my noble friend Lord O’Neill for his comments. I think that he understood the point that I was trying to make. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, but as much as the two of us share an interest in Essex County Council, I am really not seeking in these new clauses to introduce any new targets. I am merely seeking to ensure that there is a way in which Ministers’ objectives for the Bill can be judged against the targets which have already been established, and a way in which this Bill and the Green Deal can be judged against those targets.

Ministers expressed enormous confidence in the Bill. Chris Huhne, the Secretary of State, said that it is a “revolution” and the,

“most ambitious energy-saving plan ever”.

It is a “game-changing” plan, says Greg Barker. There is huge ambition for the legislation, as is right. However, if Ministers really feel that the Bill can deliver the carbon reductions, I should hope that they would also want to measure that in some way. So I am seeking to use the existing legislation, not to create greater commitments.

I understand the Minister’s comments about the Bill being commercial. However, I think that the Government have a responsibility as well. It is not good enough for the Government to want to introduce legislation, but then to take a step back and say that the market will provide. This is clearly a commercial matter. However, the Government are setting boundaries and guidance on consumer protection because the market on its own will not provide it unless there is government legislation and support to ensure that it happens. As for having regard to the Committee on Climate Change, although we are reluctant, we would want to ensure that the Government support and work with these organisations.

I am a bit disappointed by the Minister’s response. I had expected a warm welcome for the new clauses, in the spirit of co-operation which he mentioned. We will seek co-operation with him, and I will seek leave to withdraw the amendment for now, but I also ask him to take away the points I have made and to look at them and perhaps we can discuss them further before Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

Amendment 1A not moved.

Amendment 1B

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

1B: Before Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty of Welsh Ministers to improve energy efficiency
(1) The Welsh Ministers must prepare and publish a plan for achieving the principal purpose set out in section (Purpose of Part 1) (1) in Wales.
(2) The plan referred to in subsection (1) must establish specific aims and describe the proposed means of achieving them together with methods for reporting on progress towards meeting them.
(3) In preparing the plan, the Welsh Ministers must take account of any plans produced under section (Duty of Secretary of State to improve energy efficiency) of this Act and section 60(2) of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009.
(4) Where an aim is designated under this section, the Welsh Ministers must take all reasonable steps to achieve that aim.
(5) The plan prepared under subsection (1) must be published no later than one year after the day on which this section comes into force.
(6) The Welsh Ministers must review the plan prepared and published under this section within one year of each order setting a carbon budget under section 8(1) of the Climate Change Act 2008.
(7) Where the Welsh Ministers revise the plan, following a review under subsection (6), they must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, publish the revised plan.
(8) The Welsh Ministers must, as soon is reasonably practicable after publishing a plan under this section, lay it before the National Assembly for Wales.
(9) The Welsh Ministers must report annually to the Secretary of State on progress made in the reporting period towards achieving the annual targets established by the plan prepared and published under this section.”

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

I confess that this is not my first time speaking for the Opposition in Committee; I am not enjoying it and I do not expect to enjoy it. Being in opposition is nothing like being in government, as we all recognise. However, over a period of time, I spoke on Welsh matters and therefore have a considerable respect for the devolution settlement and the importance of considering how we appreciate Welsh interests in our legislation. That is why I am moving this amendment.

[Baroness Noakes]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I am a little confused. Amendment 1B was grouped with the previous amendment moved by the noble Baroness. Are the opposition Benches not following the groupings that have been published for this afternoon? If so, could we have a sight of the groupings that they are working to?

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

Obviously noble Lords are able to speak to any amendment as it comes up on the Order Paper. I agree that Amendment 1B was not in the original grouping.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

I apologise to the noble Baroness; it was late notice, but we understood that in the latest official groupings Amendment 1B was to be degrouped. If it is not on the official groupings list, I present my apologies to her in pre-empting that position. It was our intention to keep the Welsh amendment separate because although he indicated aspects of principle on which he did not agree with our other amendments, he indicated that Committee stage is a time when we can consider issues in the round. Although he has indicated his reservations about the previous amendments, it is only appropriate for me to emphasise the importance of Amendment 1B and say that in our general consideration, we recognise the position of Wales.

The Scottish position is covered by similar provisions in the Climate Change Act 2008, so issues with regard to Scotland do not need to be considered specifically in this legislation. Issues with regard to Wales do need to be considered, however, particularly against a background where—as the Minister knows only too well, with the impending referendum on the powers of Wales—this is quite an important year for the devolution settlement. My noble friend Lord O’Neill identified the fact that there is a vast difference between the objectives and aspirations that the Welsh Assembly Government might have and their ability to translate these into achievements in terms of the resources which they have at their disposal and can command. That is an issue to be settled much later this year.

When the Minister is considering the issues which my noble friend has raised on the Green Deal, I suggest that he respects the position of Welsh Ministers and the role of the Welsh Assembly. I beg to move.

[Lord Dixon-Smith]

My Lords, I was trying to get in before the noble Lord sat down. I assume from what he said that Welsh Ministers have seen this amendment and support it.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

If we won the argument substantially with the Government on the main proposals of the Bill, I have not the slightest doubt that the wisdom of Wales would be such that Welsh Ministers and the Welsh nation would recognise the values in the Bill which would be translated into meaningful structures for them. However, we have not yet consulted Welsh Ministers on the amendment.

[Lord Marland]

We greatly welcome the attendance of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, who always brings great oratory to our debates, which we enjoy.

On Amendment 1B, the comments that I made on the previous group stand. The position in respect of Wales is particularly complicated, given, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, the way in which the devolution settlement operates in this area. I would certainly want to consider further and consult as necessary before agreeing anything in this area. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

The Minister’s response has not surprised me, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1B withdrawn.

Amendment 1C not moved.

Debate on whether Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I thought it would be helpful to say something about our general approach to the Bill and the Green Deal and to speak to our Amendment 38 as well. The Government have great ambitions and hopes for the Bill, as well as soaring rhetoric. Chris Huhne describes it as a revolution. Indeed, on Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Marland, said that the Bill will take energy efficiency off the back burner—not that I am convinced it was on the back burner—and put it at the forefront of government policy. While I may take issue with some of the rhetoric that has been used by Ministers—I still feel slightly disappointed at the lack of ambition in terms of measuring the carbon reduction—these are very worthy objectives which we support. I thank the Minister for the engagement he has shown so far and will continue to show during our proceedings. We will seek to ensure that the Green Deal is fit for purpose and can achieve the objectives that we all wish for it.

I have two specific issues: one is on Amendment 38 and the other on Clause 1. I am not clear from Clause 1 about what is an energy plan and what is a Green Deal plan. The energy plan becomes a Green Deal plan only when there is an agreement that the costs can be paid for by the installers; that becomes clear in later clauses. However—and I have raised this with the Minister elsewhere—this could mean householders not being informed about potential cost savings and carbon savings that could be funded in another way. This contrasts not very favourably with Labour’s whole-house policy.

I am seeking to prevent a householder losing the opportunity to go beyond the Green Deal or not even realising that they could do so. They would only be informed of the measures that would be likely to attract Green Deal funding, yet there are other funding streams. Householders may choose to fund some measures themselves such as a feed-in tariff. There are also renewable heating incentives and some water company funds are available as well.

Unless it is clear that the assessor should undertake an energy plan, report that to the householder and then move from an energy plan to a Green Deal plan, we face two problems. We could lose public confidence because in effect the assessor would decide which measures in an energy plan could be undertaken in a Green Deal plan. That is a matter for the householder or tenant to decide—the person who is paying the bill—not an assessor. If the householder loses the right to decide which measures are Green Deal plans and which are energy plans, that would undermine public confidence.

We need to explain the difference and make that explicit in the legislation. Where an assessor goes in to a home and undertakes a major energy plan, I would like the householder, with the assessor and perhaps an installer, to decide which measures would be undertaken under the Green Deal. I hope the Minister will take that proposal away and look at it, because I am sure that what is proposed under the Bill is not the intention. If it is, it would be impossible to reach the targets set by the Secretary of State.

Amendment 38 is not a minor point. It would rename the Energy Bill the energy framework Bill. Noble Lords will be aware that originally the Bill was going to be the green energy and energy security Bill. That is why it is called the Energy Bill. Yet, in this Bill, my understanding is that—and correct me if I have the wrong number—something like 52 separate pieces of secondary legislation will have to come forward following this. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, raised this at Second Reading as well. I understand some of the reasons why but I find it unsatisfactory where so much legislation will be decided by secondary legislation that needs to be examined fully by this House.

At Second Reading the noble Lord said:

“I will clarify that this is a framework Bill on which there is a lot of work to be done”.—[Official Report, 22/12/10; col. 1151.]

I do not raise the issue out of frivolity. It is a matter of accuracy that the Bill could be renamed the energy framework Bill. I hope that the Minister will take on board the point and also the difference between an energy plan and Green Deal plan. I beg to move.

16:15

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

My Lords, I should not interrupt at this stage but perhaps it will help the Committee if I clarify one point. Because different groupings lists are circulating, and I have an older list, I should point out that the Question we are discussing now is whether Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill, and Amendment 38 is grouped with it.

[Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan]

I reiterate the point that was made by the noble Baroness just before she sat down. There are references to upcoming statutory instruments. They are mentioned in Clause 1 and two of them are of more than passing significance. It would be helpful if in this stand-part discussion the Minister could give us some indication of what is meant by an eligible property and some guidance relating to energy efficiency improvements. We are not asking him to give us chapter and verse but to give us a rough outline. These two things are obviously at the very heart of the Green Deal. It would be helpful if at this stage we could begin to get some kind of idea of what the Government have in mind in respect of upcoming statutory instruments.

We have had a passage of some three or four weeks. Admittedly there was the Christmas and new year break. Nevertheless, it is not beyond the wit and capability of the department and the officials. The Minister should have been asking for this to get some kind of rough outline of two of the central points of the Green Deal that appeared in Clause 1; that is to say the qualifying energy efficiency improvements and what is meant by eligible properties. If we could get some kind of clear indication on and definition of these points at this stage, it would assist us. It would perhaps diminish the need for us to continue to ask the Government for definitions and statutory instruments—albeit in a consultative form—at every stage and turn. We can make considerably more progress if we receive that than we are likely to make if we do not get it.

[Baroness Noakes]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, pointed out, I raised inter alia whether or not statutory instruments in draft would be available at Second Reading. Answer came there none from my Front Bench. In fact, my noble friend Lord Marland said—as if it was a badge of honour—that this is a framework Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has translated that badge of honour into her Amendment 38 and, apparently, has also made it a good part of the Bill. I had not anticipated that we would be debating this point today. I have today tabled amendments—we will not see them on the list until tomorrow—that will tease out this point.

The Constitution Committee is clear that a framework Bill is on a par with a Henry VIII clause; that is to say, they are fundamentally unconstitutional. In particular—this is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill—it sucks out the ability of this House, as a revising Chamber, to make any significant impact on the genuine content of what will be the result of the legislation. As a matter of principle—and the committee reiterated this as recently as the Public Bodies Bill—it does not believe that framework Bills are a good thing. I therefore oppose the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, because putting “framework” in makes it sound as if it is okay. I believe that this House ought to hold out against excessive use of Henry VIII powers and the excessive use of framework legislation where there is no good reason for it and where the amount of information that will be made available to noble Lords during the passage of a Bill will not enable them to exercise their crucial function as a revising Chamber.

I will make these points again when I come to my amendments which are on the way to being tabled in respect of Chapter 4 of Part 1, which is the point that I specifically raised on Second Reading in regard to this very inchoate legislation. I had not intended to raise this point on the Green Deal, but I fully support what the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, has said.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, it is perfectly clear that there is a great deal of detail to be worked out before the Bill becomes operative. Can my noble friend give the Committee an assurance that there will be the fullest consultation with outside interests? And, as has been sought by the Opposition, can he give some indication as to what the various statutory instruments are going to contain? There is an enormous amount of support behind the concept of this Bill. The representation I have had this morning makes the point that,

“there is clearly great deal of detail to be decided upon and it is important that this is done in such a way as to ensure the policy is fit for purpose”.

That is a sentiment that I wholly endorse. I, too, warmly support this Bill, not least because, as I said on Second Reading, it tackles the whole objective by approaching the consumer—the householder—in a totally different way from what happened in the past; they are not being asked to save the planet, they are being asked to save on their energy bills and perhaps have a more comfortable house. That will appeal to a large number of people. Of course, the details will have to be very carefully worked out. I hope that my noble friend can give me some assurance about consultation with the many interests that will have to help operate the whole scheme.

[Lord Marland]

My Lords, this part of the Bill introduces the Green Deal. The Green Deal is at the heart of this Energy Bill, representing a key part of the energy policy and our commitment to improving energy efficiency. In response to my noble and learned friend Lord Jenkin of Roding—

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

I am not learned.

[Lord Marland]

My noble friend is learned, but not in the way that I meant. He does not want to be called learned today.

I cannot imagine a department that consults more than ours. We are locked in consultation on virtually every move we make and will continue to do so. We have had a lot of contributions from outside which we have taken on board in getting to this point.

The Green Deal is designed to address the longstanding problem of how to improve energy efficiency of existing building stock. While on paper improving efficiency of buildings makes sense to save money, protect our climate and improve the comfort of our homes, in practice too little has been done too slowly. There are some good reasons for this: people find it hard, or are reluctant, to take out large loans for property they might leave soon; they often do not trust salesmen and installers; and they are busy and simply do not know what to do.

Our solution, the Green Deal, is threefold. First, the Green Deal plan is a contract under which private companies provide finance up front for energy efficiency improvements and individuals then repay through their energy bills. Liability to repay attaches to the energy bill payer for the time being, so that only the person benefiting makes the repayments. The contract transfers to subsequent bill payers.

Secondly, there is the golden rule: the protecting principles which require that repayment costs should not exceed expected energy bill savings. Thirdly, there is the accreditation and redress system, which is the guarantee of quality which consumers need. It is a simple concept, but to make it both simple and secure for consumers, we need to put a robust framework in place. To ensure attractive external simplicity for the customer, we need to ensure that the internal mechanism comprehensively covers all those involved in the scheme—the assessors, installers, Green Deal providers and energy suppliers. This is a market mechanism funded by private capital.

In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, our responsibility is to create a robust framework backed up by redress and quality control. The Bill focuses on this enabling framework; we will certainly be consulting on the detail for secondary legislation, and I look forward to the input.

I will now speak to the detail of Clause 1. It provides for the Green Deal plans an arrangement made by an owner or occupier whereby a Green Deal provider makes energy efficiency improvements to that property. As the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, said, it is important that we define what is an eligible property, but it is also important that we do not define it in a way that restricts properties. Therefore, the broad definition is as far and wide upon domestic and commercial properties as is possible. Of course there will be exceptions which we are starting to develop, such as something that may have been purchased under a compulsory purchase order. As the noble Lord rightly says, we need to define this over the next few weeks.

The clause defines the conditions that must be met in order for an arrangement to make energy efficiency improvements qualify as a Green Deal plan. By setting out these conditions as requirements of the plan, the clause defines the basis of the Green Deal. Subsection (3) sets out the two conditions that must be met. The first is that,

“the energy efficiency improvements are to be paid for wholly or partly in instalments”.

The second condition is that the requirements of subsection (4) are satisfied. These are that there must be “a relevant energy supplier” supplying or about to supply energy to the property. The energy efficiency improvements to be made must fall,

“within a description specified in an order made by the Secretary of State”.

By setting out qualifying improvements, we can ensure that the customer benefits only from recognised and proven technologies.

Subsection (4) also states that the important conditions mentioned in subsections (4) and (5) must be met. These relate to the assessment of the property and the financial terms on which the Green Deal is offered, and a number of other terms that must be included or must not be included in the plan. This is to ensure that only measures that are appropriate for a property are recommended.

[Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I do not wish to delay the proceedings, but I think he has come upon a point that illustrates the difficulty that some of us have. Consider people who have a solid wall property which is not within the gas network—that is, dependent upon probably oil-fired central heating—and requires, because it is solid wall, very expensive insulation, that will probably never be achieved because of the cost of the job to be done, the nature of the property and the length of time of the repayment. There are quite clearly certain properties which could almost deem themselves to be ineligible to participate in this scheme. Therefore, for us to talk of this great, exciting Green Deal, which is going, among other things, to transform the carbon excess in this country, is at this stage to build up the hopes of a number of people in rural communities outwith the gas grid who live in houses constructed in such a way that to insulate them effectively is going to be so expensive as to make them ineligible to be part of the scheme.

It is that kind of thing that, at the outset of our discussions, we should be clear about because there are some hopeless cases, for want of a better expression, which might never fall into this category. It is for that kind of thing that we want a clearer definition early on. So far, the Minister has not addressed that aspect, which is not beyond the wit and intelligence of the department to make clear at an early stage in our proceedings.

16:30

[Lord Marland]

This is a commercial market-driven project. In any commercial market-driven project there are going to be properties and buildings where, as the noble Lord rightly says, a cost may not be acceptable within the repayment fund or may not be within the golden rule. My sense, and that of the department, is that we set up the structure and see how it proceeds. I live in an oil-fired house in a rural community where we cannot get gas, as do many, as the noble Lord said. If it does not make commercial reality for market-driven forces to help with that, the department and Government should look at how that can best be achieved.

Until the commercial equation is worked out, however, and until I have seen the assessor and the accreditor, I cannot begin to see whether that is a viable proposition. It is incumbent upon the Government to regroup at a point, as the noble Lord rightly says, to see where it has not worked with these properties, what can be done to help, what type of people are not able to take full advantage of the scheme and then see where the Government can help. I look particularly here at the vulnerable, who are vital to this, particularly the vulnerable in rural communities where they cannot have the benefit of this if the numbers do not work out.

I hope that that deals with the noble Lord’s point. However, I think that he is absolutely right. The scheme needs to be road-tested to ensure that it works and we must keep a watchful eye on it. Getting these things precisely ordered is a very good thing for the Bill.

I regret to say that I have forgotten where I was but I have a feeling that I was somewhere like subsection (5) —or was it subsection (4)?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

Subsection (4).

[Lord Marland]

That is very kind of the noble Baroness. Subsection (4)—no, I have already done this. Subsection (5) sets out some conditions that must be met before payments are collected under a Green Deal plan. For example, measures must be installed in accordance with requirements set out in Clause 7. Again, these conditions protect the parties entering into a Green Deal plan and are intended to ensure that payments are not collected until measures have been installed appropriately and the plan has been confirmed.

Subsections (5) and (6) provide that when all the requirements of subsections (3) to (5) have been met, payments under a Green Deal plan are to be made by the person who is liable to pay the energy bill for the property for the time being and should be made through energy bills for the property. This is the core of the Green Deal and the effect of an arrangement qualifying as a Green Deal plan.

In summary, therefore, Clause 1 sets out the conditions that must be met for an arrangement to qualify as a Green Deal plan and the effect of those conditions being met. It is therefore central to the operation of the Green Deal.

Amendment 38 would change the short title of the Bill from the Energy Act 2011 to the Energy Framework Act 2011. I appreciate the sentiment of this amendment, which highlights that the provisions for the Green Deal provide a framework to be codified by further legislation. This is the approach we want to take. The Green Deal provisions are about framing a new market and, as I said earlier, we wish to consult widely.

However, the Bill, while focused on the Green Deal, covers a number of other issues in the energy sector; therefore most of the provisions are not framework provisions. As the short title should describe the Bill as a whole, I do not believe this amendment is appropriate.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, but I am not sure he has addressed the point I made first. On Amendment 38, I think that perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, misunderstood me. It is not with any welcome that I say there are 52 pieces of secondary legislation; I think it is entirely inappropriate. I welcome the fact that the Minister says that he will consult on them. That is very different from having full scrutiny in this House. The point the noble Baroness and I both made at Second Reading is that it would be helpful in our deliberations if we had drafts of some of the secondary legislation as we discuss the Bill.

I accept that this is a framework Bill but I do not welcome the fact that it is. If we look at some of the points that will be covered by secondary legislation, it would be much better if we had that information today. The actual framework of regulations—the code of conduct, for example, and the kind of assessments—would be helpful prior to this stage. I would prefer to see much of this information in primary rather than secondary legislation.

The noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, referred to a lack of clarity. It would be helpful to have some of these comments prior to the Bill, and I apologise if I was not clear enough in my explanation. The objective of this Bill is to ensure that as many households as possible have as much work undertaken as possible in terms of energy efficiency to reduce carbon and reduce bills. The Bill is market-driven in some ways because, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, if there is an incentive for people to save money, there is an incentive to undertake the Green Deal; we would not want to exclude work that could be done and paid for in another way, including by the householder, because it is not in the Green Deal plan.

Clause 1 provides that an energy plan is an arrangement by the occupier owning the property for persons to make energy efficient improvements to the property, and goes on to say that it is an energy plan if it is paid for in instalments. Yet all the references in Clauses 2 and 3 to assessors, the framework regulations and the code of conduct apply to a Green Deal plan. We want to ensure that the assessor can undertake an energy plan so that he can assess how much work can be undertaken in that home to ensure energy efficiency, part of which may be part of the Green Deal. I do not think it has ever been the Minister’s intention to exclude all work other than the Green Deal. It should be an opportunity for the householder. I would welcome further discussion on this, because I do not think this is what the Minister intended.

Clause 1 agreed.

Clause 2 : Green deal plans: supplementary

Amendment 1D

Moved by

[Lord Grantchester]

1D: Clause 2, page 2, line 43, at end insert “, including renewables and low-carbon technologies,”

[Lord Grantchester]

Other noble Lords have alluded to their experience of rising to speak in this Room for the first time. For myself, I am feeling extremely immature, and perhaps appropriately in this Room, I feel I have been put into a little basket and pushed out from the sides.

Our amendment has been tabled not because we oppose the objectives behind the Green Deal scheme, but to take the opportunity to ask the Government further questions about how it is intended to work in practice. In doing so, we hope to build on the constructive conversations we have already heard today on Clause 1.

Clause 2 sets out further introductory measures to the intended scheme. Key terms are defined. It is here that we learn that the improver of the property for the purposes of the scheme may be either the occupier or the owner. We support the principles behind this proposal. Both parties have the opportunity to develop an intimate knowledge of the property, with either party being potentially willing to take the initiative and improve the energy efficiency of the property. This can only be encouraged. What we should add, however, is that further consideration should be given to the consent to the other party being given to any improvements from the party who is not the improver in each case. This should be an informed decision with the full suite of options provided, including those that exceed the maximum finance or sit outside the Green Deal where this is clearly marked.

We also consider that the Bill needs to be clear about who is responsible for ongoing maintenance of any improvements that are installed. It is for this reason that we have tabled Amendments 16A and 16B, which we will have the opportunity to debate later in Committee.

In moving Amendment 1D I shall also speak to Amendments 2A, 2AA and Clause 2 stand part. My noble friend Lord Whitty, who is not in his place, will, I assume, speak to Amendment 2 which proposes that the Green Deal provider may offer measures only if they have taken all reasonable steps to install minimum measures for improving efficiency of electricity, gas or other sources of prescribed energy on the property.

Other key elements of Clause 2 are the types of measures that will be included as energy efficiency improvements to the property. It is here that we have tabled amendments to include a specific reference to renewables. This was a topic that I raised at Second Reading and one that I think should be included within the Bill. There are gains to be found from implementing some of the more expensive energy efficiency measures. Necessarily, the renewable heat incentive income could be a key element, leading to a reduction of the capital and running costs of any renewable heat installation, as less capacity will be required. I emphasise again that this would be a win-win situation.

We also consider that more needs to be done to co-ordinate the feed-in tariff with the energy efficiency measures in the Bill. At Second Reading I noted that,

“if the generating equipment provides excess electricity above the needs of the property, any excess capacity can be exported to the grid”.—[Official Report, 22/12/10; col. 1105.]

We would be able to reuse the energy by working out collectively the sentiment that our party wholeheartedly supports. It is important to note that, for the consumer, homeowners who are not connected to the grid stand to benefit the most from installing renewable heat technologies, since they would be protected from volatility in the price of fuel oil.

I would be greatly interested in seeing more details in the Bill about the Government’s intentions in respect of renewables, as it must be a key objective to reduce carbon omissions and the use of fossil fuels. It must make sense to specify renewables and low-carbon technologies, rather than expect their inclusion under the words,

“or any other source of energy”,

hence the specific inclusion. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Colwyn)]

We are back now on the original Marshalled List. The manuscript amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, is on a separate piece of paper and is included in this group.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, I begin with an apology that I did not table this amendment until this morning. Last week we were fairly heavily involved on various energy matters and I am afraid I only got round to it over the weekend. Compared with the substantial points outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, this is a very minor point and is solely about drafting.

I suggest an amendment to the first line of Clause 2(7) because it refers to the wrong paragraph in the subsection above. Clause 2(7) seeks to enlarge and define the matters that were included in subsection (6)(a). Therefore, for Clause 2(7) to refer to subsection (5)(b)(ii) is wrong because that only refers to the order. I mentioned subsection (6). I beg the Committee’s pardon—it is subsection (5), but it refers to matters in subsection (5)(a) and not subsection (5)(b). I wonder whether it is a misprint or whether there is some hidden matter of drafting which I have not appreciated.

16:45

[Lord Hunt of Chesterton]

My Lords, I wonder if I could support this amendment but also refer back to the Minister’s remarks about the Bill. I have just begun to realise that the Bill is about the Green Deal for certain properties. You have to have an eligible property, and the noble Lord explained very clearly that this is a commercial operation that will not apply to quite a number of properties. That is a very important point. The preamble states that the Bill will:

“Make provision for the arrangement and financing of energy efficiency improvements to be made to properties”.

In fact, the improvements will be made only to certain properties.

You may have a house which, as I mentioned on Second Reading, is subject to flooding. As the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, said, there are going to be houses and properties that are not very appropriate. I think it is very important to say that this is a selective Bill; indeed it is an experimental Bill. Of course, “experiment” is not a word used very often in legislation. We used to use it on Cambridge City Council—because that was Cambridge—and it worked quite well.

We are approaching a new and complex situation and we are going to define this for certain properties with certain types of energy. It is clearly not going to be a Magna Carta, a democratic right, where everybody in the UK can have a Green Deal. I think that that should be made very clear, or clearer. For example, when we come to renewables and low-carbon technologies, as I think the Minister said, certain ones will be approved and certain ones will not be approved, and that is also part of the spirit of the Bill.

As I understand it, the point about this experiment is that some of these investments will not be undertaken by people unless there is a long term. As I understand it, the philosophy of the Bill is that you will approve certain kinds of insulation and energy systems, but you must obviously improve them in such a way that an investment can be made with the energy companies; and there will be cases where this is not true. However, you cannot have is an experiment to approve something for a certain period and then say, “I am going to disapprove that”, because obviously investments must be made. Therefore the timeframe in which you make your approval should be reflected in the Bill, otherwise people will not know what they are doing. That is my view on how we are proceeding, and I think it might be helpful if we made it clear that that is the nature of this Bill.

[Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan]

I support this amendment. It is important that the possibility of renewable energy making a contribution is recognised. It is essential that we try as best we can to make this legislation as explicit as possible. Certainly, when one talks of renewables, one is talking not just of combustion but of other methods such as ground source and air source heat pumps which, I have to say, can only make a bit of a difference. Although they take the chill out of the house, they do not really warm it in the way that we would want, because there has to be other insulation and it tends to be background heating. Nevertheless, they are important, and if we could reduce dependence on oil-fired heating, it would be very useful.

My sister-in-law lives in an oil-fired house in a village just outside Edinburgh, and the oil delivery vehicle had considerable difficulty getting to her house this winter. Indeed, the amount of diesel or petroleum that was used by the company to deliver the oil must have added quite considerably to the CO₂ emissions of that type of heating. We tend to forget the bigger picture. When we have a debate at this early stage in the Bill considering the Green Deal, there may well be other forms of reducing CO₂ emissions which do not spring immediately to mind and may not be included in what will probably be a too neat and tidy box-ticking form of assessment of carbon reduction techniques.

It is important that we make it explicit that renewable technologies across the board should be open to consideration and that the specific circumstances of the properties as yet to be defined are taken into account as well. It certainly might be important, if you have hard-to-insulate houses, that you could get additional forms of heating that might enable what is traditionally a rather expensive form of heating, namely electric central heating, to kick in at some of these rural properties.

Equally, at this stage, in the absence of a definition of eligible properties, we ought to take account of the fact that a number of renewable technologies work when you have not one house but half a dozen of them working together and sharing. These are commonplace in Scandinavia where the climate is more extreme than ours, but the houses tend to be better built and to have more efficient heating systems.

We have to look at this in the absence of a proper definition of “eligible property”. We might need to look at what could be a co-operative venture; that would lend itself to social housing projects but it may well also lend itself to certain village contexts as well. It would therefore be useful to underline the prospects and the possibilities for renewables.

I do not imagine that we can accurately factor in the feed-in tariff at this stage because it is an inexact science. There is every likelihood that feed-in tariffs will go down in value as time moves on. They are a selling point for renewable technologies and we might not want to be too dependent on their contribution to at least an element in the Green Deal. Maybe I am running away with myself here; maybe renewable technologies could have a contribution to make through the feed-in tariff and making the whole package that much more cost effective.

Again, in the absence of adequate definitions, the more explicit we can be in the initial stages of this legislation, the better it will be for our understanding of the potential that we could achieve through the Green Deal, either for individual properties or for a group of them. This group in particular is often the forgotten minority when we are dealing with not just fuel poverty but expensive-to-heat houses; because of their employment circumstances, people have to live outwith the gas grid and are condemned to paying outrageously high fuel bills, which takes up a disproportionate amount of their income. The amendment would help us to concentrate our minds on some of the opportunities, as well as the challenges, that properties of this nature would provide.

[Baroness Northover]

This is not the first Bill that I have worked on, but my previous role in international development was not exactly legislation-heavy, so I can also claim inexperience. It is also outside the remit of all the other areas that I am working on. Therefore we will have to look to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, to guide us.

Clause 2 defines an energy efficiency improvement. This is one of the important criteria for determining the eligibility of works to be financed by a Green Deal plan. The clause is deliberately broad; it allows for a range of measures to be covered by the new framework, including certain energy generation measures as well as measures concerned with reducing energy consumption. It enables the Secretary of State to specify within this broad definition which types of measure will be eligible for Green Deal finance. This will provide the clarity and certainty that industry and consumers need. Green Deal installers will also be required under Clause 7 to adhere to any requirements in the installers’ code of practice regarding the standards of products installed.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty—who is not in his place, but who has vast experience in this area—for tabling Amendment 2, which seeks to ensure that measures which reduce energy consumption are installed before those which generate energy.

Amendments 1D and 2A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lords, Lord Grantchester and Lord Davies, seek to ensure that renewable and low-carbon energy sources and energy generation are covered by the Green Deal.

Amendment 2AA is a technical drafting amendment tabled by the noble Lord with the sharp eyes, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, which is designed to correct a citation made to the wrong subsection.

On Amendments 1D and 2A, it is clearly important to get the right measures in the right buildings in the right order. For example, making improvements to the fabric of buildings to improve air tightness means that if renewable heat and energy technologies are installed at the same time, or further down the line, the energy is not wasted. We would therefore like to consult colleagues on the detail of the proposed amendments and report back at the next stage of the Bill. We need to be clear on what the implications are of these amendments for, among other things, the possible impact on consumer demand.

I should point out to noble Lords who referred to the renewable heating incentives that, in addition to this Bill, they are designed to incentivise people to generate energy. The noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, may be encouraged by that—it sounds as though he is. As he was speaking, the noble Lord, Lord Marland, was making welcoming noises about what he was saying. The schemes are designed to be complementary and I hope that in discussions we can take the ideas further forward.

We will also want to satisfy ourselves that Amendments 1D and 2A do not duplicate existing provisions, as I believe they may. I thank my noble friend Lord Jenkin for his incredibly sharp eyes and for correcting the reference in subsection (5) to subsection (7). His sharp eyes may note a spelling error in his second amendment on the manuscript list, but I am incredibly impressed by his thoroughness.

I invite noble Lords to meet my colleague the noble Lord, Lord Marland, and officials to discuss the proposed amendments in more detail. I hope that noble Lords will be satisfied with this approach and, on that basis, I move that this clause stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

I am not quite clear where we are. As the amendments have not been moved we cannot yet have the question on stand part.

[Baroness Northover]

I think the relevant ones were moved. I am accepting Amendment 2AA and ask that the others be withdrawn.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

I am sorry; we have not yet reached Amendment 2AA and I have not moved it.

[Baroness Northover]

I am asking that Amendment 1D be withdrawn and that Amendment 2AA, when we come to it, is accepted, and that the objection to the clause standing part is rejected and the clause accepted.

[Lord Grantchester]

I thank the noble Baroness for her words. I have a sense that she is going to take away Amendments 1D and 2A and think about them. I wonder whether it matters that they may or may not duplicate provisions but I shall leave that with her. We can now move on to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1D.

Amendment 1D withdrawn.

Amendments 2 and 2A not moved.

17:00

Amendment 2AA

Moved by

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

2AA: Clause 2, page 3, line 25, leave out “(5)(b)(ii) and insert “(5)(a)(ii)”

Amendment 2AA agreed.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed

Clause 3 : Framework regulations

Amendment 2B

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

2B: Clause 3, page 3, line 39, leave out “may” and insert “shall”

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, the purport behind the amendments is to clarify what will be included in the framework regulations. The Minister has used the open term “may” and we are concerned that he should be more deterministic in regard to the regulations. He should include the word “shall” in crucial places in the legislation in order that we are clear about the determination of the Minister and the legislation as to what the regulations will cover.

We want to be clear from the legislation what will appear rather than what will be at the Secretary of State’s discretion. The greater degree of certainty that we are able to establish within this legislation, the clearer the nation will be. This is important for everyone who is a participant in this ambitious agenda for ensuring the reduction of carbon content and for hitting the important targets. The more that is clearly determined in the legislation, the clearer the nation will be about our obligations.

We propose inserting “shall”, and I hope the Minister will take these amendments as an opportunity to give a clear definition of what he expects to be in the legislation. I am sure he appreciates that accepting our amendments would be the clearest way of communicating that fact to our fellow countrymen.

Amendments 5A and 8B seek to establish whether we are limited to the lists referred to in the legislation and I ask the Minister to clarify the position.

It would not become me to pre-empt the amendments which are to be spoken to by other noble Lords but we all recognise from the Second Reading speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, the importance of her amendment, which we support in principle. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, also brings forward a principle that we largely support. I beg to move.

[Lord Teverson]

It is a great pleasure to speak during the course of a Bill to which I have been looking forward for some time. I am glad that the Energy Bill is a priority in the Government’s legislation.

My amendments are minor but have an important effect. They reflect in many ways the debate that took place on the previous group of amendments. On page 4, Clause 3(7) refers to energy plans. We believe that it would be useful if we included energy plans as well as Green Deal plans within the same sections of the Bill. It would add greater clarity and ensure a more holistic approach to the way in which the Green Deal operates. A number of my other amendments circle around that broader theme.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, I should say that I cannot think of a better principle than that the Government should be clear. I like firm language as opposed to language which is not clear about its intent, and I welcome the amendments that will achieve that.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

My Lords, as I made clear at Second Reading, my amendment concerns carbon monoxide alarms. I am grateful that it has been accepted. Like other noble Lords, I apologise that it appeared in its final form only this morning.

Noble Lords who have read the Sunday Times will be aware that this problem has not gone away and that further tragedies have been reported. Two sisters, Miriam and Patricia, went to a hen party in Cork and stayed in a hotel. Six other guests in the hotel were taken ill and were seen by doctors and one couple was sent to the university hospital in Cork. This was on the Sunday morning. At two o’clock on the Sunday afternoon, one of the sisters was found dead and the other one had not recovered enough to be able to attend her sister’s funeral two days ago. Also, this week Cardiff Crown Court, in my home city, is hearing a case where a man died because his landlord had not had carbon monoxide checks done on gas appliances.

We are in the peak season for carbon monoxide poisoning—November to March—and the more that we decrease ventilation, the higher the risk associated with it. Since Second Reading I have done a little more digging to try to further persuade Ministers of the importance of this issue. A survey for the Hotspot report found that although 35 per cent of people surveyed said that they had bought a carbon monoxide alarm, only 8 per cent had installed the alarm and 15 per cent had never tested it. Of those, only 17 per cent of the alarms purchased were the less effective black spot detectors.

The issue of carbon monoxide poisoning is under-reported. France has compulsory testing at post mortems and our recorded death rates are probably artificially low. There is certainly a very poor awareness among general practitioners and hospital doctors about carbon monoxide poisoning and even when people present with symptoms they are not being diagnosed.

Gas appliances, solid fuel and so on are all culpable. I shall not go through the figures but if we do not take the opportunity to address this issue and we decrease ventilation in draughty homes, it will inevitably increase the number of cases of carbon monoxide poisoning.

The amendment is worded to move away from being restricted to hard-wired alarms because I have discovered that the cost of a sealed battery alarm is £15 to £30 rather than the £50 cost of a hard-wired alarm, and it can be fitted by anyone. The battery does not require changing and should last six to seven years, at which point the alarm needs to be replaced, so it would be an even more cost-effective intervention. It would help occupiers to be alerted to any build-up of carbon monoxide and one can say with certainty that it would decrease the number of deaths.

In line with my amendment, I strongly support Amendments 5A and 7B because they make stronger the wording of subsection (4) and ensure that it shall include a list of items. If the Government were minded to accept my amendment it would make a massive change to the number of cases of carbon monoxide poisoning, which is hugely under-reported and under-recognised and continues to take lives every week.

[Baroness Maddock]

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness’s amendment. If the issue had not been raised by someone else I would have probably raised it myself during the passage of the Bill. I have been a campaigner with the COGAS charity on this issue for a number of years and, as the noble Baroness said, the situation has not gotten any better. We particularly have problems with GPs in general practice not recognising the symptoms. I recognise that when one is seeking to make an amendment of this kind to a Bill, the Minister might not like it. However, we should make an effort to ensure that it is included somewhere in order to improve the way we deal with it.

When I was a Member of Parliament a constituent’s child died not from an appliance, because of a leaky chimney. There are all sorts of reasons why these cases happen. Anyone who has come into contact with people who have suffered and lost loved ones knows how important this issue is. It is not only that people die from this; sometimes they do not die but are left in wheelchairs for the rest of their lives. I hope the Minister will give us some comfort and do something to improve the situation which the noble Baroness has clearly set out.

17:15

[Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan]

I support the previous two contributions. We have seen a diminution in deaths due to smoke inhalation as a result of smoke detectors. Part of the reason for the decrease is that the fire services have been proactive and going round homes handing them out. Frankly, £15 to £30 is not a lot, but it is quite a lot for the kind of households that might have defective boilers and the like. I know from my own experience that when people from British Gas, which we use for boiler maintenance, come to our home they always ask about this. We can afford to pay the £15 to £30, but it still seems to be excessively priced.

If this legislation were to bring in a recognition of the importance of the issue then it would mean a massive increase in sales and therefore a reduction in price. We are told a lot about smart meters and about these gadgets which tell you how much you are spending when you use certain electrical appliances. People often use these not because they want to reduce their consumption but because they are interested in finding out how much they are spending. The electricity companies give them away for nothing. The gas companies should be a little more generous and more proactive. As I say, they are proactive when it comes to maintenance, but this usually involves condemning a boiler and saying that they would like to install another one. In the interim they will offer the person an alarm so that they do not poison themselves, or wrap the boiler in a yellow and black band and say that it should not be used. Invariably they do that on Christmas Eve when they know you are not going to be able to get another one until probably the summer.

This is an opportunity. It is not about the Green Deal as such but it is about energy safety and domestic safety and it could be that this is an opportunity that the Government would be well advised to look at.

In terms of people’s confessions about whether they have been in opposition when serving on Bill Committees, these amendments are an example of How to Oppose Bills in Committee 101: where you see a “may”, you make it into a “shall”. That is the first rule of opposing in any Committee. You go through the Bill and you strike them out. If it is “14 days”, you make it “28”, and if it is “28”, you make it “14”. A lot of people need to learn this. This mob here need to learn how to oppose legislation as much as anyone else does. They did not do much opposing when Labour was in power. They certainly did not do much of it in the past five years.

The Government spend nearly two pages on the framework, telling us that they are going to establish a scheme making provision for the Secretary of State to authorise all these good works. At the end of it they say that even if you do all that, you do not have to tell anybody, and you do not really have to do it—it is really just permissive. If this is worth doing, it is worth doing well. It is worth making it clear and explicit. It makes sure that Governments of all stripes at the appropriate time will have to measure their performance against their ambition. Until such time as we have a clearer definition of what the Government intend to do, when we get the vague and sometimes not too specific provisions in the framework regulations, we want to make sure that the Government are called to account and know that they must do this. Therefore it would be a sign of the Minister’s good intent if he were to accept this amendment or take it away and think about it.

This is fundamental to how you oppose legislation in Committee, but on the other hand it also makes a lot of sense to do this at this time because it would give a clear indication that they want it to be above board and intelligible to the parties that will be interested in those individuals. The great British public are not going to applaud you for doing this but I think that the people involved in this would take some comfort from the fact that the Government want to make their intentions clear and specific and that they are required to do so by the Bill.

[Baroness Noakes]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, prompts me to rise in respect of some of the amendments tabled in the names of his colleagues on the opposition Front Bench—namely the may/shall amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, and I have done many may/shall amendments over the years together and I remember enjoying every single one of them.

The noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, says that the 101 rule of amendments is to table the may/shall amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, and I have done many may/shall amendments over the years together and I remember enjoying every single one of them. The noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, says that the 101 rule of amendments is to table a may/shall amendment. I am afraid the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, are going to have to go back to school and retake 101, because the modern formulation is “must”. Noble Lords will find that that is what parliamentary draftsmen now use, and it is used in this Bill. I am afraid that noble Lords opposite have been producing amendments from another era, and I think that they can try a little harder. However, I would like to raise a more substantive point, if I may come to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, which is clearly extremely well intentioned. I have a slight concern about requiring Green Deal installers to fit any particular kind of alarm. I have every sympathy with requiring them to make that available if the person entering the Green Deal wants it, and indeed possibly other things like smoke detector alarms to the extent that they are not already fitted in the property. However, I do have a concern about absolutely requiring the installation as part of a Green Deal package. I think that it would fit better if it was an optional extra, which gives an opportunity for that to be plugged.

[Lord Hunt of Chesterton]

Picking up on the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, made, she used the word “ventilation”. I keep looking through the Bill to see where the word “ventilation” is. I made this point on Second Reading. It is really important that when you are considering the energy of a house, you consider ventilation. You gain or lose a huge amount of heat in that way. Nobody could possibly have an energy system without that. Obviously, one aspect of ventilation is to do with energy; another aspect is to do with safety, comfort and so on. Some kinds of housing would require new ventilation, and that should be part of the cost. I also raised the point on Second Reading as to whether this could be included as part of the Green Deal funding. From a technical point of view, it seems that it would be very eccentric not to include that, so I hope that that is considered as part of the Bill. It may be that ventilation and safety should be considered in a more general clause.

[Lord Marland]

My Lords, I thought that I had an explanation of why there are so many amendments, but my noble friend Lady Noakes has put the cat among the pigeons by reversing what I thought was the case; but, as I said, we will get there in the end.

Clause 3 gives the Secretary of State powers to establish in regulations a scheme for authorising persons to act as Green Deal assessors, Green Deal providers and Green Deal installers, and provides for a code of conduct regulating these Green Deal participants. Subsequent Clauses 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 deal with each step of this process in more detail and make provisions for customer redress. Correspondingly, Clause 28 enables the Secretary of State to delegate related regulatory functions to a public body.

Appropriate regulation of the Green Deal participants is vital if the customer is to be able to trust in the quality of the Green Deal itself. At the heart of this clause, therefore, is the ability to issue a code of practice with which Green Deal participants must comply.

I will now speak to Amendments 2B, 2C, 2E, 5A, 7B, 7BA, 7C, 8A and 8B, as they all relate to how we best protect Green Deal customers. I welcome the thrust of all these proposals, but I do not think they are ones that we should incorporate into this clause or elsewhere in the Bill at this time. Let me explain why. Amendments 2B, 2E, 5A and 8B seek to ensure that the scheme and code of practice hold customer protections. I would like to thank all noble Lords for highlighting through their amendments the importance of the framework regulation described in Clause 3. It is vital therefore that customers are able to recognise that the scheme benefits from quality assurance and is properly regulated. Without this degree of confidence the Green Deal simply does not work. More importantly, we must ensure that the consumer does not suffer from mis-selling in any way. This means that there must be accurate consumer information provided from suitably qualified and trained people. We cannot afford to make the same mistakes that have been made elsewhere, notably in Australia, where the Green Start scheme was axed due to quality-related problems.

I reassure noble Lords that we will indeed be using powers established by this clause to protect customers. However, we will do so only where existing legal provisions or other mechanisms for securing consumer protection are not already in existence on this basis. I hope that on this basis, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 7BA seeks to have carbon monoxide alarms installed in properties as part of the Green Deal. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, discussed the risk of carbon monoxide poisoning on Second Reading, and I am extremely grateful to her for raising this important issue. The risks of carbon monoxide poisoning are potentially very grave, and I recognise the important role played by alarms in saving lives.

The Bill establishes the framework for installation but the detail of these conditions and the measures will be set out in secondary legislation following consultation with stakeholders. This will allow us time to consider in more detail whether the suggested approach would be the best and most cost-effective way of addressing carbon monoxide build-up. I am grateful for the additional comments of my noble friend Lady Noakes; they will help us decide how we can best help and consider this vital suggestion by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff.

I fully take on board the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, about ventilation. We shall consider those during this process.

On Amendment 7C, Clause 3 gives the Secretary of State powers to establish in regulations a scheme for authorising persons to act as Green Deal assessors, Green Deal providers and Green Deal installers, and for a code of conduct regulating these Green Deal participants. It also allows for a body to be authorised so that its members are in turn authorised to act as Green Deal participants. We are committed to underpinning the Green Deal with high standards, but it is important not to be held to a requirement if, in time, a different approach becomes relevant or necessary. This approach is reflected throughout the Green Deal provisions of the Bill.

Finally, Amendment 8 seeks to require that any services provided or products sold by Green Deal participants, in addition to those paid for through Green Deal finance, should also be subject to the Green Deal regulatory framework. Amendments 2C and 7B similarly seek to extend the Green Deal framework specifically, the accreditation of Green Deal participants and any marketing requirements under the code of conduct to apply to energy plans—energy efficiency improvements offered by Green Deal participants without Green Deal finance.

The amendments raise an important issue—the need to safeguard against homeowners being sold measures by Green Deal providers that, unknown to them, do not benefit from the same regulations as Green Deal. However, it does not follow that the whole of the Green Deal framework could be applied appropriately to any other product or service.

I reassure noble Lords that we will be able to require, through the overall scheme and code, that customers are made fully aware of the difference between those measures being offered that fall under the Green Deal scheme with all its safeguards, and those that fall outside. We will not accept companies using Green Deal accreditation as cover for less appropriate goods and services. Furthermore, Clause 3(7) extends the scheme or code to energy-efficiency plans that are not Green Deal plans and provides a power to impose additional requirements on energy-efficiency providers.

17:30

To be clear, our intention for subsection (7) is not to introduce new wide-scale regulation of a wider energy efficiency supply market. Instead it seeks to ensure that, where appropriate, elements of the scheme or code could be made to apply to wider efficiency provisions. Similarly, many of the forms of mis-selling which concern this House could already be prosecuted under existing general consumer protection legislation. Requiring a blanket compliance with Green Deal protections for all other measures could therefore cause unnecessary burdens for providers selling a range of goods and services.

Given this explanation, and with these assurances, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

I am grateful to the Minister for his constructive reply, and I am grateful to the other noble Lords on the Committee both for their amendments and, of course, for the occasion in which one can go through a learning process. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, will accept that we are quick learners on this side—after all, we had less time in opposition than perhaps she had to get the terms right. I will bear in mind that our debate will have moved on, and it will certainly move on to “must” in the future, with the same implications. The Minister has indicated why he is not prepared to accept the amendments, but he has also accepted the reasoning behind the amendments. In one obvious point he made clear reference to the Australian situation, and we all know the perils of producing laws which do not work. In many ways the situation is made worse rather than improved by the confusion that occurs in such circumstances, so I am grateful to him for his response and acknowledgement of that position. I hope he will accept that we have been concerned in our amendments to ensure that the legislation has the degree of clarity and certainty that makes a success of our common endeavours. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 2B withdrawn.

Amendment 2C not moved.

17:31

Sitting suspended.

17:41

Amendment 2D

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

2D: Clause 3, page 3, line 44, at end insert—
“( ) to ensure that assessors and providers have the qualifications and skills to perform their functions under the Green Deal;”

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

In moving Amendment 2D, I shall speak also to Amendments 2G and 5B. It is probably difficult to speak to 8C until the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has done so, but I may make a passing reference to it in support.

It is worth reiterating the extent and the expectation the Government have of the Green Deal because it sets these amendments in context and shows why we think they are so important. The Secretary of State has made it clear that he thinks that something like 26 million homes could be transformed by the Green Deal, which is a great ambition. It could create 250,000 new jobs and lever funding of £7 billion into the private sector. Quite rightly, the Secretary of State has also made it clear that there will be no cowboy operators under the Green Deal. This is extraordinarily important because, if we are looking at consumer confidence, it will be essential that consumers have confidence in the new deal and not just in the installers but in the assessors and providers through every stage of the arrangements.

The Minister made a similar point about consumer confidence in his comments and I hope therefore that he can take these amendments on board. They seek to ensure that the assessors, providers and installers of the Green Deal have the qualifications, skills and aptitudes to perform their functions appropriately and fully under the new deal. We also look at the standard to which they work on assessments.

One reason why I am so concerned about skills is that those who work in the industry and are involved in training have expressed their concerns to me and to other noble Lords. There is a campaign known as Cut Your Carbon, a partnership between the Construction Industry Training Board, that deals with construction skills, the Sector Skills Councils, the Federation of Master Builders and the National Specialist Contractors Council. They have all sought to raise awareness of the kind of skills that will be required to fulfil the Green Deal and the ambition of 26 million homes that could be transformed.

Cutting carbon emissions is going to mean a change in the construction industry and in the industry that will have to undertake the Green Deal. They have to change the skills that many in their workforce have. They have to upskill and reskill. Currently there is a gap between what the clients would demand under a Green Deal—and, indeed, any other energy programme—and the understanding of the role and ability for small and medium-sized enterprises to deliver the low-carbon solutions that we will need to find in order to fulfil the Green Deal.

17:46

One of the things that concerns the SME sector is that the opportunities for it to win work through cutting carbon are not really understood. It has to understand what is required of it to ensure that the Green Deal is a success. The skills level needs to be increased and the training has to be in place. The Minister has said on several occasions that this is commercially led and is about the market. However, the Government have a role in ensuring that the workforce of this country has the skills and can provide the quality of work that is needed to undertake the work that is referenced in the legislation.

The Government’s estimate at the higher end is 250,00 new jobs—although, more recently, that has been brought down to 100,000. If we are going to have these new jobs there needs to be a lead-in time to ensure that there are the trainers available and that those who are taking part have gone through the training programme. That requires investment. As past recessions show, construction is one of those industries that people move out of during a recession. We need to hold on to those people; if we look at what is likely to be the trajectory of the Green Deal, which will start off slowly and perhaps pick up as we would hope the private sector comes on board after the review, we need to ensure that those who do not leave the industry have been provided with the skills, standards and qualifications that they need. Alongside that, we need to look at the accreditation, quality and standards of the work that is undertaken because we need to be able to trust the credentials of those bodies, installers and assessors who are undertaking the work so that the consumer has confirmation, certainty and confidence in the work that is undertaken.

Alongside the need for this, Amendment 2D says that the Green Deal must ensure that assessors and providers have the necessary qualifications and skills. Amendment 2G would ensure that it is in the framework regulations that the Green Deal assessors must comply with a standard assessment measurement. One of the problems with the assessors is that, if they work to different standard assessment measures—and there is some confusion and doubt at the moment that they would be working to the same level—different assessors may provide different levels of work. The consumer would have a lack of confidence if two Green Deal assessors in similar properties gave two very different assessments. There needs to be a standard assessment framework. I am not convinced that the current frameworks offer us the assurance that we need.

I am not clear how the Government intend to measure the improvements to energy efficiency. There are various ways of doing it but we will presumably use the energy performance certificates as a base. Will we say that a building has gone up from an E to a G to a C to a D? How will it be assessed? In every instance where an assessor undertakes the work, that has to be the same. That a Green Deal assessor and installer has to follow the same standard assessment process must be in the code of conduct. If not, there would be a lack of confidence in the whole scheme, which is said to be broken; we need that confidence.

We broadly support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. We have a question for him when he speaks to his amendment. If the Government can give a power or responsibility, they should be able to take that power or responsibility away. This should be a basic principle. I look forward to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, how this should be done. The legislation highlights some of the gaps, which is why we have made the point about secondary legislation and why it is necessary to have more detailed information in the Bill.

In order to give the consumer confidence, I would need to be assured that the levels and skills of those undertaking the assessments and installation is more than adequate so that we do not need to redress it too often with the kind of regulatory schemes that will need to be put in place under this Bill. I beg to move.

[Lord Teverson]

I shall speak first to my Amendment 8C. I am trying to be helpful to the Government, as is the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. Where the Government talk about withdrawing authorisation from Green Deal providers, there has to be an authorising body as there is a mechanism within the Bill for those organisations to be authorised in the first place. So there should also be a means, in extremis—we hope it would never be used—whereby authorisation can be taken away from those authorisers as well.

I tread carefully here, but on the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, it would be almost impossible to disagree with Amendment 2D which seeks,

“to ensure that assessors and providers have the qualifications and skills”,

to perform their functions under the Green Deal. I question Amendment 2G, however. In my mind, the jury is out on this. I have a concern about this whole scheme in terms of quality. I know that this is not what the noble Baroness means, but I am concerned that we have moved towards some kind of tick-box assessment; that if you meet certain criteria, then everything is fine. It is more important in many ways that a level of intelligence is attached to these processes, in a similar way to consumer protection in the financial services industry where there is an overall requirement for suppliers to act intelligently in the overall interests of the customer. While there is a place for standard assessments, they do not always meet that quality element. When we are talking about a programme that is to be as large as we hope it will be, the quality element is of great importance. I am not sure whether just assessment processes with a list of issues completely fulfil that. I am not necessarily talking against the amendment, but I am very anxious that there should be a qualitative demand in the Bill that providers think intelligently and provide plans that are specific to households and people; and that assessors are not working to a completely standardised format but in terms of whether a quality product will be provided within that market.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, I have sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has just said, particularly about Amendment 2G. When one thinks of the enormous range of the buildings that are going to be subject to the Green Deal process, it is with the utmost difficulty that one imagines how one could have a standard assessment measurement. What one looks for are sufficiently skilled and trained assessors who can look at a widely differing range of buildings and use their skill and judgment, in the time-honoured phrase, to come to a conclusion and make an assessment. We will come to this in Clause 4, where the requirements are very fully spelt out.

The idea of a standard assessment seems to me to inevitably result in a “tick-box” culture, which has been an unpleasant factor in so much of what one faces in modern life: people feel it is sufficient simply to tick the boxes. If we are going to have fully trained and qualified people—an objective I totally support—then we must rely on their skill and judgment to decide on the appropriate assessment for the hugely differing range of buildings with which they will be confronted. One would expect there to be assessors who specialise in particular kinds of buildings, because they will have the experience and expertise to deal with them. I am therefore unhappy with amendment 2G.

I have given training a good deal of attention over the past year or two. I believe that the present Government and BIS have produced a splendid blueprint of what they envisage the process of skills training to be. There is no question that the skills training system which operated under the preceding Government left much to be desired in achieving results. I declare an interest—as I have before—as the president of the National Skills Academy for Nuclear; I have also been involved with Cogent and a number of others. I have had dealings with Energy & Utility Skills, a highly effective body. It was the one—I raised this on the Floor of the House before the election—which tried to fit in to the national scheme for training people to install smart meters, and was firmly told that it could not have help with that. I am happy to say that Ministers in the present Government have addressed this problem fully. If we are to make a success of that—we may come to this later—there must be a proper system for training people to install these meters.

We need to keep a careful eye—this is a key stage in the whole Green Deal process—on how the training of the assessors will be handled. If my noble friend can give us some more information, that would be very helpful. Yes, we are going to have a code, and we will come to that later under another amendment. But I think this will be a key part of the whole process.

I have referred before to the fact that I had my house installed under the old CERT scheme, and it was an unhappy experience: one simply ran into the sand. At first I went through the Energy Saving Trust, and that became completely futile, so I started again with my own supplier. In the end that produced a solution, although an expensive one, as I had to pay for all the scaffolding, which was very tiresome. But I was satisfied in the end that the expert who came from British Gas to decide what my house needed was highly qualified and that the installer was able to do a good job. Those are the key things which will generate confidence in whether the Green Deal scheme will take off as we hope it will. This is an important requirement, which hinges on skills and training, and not on standard assessments.

18:00

[Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan]

My Lords, when one wishes to be pejorative about processes, the words “tick box” slip easily off the lips. We ought to have a sense of proportion, however. We are talking about treating 14 million houses. We are talking about probably not installing boilers. We are talking already about probably not having internal wall insulation in solid-walled houses on the grounds that each of these is too expensive. So we are talking about having various kinds of insulation, whether it be cavity-wall or roof-attic insulation. This is not the most complex of operations. Sometimes they can be time-consuming, but not that often. We are not going to be installing nuclear power stations in each household. We are talking about a relatively simple set of measures that will be within a budget that we have already heard will not be unduly ambitious given the need to pay back over the period.

We are, however, also talking about a massive job in which there has to be consistency and in which there has to be a squad of people who can go around and speedily assess what is required to be done. They are not going to be quantity surveyors. They are probably going to be people who might have worked in the building trade, but maybe not. They may well be trained to NVQ 2 and, if we are lucky, 3. There are a number of people who are trained by Energy Action Scotland and National Energy Action—two organisations involved in fuel poverty which I have dealings with, and I have an interest that has been declared. They may well be skilled people. I have another interest as a consultant to the Specialist Engineering Contractors Group, which does a lot of work in insulation and heating and electrical work. I would be hard pushed, however, to think that if you wanted to make money out of the Green Deal you would go for being a cavity-wall insulator or an attic insulator when you may well make more money out of installing new boilers and the like.

These people are perhaps not the most highly skilled, but I am sure they will be highly committed. They will certainly not be the most highly paid, and therefore the performance standards that we can expect of them have to be straightforward and easily understood. The complexity of the work they will be required to do will not in itself be that great if we are to achieve over time and speedily the kind of things that the Minister has already spoken about in relation to the Green Deal. So we have to have a sense of perspective about this. If we do have forms and a standardised approach and basic training then it is probably inevitable that people will go round with a clipboard and a biro and tick boxes. It will not be because they are necessarily superficial or necessarily barely competent; it will be that the requirements of the job will be probably little more than that. Therefore we need a sense of proportion.

If we are going to pluck the low-hanging fruit, which is at the heart of this process—Green Deal is about quickly insulating a lot of homes which have not been dealt with already—we will be dealing with the simpler and less expensive projects first. That is not to say that they should be cheap and cheerful or unsafe or that people are going to be taken to the cleaners. I am merely saying that we should have a sense of proportion and that within that we have got to avoid over-prescription. We do not want to have the health and safety approach—the jobsworth of exactly the wrong kind. We need to get this job done quickly and efficiently and therefore we need good training, clear processes and forms that people are not intimidated by.

If you do not have simple forms, you have complicated ones because, as sure as eggs is eggs, there will be forms involved. There will be some kind of hand-held computer which the operators will understand but the person whose house is being affected will probably not necessarily understand it, whether it is in the estimation or the implementation.

We ought to be a wee bit careful when we use disparagingly the tick-box dismissal, because I think that, in some respects, it will be almost inevitable that that will be what is required. If it is required, and if that is the consequence of the nature of our approach to the task, it is essential that these people are trained to the level that the job requires and that they are able to carry it out in a way which is consistent across the country as a whole. I think, therefore, that what we are saying in these amendments measures up to that and, once again, makes it more explicit than the proposed legislation already does.

For these reasons, I would support this amendment; not because, as I say, I want it to be unduly simple—not because I want it to be open to bureaucratic or jobsworth approaches—but rather, recognising the scale of most of the tasks, so that an approach of this nature will be commensurate with the national challenge that we have, which we have to meet quickly. These people will be going into households and probably doing 20 a day, if they are doing their job properly. We will have to get these people in the field doing that pretty quickly, so the training will have to be effective very quickly. I am talking here about something which is a national priority if we are to meet the 2020 and ultimately the 2050 targets. We do not have to exaggerate the significance of the Green Deal commitment. Suffice it to say that, if we do not achieve the Green Deal ambition, then the further targets of 2020 and 2050 will be that much more difficult to realise. I certainly think that the approach that we are taking is inclined to reduce bureaucracy, to keep it simple and straightforward and to give proper recognition to the scale of the individual task that will be required in each household.

[The Earl of Lindsay]

My Lords, the amendments moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, raise a number of important themes. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister would agree with that, given the importance that he places on accreditation in order to guarantee consumer protection and user protection. I just want to comment on some of those themes. I should declare an interest as chairman of the United Kingdom Accreditation Service, which is the government-recognised national accreditation body.

The first point that I want to make is to clear up the common misunderstanding about the two terms “accreditation” and “certification”. I can do no better than refer to the impact assessment that the department produced for this Bill. In paragraph 115, on page 40, it makes the following short point:

“Accreditation and certification are two related but distinct activities. ‘Certification’ is the process that leads to ascertaining someone has a particular qualification, and ‘accreditation’ is the process by which certification is awarded responsibly”.

I suggest, first of all, that we are using the word “accreditation” where perhaps we should be using the word “certification” in some of the debates that we have been having. Accreditation underpins the scheme by which operators and participants will receive certificates. Accreditation therefore determines the robustness of the scheme by which compliance with the required standards will be judged.

My second point is that the word “accreditation” can mean different things to different people. Given the importance of accreditation to consumer protection, it has been recognised at an intergovernmental level that, when the word “accreditation” is used, it should mean the same thing to all parties. In fact, the European Union passed a regulation two or three years ago that requires every member state to have a national accreditation body, and for the use of the word “accreditation” by that Government to refer to a consistent set of disciplines and rigour. Thus the previous Government passed a regulation in December 2008 which recognised UKAS’s role as the de facto national accreditation body and formalised our role in that purpose. Therefore I can speak with some authority on what, at an intergovernmental level, accreditation should mean, by way of reassurance to those who are users and consumers of goods and services.

First of all, the assessment and verification when accrediting a regime looks at technical competence, and this of course is a point that Amendment 2D focuses on. It measures the capability of a participant, be it a company or an individual, to deliver that competence and to deliver the services underpinned by that competence. It looks at the ability of individuals and companies who might be certified by accredited certification to maintain that competence and that capability over a period of time; in other words, it is not a one-off assessment but an ongoing assessment of that company’s or that individual’s capabilities. It therefore looks at reliability, integrity and governance. Very importantly, it looks at outcomes and performance, making sure that outcomes and performance deliver against the standards that have been preset; in this instance, they would be preset by the Minister and by the Government. In other words, accreditation should mean a wholly comprehensive judgment about the ability of the certification system to properly certify either individuals or companies in terms of their performance, their goods and their services. It really should be a badge of confidence to anyone who has any doubts about the goods and services they might be acquiring.

The Minister over and over again has made the point—as indeed have other Members of your Lordships’ House, in Committee and on the Floor of the House—that the accreditation and the certification which this Bill requires as underpinning the Green Deal must deliver that high level of consumer protection and public confidence. It must deliver the guarantee of quality that I know the Minster wants to see. It must deliver the trust. I understand exactly why the noble Baroness has raised this Amendment in order to explore this area. I think that it is a very important attribute which is going to underpin the Minister’s ambitions in terms of how the Green Deal delivers the outcomes that the wider public, homeowners and others can have confidence in.

I am not sure about Amendment 2G and agree with my noble friends Lord Teverson and Lord Jenkin about the standard assessment measurement. I understand the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, when he says that there needs to be some methodology that enables a large number of participants to operate across a large number of diverse circumstances and deliver some sort of consistent output. The point about consistency of outcomes is where I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, but to require a standard assessment measurement could lead to some unintended consequences. I speak with my full experience of other schemes that we accredit on behalf of the Government.

I will give you an example. The gas safety scheme that was called CORGI benefits from the fact that we accredit five or six different routes to certification. If you are a gas installer and you want to be certified, those five or six different options for certification offer different types of assessment measurement. They do not offer a standard approach, the value of which is that it encourages innovation, competition and flexibility in order to provide the certification process best suited to different types of gas installer. I would strongly suggest to my noble friend the Minister that we want the same arrangement with the Green Deal. We want to avoid an absolutely rigid, standard assessment process.

The important point is that, however one achieves accredited certification as being compliant with the requirements of the Green Deal, you meet the standards that have been set down. As long as you meet the standards that are set down, how exactly the measurement has been made is less important. UKAS, though, guarantees on behalf of the Government that, if the certification process or body is accredited as being capable of delivering that standard, it is consistent with what the standard requires. That we avoid a too rigid approach to the exact process is very important.

18:15

[Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. It was not my intention to say that there should be some kind of Napoleonic order whereby a single method should be approached. We have to recognise that there may well be differing situations or challenges. However, the point that I was trying to get across is that a consistency within that is still needed—a consistency that sometimes sacrifices and reduces complexity to make it a little more simple and straightforward. It should not be a rigid one-size-fits-all approach. I am sorry if I gave that impression because I do not think that we are more than a few millimetres apart on this issue.

[The Earl of Lindsay]

I do not believe that we are. I am grateful to the noble Lord for that clarification. We are in the same space. We both agree that flexibility can be a strength of the scheme by which certification to the required standard is sought. The important thing for the Government and for those who seek, as it were, to use the Green Deal, is that there is consistency with which all those who participate comply with the standard.

On the amendment of my noble friend Lord Teverson regarding suspension and expulsion, I make a brief comment about the broader point that an accreditation scheme run by UKAS should make sure that, long before the Minister has to step in in order to suspend or exclude, the system itself should make all those judgments within its own processes. The point of certification should be able to judge non-compliance. If it is major non-compliance, one needs to make a judgment between suspension and permanent withdrawal. The accreditation body should be capable of suspending or withdrawing a certification system if they are similarly not meeting the required standards that the scheme expects.

This group of amendments raises some very important issues. I am not persuaded that the way that the Bill is currently written needs to be changed in order to deliver the strengths that I believe that the Government are looking for. However, I am grateful. We have had an opportunity to debate some of the key attributes that the Green Deal will be underpinned by.

[Lord Marland]

I thank noble Lords for tabling these amendments which seek to ensure that the Green Deal participants are working to a specified standard using agreed methodologies. I welcome the various comments that have been made because it will help us set out our provisions in more detail. Amendments 2D, 2G and 5B all seek to ensure that the Green Deal assessment is carried out by qualified assessors. A specified methodology for completing this assessment is contained within the code of conduct. These are also covered in Clauses 3(4)(a) and 3(9).

I am glad to note that the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, and my noble friend Lord Lindsay are not far apart. It is fundamental that standards are set, that they become the cornerstone of this whole assessment and that if we get that right we get the rest of it right. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Lindsay for pointing out the difference between accreditation and certification. This needs further discussion and investigation and we will undertake to look at that to make sure we get it right. It is fundamental and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, that getting these assessments and the quality is fundamental to the confidence of the customer and the whole scheme.

We could have a workforce of 250,000 working to satisfy the Green Deal requirements but of course that depends on take-up, and we will inevitably find that if the take-up is not as great then there will not be that many. We believe that the maximum is about 250,000. If I heard the noble Lord, Lord Neill, correctly, he said we were thinking of excluding boilers and solid wall insulation, external and internal. That is not the case. Subject to the golden rule, these will be included. I think I heard the noble Lord correctly and it is worth clarifying this.

I agree that it is important that assessments are produced by those with suitable training and practical know-how and that is why Clause 3 of the Bill currently sets out provisions for a code of practice that all Green Deal participants will be required to sign up to as part of their participation. Furthermore, the Clause states that this code of practice may set out the qualifications and skills that these assessors must possess in order to practise.

I thank noble Lords for their suggested amendment to ensure that the code of conduct requires assessors to produce their assessment in line with standard methodology. The Bill currently sets out the intention for all assessors. Subsection (8) allows for the withdrawal of authorisation for particular participants and allows a membership body to withdraw authorisation from its members. Although Clause 3(5) may allow for regulating the membership body by legal advice, my legal advice is that it may not be sufficiently clear that we have powers to withdraw authorisation. I therefore agree that we should consider this amendment further.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I welcome the approach that he has taken throughout this Committee. He is taking on board comments that have been made today, and I know that he will take them back and perhaps we will see some changes at Report. I just grinned when he talked about the code of conduct because—I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, picked this up—he said that the code of conduct “must” set out the qualifications and skills. At the moment it does not; it only says it “may”. So I welcome his change of language to “must” set out the qualifications of skills, rather than “shall”, as my amendment suggested.

It has been a useful debate, and I always defer to those with greater knowledge on issues. I do not think that there is much difference between us. All of us agree that those undertaking the work, whether assessments or installation, have to have the appropriate skills and qualifications. It is entirely appropriate that although they are accredited in some way, that can be withdrawn. But the reason for raising the issue of standard assessments was not to propose a tick-box procedure—although there will undoubtedly be some kind of tick-box procedure—or uniformity of the work that will be required. However, the issue has been raised. The National Housing Federation raised concerns that the current assessment—I think it is the SAP—does not always work. I was trying to get to a consistency in standards of measurement.

Given that the Green Deal, in terms of what work can be undertaken in a home, has to be cost-effective and follow the golden rule, some kind of standardised assessment to understand what fulfils the golden rule in that way, if the savings have been made, and some sort of consistency, will be required. That is of interest to customers. So I am not suggesting that every house needs to have the same installation and the same work done. There will have to be intelligence taken on board by those installing. However, a lot of the measures will be very safe, and it would be a somewhat ludicrous position if two houses next door to each other were both given different ways of achieving it. It brings us back to the issue we had around the Green Deal plans and the energy plans because, under the Green Deal plans, it could be the same work but with different ways of achieving the same objectives; and the decision would be taken by the assessor, not by the householder. I think that is an issue of the householder having confidence that the assessor is given the correct information.

[Lord Teverson]

I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. I would like to make an illustration there, which may come on to something later on. She mentions that two houses together should not have different solutions. The big challenge is that both those houses, and probably the rest of the street, are assessed as a whole, and a better solution of the 20 houses has made them the one or two. That is why I have a slight concern about too systematised an approach. I think the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, made a magnificent case for a degree of that approach; but I think that that point illustrates that, if it is too tram-lined, then we can get into too much trouble, and I understand she is not saying that.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I am not suggesting that it should work on tram-lines, but there will need to be a consistency that is understood. The other point is that there should be some kind of guidance and standard of assessment. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, said in his comments that assessors will have particular expertise in methods of insulation or whatever. There is a concern that assessors may be linked to a particular company and may want to promote the products of that company and a particular method of energy efficiency. That is something that I think all of us want to avoid. The assessor should be free to look at any way in which you can promote energy efficiency or maximise energy efficiency in the home. I hope the noble Lord can take these points away. There needs to be some consistency in the standard that is required. If we can reach that through the level of skills, qualifications or training, then that would be appropriate. We will always want to ensure that the consumer comes first, and the consumer can be assured in all cases that they are getting correct and accurate information. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 2D withdrawn.

Amendment 2E not moved.

Amendment 2F

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

2F: Clause 3, page 4, line 6, at end insert—
“( ) for the payment of a reduced fee for charities and social enterprises;”

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I draw on my experience as a Minister with responsibility for the third sector and for social enterprise in the previous Government. I will make a very brief comment which will not take much debate, and I hope the noble Lord will be able to accept this and take it away and undertake to look at it. While accepting that this would be commercial, we would not want to exclude those charities, non-profit organisations and social enterprises that have a particular interest in helping those who are vulnerable—perhaps people with learning difficulties or people who are fuel poor. If the level of fee that is charged to those organisations that do not seek to make a profit will be different from the fee charged to a commercial organisation, there will be a different impact on each of those organisations. All that I am seeking to explore through this amendment is whether the Minister will consider—and how we define legislation can vary in open discussion—whether a reduced fee can be charged for those organisations that have charitable objectives.

18:30

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

Is the noble Baroness going to say anything about the second amendment in this group, Amendment 7A? I do not understand it.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

The second amendment would also look at the size of the organisation—the kind of provider. It comes back to the same point: payment may not be proportionate, if there is the same level of fee for both the smaller charity, say, and the large company. The amendment endorses the idea of whether we consider a lower fee, a lower payment, for those kinds of non-profit or charitable organisations or organisations with charitable objectives.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for that explanation: I had entirely misunderstood the amendment’s intention. It refers to,

“ensuring that such payment is proportionate to the size and nature of the green deal assessor and provider”.

I thought that we were talking about individuals, but the noble Baroness has made it clear she is talking about companies, not the size of the man who is doing the assessing. I realised that there must have been a serious purpose behind the amendment, and she has now explained it.

I think that both these amendments are exceedingly difficult. One can always have sympathy with charities and other people who work for good, or not for profit—or whatever it might be—but at the same time, for the most part, professional services must be paid for. Unless somebody is doing work pro bono, which lawyers and others do from time to time, professional services must be paid for on a proper professional basis. That is what we are talking about. The idea that one should have reduced costs depending on the nature of the client is a difficult concept to import.

We are concerned to ensure that this will be as simple a process as possible. I said at Second Reading that I thought this had the ability to become a much more workable and simpler scheme for all parties to understand than has been the case under the CERT scheme, but I think this amendment would add a complication which I would not support. I am sorry to disappoint the noble Baroness, but I think professional services must be paid for properly.

[Lord Marland]

I thank the noble Baroness for raising this amendment. It is critical, particularly at this time, that we take into account the charitable sector, of which she has great knowledge. Indeed, so do I to a certain extent, from involvement with a number of charities. Obviously, I can only accept amendments such as these once they have been agreed with counsel and other Ministers, but we will consider how best to take on board this policy aim, which I think all of us would endorse and support in this sector.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I thank the Minister for that. I understand the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. He mentioned the client. It is not the clients who would pay a reduced fee, but the provider of the services. I am grateful to the Minister for his acceptance, and I look forward to seeing what comes forward in due course.

Amendment 2F withdrawn.

Amendment 2G not moved.

Amendment 3

Moved by

[Baroness Parminter]

3: Clause 3, page 4, line 25, at end insert—
“( ) requiring unannounced random inspections and mystery shopping of green deal participants on a regular basis”

[Baroness Parminter]

In moving Amendment 3 I shall also speak to Amendment 6, with which it is grouped. The amendments deal with consumer protection and redress, issues which I raised at Second Reading. The Minister was kind enough to say then that the points I raised about an ombudsman were well made, so I hope some of the points that I and other noble Lords will make under these amendments will be accepted.

On Amendment 3, consumers will not have the experience to be able to undertake assessments. They will not have the knowledge, and there will need to be independent assessments by a single body such as an ombudsman to give people the confidence they need. Indeed, as the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, have mentioned, if we do not give people confidence at the time of purchasing, this scheme will fall flat on its face and all the Government’s good aims will not be delivered.

Some noble Lords may not be familiar with the myriad television programmes that set out to pick up the cowboys where people are being mis-sold products. If the Government do not do something along these lines to weed out the cowboys, then be assured the television companies will, and that will have exactly the opposite effect to that which we intend. I ask the Minister to consider ensuring that an ombudsman undertakes random inspections and mystery shopping assessments.

Moving on to Amendment 6—

[Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan]

Before the noble Baroness leaves this point, it is all very well asking the Government to do something, but they do not do it themselves. Surely we have to be more explicit. Is that not a matter for the consumer protection department of local authorities? And if it is, at a time of cuts, it is a bit unrealistic to assume that they will be able to assume responsibility to do that kind of work, given that there are 14 million homes that could be the subject of these cowboys’ attentions.

[Baroness Parminter]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising that point. At Second Reading, I raised the point about the need for a single body, a single entity or ombudsman, to take on these additional responsibilities. The Minister said he would go away and think about the creation of such a single body or ombudsman. I am looking forward to hearing what he might say, particularly on that point.

Moving on to insurance, it is important, given the new nature of this service for many consumers, that at the point of sale there is an insurance product available for people to give them the confidence that, throughout the lifetime of the installation, there is security for them. Clearly consumers can opt out—the amendments states that people can opt in—but I think it is important that when they enter into these contracts there is an insurance product they can have confidence in. This is a new area. There is no insurance product for this at the moment; certainly in the early days they will not be able to go to one of the insurance comparison websites and find products. They will need assurance that there is a product specific to this area to give them the confidence to move forward and take up the Green Deal as we would wish them to do. I beg to move.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, we are considering, among other things, what is to go into the code of practice. We are not at this stage legislating that these are going to be duties placed by the Bill immediately on the various participants, but it is what the code of practice needs to cover. This raises the point that has already been mentioned; I will mention it very shortly again. There will have to be a balance. If you are going to attract providers to initiate the process by setting up a scheme which involves assessors, installers, the energy companies and so on, there must not be too many obstacles or disincentives placed in their way. Equally, there needs to be fairness for the consumer whose house is going to be made more energy efficient. Throughout this process we must make it clear that we have that balance right.

I have read some of the briefs, one or two of which are reflected in the amendments that have been tabled by my noble friends. I rang one and said if you get all these amendments accepted, you will kill the scheme stone dead. There will be so many obstacles and barriers that the objective of the scheme to get the largest possible number of homes and small business offices properly treated and properly energy efficient will in fact not happen. The response was, “We still think that these are necessary to protect the consumer”. A balance has to be struck.

The one thing that I am attracted to is a proper system for making complaints and having them dealt with. That seems something that the code of practice could very well deal with quite effectively. Nothing is worse than if something goes wrong and you do not know where or how to try to get it put right or you waste hours on the telephone trying to find people who will deal with your complaint. That could be a very important element in ensuring the confidence of the people whose premises are due to be made more efficient. If one adds all the other things together, one is creating barriers. We must be very careful not to raise too many barriers otherwise the scheme simply will not achieve its objectives.

[Lord Whitty]

I support the bulk of these amendments. They may eventually appear in a somewhat different form but they are important for the success of the scheme. I apologise that I was not here at the beginning of the discussion of the consumer protection amendments and that I was in somewhat sunnier climes on Second Reading. This is the first time that I have intervened in this debate and I hope that colleagues will not mind me reiterating my general position.

I am strongly in favour of the Green Deal approach for its effect on carbon cuts, fuel poverty and the bills of consumers of all kinds. However, it is a complicated thing to put together. There are several things that would kill it stone dead, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said, one of which is that the industry is not mobilised because it is disincentivised. However, an equally possible reason for the thing falling stone dead would be if consumers do not have confidence that the work that they are being asked by choice to undertake in their own homes is done in an effective way and that, were there to be any flaws in it, they would have suitable protection and redress.

We are talking about 14 million householders and landlords and 250,000 potential workers in this area. There are bound to be things that go wrong and people understand that. However, they also need to be assured that the general quality of the people that they are asking into their homes and, ultimately, they or their successors are paying for, do a proper job and that there is some protection if they do not. The confidence of the householder and the landlord is essential in this area, otherwise there will not be a sufficient take-up of the scheme.

We have talked a little about certification and accreditation. This group of amendments addresses checking on quality in a reasonably random way. There is the issue of warranty and of having standardised —or at least the offer of standardised—insurance. If we are undertaking building work in our homes, we would expect all of those to exist. If we ignore the need for that, we consumers deserve to be ripped off by cowboy builders or whatever—as many are.

There is an added complication because the people that the householder will be dealing with—the people who, effectively, they will be repaying for this work through their lower energy bills—will not in general be the same as the people who are doing the work, nor the same as the people that will be in their homes, nor the same as they would expect the quality of work from. We do not quite yet know what the range of new Green Deal providers will be. However, there will be finance companies, maybe retailers, banks, energy service companies and energy supply companies. Relatively few of these will be the same as the people making the installation. They will in one sense be subcontractors and, hopefully, the subcontractors will be accredited and certified in some form. There will be standards which they will all meet or which the majority will meet most of the time. However, the householder will need to be assured that there is that standard; that there is the protection of an effective warranty and insurance system; and that there is an appeals and redress process built into the totality of the system.

18:45

The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, may well be right that this is ultimately an issue for the code of practice, but the primary legislation does have to instruct the Secretary of State on the areas which should be covered in the code of practice. It may be that the wording here is a little over-prescriptive for the Minister’s taste but, before we complete the consideration of the Bill, we need to be assured that these issues will be covered; that the Secretary of State will have the responsibility for ensuring that they are covered; and that therefore both the upfront providers, the people the householders deal with, and everybody who enters into the commitments required by the Green Deal meet those standards.

I therefore support this group of amendments. I suspect that the Minister and his officials will find different ways of presenting them and I would be open to that. However, if they are not covered, we will have to return to them at a later stage because consumer confidence is absolutely essential for the success of this scheme.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, on behalf of the Opposition I wish to state how much we support the broad thrust of these amendments. I accept entirely the point that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, emphasises: that a balance has got to be struck and that it has to be practicable in terms of encouraging people to provide these services. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, is absolutely right, however, that should there be a failure in the scheme and a level of malpractice and unfortunate efforts reflected in television programmes or other parts of the media which are able to dramatise failure, the confidence of the public will be lost, and that is bound to affect the speed with which we reach targets and the effectiveness of the work done across the country.

It is not necessary for me to reiterate the points that my noble friend Lord Whitty has made. We are glad to see him present in the Committee and bringing his important expertise to this area with regard to the consuming public. He is right to emphasise that there is no area more significant to any member of the public than when work is done in the home, particularly when, as he says, work is being done not by the people who actually provide the materials and the insulation but by sub-contractors. We all know the difficulties we face with regard to this—we have seen instances from time to time in other aspects—and it is important that we safeguard this position as far as possible.

I know the Minister will indicate that he also recognises the importance of the protection of the consumer, but he will also wish to restrict the amount of direction from the Committee and from the House with regard to the code of practice. I have no doubt that he is going to indicate that at the present time. He will accept that this is a critical area and therefore it behoves us to emphasise the significant points that we are making with regard to the code of practice. The balance which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has emphasised must guarantee the adequate protection of the consumer.

[Lord Marland]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for raising this issue. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, to this debate. I am glad that he was able to enjoy some winter sun while the rest of us were at the coalface here. As always, his contributions are welcome.

I have said many times that there is no doubt that consumer confidence is at the heart of the Green Deal. We have to get the regulation framework right so that, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, says, people feel confident about receiving people into their homes and that standards are maintained. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, for his practical approach to this matter, having welcomed people into his own home to help him with the Green Deal insulation.

I will speak to amendments 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 as they address customer protection for Green Deal customers. Amendments 4, 6 and 7 seek to ensure consumers are protected by adequate warranties and insurance. We envisage that anyone operating as a Green Deal assessor or installer will need to have appropriate professional indemnity cover but the Bill already provides sufficient powers. As to regulation, a subject raised by my noble friend Baroness Parminter, there are plenty of regulations in place for people selling insurance. I speak with some experience in that field. Clause 3(4)(c) makes provision for this to be a requirement within the code of practice, with which all Green Deal participants will have to comply. Clause 3(8) provides for appropriate sanctions and redress should the assessor or installer not meet the Green Deal standards.

Clause 5(5)(b) also provides for conditions to be set in secondary legislation requiring a guarantee covering improvements to be included in a Green Deal plan. Details regarding the provision of guarantees will become clearer following further consultation with relevant parties as secondary legislation is developed. This will address matters such as the specific nature of the guarantee, the necessary duration of cover and how the cost of providing the guarantee is met. It is therefore not appropriate to put more detailed requirements regarding guarantees and warranties in the Bill. I hope that noble Lords will be reassured that we intend to include the principle of these amendments in regulations and not move their amendments.

Amendments 3 and 5 deal with the detail on how standards will be enforced, specifically through what my official called “mystery shopping”, which is a new one on me—I hope my wife is not taught about mystery shopping—and through access to an Ombudsman. The regulatory framework needs to be developed in more detail but in essence, yes, it is highly likely to include commonplace means of ensuring standards, such as mystery shopping. However, it would not be appropriate to place this level of detail in the Bill. We will bring forward more details of our regulatory framework during the progress of the Bill.

We are committed to providing customers with a simple, seamless Green Deal service and are considering what is the best institutional framework to ensure that it is as simple as possible for a customer to get problems fixed or to seek redress. For example, it is not our intention that customers should have to contact different regulators for each circumstance. We will bring forward more details of our proposed framework during the progress of the Bill. With these reassurances, I hope noble Lords feel able to withdraw their amendments.

Finally, Amendment 8 seeks to broaden protections designed for Green Deal products to cover any non-Green Deal services or goods provided by Green Deal participants at the same time. The amendment raises an important issue: the need to safeguard against home owners being sold measures by Green Deal providers that, unknown to them, do not benefit from the same regulation as the Green Deal itself. We have, however, already discussed this point and I have commented that it should not follow that the whole of the Green Deal framework can be applied appropriately to any other product or service.

[Baroness Parminter]

I thank the Minister for his reassurances. They are indeed reassuring and I am happy to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 3 withdrawn.

Amendments 4 and 5 not moved.

Amendment 5ZA

Moved by

[Baroness Noakes]

5ZA: Clause 3, page 4, line 26, after “scheme” insert “must be made by order and”

[Baroness Noakes]

My Lords, as has been pointed out, Amendment 5ZA is a manuscript amendment. First, I apologise to the Committee for not putting this down until this morning. This brings me to an issue that the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, raised earlier, about the 101 of amendments. One of the 101s of amendments, after you have got past “may/shall” is to look at the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee or the Constitution Committee or some of our other excellent Select Committees to see which points are raised that need to be debated in Grand Committee. Over the weekend, when I was looking at the amendments that had been tabled, I realised that nobody had put down the amendment that flowed out of the eighth report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. However, the other amendment in this group is Amendment 8D in the name of my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, who came to the same conclusion over the weekend because our amendments address substantially the same point.

I shall explain the point raised by the Delegated Powers Committee. It relates to the code of practice under Clause 3. The scheme established by the framework regulations, which is in subsection (3) includes, in paragraphs (h) and (i), that those regulations may provide for securing compliance with, inter alia, any conditions of the code and, in paragraph (i), the consequences of non-compliance.

We then come to the code requirements, which will be mandatory. Those are found in subsection (4) of Clause 3, and they cover a large number of things which have a financial bearing on those who are participating in the Green Deal. For example, they cover insurance, which has been covered by the amendments that noble Lords have just spoken to. They cover the payment of Green Deal assessors, circumstances in which assessors may charge customers, and quite a lot of things affecting the way the finances are going to work for those involved in the Green Deal. These are not insignificant issues that are going to be found in the code of practice. As the Delegated Powers Committee pointed out, this code is not of the “have regard to” variety, which a lot of statutory codes are; this code is of the “must comply with” variety. So these are very important.

Clause 3(8) shows the consequences of non-compliance with the code. They can include cancelling any liability, requiring Green Deal providers to suspend or cancel liability of a bill payer and requiring a Green Deal participant to pay compensation or a financial penalty. Nowhere in subsection (8) is there any restriction in monetary amounts or any other kind of amount.

As the Delegated Powers Committee pointed out, the code of practice which is going to cover all these very significant issues is subject to no parliamentary procedure at all. It is just something that will be decided by the Minister. The report recommends in paragraph (8):

“The use of a code for provision of this kind appears to us to be a form of sub-delegation of statutory prescription into an instrument that would currently attract no form of parliamentary scrutiny. In view of its mandatory nature, and the possible consequences of non-compliance, the Committee considers that the code under clause 3 should be subject to parliamentary control by way of a draft negative procedure, and we recommend accordingly”.

Over the weekend, I drafted the amendment to Clause 33 which would have put the draft negative procedure into the relevant clause of the Bill. However, for the purposes of today, I did not table that as a manuscript amendment because the substance to be discussed is whether there should be parliamentary procedure. In my amendment I have merely said that the code has to be made by order; that would then require some parliamentary procedure, but we would need to define that later.

I say to my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding that his Amendment 8D has not provided the draft negative procedure. It has provided an ordinary negative procedure. The Delegated Powers Committee intended to go a bit further and require a draft instrument to be laid for a certain number of days before the instrument could be made. That is probably a better procedure to be used in this case.

I hope that the Minister will see the force of the arguments made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and will agree to this or some similar amendment. I beg to move.

19:00

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, going back a very great many years, I remember when I was a law student at Cambridge. One read the reports of the Court of Appeal. Much the easiest judgments to read were those that said, “I agree with my learned friend”, and had nothing to add. My noble friend’s amendment is better than mine and I simply endorse and support it.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, the Minister is faced with a significant challenge to his position. If the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, presents her detailed analysis of the Merits Committee and the strength of its arguments from the coalition side, it will not be at all a surprise for the opposition side. Quick learners as we are, we are quite happy on this occasion to be secondary to the issue and supportive of the amendment. The noble Baroness has indicated that the judgments of the Merits Committee in this House are always ones that we take very seriously indeed. We are grateful for the immense amount of work that goes on, the plethora of such legislation and the clarity that is always present in its reports. As the noble Baroness has said, it has given very clear guidance on this occasion on what should obtain with regard to this legislation. Therefore, the Opposition are delighted to offer their puny strength to the forces that are arranged alongside the noble Lord in the coalition, preaching the lessons of good will and good judgment.

[Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan]

I followed the noble Baroness in the Second Reading debate and was somewhat surprised to agree with her on a number of issues. I have one question for her. As a consequence of this amendment—were it to be accepted—we would have not 52 but 53 statutory instruments flowing from the Bill. Paradoxically, one of the great critics of the ill defined character of this legislation will also add to it. Frankly, on this occasion, it is justified and I am happy to support the noble Baroness. As a general rule, however, I do not think that either of us—or many of us in this Committee—want to see any more orders being left to the rather inadequate, consultative and therefore scrutinising, approach that both Houses have. I hope that it will be a negative resolution in both Houses.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

Is the noble Lord imagining that these will all be separate orders? Is it not open to the Government to link a whole lot of these together in a single set of regulations or a single order?

[Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan]

The noble Lord is putting ideas in the Whips’ and party managers’ heads. We would like to see each of these being given proper weight and being discussed and debated as appropriate. If it takes 53 one-and-a-half hour sessions, so be it. That is the price that we have to pay for the proper scrutiny of legislation that could have been better drafted in the first instance.

[Lord Marland]

My Lords, it is marvellous to see such harmony in the room at the Government’s expense. Given the force of the arguments, particularly those from the Opposition Benches at which one quakes with fear—although one quakes with fear less at the arguments of noble Lords on our Benches, who are so erudite in these matters—we will obviously consider the amendment and reflect on the recommendations already made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on the code of practice.

[Baroness Noakes]

That was a slightly less fulsome reply than I had hoped for. I hoped my noble friend would agree readily that this was an appropriate amendment. However, we are where we are and if the Minister does not bring something back on Report, I will. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 5ZA withdrawn.

Amendments 5A to 8C not moved.

Clause 3 agreed.

Amendment 9

Moved by

[Lord Teverson]

9: After Clause 3, insert the following new Clause—
“Protection for improvers
The Secretary of State shall have a duty to ensure through regulation, code of practice, and audit that improvers are protected from any collusion, anti-competitive activity, or being offered restricted options that favour particular products or organisations, on account of arrangements or agreements made between green deal providers whether advisers, installers, providers of finance or energy companies.”

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, the amendment concerns a matter of principle. When reading through the detail of the Bill I had some difficulty in understanding exactly what protections there are for consumers in this system given that there are a number of different actors in the providers of services. We have the finance companies, I presume; the assessors; the experts who go out with or without their tick boxes; and the people who draw up the green plan or the broader energy plan. I am concerned about consumer confidence, about which the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, talked so well. There is a need for the legislation to contain a duty to ensure that there is no collusion—or even laziness in a negative way—which prevents consumers getting the best deal.

I do not believe the Competition Commission would be interested in this level of transaction, nor, I suspect, would it come under local authority trading standards. I will be interested to hear from the Minister how the Government see this area and what legislation they will bring forward to make sure that the various actors on the supply side provide the best deal for the improver; that there is not in the supply chain a person making sure that a particular building supplier always gets the right business or an assessor who makes sure that the person who draws up the energy plan is not always the same person.

Having said that, I understand that this is a complicated area. Clearly relationships will build up. It may be good that particular organisations and individuals work well with others within the supply chain but I am concerned that the consumer’s interest is protected. Hence the amendment seeks the Secretary of State to have a duty to ensure that there is no collusion, either by design or through laziness, that delivers a less than optimal solution for the consumer. That is what the amendment is about. I am sure that any public Bill writer would be appalled by the state of the language and what it says, but I have tried to put it in plain language so that the Minister can come back and say to us how he feels this area should be approached within the context of a green energy plan. I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I support the principle of what the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, is seeking to achieve. It is not dissimilar to the point I made earlier about whether there may be arrangements or relationships between an assessor and an installer whereby the assessor will always want to give business to a particular installer for the work to be done. It is difficult to ensure that there are not such arrangements and the wording of the amendment puts the issue back into the Minister’s court to see how best this can be achieved. It is an important objective to consider because, as has been said a few times during the course of the debate, protection of the consumer and consumer confidence are all important. If the consumer thinks that a certain assessor will always go for particular kinds of products or arrangements, it will not lead to confidence in the Green Deal. I hope the Minister will take on board the principle, understand the point that it is seeking to make and consider ways in which it can be addressed.

[Lord Marland]

My Lords, Amendment 9 would require the Secretary of State to ensure through regulation, audit and the code of practice that improvers are protected from anti-competitive activity by Green Deal providers. Clearly anti-competitive behaviour and collusion among Green Deal providers is undesirable and we want to ensure that the risk of this is minimised through the design of the scheme. However, this requirement on the Secretary of State would mean that the Secretary of State would be obliged to put in place legislation which already exists in other parts of the law. Green Deal providers should be covered by existing competition law, notably the Competition Act 1998, which prevents businesses from entering into anti-competitive agreements and abusing dominant market positions. I do not see any need to effectively replicate those arrangements in the Bill.

Furthermore, for domestic households only licensed creditors will be able to operate as Green Deal providers and the existing credit regulation contained in the Consumer Credit Act would apply. I hope that that is enough to satisfy the noble Lord and that he will withdraw the amendment.

[Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan]

The Minister has indicated that competition will be properly regulated and that consumers will be protected. However, the Green Deal will be offered by supermarkets and, in some parts of the country, a single supermarket chain can have a virtual monopoly of retail outlets. While it would certainly be capable of offering the Green Deal, we have to be careful because the nature of the relationship may be that a single company will link up with a supermarket, that the supermarket will leave everything to the company and that the company will then make it quite attractive for supplier A or supplier B to come in.

I am not sure whether the public are confident that the free play of market forces in such near monopolistic situations is sufficient protection. I have some sympathy with the proposition, not because I think that all supermarket chains are potential abusers but because we know that in a number of areas of sourcing—we have only to listen to the farming community about the sourcing of fresh food, fruit, vegetables and the like—these supermarkets act quite ruthlessly. We want stronger assurances than the bland approach taken by the Minister in his reply to the debate. I am not confident that something akin to the status quo operating in these circumstances is enough when people will be entering into substantial financial undertakings. Whether or not they do so on the basis that they will never pay because the bills will be reduced does not enter into it. If people did not have confidence in the company to which they are almost forced to go by circumstances beyond their control—they may happen to live in an area which is dominated by a particular supermarket chain which has a dubious record on the way that it sources its goods—we would be concerned about consumer confidence.

19:15

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

Perhaps I may put a scenario to the Minister and ask for his comment so that I can see if I have misunderstood this. If an installer of double-glazing were to employ a team of assessors, and those assessors could do an assessment on a house, and one way of achieving carbon reduction was to have double-glazing in that home, in a sense there is nothing wrong in that, since it is one way of achieving the carbon reduction. However, it comes back to the point that it is the Green Deal plan by which they are achieving the carbon reduction. The householder has not got the choice of an energy plan from which to choose which Green Deal provisions they want to undertake. There could be a relationship where an installer employed an assessor who would always recommend that particular installer’s products. It would be a way of achieving the Green Deal, but it might not necessarily be the best way or the only way. Does the Minister envisage that as a problem, or is that how he sees it could work?

[Lord Marland]

I think that noble Lords are looking at this in a narrow sphere. I am not familiar with parts of the world where there is only one supermarket chain operating in that part of the world. I take the view of the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill. In my part of the world, there are four or five operating quite regularly. If you add to that B&Qs and the suppliers of all forms of household improvement, it multiplies. Therefore there is distinct competition. You have to add to that the energy companies, social enterprises, housing associations and all manner of retailers who can ensure that the market is competitive. I totally take on board what the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan, has said, that it would be terrible if there was only one supplier in a part of the world. However, given the extent of suppliers that are available, I do not realistically think that market forces would apply.

Referring to the interesting point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, I am not entirely sure that I follow. If her point is that the double-glazing salesperson was promoting a product that was exclusively to their benefit, I am not sure that this would happen because market forces would dictate that anyone inviting someone into their home to give an assessment of the requirement and the cost of it would automatically put that out to tender. Even if these people were inappropriately selling the product, they themselves, before they are allowed to sell that product, have to be authorised under the scheme; and the scheme, as we have already debated, will have many a safeguard and recourse against unauthorised behaviour by an authorised provider or assessor.

It comes back to the central theme. We have to get these right, we have to ensure that the standards are properly maintained, and we have to ensure that competitiveness is allowed into the market.

[Lord Teverson]

How do the Government see the status of assessors? Does the Minister see them as being like independent financial advisers in the financial world? Can they be employed by B&Q or Everest? Can they actually be employees of those organisations, and can that be made quite transparent? Do they have to be self-employed? That is what I am trying to get to the depth of here. It is not in any way a criticism. It is actually trying to understand how this works in practice. I come back to the financial services industry or even—dare I say to the noble Lord?—the insurance industry. There is a whole history of mis-selling despite strong regulation, perhaps because people got commissions—I would be interested in comments in terms of whether commissions are permissible under this system. There are clearly advantages to the upfront sales force or the people who recommend because there is a temptation, under certain circumstances—which may not be illegal but might be dubious or not in the interests of the customer—not to recommend the best solution necessarily, or a particular solution. Most people will not want to get more than one assessor. They will want to get an assessor who they see as independent of mind, maybe through a proper assessment process or not—coming back to the previous debate. I am interested in how the Minister sees the status of assessors. Can they be a full-time employer, employee or an organisation that tends to specialise in certain solutions? I am just interested in how the Government see that working out in terms of a code of practice or maybe in the way that this scheme has to operate, because I believe that it is fundamentally important.

[Lord Marland]

My Lords, there is nothing to prevent an assessor working for an organisation, but the reality is that they have to be independent of that organisation in terms of their assessment. There has to be a Chinese wall. To answer my noble friend Lord Teverson’s excellent question, assessors can come from all walks of life. They could be quantity surveyors, representatives of B&Q or representatives of a supermarket, but they have to retain an independence and fulfil the standards that are required of them under the Green Deal regulatory mechanisms that we have been debating today.

I would also point out that a lot of the products that we are talking about here are not new to the market. It is not as if we are suddenly coming into the market with a wonderful new product. Double-glazing has been sold consistently through the country for a long time. Loft lagging has been consistently sold, and there are consumer protections in place under the Act which provide for proper regulation.

There is one point which I would like to reflect on and come back to my noble friend Lord Teverson on, however, and that is the role of commissions. My noble friend has raised a very important point where we need to work out the impact and how these assessors are remunerated.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I have listened carefully to the Minister. I think that he is trying to reassure noble Lords on this important commission point, but I am not reassured. Clause 3(4)(a) to (g), on the code of practice, would seem to allow an installer to employ an assessor, and to allow that assessor—within this code of practice, this framework arrangement and the Green Deal—to recommend energy efficient measures that fall within the remit of one installer that is employing that assessor. I do not understand how an assessor can be employed by an installer and be independent. I am grateful that the Minister will look at this again. However, depending on what he comes back with, we may wish to return to this at a later date.

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for going through this and perhaps spending more time on it than he would wish. However, I think it is a core part of making this system work and putting it above question. Public money is not involved but we are talking about consumers’ own money under a government scheme. That is why it is particularly important. I was going to offer to look up the various bits of competition legislation that he mentioned but I suspect that I will not get round to that before Report.

I thank the Minister for looking into this area. It would be useful for the department to explore this and to have a clear view on how it will work to avoid what I would call mis-selling within the market place. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 9 withdrawn.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley)]

Before I call the next amendment, I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, for omitting to call his manuscript Amendment 8D. It has already been debated but I should check with him that he was content not to move it.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

Not moved.

Amendment 8D not moved.

Amendment 10

Moved by

[Lord Teverson]

10: Before Clause 4, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty of green deal providers
(1) It is the duty of green deal providers to ensure that the energy plan reasonably reflects the best overall energy solution or solutions for that property, while also taking into consideration the total cost, and the period of payback of any scheme.
(2) Green deal providers must be able to show evidence that they have taken due care to promote the best interests of the improver.
(3) Where appropriate, suitable options should be offered to improvers so that they may make a choice.
(4) An energy plan must include an estimate of the annual savings of carbon dioxide emissions.”

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, this is another broad and, in some ways, probing amendment. I have gone through the Bill. The Minister might be able to put me right but I could not see anywhere that there was an actual duty on the Green Deal providers to make sure that they actually provided the best deal that there was available. I then had to think what is the right deal to put forward in order to write this amendment. Even with the broad strategic messages that I had written down, that became quite difficult.

It is important that it should be made clear in the Bill, which is the primary legislation, that there is a duty on the Green Deal providers, who are in a position of preference—and I was going to say that the noble Lord, who is not here any more, used the right phrase—to make sure that it is the best deal. What is that? I believe that they need to show some sort of documentary evidence—and we again come back to the assessment argument or the list one way or another—in the way that financial services providers have to, that they have gone through certain processes, not just generic ones but ones to do with the situation of the property and the household itself. This is not just about property. It is in a way about what that household can actually afford, or the payback period in which they can work. There are variations within the golden rule. The golden rule must be met, but it perhaps can be met in a number of different ways. There is a duty of care here.

I would like to think that there was also, where possible, options and choices—not too many, not too complicated and not for their own sake—and that there should be some ability to have a discussion about what is the right solution out of a number of possibilities. I also believe that, for the energy plan that is agreed, there should be, at the end of the day, a carbon emissions statement that brings that area back into the consumer’s view. Why are we doing all of this? It is to save energy and to be of benefit to the consumer and the household individually. However, it is also very useful to illustrate on the plan that this is also about decarbonising the economy and reducing carbon emissions.

In this amendment I am trying to make it clear that—again, I quite understand that there is a complicity below this—there is a duty on Green Deal providers to make sure that households are able to make good decisions from good information. In a way it comes back again to that debate that we had before. It is very important that there is not just a quality check in terms of assessors but that they have to use their grey cells as well as just a checklist to make sure that the scheme that is put forward is a good one. I would like it to look beyond the Green Deal issue.

19:30

[Lord Moynihan]

I begin my intervention by apologising that I was not with you at Second Reading. Unfortunately, the challenge of London 2012 and the Olympic Games took precedence on that occasion. However, I shall be pleased to be with you during as many hours of the Committee stage of the Bill as possible.

Is not the point that my noble friend is making absolutely key to the discussions that we were having earlier on the subject of accreditation and certification? I ask him to focus on that because it if we can get the accreditation and certification system right, along the lines that my noble friend was discussing on an earlier amendment, we would go a long way to ensuring that we achieve the goals and objectives that my noble friend has set out.

[Lord Teverson]

I agree with my noble friend entirely. The quality of the assessor is most important, but that has to be supplemented by the duty of providing good information or a good plan as well. On that basis I beg to move.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

There is both good and bad in this suggested new clause. The point about the first three subsections seems to me to be inherent in the nature of the scheme. However, I do not know whether this is the right way to make clear that the scheme is intended to give the consumer, the householder, the best deal available. I am sure that there will be many circumstances where the assessor will have to weigh up the situation and say, “Are we asking too much?”, which means that it could not be paid back within a reasonable time; and, “Are we asking too little?”, which means that the householder could have paid rather more. This may need to be written into the Bill in some form. With the use of the words,

“the best overall energy solution”,

you are opening up the possibility that someone will sue if they can be persuaded that they could have got a better one. Somehow one has got to try and avoid that. That is the good part.

Subsection (4) is totally impractical and undesirable. As I said at Second Reading, one of the great advantages of the Green Deal over the CERT programme is that this is not written directly around carbon savings but is intended to provide the householder—the consumer—with incentives for lower bills and warmer houses. To require that in every individual case someone has to sit down and estimate what the carbon savings are likely to be seems to me to be unrealistic. I apologise to my noble friend for using what may seem to be fairly strong words, but everyone has recognised that one of the advantages of this is that people may choose to have warmer homes and pay back rather more because they will not get as much savings as they might have had had the whole thing gone into saving energy costs. How is anybody going to conceivably estimate that at the outset?

We have a classic case here where the carbon savings, which certainly lie at the heart of this in order to achieve our carbon targets, are the consequence and not the primary objective. As I said at Second Reading, people will respond much more easily and readily to an offer of lower bills or a warmer home than they will to someone coming along and telling them that they have to cut their carbon footprint. Subsection (4) is very difficult and I would find it hard to support if it were to find its way into the Bill.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I feel that in some ways we have already had this debate during the course of the Bill. We are perhaps all looking at different ways of addressing the same kinds of issues and problems that arise. Whether or not this is the best way forward I do not know. It comes down to the fact that, in any property where an assessor looks at what could be done to achieve energy efficiency, there will possibly be several options of what can be achieved under the Green Deal, and different assessors may give different options.

The concern is: who makes the decision and what options in the energy plan can be achieved under the Green Deal? Would it be the installer, the provider, the assessor or the householder? I am not clear where the decision-making process for the best energy solution lies. I make the same point as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and ask whether the best possible solution would be challengeable? Who would make the decision about the best possible solution? This brings me to the point about how decisions are made and what energy plans and efficiency improvements can be taken into account under the Green Deal. It would be helpful if we had clarity on who makes the decision on that.

I like the idea of the householder having input into that decision and of having an energy plan as well as a Green Deal plan. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on how this would work in practice.

[Lord Marland]

My Lords, this is an interesting amendment. The question raised by my noble friend Lord Teverson of what is the best deal remains unanswered, because a best deal to some people is quality; to others it is price; and, arguably, the best deal to most is a combination of quality and price.

Amendment 10 seeks to introduce a new clause addressing consumer protection mechanisms. While we accept the thrust of the amendment and what it is trying to achieve, I believe that the issue is already addressed in Clauses 3 and 4. Clause 4 is central to the Green Deal and defines the terms on which it can be offered to customers. I urge noble Lords to look at it again. Subsections (2) and (3) require that an accredited Green Deal assessor has assessed the property in accordance with the standards that we set out in the framework regulations and has recommended energy efficiency improvements on this basis. The assessor would identify the potential for energy savings using the standardised methodology as set down. The outcome of the assessment would be provided to the improver and would be used by the provider as the basis of an offer for Green Deal finance.

Subsections (4) and (5) require that an accredited Green Deal provider, the body seeking to contract the work, should give the customer an estimate of the savings on energy bills that are likely to result from the proposed energy efficiency improvements and over what time period these are likely to accrue. The Green Deal provider is required to base his estimates on a standardised methodology to be set out in regulations, thereby ensuring consistency and rigour in the process.

In addition, Clause 3 sets out requirements for the code of conduct which will make provisions as to the qualification and training of Green Deal participants. This will ensure that Green Deal participants operate to competent standards. We will look to see what, if any, further requirement should be placed on Green Deal providers to ensure robust consumer protection. We will set out these conditions in the code of conduct.

Lastly, I believe that we have the flexibility to make requirements in secondary legislation to enable us to move swiftly to close any loopholes that may become apparent once the scheme is operational. Paradoxically, agreeing this amendment for primary legislation could lessen our ability to protect customers. I believe that the Bill already contains the necessary provisions to achieve what is intended by the amendment and I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.

[Lord Teverson]

I thank the Minister for going through that explanation. He is right to say that there is a list of provisions within the Bill that point in the direction of the right quality of decision-making and of ensuring that all the procedures are right. However, I am not sure that there is a duty to get the right deal for the consumer at the end of the day. However, I note the Minister’s intention that that should be the case, as I am sure we would all want. Perhaps I can ask him to look at it again.

I should also like briefly to reply to my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. My amendment makes it quite clear that subsection (1) is concerned with overall energy solutions and that subsection (4) is concerned just with an estimate, which I do not think would be very difficult to make. I know the Minister has exactly the same objectives here and I hope he will look at it again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 10 withdrawn.

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, this may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until Wednesday at 3.45 pm.

Committee adjourned at 7.40 pm.

House of Lords

Monday 17th January 2011 Lords Chamber

Monday 17 January 2011

14:15

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Wakefield.

Introduction: Lord Loomba

Monday 17th January 2011 Lords Chamber

14:22

Rajinder Paul Loomba Esquire, CBE, having been created Baron Loomba, of Moor Park in the County of Hertfordshire, was introduced and took the oath, supported by Lord McNally and Lord Dholakia, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Introduction: Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Monday 17th January 2011 Lords Chamber

14:29

Tariq Mahmood Ahmad Esquire, having been created Baron Ahmad of Wimbledon, of Wimbledon in the London Borough of Merton, was introduced and took the oath, supported by Baroness Warsi and Lord Howard of Lympne, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Introduction: Lord Flight

Monday 17th January 2011 Lords Chamber

14:34

Howard Emerson Flight Esquire, having been created Baron Flight, of Worcester in the County of Worcestershire, was introduced and took the oath, supported by Baroness O’Cathain and Lord Lamont of Lerwick, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Clerk of the Parliaments

Monday 17th January 2011 Lords Chamber

Announcement of Successor

14:38

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

My Lords, I informed the House on 8 November of Michael Pownall’s intention to retire from the Office of Clerk of the Parliaments with effect from Friday 15 April. A trawl for Michael Pownall’s successor has now been held. There were four applicants, all of whom were interviewed by a board consisting of myself, the Lord Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Liberal Democrats, the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers and the noble Baroness, Lady Fritchie, who is a former Civil Service Commissioner and Commissioner for Public Appointments. The unanimous recommendation of the board is that David Beamish should succeed Michael Pownall. I am sure your Lordships would wish to join me in congratulating David on his appointment. We will have an early opportunity to pay tribute to Michael Pownall’s career in the House nearer to the date of his retirement.

The board also considered applications for the post of Clerk Assistant, which will fall vacant on David Beamish’s appointment as Clerk of the Parliaments. The board unanimously recommended that Edward Ollard should succeed David Beamish as Clerk Assistant. The Lord Speaker will move a Motion to appoint him to the post at the appropriate time.

Legislation

Monday 17th January 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

14:40

Asked By

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what proposals they have to reduce the volume and complexity of new legislation.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

My Lords, the Government are committed to simplifying and improving the quality of legislation. We will improve quality by publishing in draft for pre-legislative scrutiny, where possible, and through post-legislative scrutiny. We have established a mechanism to prevent the proliferation of unnecessary criminal offences and introduced a one-in, one-out rule for regulations which impose costs on business or civil society.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply, but is he aware that we legislate at between 200 and 400 per cent the rate of any comparable country in Europe? Is he aware that the cumulative effect of making legislation at the rate of between 11,000 and 13,000 pages a year over the past 15 years has been a state of indigestion in this country that some might call citizen constipation, which has parlous consequences? If I cannot ask him for a moratorium for a year on all legislation to allow us to catch up and see to implementation, will he at least consider introducing a provision, as in the Charities Act 2006, requiring a report to Parliament within four to five years of enactment of legislation in order that Parliament can consider its effectiveness and take necessary measures?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I think there is general agreement around the House about the necessity to legislate less, but the problem is—and I have heard this throughout my time around Whitehall and Westminster—that although Oppositions have the absolute determination to legislate less, when they get into government they find that every department has at least two or three, or perhaps even more, good ideas they want to legislate on. Indeed, every Secretary of State who followed my noble friend’s advice would start reading in the gossip columns that he was for the chop, because he was a do-nothing Secretary of State. It is a dilemma, but my noble friend is pointing us in the right direction.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

Did I overhear the noble Lord correctly, when he said that the Government were committed to improving the quality of legislation by pre-legislative scrutiny? Tired people make tired laws. How does he reconcile that with what the Government are doing today?

[Lord McNally]

Because sometimes, my Lords, the procedures of the House do not allow for non-tired Lords, but I cannot believe that a piece of legislation the total number of hours for which it has been scrutinised by this House will, at some time tonight, exceed the total time for which it was scrutinised in the other place has been subject to any abuse whatever on this side of the Chamber.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

My Lords, are there any plans, as there once were, to consolidate the mass of recent legislation on terrorism? That would be a great aid towards simplification.

[Lord McNally]

I cannot give an instant response but, as so often with the noble and learned Lord’s interventions, it is a good suggestion, not least because I understand that some of the pieces of terrorism legislation passed over the past decade were never actually put into practice.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve]

Would the Minister consider recommending to his colleagues that departments of government receive a budget for drafting future legislation at a stage before it is known whether it will form part of the Queen’s Speech, so that the good ideas may be more adequately translated into prose?

[Lord McNally]

Again, I will take that sound suggestion back. From my limited experience, if I had my time over again, I would become a parliamentary draftsman, because it seems to be a well protected trade.

[Lord Grabiner]

Does the Minister think that the quality of scrutiny of legislation would improve if we had an elected upper House?

[Lord McNally]

Undoubtedly, sir.

[Lord Marlesford]

My Lords, when it comes to constitutional legislation, what lessons does my noble friend take from the fact that only 27 amendments to the United States constitution have been made in the past 200-plus years, two of those being prohibition and a reversal of prohibition? Will he take into account such lessons when bringing forward any legislation on House of Lords reform?

[Lord McNally]

Indeed, that is why I am very enthusiastic about the concept of pre-legislative scrutiny for a Bill, because it will give an ample opportunity for all sides and opinions to be heard.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, there are two parts to my question. First, the noble Lord talks passionately about the need for pre-legislative scrutiny, so why was the Bill before us today not subject to pre-legislative scrutiny? The Minister also talks about the need for less complex Bills to come before us and for pre-legislative scrutiny, yet we are told that this week a Bill with 400 clauses will come before the House of Commons. It is a Bill on the National Health Service that was not proposed in the manifesto of either party; and it was specifically stated in the coalition agreement that there would be no major Bill to reorganise the NHS. What is the rationale for that Bill?

[Lord McNally]

I thought that the Prime Minister explained that excellently on the “Today” programme this morning. It was a most impressive performance. One of the problems about the commitment to pre-legislative scrutiny is what happens in the first year of a radical and reforming Government. That is one of the things that we run against. A Government who are determined to hit the ground running, with radical reforms, are bound to run into some problems on this. I have explained where we are going on legislation, and we will make efforts to make sure that both Houses are fully involved in the pre-legislative scrutiny and—the point made by my noble friend—that there is the opportunity for both Houses of Parliament to take a second look, in the form of post-legislative scrutiny, to see whether we have got certain legislation right.

Post Offices

Monday 17th January 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

14:48

Asked By

[Lord Naseby]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they will ensure a viable local network of post offices.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox)]

My Lords, we have made it clear that we are committed to the long-term future of the Post Office. We will provide £1.34 billion of funding for the Post Office over the next four years. This will enable the modernisation of the nationwide network of around 11,500 branches and the development of new revenue streams, longer opening hours and reduced queues. We are clear that there will be no programme of post office closures under this Government.

[Lord Naseby]

I thank my noble friend for that extremely encouraging Answer. However, is she aware that in 2010 nearly 1,000 sub-post offices were up for sale because they are unviable, and that hundreds, if not thousands, of small businesses use these local post offices every day? In particular, 300,000 pensioners use the green giro. Can she make sure that this problem is addressed urgently and that within, I hope, the current Session, we will see some positive action in this area?

[Baroness Wilcox]

My Lords, I am glad you have given me an opportunity to address the point about the closure of post offices. Most, as you know, are privately owned businesses and it is inevitable and normal that there will be some changes in ownership. It is a condition of the £1.34 billion we have provided that the Post Office will continue to provide a network of at least 11,500 branches.

The noble Lord's second question was about collecting pensions from post offices. This will continue. People will be able to use the Post Office card account to withdraw money from a basic or current account free of charge and, for a small proportion of them, by cheque.

The noble Lord’s third point was about small businesses using post offices. It is clear that we should keep post offices alive and well close to the people who need to use them, particularly people such as me who live in rural areas and villages, and small businesses. They provide an enormously good service and we are very happy to support them.

[Baroness Knight of Collingtree]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that “viable” can be interpreted as a public service that is available to members of the public who use it? Is she aware of the great difficulty that many people in rural areas have experienced because of the closure of local post offices, particularly young mothers with children who have to be pushed in a pram, and pensioners? Will she concentrate on the difficulties that these areas are experiencing?

[Baroness Wilcox]

That is always a worry and a difficulty, particularly, as my noble friend has pointed out, for young families. The Post Office Ltd network works hard to try to secure new ownership for a post office when it is going to close. As noble Lords will know, the access criteria specify that 99 per cent of the population should be within 3 miles of a post office, and in inner cities they should be within 1 mile of one. If the post office closes in an area like that, it causes hardship. Post Office Ltd is very keen to get the churn better handled. It is natural for someone who wants to open a post office to be fully enthusiastic. I have a goddaughter who has just opened one. She has a very young family herself, and is struggling and finding it difficult to keep the business running. She thought it would be much easier than this. When things are difficult like that, we need to give all the help that we can.

[The Countess of Mar]

Does the noble Baroness appreciate that some sub-post offices in rural areas also act as sorting offices? Last Christmas, I had reason to complain about the activities of a postman. I found it impossible to do so. I phoned a national number and was referred to the internet. On the internet they have someone called, I think, Sarah who will answer your questions, but she did not respond to mine. How can one speak to a person in a post office to file a complaint?

[Baroness Wilcox]

The noble Countess makes a valid point. We will certainly look into this.

[Lord Myners]

Will the Minister endorse the view that the Post Office should be able to obtain a banking licence in its own name, thereby allowing people to bank with an organisation that is universal in its coverage, that, unlike banks, is not closing branches, and, importantly, that is trusted?

[Baroness Wilcox]

The noble Lord knows this subject very well. I have a long note here on how complicated, expensive and difficult it is to set up one of these licences. We have looked at the idea of a state-backed post bank, but it would be simply unaffordable in the current financial climate.

[The Lord Bishop of Wakefield]

Will Her Majesty’s Government give assurances that where a post office is threatened with closure, perhaps because it is part of a small shop, pressure will be put on Post Office Ltd to make sure that it works with community groups to find an alternative location, as is suggested by the notion of the big society?

[Baroness Wilcox]

As the right reverend Prelate will know, a Bill on the privatisation of the Royal Mail will come to the House on 25 January. Postal services will be discussed then, and it would be a good time to bring up the question again.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords—

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

Is the noble Baroness content that many post offices are now applying for licences to sell alcohol and displaying it on a wide scale immediately alongside the areas in which giro payments are made? Are the Government prepared to do something about it?

[Baroness Wilcox]

That is a very interesting question. I have not come across it before and will look into it. I can see where the noble Lord is coming from. Youngsters come in to buy sweeties et cetera and see alcohol very close to them. As with the big society, we will look to see what is going on.

Tourism

Monday 17th January 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

14:56

Asked by

[Lord Addington]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support tourism throughout the regions of the United Kingdom, particularly in the run-up to the Olympics and other international sporting events.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

The Government are creating a new overseas marketing fund and a new tourism strategy in order to create a sustainable legacy for tourism from the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, and from other major events such as Her Majesty’s diamond jubilee. The overseas campaign aims to deliver 1 million additional overseas visitors in each of the next four years and £2 billion in extra visitor spend.

[Lord Addington]

I thank my noble friend for that response. What structure is in place to encourage people who are attending events that may last several weeks to travel, for example, outwith and between matches in the international rugby union world cup, and to see other cultural events and sites around the country during that experience?

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

My noble friend raises a very important issue to do with tourism. Major events give communities the opportunity to promote their regions on the world stage. VisitEngland is working with the regions to highlight our heritage and culture, as well as the wonders of the towns and countryside, and it is hoped that the major sporting events will give a boost to particular areas. People will have every encouragement and publicity to venture further afield.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall]

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree—I think that she does, because I have asked her before—that the arts and cultural sectors of the UK are an extremely important draw for tourists? Is she aware that Arts Council England is engaged, as a result of cuts to its funding, in a major review of its entire portfolio, and has made it fairly clear that at least some organisations that provide important artistic events across the country will cease to be funded in the next two to three years? What impact will that have on tourism?

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

The noble Baroness is quite right; I agree with her once again that culture and the arts are vital. She will also remember that when the coalition Government came into office, they did not inherit the most favourable economic situation, and unfortunate cuts have had to be made in all sorts of areas. Certainly, support is available for the arts and heritage, and major funds are being set up to ensure that we do not lose the treasures of this country.

[Lord Higgins]

Does my noble friend agree that it is also very important to encourage tourism and sporting events after the Olympics? In that context, will she give an assurance that the Government will do all they can to ensure that an athletics track remains a permanent feature of the Olympic stadium, regardless of to whom it is sold?

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

My noble friend will be aware that there are extensive plans to ensure that the legacy from the Olympics continues well into the future, and the facilities that have been set up specifically for the Olympics will be of great benefit as the years go by. The track will obviously be an important part of that.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson]

What consideration has the noble Baroness given to using the Games to ensure that disabled tourists have equal access to shops, attractions and hotel rooms, bearing in mind that disabled people have money to spend and that businesses not far away from here are blatantly ignoring current disability access legislation?

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

I am concerned to hear the noble Baroness's last point. That is something that we would wish to investigate in great detail because, as she rightly says, all those attending the Olympic and Paralympic Games, particularly those who are disabled, will need additional resources and specific information about where appropriate accommodation is and what the events and venues are. Over the years, we have taken strides to ensure that our venues are fully accessible to those who suffer from a whole range of disabilities.

[Baroness Billingham]

The Question links sport with tourism. Does the Minister agree that both those activities would benefit enormously by having more light at the end of the day rather than at the beginning of the day? We return to that issue time and time again. She might also be well aware, because we have debated it here, that 82,000 new jobs would be provided in the tourism industry if that were enacted at a time when jobs are being lost from every sector of our country. How on earth can her Government refuse to consider this seriously at long last to enable those jobs to be provided—jobs that more than likely would go to young people and women, the very people who are more likely to lose their jobs in a recession?

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

The noble Baroness will be aware that a Private Member’s Bill on daylight saving is currently going through the other House. This issue comes up regularly and there seems to be growing enthusiasm for it. It is a matter for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and ultimately a matter that all parts of the United Kingdom need to subscribe to before we can change the system.

[Lord Lee of Trafford]

My Lords, the five destination management organisations in the north-west are at present significantly funded by the regional RDA. With the RDA being phased out and the development of the LEPs being patchy and embryonic, will my noble friend tell us what transitional plans the Government have to provide support for the DMOs during this period?

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

I pay tribute to my noble friend’s expertise in tourism and, indeed, to his commitment to the north-west. This region has a great many natural attractions. With a proactive strategy to encourage tourism, he will be aware that the DMOs are taking on tourism activities, and VisitEngland is actively helping to ensure continuity. The north-west might also consider applying to the regional growth fund, which is a fund of £1.4 billion and which will be open for tourism-related funding applications.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the Commonwealth Games are coming to Glasgow in 2014. Can she give an assurance on behalf of the Government that this forward-looking tourism strategy will take into account the importance of that event not just for Glasgow and Scotland but for the whole of the United Kingdom, and that the Government will work with the Scottish Government to ensure that it is a success for the economy as well as for sport?

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

I would sincerely hope so. The tourism strategy is currently at a far stage of development. It has not yet been announced but will be shortly, and I am quite sure that the Commonwealth Games will feature very strongly.

EU: External Action Service

Monday 17th January 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

15:03

Asked By

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many British embassies they intend to close as a result of the deployment of the European Union External Action Service.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, there are no plans for any British embassies to close as a result of the deployment of the European External Action Service. The European External Action Service is about supplementing and complementing, not replacing, national diplomatic services.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

My Lords, accepting that part of our foreign policy is now governed by the Lisbon treaty, does my noble friend, with all his experience, really think that it is necessary and appropriate to have an EU diplomatic service with a budget starting at £400 million a year, rising to €3 billion a year, with 6,000 staff—114 of them are paid more than the Foreign Secretary—in 137 countries, including 49 in Burkina Faso, 46 in Barbados, 32 in the Dominican Republic and six in Vanuatu, which has a population of 250,000? If, as the Commission says, all this has been done on a neutral-cost basis, deploying resources from one area to another, does that not show that there is a massive opportunity for economy and cutting spending in the EU?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend is correct on that last point, but the global figure for personnel that I have is not 6,000 but 1,625, which is rather different from what he says. On the general question of the usefulness and worthwhile need for a combined diplomatic service, we take the view that this can help and, indeed, even save money in certain areas where combined efforts to deal with great international strategic issues are valuable. That is not every area. In some areas we want our own bilateral developments, but in some it is clearly more economic and effective to act together. We believe that this service will help, provided that it is carefully controlled, particularly on the cost side.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

Will the Minister tell us what proportion of the figures rattled off by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, include Commission officials already in those posts who are busy trying to disburse the development programmes of the European Union? The noble Lord included some small developing countries, where I suspect that that is the case. Can the Minister give a little more specificity to his excellent point on the EAS being able to do certain things more effectively and economically than 27 member states each doing their own thing?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

On the question of the global totals, it is a fact that a great deal of the personnel and cost diversion comes from existing activities being amalgamated under the new system. Of the 1,625 personnel whom I mentioned, 1,114 are existing personnel acting on external matters and will be brought together into one grouping, which we hope may save money. That is a sensible move, provided that costs are most carefully controlled. Will the noble Lord repeat his second question, as I have forgotten it?

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I asked whether the Minister could follow up his excellent first answer, when he said that the EAS ought to be able to conduct certain forms of diplomatic activity collectively for the 27 member states more efficiently than the member states can do severally themselves and whether he had any suggestions. I suggested in a debate three months ago that things such as the analysis of the economy of the country where the post is could well be conducted in that way.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

With respect to the noble Lord, the governing word is “ought”. This is a new institution and it has to prove its worth. It will no doubt be subject to some elements of conducibility like any other new organisation. It will have to establish its worthwhileness. There are areas where, by combining with our neighbours and other European member states, we can do much more, but we have to move carefully. We cannot assume that it will be a positive in every area. In some areas we can clearly do things much better by ourselves.

[Lord Hunt of Chesterton]

My Lords, do the Government agree that the European external service may well provide a great opportunity for UK science and industry to have projects, many of the most advanced of which are done across the EU? We really need an EU presence and promotion of these projects, which I believe should be an important part of the external service.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I very much hope so, but of course that applies to other nations and other areas of the world as well. We want close scientific links with our American friends and with the rising powers of Asia, as well as with our European Union neighbours. Certainly, this may help as far as our immediate neighbourhood is concerned.

[Lord Tugendhat]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that in Dar es Salaam, from which I have just returned, there is a Europe house, which contains the British high commission, the German embassy, the Dutch embassy, the European Commission office and the DfID office? Does he agree that that is an admirable example of effective co-operation and cost saving? Will he undertake to ensure that similar establishments are put into other similar capitals?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I hear what my noble friend says and hope that that will save money. As to the administration of diplomatic posts around the world and the role of the EAS posts, we must leave that to the Commission, but always within the strict framework that the budget is tight—in my view, it should be tighter still. If this is a worthwhile return and helps our national aims and diplomatic services, it is worth while pursuing.

[Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead]

My Lords, does the Minister welcome the fact, as I do, that, under the EAS, development policies become a shared competence between the European Commission and the member states of the European Union? Furthermore, does he agree that, under the Lisbon treaty, EU policies such as development should complement and reinforce one another?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The Lisbon treaty is a fact and these are the aims under it. However, I emphasise, and I know that the noble Baroness with her experience will agree, that these are early days. It is an advance into a new area, where we are trying both to save money and to combine our efforts with our European member state neighbours in certain areas, but not all. We welcome this as far as it goes. Clearly, we need to see how this develops from here.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Monday 17th January 2011 Lords Chamber

Committee (9th Day)

15:10

Motion

Tabled by

[Lord McNally]

That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord McNally I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on the Bill. In moving this Motion, it may be helpful to set out the Government's intention in relation to progress on the Bill; there has been a little recent comment in the press.

The Government announced as long ago as July last year that there would be a referendum on 5 May to decide the system to elect Members of the House of Commons at the next general election. The Government also made clear our desire to reduce the number of seats in the House of Commons at the same election. The Bill subsequently passed all its stages on the Floor of the House

In this House, we are now on day nine of Committee on the Bill. Although it is right that this House undertakes proper and detailed scrutiny of the Bill, it is also right that the House deals with legislation in reasonable time. The Bill was introduced to your Lordships' House on 3 November, and began Committee on 30 November. The Opposition's approach has been consistently and deliberately slow. This time last week, the House debated the Bill for six hours, dealing with just two amendments. That is not good scrutiny; there is no precedent for moving so slowly. I have had many representations from noble Lords on all sides of the House in recent weeks who are concerned about the slow progress on the Bill. The Opposition have dragged their heels; they have had their fun; it is now time for this House to behave responsibly.

For this House to stand in the way of a referendum on 5 May would be extremely serious. The Electoral Commission is clear that in order for the necessary provisions to be made to hold a referendum on 5 May, Royal Assent for this Bill should be granted by 16 February. In order to give proper time for Report and Third Reading, I believe that the House now expects us to make substantial progress towards completing Committee today. I beg to move.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

My Lords, perhaps I may respond briefly to what the noble Lord the Leader of the House said. The Bill has two parts: Part 1 provides for the introduction of an alternative system for electing the House of Commons, subject to a yes vote in a national referendum; Part 2 provides for the reduction in the number of House of Commons constituencies from 650 to 600 and the adoption of new rules for determining constituency boundaries that are designed to introduce equality in the number of electors in each constituency.

As Members will know, the Bill has been described by Mr Nicholas Clegg as the most important constitutional reform since the Great Reform Act 1832. There is no dispute that the Bill is of far-reaching constitutional significance. The Bill passed through all its stages in the Commons, where it was the subject of a guillotine Motion, between September and 1 November 2010. As the noble Lord the Leader said, in your Lordships' House the Bill had a Second Reading over two days at the beginning of November and has so far spent eight days in Committee before today. Six days in Committee have been spent considering Part 1. It will, as is normal, spend longer in this House than in the other place.

The Electoral Commission announced that the Bill has to have Royal Assent by 16 February 2011 to allow the referendum to take place on 5 May 2011. Last Thursday, without consultation, the Government fixed a third day on Tuesday this week for consideration of the Bill in Committee, making three consecutive days for its consideration this week. They have also made arrangements with the House authorities consistent with there being an all-night sitting tonight. I read in the Sunday Telegraph yesterday that the Cholmondeley Room and the Attlee Room are being prepared to be dormitories for male and female Peers. Your Lordships will be concerned to know that the Sunday Telegraph did not indicate which was for male and which was for female Peers.

15:15

Members of the Government have criticised the Opposition freely to the press for, they say, taking too long over Committee debates in this House. They have told the press that there has been time wasting and repetition. I believe that I have been present more than any other Member of this House in the debates, with the possible honourable exception of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness. I do not accept the allegation that has been made. I note that in relation to the most relied-on example—indeed, the example relied on by the noble Lord the Leader today—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, in the longest debate in this Chamber expressly disavowed with great grace any material allegation of filibuster.

The Government have refused to make the usual sorts of concession during Committee. Of 60 groups of amendments so far, they have given ground on only two. It is apparent to anyone who has been in the House during these debates that this Bill is attended by party politics, but this Bill contains major reform of our arrangements for determining the size of the House of Commons, the method by which constituency boundaries are fixed and the method of voting for MPs. It has been introduced without public consultation or pre-legislative scrutiny—matters of criticism unanimously across all parties in the constitutional Select Committees of both Houses—and it contains vast detail to give effect to its proposals. The Bill runs to more than 300 pages. It has been amended once in this House, and there have been a number of government amendments. It is unlikely in the extreme that, uniquely among Bills, it cannot be improved further by your Lordships' House.

Your Lordships' House has well-tested arrangements for ensuring that Bills get proper scrutiny, which include time during each stage and between stages. These arrangements will be departed from in times of economic emergency, where court orders expire and where the nation faces the threat of terrorism or war. I have never known your Lordships' House to resort to measures such as these when there is no external pressure.

The Bill cannot, consistent with proper scrutiny, complete its still substantial stages in this House, with both parts retained, in time to get Royal Assent on 16 February. The Government’s unprecedented timetable, with three days in one week for Committee and all-night sittings, confirms that. It is a process that I assume will continue through all the remaining stages of the Bill. Votes, as a result, may take place at random times of the day or night at any stage, leaving it entirely to chance what changes get made—in practice, knocking your Lordships' House out of contention as a serious scrutiniser of the Bill. It is for your Lordships to consider the effect that that may have on the House’s standing as an effective scrutiniser. The House’s strength—indeed, its raison d'être—comes from its ability properly to scrutinise legislation.

The Opposition have made it clear privately and publicly to the Government that we will co-operate in splitting the two parts of the Bill, thereby both allowing the referendum to be held on 5 May 2011, if the Government wish, and ensuring that the Bill—in particular, the crucial Part 2—is properly scrutinised by this House. We repeat that offer here and now, and we are happy at any time to discuss the substance of the Bill, so it is not right to say that the referendum depends on this House.

We on the opposition side have thought very carefully what to do. First, we urge the Government to think again about splitting the Bill. In any event, they should consult throughout your Lordships' House on process and on substance. My experience is that widespread consultation will produce a solution. We remain willing at any time to discuss and to co-operate to achieve that. If the Government insist on their timetabling arrangements, we have no option but to do all in our power to ensure that the Bill gets proper scrutiny, and therefore that it will not receive Royal Assent by 16 February if it still contains Part 1 and Part 2.

The BBC interviewed me on Friday. Before the interview, the reporter told me that he had been told by a Minister in the Lords—not, I hasten to add, the noble Lord the Leader, who has assured me that it was not him—that the Government's aim was to keep this going until we dropped. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that with a Bill that fundamentally changes our country's constitution, this is no way to proceed.

[Lord Richard]

My Lords, perhaps I may say one or two words on this issue. However one looks at the position, the fact is that the Government have got into a terrible mess on this Bill. Given the history of the legislation, which my noble and learned friend has just given, it is hardly surprising. The Government should now perhaps heed the great advice of Denis Healey, which he gave to people in similar holes.

It is important that we understand what happened and perhaps analyse the reasons for it. The Government cannot expect to legislate at one and the same time on two entirely separate major constitutional issues without their being subject to detailed examination and scrutiny. Nor can they legitimately complain if that scrutiny is extensive and, indeed, extended, particularly given the size of the coalition votes in this House—a majority that seems to increase daily.

The fact is that they have chosen for their own purposes to join two Bills into one. They must have the first part, which deals with the referendum, in place by mid-February if they are to keep to their chosen date, which I totally understand. However, the other part is quite separate. Had the Bill been divided into two from the outset, the six days that this House spent on the referendum issues could not have been seen remotely as inappropriate or excessive. Indeed, it was about right.

Where it has gone wrong for the Government is in their assumption that they could tack major changes in parliamentary constituencies on to the referendum issue. They must have known that this part of the Bill would be of intense interest and that the political parties would be heavily involved. If they did not realise that, they should have consulted the large number of ex-Cabinet Ministers sitting on their side of the House. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, certainly would have realised this from previous experience.

So why did they do it? It seems to me that there is a fairly simple answer to a simple question. It was obviously a complete misreading of the situation, a political error, with which they now have to live. The remedy is quite simple, as suggested by my noble and learned friend—the Bill should be split.

[The Countess of Mar]

My Lords—

[Lord Richard]

With respect, I want to be very brief.

[The Countess of Mar]

I will be very brief. Does the noble Lord agree that the House was asked—it divided on it—whether the Bill should be split, and the Opposition lost the vote?

[Lord Richard]

My Lords, if a Motion is put down on the Order Paper, it is debated and divided on in the usual way. That is not what I am talking about. I am talking to the Motion that the House should resolve itself into Committee. If the Bill were to be split, the Government would get their referendum and on the date on which they want it. Parliament could go on to consider in detail the proposals on the size of the House of Commons, the number of constituencies and the way in which they are constructed. We might even have pre-legislative scrutiny on that, which we should have had anyway and which the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is so much in favour of, as he has told us this afternoon.

The Government thought that they could get away with it and it now becomes clearer that they cannot. They have not attempted to produce any evidence of a link between Part 1 and Part 2 that would necessitate their being considered together. So we have the present absurdities in the way in which this House is now being asked to consider these two issues. First, there will be three days this week in Committee, which is an unprecedented move as far as I can remember. Secondly, there could be an all-night sitting tonight, with perhaps more to come. My experience of all-night sittings is that most of the time they are self defeating. They do exactly what the Government do not wish to happen: namely, they encourage Oppositions to talk, not to keep quiet. We seem to be in for a bout of parliamentary attrition at the whim of the governing party opposite.

The Government in this instance have gone far too far. They made an initial mistake, which they are not now prepared to acknowledge: hence the ludicrous way in which this House is now being asked to consider the Bill. It is unprecedented. It is not in accordance with the understandings by which this House operates. The most likely result is that scrutiny of the Bill will continue to be intense and lengthy.

I considered whether there should be a vote on this Motion. If there were to be a vote, I would vote against a decision that we should resume Committee. The Government should think about this again carefully, and think about the implications not only for the Bill but for the proceedings in this House. If they do so, I do not think that they would find this side of the House unforthcoming.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

I have listened carefully to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, said. He is always a powerful advocate, but he must think that we are a bunch of idiots if he thinks that those of us who have been watching what has been happening are not aware that there has been a filibuster. The Cross-Benchers will probably be in the best position to judge that. As a result of Fenian tactics at the end of the last century, a filibuster is dealt with in the other place by a guillotine and closure procedures. In this Chamber, we are fortunate because we have never had to employ those procedures, but we have never had a filibuster. In the 16 years that I have been here, I have never seen conduct like this.

I am not concerned about this Bill but about the future procedures of this House, which transcend any concern as to whether there should be one Bill, two Bills or no Bill. What matters is that we should be able to conduct ourselves in this House in a reasonable way. I do not think that we have been conducting ourselves in a reasonable way. What, therefore, is the choice now—for those on these Benches simply to collapse and give way to in effect an ultimatum or to have to use, I am afraid, the time taken night after night, if necessary, to see Committee completed?

A great leader of the Labour Party, Hugh Gaitskell, once said that we must fight and fight again for the party we love. I believe that we have to do exactly the same in this House today to save it from the kind of things that have happened in the other place and which have recently been imported to this House by some recent additions, some Ministers, who should know better.

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords, uncharacteristically, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, cannot have checked on the progress of Bills under the previous Government. I have the figures in front of me. I am happy to present them in the Library, should that be necessary. I shall mention just one—the Marine and Coastal Access Bill, which took 19 days to go through the House. In no way am I minimising the importance of that Bill, but I think that a constitutional Bill should involve at least as much time as that.

I recognise and understand the problems faced by the business managers on the Front Bench. It must be much more difficult in some respects when there is a coalition. It is a difficult job managing government business—I can certainly testify to that—but, certainly during the six years when I was responsible, I can find only one occasion on which we considered the same Bill on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. That was overwhelmingly because of consideration of the needs and demands of those on the opposition Front Bench, who find it extremely difficult—understandably because they are part-timers—to do the necessary revision for three days in succession in detail on a difficult Bill. On only two or three occasions did we go through the night.

On all those exceptional occasions, it was because there was the imperative of dates. Usually, the imperative is the Queen’s Speech at the end of a Session. Of course, one cannot notify the Palace a fortnight before the Queen’s Speech is due and say, “Sorry, because Report on a Bill is taking a long time, could you put the date back a week?”. That date is imperative. Alternatively, as happened quite often under the previous Government, the imperatives for Northern Ireland legislation were unarguable. They were clear and demonstrable.

I concede totally to the Government that there is an imperative in this Bill, and we are conceding that publicly today. The imperative is not one I like, and the House knows my views on various forms of electoral systems, but the imperative for the Government is to get the Bill completed by 16 February so that there can be a referendum on 5 May. I acknowledge that imperative and it has been conceded.

However, I put it to the Government and to the House that there is absolutely no imperative whatsoever about Part 2 of the Bill. But before I move on from Part 1, I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, as my noble friend has said, that if he thinks six days on the Committee stage of a Bill that potentially fulfils the Lib Dems’ dreams of a change to the electoral system is filibustering, he does not know what a filibuster is.

15:30

I say to the Government with some envy that there is no imperative on Part 2 principally because they decided—I am not quite sure how it happened because it was like a rabbit out of a hat—that this should be a two-year Session of Parliament. I would have thought it was my birthday and Christmas rolled into one if, when I was responsible for government legislation, someone had said that we could have a two-year Session in which to put Bills through. The nightmare every year was finishing Bills in time for the Queen’s Speech.

There is ample time for proper scrutiny of Part 2, so again I put it specifically to the Government that it is an accident of the timing of this debate that today, or most probably tonight, we will be discussing the not inconsiderable proposition that the number of Members of the other House should be culled by 50. We shall be doing that at two or three in the morning when many Members of your Lordships’ House—sadly I do not think that they will include me—may well be asleep. I put it to noble Lords that if the situation was reversed so that the House of Commons was about to cull substantial numbers of this House and decided to do it at two or three in the morning when hardly anyone was around, we would have a word or two to say about it, and rightly so.

Finally, I want simply to make this point. We are in uncharted territory. The reason for that, which we are all learning, is that we have a coalition Government. I acknowledge that. We do not know quite what the rules of play are in a coalition Government but what I do know is that this House, under a coalition Government, has an advantage that Chief Whips may have dreamed about but never envisaged. They have 40 per cent of the votes in this House. I have included the Cross-Benchers in that calculation; I would not be presumptuous enough to suggest that they would ever vote as a block, as they never do. The actual majority the Government have over the Opposition, if it is reckoned simply in terms of people with party allegiances and subject to a party whip, is very substantial. It is perfectly within the power of this coalition Government, if they want to, to drive through legislation against the wishes of the minority in the House. They can do that. They can schedule constitutional business in the middle of the night if they want to do that.

I end with this observation. There are three constitutional Bills coming through this House of which this is the first, described by Nick Clegg as the most important since 1832. The third of three Bills is about the reform of this House. I simply put it to those Members of the House who may not be too concerned about this Bill but are very concerned indeed about the fundamental changes involved in a move from an appointed House to an elected House—which I am certainly very concerned about—that if the Government were now to set a precedent that a major constitutional Bill will be driven through in the middle of the night, and that anyone who criticises that is guilty of a filibuster, that is a very bad precedent indeed.

The offer is clear. It is not my offer because it is for the Front Benches opposite. The Government have a way out of this: take the referendum part of the Bill out and agree on a sensible schedule for considering Part 2. We do not like the House to get into the position it is in at the moment; I certainly do not like it. But that is an offer on the table which I think any reasonable person would accept.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted to put forward, with some diffidence, a perception from a Cross-Bencher, because the Cross-Benchers have been referred to. I think it is known that the Cross-Benchers actually listen to the arguments and we vote according to what we believe are the better arguments. But when a debate on one amendment takes three and three-quarter hours and is not followed by asking the House to decide on it, that is the point at which the Cross-Benchers wonder—I personally wonder and I believe I am not alone—what is actually going on.

[Lady Saltoun of Abernethy]

My Lords, I wonder if I could ask a brief question: what is all the hurry about? Why do we have to have a referendum this May? Why can we not wait and have it in a year’s time, or at any time? This is something that is too important to rush, as we are doing.

[Lord Skelmersdale]

My Lords, I have been somewhat pre-empted by the two previous speakers in asking a question of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, although it is probably inappropriate to ask him at this juncture, so perhaps the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, would be the right person to address it. He and the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, came forward with a perfectly reasonable offer that they would agree to splitting the Bill. However, is there not a difficulty in that, as the noble and learned Lord said, we are now close to the beginning of Part 2 of this Bill, so it would be impossible to do such a thing now? It is therefore necessary, is it not, to continue with Committee until it is finished? At that point, it would not be beyond the wit of the Government to accept the noble Lords’ offer, but I do not think it is practicable at this moment.

[Lord Elton]

My Lords, I want to interject in support of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, and say to my noble friend that it is not as simple as that. The House is not allowed to be asked to give its opinion a second time on any issue, and the House decided that this Bill should be given a Second Reading. What is being asked for is to have two new Bills, and that is not feasible.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

I want to make a brief point. There are precedents for splitting Bills which have got into difficulties. I refer to the 1977 Scotland and Wales Bill which, after a lot of discussion, was in fact split in the House of Commons. That enabled the Scotland Bill to go forward in that Parliament, and the Wales Bill went forward a little later. It was unfortunate for Scotland, perhaps, that the people did not want devolution at the time. A way was found to split the Bill and there is no reason why a way should not be found to split this one.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

On the question of splitting the Bill, the advice I have received is that it is not open to this House to send back to the Commons a Bill that has been divided into two unless the Government give their consent to that. That position was made clear by my noble friend Lady McDonagh and that is why there was no vote on it. The Government did not give their consent. However, if the Government consent to it, it is possible for that course to be taken.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, asked an extremely good question a few minutes ago. She said, “Why the urgency?”. Of course, the answer is that last July, when the Government announced their intention to bring this legislation forward and published the Bill, there was no urgency. There was no urgency when it was debated in another place. There was no urgency when it came here. The situation has become urgent because the Labour Party has decided to go on a marathon go-slow on the Bill ever since we started Committee.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall]

I hope that the Leader will allow me to point out to him that that was not the question that the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, put to him. The question was, “Why should the referendum date be the date that it is?”—not “Why has it taken so long to get to this point?”, but “Why is the date the date?”. That seems to me to be a question that he has not yet addressed.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, my point still stands. The Government made an announcement soon after the general election that there would be a referendum on 5 May. I really wonder whether it is right for this House to stand up and suddenly say that should not be the case, when there was plenty of time for the Bill to be properly scrutinised.

I move on to reply to the other points that were made. The noble and learned Lord said that we are trying now to rush the Bill through and that there has not been enough consultation with the Opposition. Ever since the Bill arrived in the House, the usual channels—government and opposition—have been trying to come to an agreement, but there was an absolute refusal by the Labour Party, right from the start, to engage in trying to decide the number of days in Committee.

It is said that we have been planning an all-night sitting. I have no desire to have an all-night sitting, or a very late sitting. It is entirely in the hands of the Opposition how long we stay here this evening. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, for whom, as a former distinguished Leader of this House, I have the utmost respect, said that the trouble with all-night sittings is that it encourages the Opposition—he did not quite say to behave even more badly, but it was sort of what he meant. We could not go any slower than we have done over the course of the past eight days.

Let us deal with the substantive point, the issue of splitting the Bill. The noble Countess, Lady Mar, was right in one part of her memory—we did debate splitting the Bill in a Motion put at the very start of the legislative process. That Motion was withdrawn after a debate, but I think that the noble Countess’s point stands. Both the issues that we are dealing with in the Bill are about how MPs are elected to the House of Commons. The Bill will give voters, for the first time, a say in the way in which they elect their MPs and will mean that fairer boundaries and more equal constituencies can be put in place for the general election in 2013.

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

My Lords—

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, may I just finish this important point? Noble Lords opposite have said that we should split the Bill and that we should not have included these two issues in one Bill. Yet the last Government’s Constitutional Reform and Governance Act, introduced to this House last year, included provision on 13 different areas ranging from a referendum on the alternative vote to freedom of information, ratification of treaties and so on. It seems odd to me that, in opposition, noble Lords opposite have so quickly become concerned about these two reforms with a common theme comprising the same Bill. Even worse, we have the noble Lords, Lord Touhig, Lord McAvoy and Lord Browne of Ladyton, who voted entirely happily, without interruption, in proceedings in another place when an amendment was brought forward on Report and yet, as soon as the Bill comes here and they have been translated into Members of the House of Lords, they take an entirely different view. I now give way to the noble Lord.

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

I thank the Leader of the House. He speaks about urgency in choosing 5 May of this year. That might have been reasonable in previous times, when an election could be called at any time by the Prime Minister. However, the Prime Minister has said that there will be no election for five years, so what is the urgency about having the referendum on 5 May of this year?

[The Countess of Mar]

My Lords, on the same subject, the Government do not govern on their own; they govern with the two Houses of Parliament and these decide whether it is going to be 5 May 2011 or 5 or 6 May 2012.

15:45

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, that is right. Like the noble and learned Lord, I have sat through many of the debates that have taken place over the past nine days and I have sympathy for the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and other Members—not just on the Cross Benches, but in all parts of the House—who wished to take part in this debate and feel that they have become excluded from it because it has taken so long. The truth is that the Labour Party has a political objective to break this key coalition Bill, stop the referendum and stop the reduction in the number of MPs.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, forgive me but, on a point of information for the House, I respectfully remind the House that the House as a whole adopted an amendment, moved by my noble friend Lord Rooker, which would enable the referendum to take place on any date before 31 October. That was the will of this House.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I entirely agree with what the noble Baroness has said.

Motion agreed.

Clause 11 : Number and distribution of seats

Amendment 58A

Moved by

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

58A: Clause 11, page 9, leave out lines 17 and 18 and insert—
“United Kingdom electoral quota
The United Kingdom electoral quota shall be defined as the total electorate of the United Kingdom on the designated enumeration day divided by 650.”

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

My distress at the lack of interest in the substance of the Bill is a matter of some import.

Amendment 58A would replace the current proposal in Clause 11 to fix the House of Commons at 600 seats, with an alternative rule which would anchor the size of the other place at its current membership of 650.

As your Lordships’ House’s Constitution Committee made clear in its report on the Bill:

“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”.

That reality was exposed in the debate last Monday, when the Government again failed to provide any adequate explanation as to why 600 seats is the optimum size for the other place or, in particular, why a 600-seat Commons would serve the public more effectively than the current 650-seat Chamber.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, conceded from the Front Bench that:

“We have never suggested that there was anything magic or ideal about a House of Commons of 600 any more than the current size of 650 is ideal”.—[Official Report, 10/01/11; col. 1222.]

Is that, I ask, rhetorically, the best that the Government can do in a situation where they are using their political majority in the other place in order to push through a reduction in the number of Members of Parliament? It is obviously a dangerous precedent that is being adopted, because it involves using your political power to fix the size of the legislative chamber in circumstances where people will allege, as we do on this side, that it is being done for political advantage.

It is worth saying that that approach to the question of the size of the legislative chamber has not been adopted in this country since the Second World War, when a Speaker’s Conference agreed the arrangement that then became law in 1949 and, though there have been changes to the detail, it has never been disputed that the people who should decide the number of constituencies in the country should be the boundary commissions, which are believed—correctly, in my view—to be beyond party politics. We do not want to get into a position where, when you win an election, you then use your majority to fix the size of the House of Commons to suit your political advantage.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

Is there not, as a result of this affront to our constitution in the way that this is being done, the danger that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander? There must be a considerable temptation for any incoming Government to do the same. I would hope that we would resist that temptation, but the pendulum will swing and the party or parties opposite will not be for ever in Government. The danger is that one hallowed principle of our constitution will be wilfully thrown away.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I agree with all of that. I very much hope that we would not succumb to that temptation, but once the door is open, it becomes harder and harder to resist.

[Lord Trimble]

The noble Lord refers to this as a “hallowed principle of our constitution”, but it was not applied to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly or the Northern Ireland Assembly. My noble and learned friend Lord Wallace said, with regard to the Scottish Parliament, that there were some really arcane discussions, which he said he might reveal to us some time, that resulted in the rather unusual figure there. I know myself, and I will not weary the House, about the political considerations that drove the size of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I confess ignorance with regard to the Welsh Assembly. But that “hallowed principle” has not been applied by Governments drawn from both sides of this House over the past few years.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I do not want to go into Northern Irish politics because I feel that if I did, I would make a number of mistakes. I can talk about Scottish politics, and I can say this: the effect of the reduction in the number of Members of Parliament in Scotland was, in political terms, wholly to the detriment of the Labour Party. However, it was introduced by a Government with a substantial Labour majority. Yes, it was done by a Government, but it was plain that it was being done in a way that was to the detriment of the interest of that Government. So, in my view, it does not raise the issues that the noble Lord is raising.

[Lord Trimble]

I am afraid that the noble and learned Lord has misunderstood the point that I was making, which was with regard not to the number of Westminster Members from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but to the size of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly, which is a different matter.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I accept that as well but I can see no process by which, when you are setting up a Parliament, you can do so except by the passage of a Bill in Parliament.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

May a voice from Wales seek to assist my noble friend in respect of what happened regarding the Welsh Assembly? There was a consensus; it was agreed that there should be 60 seats, 40 of which would be exactly the same as the Westminster constituencies, while the other 20 would be based on regional representation and on a form of proportional representation. It was done not in a partisan way at all but on the basis of consensus, which manifestly has not been done in this case.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I think that that is fair, and it applies to the putting together of the Welsh Assembly, the putting together of the Scottish Parliament and the reduction in the number of Scottish seats in the Westminster Parliament. As I say, I defer in every single respect to the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, in relation to what happened in Northern Ireland.

We believe that the case for a 650-seat Commons has not changed since the current Prime Minister spoke in its favour—indeed, in favour of a slightly larger elected Chamber—at the 2003 Oxfordshire boundary inquiry. Opposing proposals to alter his own constituency borders, he told that inquiry:

“Somebody might take the view that at 659 there are already too many Members of Parliament at Westminster. They may take the view, depending on what happens in the European constitution, that Westminster has less to do, with less MPs—I certainly hope that is not the case. This is all some way off”.

What has changed in the mean time to alter the view that there is no need for a reduction in the size of the House of Commons? The Government have failed to answer that question.

Our amendment stems from a conviction that the current Commons of 650, which is broadly the figure that it has been since 1983, is the appropriate basis on which to stabilise the size of that Chamber. Although the membership of the House has been pretty stable over the past number of years, both rising and falling, concerns have been expressed about the potential for a ratchet effect resulting from the interplay of some of the existing rules for drawing parliamentary boundaries.

Our amendment therefore follows the recommendation of the Home Affairs Select Committee, in its 1987 report on the rules for drawing constituency boundaries, which proposed that the UK electoral quota should be calculated using the “fixed divisor” method. The Committee recommended that the divisor should be fixed on the basis of a 650-seat House of Commons.

Put simply, under our proposed alternative rules, an initial UK electoral quota would be calculated by dividing the total UK electorate by the fixed number of 650—in other words, not altering the current size of the House of Commons. This mechanism, which should be read alongside our other amendments, would not necessarily fix the House at 650 seats for ever. It would stabilise the House at around that size but with the mathematical rounding up or down involved in the calculation of seats in the four parts of the UK, and once special allowance is made for seats like the Scottish islands, it could be possible to see very minor fluctuations in the size of the Commons—one or two seats either side of 650. We see that as a virtue of the fixed divisor method and an advantage that it holds over the Government’s proposal for a fixed number of seats.

The latter approach—the fixed number of seats adopted by the Government—was criticised by the head of the English Boundary Commission when he gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee inquiry in 1987. He warned that stipulating an exact fixed number of seats for the Commons would require the boundary commissions to use a “Bed of Procrustes” for drawing constituencies, stretching the borders of those that were too small and lopping parts off others that were too big. He warned the committee away from that method and instead urged the use of a fixed divisor, which would result in a broadly stable Commons while allowing the boundary commissions a bit of practical leeway.

Now, of course, even if we could convince the Government of the practical benefits of our amendment, we would still need to persuade them on the issue of the most appropriate size of the Commons. Before we consider the relative merits and demerits of this amendment against the Government’s proposal for a 600-seat House of Commons, though, it is worth reminding ourselves of what the two parties opposite were saying on this subject before the election.

The Liberal Democrat general election manifesto contained a commitment to creating a 500-seat House of Commons elected on the basis of the single transferable vote. The Conservative Party manifesto contained a commitment to the continuation of the first past the post system for elections to the Commons but pledged to cut the number of MPs, saying that it envisaged a 585-seat House. So why did the coalition agreement settle upon 600 seats as the perfect number, as opposed to 500 or 585? I ask the Minister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, who I assume will be answering, to explain the reasoning behind that specific decision.

In particular, why did the two coalition partners agree on a figure that was higher than both their original proposals? Compromises usually involve a meeting in the middle—what happened here? Could the proposal for a 600-seat House have had anything whatever to do with the Conservative Party’s fears that the mathematical reality of a reduction below 600 would require the loss of seats in shire counties? Or did that have no bearing on the decision?

Leaving aside the reasons why the Government are so fixated on a 600-seat House, there is a broader question about what is wrong with the size of the current Commons. The Government claim that it is, to use their words, a bloated Chamber and that the UK suffers from something that they describe as “overrepresentation”. The facts show they are wrong on both counts. The claim that Britain is overrepresented in comparison with similar-sized countries is based on simple international comparisons of numbers of elected national representatives per head of population. In fact, the extent to which the UK has more elected representatives in the national legislature per head of population can be exaggerated. As a briefing note from the House of Commons Library makes clear, the United Kingdom has roughly the same ratio as France and Italy. However, the central point is that these calculations take account only of national legislatures and do not include any reference to levels of representation beneath that tier.

16:00

[Lord Rooker]

It is interesting that my noble and learned friend mentions France. In France, one in 100 adults is an elected official of some kind, whereas in this country the figure is about one in 1,600, if we take into account parish councils and urban districts. France is remarkably democratic and has less pressure at a national level because there is so much devolved democracy—16 times more so than here.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

That is an interesting point and, significantly, my noble friend Lord Rooker has prefaced the point that I was just about to make. As I said, the central issue is that the calculations of the numbers of national representatives per head of population take account only of national legislatures and do not include references to levels of representation beneath that tier. If we look below the national level, the United Kingdom has far fewer elected officeholders per head of population than almost all comparable countries. An academic study by Democratic Audit found that, at local government level, the population per elected member is around 2,600 in the United Kingdom, 250 in Germany and 116 in France. Therefore, when sub-national elected representatives are factored in, as my noble friend Lord Rooker has pointed out, it is apparent that the UK does not suffer from overrepresentation; if anything, it suffers from the opposite.

In any event, there is a fundamental problem in seeking to draw simple comparisons between the numbers of elected representatives in different national legislatures. Some countries are unitary states, whereas others are federal states; some have a Westminster model, like that of the United Kingdom, whereas others have a presidential system, like that of the United States of America. As a consequence, their administrative and electoral systems are organised in different ways. Therefore, comparing rates of representation in one national legislature with those in another is a largely pointless exercise akin to comparing apples and pears.

A more sensible basis on which to decide what level of representation is right for the UK is to examine how the size of the House of Commons has changed over time. If the number of Members of Parliament were growing inexorably and out of all proportion to the size of the electorate, there would clearly be a problem. However, the evidence shows that that is not the case. The Commons has not grown disproportionately in size over recent years. The size of the Commons has increased by around 3 or 4 per cent, or by 25 Members, since 1950, but the electorate—and, therefore, the average size of constituencies—has increased by 25 per cent over that period.

There has also been a significant increase in the case load of Members of Parliament, which has grown out of proportion to the size of the population as a consequence of changing social norms, political developments and new forms of communication. According to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, in the 1950s and 1960s Members received on average 12 to 15 letters per week. Today, the average is 300 per week—I am still quoting figures from the Modernisation Committee—and then there are e-mails, faxes and telephone calls to take into account. There is no evidence that having fewer MPs will reduce the demand for their services. Assuming that that remains the same, the pressure on the remaining Members and their staff will increase.

If the service that Members of Parliament provide to their constituents is not to deteriorate, and if MPs are to be able to take part in Select Committees and Public Bill Committees, which have become considerably more active in recent decades, Members of Parliament will need greater resources to employ people as caseworkers and secretaries. The savings made through a reduction of 50 Members of Parliament would inevitably be lost, which would undermine the argument that this is a worthy, cost-cutting measure.

The provision on the size of the House of Commons is one of the most important in the Bill. We are being asked to cut 50 seats from the primary political body in the United Kingdom and to fix its size in statute, in perpetuity, at 600, but we are not really being given any proper explanation as to why that is the most appropriate size for the House of Commons. Does anyone in this Chamber honestly think that this is the right way to enact such a fundamental constitutional change? What, I ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, is the justification for reducing the size of the House of Commons and increasing the size of this place?

In conclusion, one of the central arguments that can be made in support of an unelected House of Lords is that its Members are able to exercise a greater independence of thought than representatives who are elected—they are that bit freer of the party constraints that have a more restrictive impact on the actions of colleagues in the other place. That is one reason why, down the years, your Lordships have been able to act as the guardians of the constitution and face down Executive moves that are rooted in party interests and not the national interests.

The new era of coalition government is a challenge to your Lordships’ House—a challenge as to whether it is willing and able to act as an independent-minded revising Chamber. The alternative is to become a rubber stamp for the Executive. This Bill, and this issue perhaps more than many others, will serve as an important litmus test on how your Lordships’ House intends to respond to that challenge.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Simon)]

I must advise your Lordships that, if Amendment 58A is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 59 to 63ZA inclusive and Amendment 66B due to pre-emption.

[Lord Maples]

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, asks why it should fall to Parliament to make this decision. It seems to me that it must, and that ultimately the will of the House of Commons should prevail but that obviously our views should be sought too. The nature of the rules that the Boundary Commission operates at present involves an inevitable escalation of the number of Members of Parliament at every Boundary Commission review.

I completely agree with the noble and learned Lord that there is no magic number. Those of us who sat in the House of Commons probably would not be able to agree what the optimum number should be. However, there are now 650 Members. I think that there were 625 when I first got in in 1983—or perhaps that was the figure in 1979—and there were 659 in 1997. Therefore, there has been quite a variety in the number of MPs. In the 20th century, the number rose from 615 to 659, but of course that does not take account of the fact that the number of Scottish seats fell by, I think, 13 at the time of devolution. If those are added as well, we are still talking about a number around the 660 mark.

With 600 seats, the average number of voters would be 75,000 per Member of Parliament. I should like to speak—

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Before the noble Lord moves on to that specific point, does he not agree that, on all those occasions, the figures arose from decisions made by the Boundary Commission and were never imposed by Parliament?

[Lord Maples]

That is not correct. The boundary commissions legislation states the number of seats in Scotland and Wales. In fact, the legislation says that there will be a minimum of 35 seats for Wales, whereas there are actually 40, and it also gives minimum numbers for Northern Ireland and Scotland. Therefore, I do not think that it is right to say that the matter has been left entirely to the boundary commissions.

I revert to my point that there has been an escalation in the Boundary Commission process. With 600 seats, there would be about 75,000 voters per Member of Parliament. I have tabled an amendment—Amendment 63ZA—that suggests that the House should be reduced in size progressively over the next three boundary reviews to 600 MPs at the next election, 550 at the one after that and 500 at the one after that. If the number got to 500, there would be 90,000 electors per Member of Parliament. I had very nearly 90,000 electors when I was a Member of Parliament and it was not an unmanageable constituency at all. For those with very small constituencies—mostly in Scotland and Wales—frankly I wonder how theirs can be a full-time job, because it was perfectly easy for me to handle an electorate of about 85,000. It is a matter of the number of staff—a point that I shall come to in a minute.

[Lord Touhig]

My Lords—

[Lord Maples]

I should like to progress. This is like making a speech in the House of Commons, where people intervene the whole time. The noble Lord can make his own speech in his own time about the number of seats in Wales. Following on from my Amendment 63ZA, I have tabled another—Amendment 66B—which would reduce the denominator and the fraction for deciding the electorate for each seat.

There are several reasons for making such a change. First, we are moving towards a general feeling that the Government should be smaller. I think that the number of Ministers has got too high. Certainly, if the size of the House of Commons were to be reduced, the number of Ministers in it would also have to decrease. Secondly, there is a wide perception—this is based only on anecdotal evidence—that there are too many politicians who cost too much money. I agree that the cost of the House of Commons will not necessarily fall a lot as a result of the proposed change, but the cost has doubled in the past 13 years. The cost doubled under Labour largely because we were all given an enormously increased number of staff. That has to come to an end. Members of the House of Commons are not the most popular people in the country. If people knew that MPs were costing more, they would not be happy about it.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said that we should not be too swayed by international comparisons, and I rather agree that we should make up our own minds. He then said that one should take account of other countries’ devolved layers of government—for example, Germany is a federal state and France, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, pointed out, has elected representatives at all sorts of other levels. If that is so, that is an argument for the quota for Wales and Scotland being lower than for England because England does not have a devolved Assembly. To many of us, it seems that the numerical advantage was taken away from Scotland by the devolution Act. If that argument is to hold sway, it should result in fewer Members of Parliament at Westminster for Wales and Scotland on a quota basis than for England. However, politicians in other countries find themselves perfectly capable of dealing with constituencies that are much larger than 75,000 voters. I think that constituencies in Germany have about 140,000 voters and those in France about 100,000 voters, whereas here, even under my proposal for reducing the House of Commons to 500 Members, the figure would be 90,000.

Let us look at some of the changes that have taken place and the work that is required of Members of Parliament. The devolved Assemblies have, frankly, reduced the workload of the Members of Parliament for those areas for which there are devolved Assemblies, because the work is now split between more people. It may be that Parkinson’s law is in operation and that demand is rising to meet supply, but, in objective terms, there are more elected representatives theoretically doing the same work.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, referred to the increase in constituency work, which is undoubtedly true, but an awful lot of that can be, and is, dealt with by Members’ staff. In most of the run-of-the-mill cases with which Members of Parliament have to deal—which they should not have to sort out, as the bureaucracy should be more responsive than it needing a letter from a Member of Parliament to break some bureaucratic impasse—all that they need to do is sign the letter. They do not have to involve themselves in the details of every case.

We have moved to a House of Commons in which the vast majority of its Members are now professional politicians—it is a full-time job for MPs, who do not do anything else—but the Chamber has become less relevant in holding the Government to account. I suppose that the Chamber is where politicians make their reputation, but, apart from that, the game is so heavily skewed in the Government’s favour that the Chamber is not really where the Government are held to account; that is in Select Committees.

If the House of Commons is to develop, as I hope, in a way that makes it as constitutionally important in the future as it has been in the past, it will be through the work of Select Committees. We do not need a 600 or 650-Member House to staff those. It is my experience from the past 13 years that an enormous number of Members of Parliament, particularly those with marginal seats, have been encouraged to spend less time at Westminster and more in their constituencies. That is another area in which work has expanded to fill the time available in which to do it.

What do you need in the House of Commons? Well, you need a Government. At present, there are 95 Members of the House of Commons in the Government. If the House of Commons were reduced in size along the lines that I suggest, that number should be reduced. However, let us say that you would still need 85 Members in the Government. You would need a similar number in the Opposition to shadow them. You would need some alternatives in both the Opposition and the Government, so that when people either want to resign or have resignation forced upon them, there would be somebody else to take their place. There will be new people at each election. If you add all that up, you come to about 300 people.

Then you need Select Committees, of which there are 17 at the moment. I do not think that 12 or 14 Members are needed on a Select Committee; I have sat on committees of various sizes and would have thought that 10 is about right. Some of the people who sit on Select Committees would also be in one of the other categories in the House of Commons. Opposition spokesmen do not sit on Select Committees, nor do Ministers, but people in the other place who hope to become opposition spokesmen or Ministers are very often on Select Committees—only about 150 people are precluded from being on them.

I would have thought, therefore, that a House of Commons of 500 would be more than enough to satisfy those requirements. That is too big a reduction for one Parliament—it may be too big a reduction for three—but I would be grateful if my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench could respond. Particularly in light of how painful and time-consuming it has been to get this reduction through, perhaps it would be a good idea to build in future reductions as well.

16:15

[Lord Lipsey]

My Lords, I should like to bring to light some of the facts that should come to bear on this decision. I do not think that anybody on the government side has yet spelled out a very good reason for thinking that 600 is the magic number and that 650 is the wrong number. That is a subject on which a judgment can be reached only in the light of all the facts about what is going on and what is likely to happen if we do not do anything about it.

One of the underlying assumptions made by the Government in all their speeches on prior clauses of the Bill is that there has been a tendency for the number of Members of Parliament to increase. Let us look at the facts. Yes, it is true that if you choose as your base date 1950 there has been a small increase from 625 Members of the Commons then to 650 today. It is an increase. But why take 1950? You might, for example, take 1983, which is, after all, more than a quarter of a century ago. Since 1983, the number of Members of the House of Commons has not changed; it has remained at 650. Alternatively, and this is a historically-minded House, one might go back to 1918, when the number of Members of the House of Commons was 707. I readily accept that there are explanations both for the increases and decreases, to some of which I shall come shortly, but this is a case not of an upwards trend ad infinitum but of fluctuations based on various things. One of those things which has tended to force the number perhaps to be higher than might be essential is Welsh representation—we shall come to that later in the Bill; I think that the proposal to cut it from 40 to 30 is too draconian, but, equally, 40 may be rather too many and there might be a saving to be made there.

It has to be accepted that, in the previous rules of the Boundary Commission, which have to be put right, there has been a contradiction which has caused some small change in the rise in the number of Members of the House of Commons. As I understand it, rule 1 requires that the House of Commons does not grow in total size, and rule 5 requires indivisible units—for example, counties—to be allocated the number of seats which makes each constituency as near as possible to the desired quota. This, in technical language, requires rounding-off at the harmonic mean, which is always beyond the arithmetic mean. If anyone wants me to go into that in more detail, I can guarantee to take up all day and all night in doing so, but I very much doubt that it would greatly be for the elucidation of the Committee. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord on the Front Bench would suggest that I do not do any such thing since it would cut across our desire to give this Bill the correct scrutiny in the minimum time that is necessary. Without going into those conflicts in the rules, I suggest that it would be possible to amend the rules in a quite a minor way to reduce that inflating factor in so far as it exists.

I have said that the number of MPs has not increased much. What has indisputably and hugely increased is the number of electors each MP has to service. Let us take 1950, which is the basis for comparison that is most favourable to the Government’s case. As my noble and learned friend said, the number of MPs is up 3 per cent and the electorate is up 25 per cent. If my schoolboy arithmetic is correct, electorate per MP is up 22 per cent. Let us again, because this is a historic House, take the longer perspective. In 1918, the average MP represented 30,000 electors. In 1950, the number was 55,000 electors. In 1983, it was 65,000 and, in 2005, it was 68,000. Under this Bill, that will go up to 75,000 electors. That is an increase two-and-a-half times over. It is possible that that is not right, but it seems a pretty big increase, the last bit of which is entirely due to the reduction brought about by this Bill.

That of course is electors per MP. However, the MP’s workload—and there are many former Members of another place who will no doubt give the House the benefit of their own experience—does not just depend on the number of electors, it depends on how many people live in their constituency. There are some very large discrepancies between the number of people and the number of electors. I have not been able to find, given the truncated timetable we are working to, an actual figure of number of people per electorate since 1918, but I can absolutely guarantee, I think, that it will have grown faster than the number of electors per MP, with immigration and the lack of people registering as a result. It is population that is the generator of workload.

Then, workload per person in your electorate has increased. Last time I spoke on a related matter in this House I mentioned that when I started work for Tony Crosland back in 1972 we got 30 letters a week from his Grimsby constituents and they could all be happily dealt with by an excellent part-time secretary in consultation with the local party. The situation today is nothing like that. It is not just numbers—the 300 letters my noble friend cited—but it is the sheer complexity of the cases. The complexity of an immigration case is enormous, which is of course why the cost to the Commons has gone up. It is not that there are more MPs—that has been a trivial factor. In order to perform the services that the people of this country expect them to perform, MPs need far more caseworkers to help them with constituency cases.

There is another factor which is much less remarked on but I think is quite important. The psephological evidence, until reasonably recently, was unambiguous. It did not matter how hard an MP worked or how lazy he was; there was practically no incumbent effect on subsequent general elections. Whether you won or not depended nearly entirely on the popularity of your party and not on how good a job you did. I hate saying it because I know it might offend some people who were MPs many years ago when that was so. However, I am afraid that the psephological evidence is unambiguous. That evidence has now changed. I will not go into the full detail—I would advise noble Lords that they can read the Curtice appendix to the Cowley and Kavanagh book on the 2010 general election. You will find that even MPs who had been at the heart of expenses scandals did better than new candidates who had not been in the House before. It is absolutely unambiguous evidence. I do not think that anybody in this Chamber would doubt for a minute that the great majority, even near to saying all, Members of Parliament, whatever their other faults and virtues, are deeply assiduous in servicing the needs of their constituencies and constituents. It is a plus factor for me that they get a bit of appreciation for that. I have known Members who lost their seats who were deeply upset for years afterwards because they thought their constituents had not shown them the gratitude they felt they had earned. Well now, their constituents are starting to show gratitude and that is a great thing.

Then there is the question of workload other than constituency work. There are 240 places now to be filled on departmental Select Committees—they did not exist really when I started in business—and 227 other places in committees. There is the sheer volume of legislation, I admit often guillotined down the other end, but you have to read the thing if you are going to take any part. The size of Bills has increased exponentially, largely as a result of the demise of the typewriter and the growth of the word processor which means there is no incentive whatever for draftsmen to cut anything out and every incentive to put things in because nothing has to be retyped. There is the huge effort of looking after our demanding press. There is the huge effort of dealing with the new profession of public affairs consultants, all of whom have good reason to come and see you about matters of one kind of another. The average MP today works far, far harder than the average MP did in the past. That is not going to change and it is the reason why most MPs today have to be full-time Members of Parliament. It makes me wonder whether it is a good idea to cut their numbers when they are having to work very much harder.

Then there is the question, which was again raised by the noble Lord, Lord Maples, of the ratio of members of the Government to Back-Benchers. This measure would make that ratio worse at a stroke. At the moment, the number of Ministers and Whips in the lower House is roughly just over a third of the number of Back-Benchers. This legislation would change that to 40 per cent. Among the remaining Back-Benchers there are some who are essentially the equivalent of Ministers, in the sense that they will do whatever the Government ask, however awful, in the hope of getting promotion out of the Prime Minister. Therefore, the number of independent Back-Benchers in another place, on whom we rely so much to hold the Government to account, is going to diminish. We have heard airy words that perhaps Prime Ministers in future will appoint fewer Ministers. I have been hearing them for 25 years too and of course it never happens because by appointing somebody a Minister a Prime Minister can bind them to him. On top of that there is the increased number of victims these days of sexual scandal or alleged blunder of one kind or another appearing in the newspapers. There is a greater turnover of Ministers as a result and, in my opinion, the Prime Minister will continue to appoint just as many. Whether all of them have full jobs to do is another matter, but there are good reasons to do it. He also has to maintain party balance and now, coalition balance, because some of the most fed up people with the emergence of this coalition Government are those people, mostly in the Tory party, who thought before they would get jobs and now find themselves on the Back Benches. Disgruntled does not begin to describe their mood. So there will not be fewer Ministers; it is a pity therefore that there will be fewer Back-Benchers. It also reduces what Professor Anthony King in a notable phrase has called the “gene pool” that is available. The fewer Back-Benchers available to promote the less possibility there is of new and excellent talent emerging to replace talent that is exhausted, talent that has destroyed itself and so on. That is another cost of the diminution.

Finally, we come back to the last argument which is extant of those who say that there is an evident case for reducing the number of MPs—and that is money. They say they will save money by doing it. That is not obvious to me because if the work has still to be done, it has still to be paid for. You may have fewer MPs but you are going to have more constituency workers per MP. You must do in order for them to cope with the sheer volume of correspondence and so on. The only saving I can see is that there will be the saving of 50 MPs’ salaries—that comes to a little over £3 million a year. Of that, £1 million will be lost in income tax so that is about £2 million. You could raise that by a decent tax on one banker’s bonus. This makes me feel that the money argument is really just a populist argument, as indeed is the whole argument for reducing the number of MPs. It is not based on fact, it is not based on analysis, it was pulled out of a hat in an attempt to satisfy a popular anti-MP mood, and it is your Lordships’ duty, and a duty in which we should take pleasure, to say hold on, let us look at the facts, let us see whether this decrease is really justified. If it is not, we are entitled to ask the House of Commons to think again.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

Is there not a danger that if the workload remains the same and the number of MPs is reduced there will be an increase in the number of Members’ staff, which will in itself almost certainly lead to less of a direct contact between the Member and those he seeks to represent, which cannot be a good thing for democracy.

[Lord Lipsey]

My noble friend is absolutely right about that. It will also mean that the queue of people waiting to become MPs will be even longer since in my experience most of these MPs’ staff are waiting only for the moment when they can jump into the shoes of the man whom they so loyally serve.

16:30

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I have two questions for the Government about their proposal to reduce the number of seats. Do the coalition parties have the same commitment to increasing the number of women in the other House as the Labour Party has had in its various policy documents for some time? Furthermore, has there been any assessment of the effect of the reduction of the number of seats on the likelihood of achieving an increase in the representation of women in the other House?

The Labour Party has not achieved what a number of us—and I sit by some of them here—have been committed to for a number of years, which is to move from 40 to 50 per cent of our party’s representation in the other House being women. It is no secret that even when we came to all-women shortlists it was possible to move on that only when there was a vacancy, because no party was willing to kick out the male representatives to make room for a new shortlist that could be an all-women shortlist. In our experience—I do not think that I am giving away all our secrets, which were probably covered in the press anyway—because we did not have enough retirements, we could not make the progress that we wanted to make on all-women shortlists. There were no vacancies and therefore there were no shortlists, so we could not put women in.

Noble Lords will understand quickly the concern that women will have that, when we reduce the number of seats, as the Government want, there will be no retirements, only some forced retirements, given that there will be fewer seats. Labour Members may well fight other Labour Members for those seats and I imagine that Conservative Members will fight other Conservative Members for those seats. So there will be very few vacancies. New blood, either men or women, will be extremely hard to bring on.

My second question, having asked how the parties in the coalition are committed to increasing women’s representation, is whether they have done any sort of impact assessment of reducing the number of seats and of what it would mean for the likelihood of bringing on a new generation—partly of young people but even more so of women, which is my particular interest—into the other House.

[Lord Desai]

My Lords, I always get excited when I see a mathematical formula in a Bill. The formula of U over 598 appears in the Bill. The idea, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, said, is to have an arrangement whereby each vote counts equally towards electing an MP. That is a very worthy aim, with which I have no quarrel. It is like a programming problem, whereby you minimise the distance between the sizes of different constituencies, subject to various considerations. That is a perfectly good aim.

Where I fail to understand the Government’s approach is why they are adding another completely artificial constraint by at the same time reducing the total number of seats by 50. You can achieve equalisation of votes and seats and achieve the aim of having each vote count equally with 650 seats. It would be absolutely no problem. It might even make it easier for the Government to achieve their aim if they did that. We already know that they have a problem in having to set aside two seats. There may be many more seats, as noble Lords have said, and other peculiar constituencies that would rather not be broken up or merged. There are lots of constraints that the Government are trying to ignore. If they had 650 seats, they would be able to achieve their aim of reducing the anomaly between the size of the seats and the number of votes required for a candidate to be elected and to solve the problem of all the other constraints, such as the peculiarity of certain constituencies.

When most other countries redraw boundaries or do redistricting, as it is called in America, to make adjustments for population changes, as happened recently in India and as happens periodically in the United States, they do not change the total number of seats. They change only the drawing of boundaries between constituencies. With a system whereby you are trying to do several things at the same time, you end up with a very inadequate solution to the problem.

The Government may have a perfectly good, non-political reason for reducing the number of seats to 600, but that has not been stated. One problem that we are facing is in knowing whether the Government’s main aim is to reduce the number of MPs, in which case why make the figure 600? Why not 550 or 500—why not half the House of Commons? We do not know. Are the Government trying to increase the load for MPs, which will clearly be a result of this measure? That surely cannot be the aim.

Are the Government trying to do their best to achieve justice whereby each vote has the same value? Yes. Since every other country that has tried to solve the problem has solved it without reducing the total number of seats, I fail to understand why the Government have added that additional constraint. We could go back to the Boundary Commission solution and adopt it and not put a constraint of 600 seats but try as best as possible to equalise the size of seats and electorates. Then we could see what the number would be. We could see whether we could reduce it slightly within certain limits. That may be possible. Right now we are trying to do something that is very worthy, but the way in which it is being done—hedged in by other constraints—will prove counterproductive.

Here in this Committee stage we are having a discussion of the various conflicting objectives that the Government are trying to achieve in a very narrow and constricted framework. If the framework had not been so narrow and constricted, the solution would have been much easier.

[Lord Wills]

I support the amendment, in the sense that I understand it to be a probing amendment about the Government’s decision to reduce the size of the House of Commons to 600 Members. I do not have a problem about reducing the size of the House of Commons, but I have a problem when it is not done on the basis of principle and when the process by which the new figure is arrived at has been opaque. That is precisely what we have seen here. In this context, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Maples, on a thoughtful and analytical attempt to pursue precisely that sort of argument on the basis of principle. I do not agree with everything that he said but, for the first time that I can recall from the government Benches, we had an analytical approach based on principles, which the noble Lord set out very persuasively in many cases. What I want to know from the Government—and I shall come to this in a moment—is why we have not heard that sort of quality of speech from them on this issue.

I hope that I am not misrepresenting Ministers when I say that, in previous discussions on this issue, they have rather airily waved aside the question of the size of the House of Commons, as if it was a piffling matter. It needed to be reduced and whether it was reduced by a bit or a bit more did not matter very much. But it really does matter, because the size of the House of Commons shapes the size of each constituency, even more so when we are looking to equalise the size of these constituencies, as this Bill seeks to do, and with certain qualifications. Most Members of both Houses of Parliament would support that aim. The size of the constituency crucially determines the nature of the relationship between the Member of Parliament and their constituents. That lies at the very heart of our democratic arrangements. I have touched on this issue in previous debates and Ministers have more or less ignored what I have said, so I hope that they will forgive me if I spell it out in just a little bit more detail now in the hope that they will now engage with this issue, even if they do not particularly agree with the view that I take on it.

When I was the Member of Parliament for Swindon North, I used to deal with about 200 to 300 e-mails and letters every week. I was helped by outstanding staff, but I had to deal with those letters and e-mails, as they were on issues of such importance to my constituents that they were not delegated to staff. I was helped, but I dealt with each of them. Most of those letters—around three-quarters, on one estimate that I took about three years ago—came about because of the problems that my constituents had with Swindon Borough Council. Most of the rest were on problems that constituents had with various agencies of central government. Most MPs, including former Members of the other place in this House, will probably have had similar, if not identical, experiences. That casework is detailed and complex, which is why, in the end, I felt that I had to take responsibility and be directly engaged with it.

It follows logically from that that if any constituency were to be increased significantly in size it would be that much more difficult for any conscientious MP to deal with that casework in exactly the same way. It would be equally hard if further decentralisation of power to local authorities increased the workload of MPs trying to sort out constituents’ problems with local authorities, such as Swindon Borough Council. Those facts may argue for even smaller constituencies and therefore more of them. On the other hand, it could be argued that, should decentralisation result in more powerful, effective and competent local authorities—and, indeed, local councillors—it would lighten the casework of Members of Parliament, leaving MPs freer to concentrate on work at Westminster. That might argue for fewer constituencies; I think that the noble Lord, Lord Maples, was arguing for that. These are important issues and he made the case for having a significant reduction in the number of constituencies perfectly well. I do not altogether agree with him, as the work that MPs do for their constituencies is profoundly important in a healthy democracy, but he made a cogent case.

The crucial point is that we have had no realistic, sensible discussion about how far the ability of an MP to manage their casework effectively and personally matters. This is an important issue for debate. We may come to different conclusions, but proper public debate on this is surely important. Even the Government could not deny it, yet they have denied the public and both Houses of Parliament any proper opportunity to debate it. Moreover, as I have said, there is no question but that the increasingly plural levels of government, with a complex and constantly evolving mix of local authorities, devolved Administrations and national and European institutions, are reshaping the nature of the MP’s relationship with their constituents. That must have significant implications for the appropriate size of the constituency and so for the size of the House of Commons.

I discussed all those issues in the amendment that I put forward last week. I hope that the House will forgive me, but earlier in today’s debate a noble Baroness from the Cross Benches—I am afraid that I did not catch who she was—made some comments about that amendment. I fear that she was in danger of misrepresenting my position, so I hope that I will be forgiven if I put on record what my exact position was. She concluded her remarks by asking why we had had that lengthy debate on my amendment, which was then not put to the vote. That was my decision as a Back-Bencher. She then said that Cross-Benchers could be forgiven for wondering what was going on. I will catch up with Hansard tomorrow and perhaps write to that Cross-Bencher as well about this, but perhaps I might inform the Committee what was going on.

16:45

I spent nearly three years as the Minister for Constitutional Reform in the previous Government. I spent a great deal of that time looking at all these issues in great depth—rather more time than the Ministers have collectively had available to them in government to look at them. I thought that it would help this House and its business of revising and scrutinising legislation if I put down an amendment summarising my experience as a Minister in looking at those complex issues. I thought that that would be of service to the House. I hope that the noble Baroness, when she looks in Hansard for my remarks, will agree that putting down such an amendment was helpful. I have no responsibility for the length of time that it took, but it was a long and complex debate because this is a difficult and complex issue. I sat throughout the three and a half hours of that debate and I heard no repetition from any of the noble Lords who took part. My only regret is that there was only one substantive contribution from the Benches opposite. The debate on the amendment could easily have taken longer and it would have been valuable if it had. The fact that it did not is a matter of regret to me.

Why did I not push that amendment to a vote? I am afraid that I am still fairly innocent in the ways of this House. Various views were being expressed to me, quite vigorously and from all sides, about whether to push it to a vote but I understood quite clearly that, if I put it to a vote and that was lost, there was no opportunity to return to this issue on Report. When I announced that I was not going to push it to a vote—and I hope that the noble Baroness from the Cross Benches, who is still anonymous to me, at least, will look at what I said—I quite clearly said why. I said that, to me, the case for my amendment was still so strong and so much in the Government’s own interest—their long-term strategic interest, not narrow, tactical or partisan manoeuvring—that I hoped that they would look again at it and that I would bring it forward again at Report, when I hoped to have a more constructive response from the Government. I still believe that and hope that that will happen.

I do not think that that was unreasonable. I hope that the noble Baroness will look at those remarks and understand then that what was going on was not, as I fear she was trying to insinuate, that I was plotting in some nefarious way to filibuster and to derail this legislation. I am not, because, as I have said, I am perhaps unusual in this House—on both sides of this Chamber—in supporting the Government’s broad objectives in both parts of the Bill. I have no wish to see the referendum on AV derailed. I know that many of my colleagues disagree but I want to support it and, again, have expressed before my broad support for it. I am afraid that I take exception to being accused of somehow trying to derail and filibuster this legislation.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My noble friend will know that I was one of those who were pressing him to have a vote. I have indeed changed my mind because he was, quite rightly, arguing privately that there was a need for the House to have the time to gestate and understand the implications of that amendment. Another reason for changing my mind was that there were a lot of Cross-Benchers in the House—more during that debate than on any other issue that we have discussed on the whole Bill. Some of us realised that it was important that we gathered their support over the following days, this being one of them. I am sorry that my noble friend was criticised as he was.

[Lord Wills]

I am extremely grateful to my noble friend. All that I ask the Government to reflect on in approaching this is that these issues are profoundly important. They are difficult and complex and there will, inevitably, be valid points of view on all sides on all these issues. If they will not listen to me, I hope that they will take an example from the admirable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Maples. That was the sort of debate of which we could have had far more thus far from the other Benches. In whatever time is left for us to debate the Bill, I hope that we will see more contributions such as the noble Lord’s from his colleagues on those Benches.

Any responsible legislative process would have set out these and all the other relevant issues and then consulted on them and come to a decision on the optimum size of a constituency and so of the House of Commons. Allowing the British people themselves to have a say in this would have been desirable, but the Government have not done that. Instead, they have determined a figure, for which they have failed so far to produce any good reason, and then shaped everything else around it. This is not just a wasted opportunity but a lazy and irresponsible way in which to approach legislation of such importance. It is also damaging to our democratic process—all the more so, I have to say in passing, because of the way in which the Government seem intent on getting this legislation nodded through this Chamber.

Why have the Government failed to produce any coherent explanation for how they arrived at this figure of 600? It is curious, as other noble Lords have pointed out, that before the election both the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats had decided on a figure lower than 600 and had arguments for doing so, which we have heard today from the noble Lord, Lord Maples. So why did they change their minds? There is a coherent case for keeping to the pledges that they made to the electorate before the election. That coherent case was made by the noble Lord, Lord Maples, today. Why did they not stick to it? They will not say.

In an attempt to elucidate this information, I put in a freedom of information request, as I have already told the House. The last time I mentioned this in the House, I mentioned that I had not yet had a response, but such is the power and influence of this House that the next day I got a response, for which I am delighted. The response that I received from the Cabinet Office, dated 11 January, confirmed that the modelling that I was looking for on the impact of a reduction to 600 and to lower figures exists but that some of that information is being withheld under Section 35(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act. I think that the Government have ignored the existence of Section 35(2) of the Freedom of Information Act, which would remove their justification for exempting the information that I requested, so I have put in a request for an internal review of the Cabinet Office’s decision and I look forward with great interest to seeing the results of that review.

Leaving aside the legislative niceties of this, I believe that the public should know how and why the Government went back on the promises that they made to the electorate at the election and decided to increase the size of their reconstituted House of Commons to 600. The public want to know how the Government think this will affect their relationship as voters with their MPs. I think—and I say this in kindness to Ministers—that the public want to be reassured that, in reaching that figure of 600, the Government were not motivated in any way by the pursuit of partisan advantage. They will want to be reassured about that. The Government must realise that, as long as they fail to come up with any coherent argument for why that figure of 600 was arrived at, the suspicion must remain. They cannot avoid this. I know that it is unwelcome.

I see Ministers sitting on the Benches opposite and I know that they are without exception decent and honourable men and women. It is with some trepidation that I keep coming back to this point, but they must realise the cynicism that exists about all politicians at the moment. They must realise that the suspicion that they are motivated by nothing but partisan self-interest exists and they should be doing everything that they possibly can to dispel it, so I hope that when the Minister concludes the debate on this amendment he can provide some reassurance about that.

On Thursday last week, I wrote to the noble and learned Lord’s colleague, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, asking whether he could release the information that I had requested. When you put in a freedom of information request, it refers only to work that has been done within the Executive by government, not to work that clearly feeds into the process of formulating legislation that is done by special advisers and Conservative and Liberal Democrat party officials. I have therefore also asked the noble Lord, Lord McNally, in the interests of openness and transparency and of reassuring the public about the Government’s motivation in alighting on this figure, whether he can confirm—it may be that the Minister can confirm this in his remarks at the end of this debate—whether any modelling has been done on the differential impacts of different sizes of the House of Commons on the party composition of the House of Commons, either within government or by the Liberal party, the Conservative Party or special advisers. He can confirm or deny it. I very much hope that he will take this opportunity to start clearing up this issue once and for all. It is an important issue and we need to move forward from it. We can do so only if he can provide us with the reassurance for which I am asking.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords, I join my noble friend in trying to answer the question he raised about why the numbers have changed from the electoral commitments made by the two parties opposite to the grand round figure of 600. Perhaps the answer may be found in part in the adage of US politics that an election platform is something to run on, not to stand on. I join my noble friend in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Maples. If we are to have a debate, here is someone who has, as always, in a radical and rather wonderfully iconoclastic way made his own contribution to the debate. I hope that there will be a contagion and that Members alongside him will adopt what he said and at least join in the debate, not just on this magic number of 600 but on the way in which this Bill has been handled. I had the privilege of serving with the noble Lord, Lord Maples, for eight years, I think, on the Foreign Affairs Committee in another place, and I can say with deep sincerity that I valued very much the independent, non-partisan contributions that he made. I think that for at least part of the time he was vice-chairman of his party, but he is very ready to join independently in debate. I disagree with one or two points that he made about the numbers, but at least it was an honest contribution.

When I approached the House this morning, I was reflecting on what I might say, having packed my toothbrush. I picked up, as I normally do, the Daily Telegraph, and came across page 23, which reminded me that today has been called “suicide Monday”. The headline is:

“How to get through Blue Monday”—

that is today—

“Lovebomb your partner, take up salsa or sing to the skies—these are just a few of the expert tips for beating the blues”.

Nothing was said about how to face a long, dark night and still be sufficiently alert to make what one hopes will be a coherent contribution.

I am certainly not wedded to any particular number—600, 650—but the onus, as always, is on those who wish to make a change to make the case not only for reducing the number below 650 but for why this magic number of 600 has been selected. It is not good enough to say, as I think the Leader of the House did, that it is a nice round number. No doubt there will be some advantages, but there will also be many disadvantages, and there is no way in which there has been a testing of the arguments for and against by any independent experts. There is an unseemly haste about the way in which the Government have moved.

I think a number of noble Lords will remember with affection Lord Weatherill, who was a very distinguished Speaker and the Convener of the Cross-Bench Peers. I see another distinguished Speaker close by. Lord Weatherill began in the family business with an apprenticeship as a tailor. He told me that on the first day he was there, he was apprenticed to an old Jewish tailor who was asked to make a suit from the cloth very speedily. The old, tried tailor said to his boss: “Do you want it quick or do you want it good?”. There is a certain lesson for us in legislation. Do we want it quick or do we want it good, particularly when there is no objective reason for speeding along on this? This is not a national emergency or something relating to an external threat or internal terrorism; this is something that the Government have chosen according to their own timetable in a fairly authoritarian way.

I go back long enough in politics to remember, again with affection, Lord Hailsham. I sat behind him on occasion when he was a very robust and amusing Queen’s Counsel. I also watched him in action in the House. At a certain stage, he defined a term—I think it was called elective dictatorship or the dictatorship of the majority. He was, as always, extraordinarily eloquent about elective dictatorship and carried us along quite far. However—surprise, surprise—when he and his party got into government, he forgot all about elective dictatorship. He was there for at least part of the time of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, when she abolished the old GLC because she did not like it, and when she took away many local government powers. Gone was the eloquence about elective dictatorship. He had a remarkable, almost Damascene, conversion. I hope I can spirit back Lord Hailsham, who I admit was a great parliamentarian and for whom I had great affection.

17:01

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Does my noble friend know that Lord Hailsham’s qualities were hereditary? His son became very similar. When he was a Minister in the House of Commons he refused to answer any questions during Department of Trade and Industry Questions. I was constrained to call him an “arrogant little shit”. The then Speaker, Bernard Weatherill, said that I should withdraw. I asked which word he wanted me to withdraw and he told me that I knew. That is the kind of behaviour that we do not want to get into in this House. Is that not a good point to make?

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

I have known my noble friend for a long time. We were in a team together for much of the 1980s. I have never known him to be constrained by anything. I am glad to hear that he was at least constrained on that occasion.

I start with this preliminary point about the style of government. If the Government are serious about democracy and listening to the arguments for and against, they will not juggernaut the Bill through at odd hours of the night when, as my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition has said, there will be a differential turnout in any vote, depending on who is more tired than anyone else. There will not be the sort of objective discussion that we would hope for. I was thinking of paraphrasing Bob Marley about how a hungry man is an angry man. A tired man is not a good legislator. I recall, on one occasion in the other place, having three all-nighters in succession on the Steel Bill. No one, anywhere in the House, can think that the Steel Bill was at that time a proper piece of legislation. However, sheep-like, we went through the Corridor. It was done mechanically, with no serious debate. I hope that, as in the spirit of this place, we will reject that sort of movement.

Turning to the numbers, the central question, which has not received an answer is: why 600? There is clearly an argument for a certain flexibility, as the noble Lord, Lord Maples, has said. Perhaps I can share some degree of experience on this. I had the privilege of representing two very different constituencies in the other place. One was the constituency of Monmouth, which at that time had not been won by my party previously and had been represented by a great parliamentarian, Lord Thorneycroft, although he was not called that then. It was a typical county seat with quite a sizeable electorate. I was able to manage it reasonably well because it was a highly educated constituency. The sort of problems that were brought to me were, as often as not, those of planning permission. I recall one village meeting when there was a question as to whether a local bus should be discontinued. The grandees in the village said, “No one takes the bus anyway. Why should we bother?”. Only afterwards did a couple of rather poor people detach themselves and think, “We use the bus”. They just did not, alas, have the self-confidence to make that point. That was one constituency, which was quite manageable. If the electorate had been not 75,000 or 78,000 but 100,000, I could still have managed the constituency effectively.

I then had the good fortune to move to the much safer seat—the electorate chose, not me—of Swansea East, which is a seat of multideprivation. In the schools there are many statemented pupils, and special needs are substantial. Often, folk did not have the self-confidence of those in the traditional county seat. I had been a diplomat or a civil servant for some time, so if nothing else I had learnt how to write a letter. Sometimes I felt that in trying to represent my own people—I was born in a working-class street and brought up in the city of Swansea—I had a role like that of the letter-writer in an Indian village. I was able, because of my privileged background, to write letters on behalf of these people. There has to be a personal touch.

One of my sons worked for an American Representative. He hardly met this Representative at all because the office was so large. The US Representative had an automatic signing machine. I very much hope that these have not reached Westminster. They have, have they? Certainly, they had not come when I left the other place in 2005, as far as I can recall. It meant that people in his constituency or district received letters that had had no personal attention at all from the Representative. As a matter of honour, I made sure that I was in my constituency on Saturday mornings, sometimes for six or seven hours. I made it a point of honour to walk, as often as I could, through the market in Swansea to meet people and learn about their problems. That local touch is so important. Clearly, as night follows day, the larger the constituencies are, the less there can be that local touch, which humanises government, makes people feel less alienated, and makes them feel that the Government—indeed, Westminster and the whole establishment—are on their side and doing their best to help them.

Therefore, drawing this odd figure of 78,000 out of the air and stretching it in this way—I think my noble friend mentioned a Procrustean bed—can have malign effects. I am certainly convinced not only of the arguments for democracy generally but of those for fitting an electorate according to the needs of particular people. I fear that this figure of 600—chosen from the air and for which no explanation has been given—will certainly not do that.

Wales will be hardest hit. I will not dwell on this because I know that other amendments will allow me to wax, I hope rather eloquently, on Wales and my own city. Wales, by any rule, is hit by far the hardest by this proposal. It is likely that the number of seats in Wales will be reduced from 40 to 30. Wales is a relatively disadvantaged part of the United Kingdom. I know that my noble friend Lord Touhig, if he is able to make a contribution and who has experience of the western valley of Monmouthshire, will make the same sort of point. We are relatively disadvantaged; therefore, there is a greater need for that human touch.

We all accept that, just as the number of seats in Scotland was reduced when primary legislation passed to the Scottish Parliament, the same must happen in Wales when it follows the Scottish precedent. However, there is no case for moving from 40 to 30 seats now. Wales has always been slightly privileged in this way for good reasons and that should continue. I will not develop the point, but my own city of Swansea has three seats at the moment, each one of roughly 60,000 people. If we were to go to an average mathematical formula of 76,000 or 78,000, there would be rather less than two and a half seats in my city. That means that it would have to scrabble around for areas that have no natural affinity with the city but which would satisfy some mathematical formula of 78,000 people. In my judgment, that again ignores the human aspect, but I hope to develop the question in relation to Welsh constituencies rather later.

In my judgment the Government are going ahead in a rather draconian way. If they want a Passchendaele, they will have a Passchendaele. Lip service is given to accountability but the timetable set for the Bill is not warranted by any objective criteria. Why is it so urgent to get the number of seats reduced from 650 to 600? Is there any objective urgency about that? Is there any reason why there should not be proper debate? Is there any reason why we should not—as the noble Lord, Lord Maples, has done—put across our own arguments and perhaps convince one another of the virtue of those arguments? Although an argument might be made in relation to the referendum on the alternative vote—that is a rather orphan concept because no party in this House wants the alternative vote—by no stretch of the imagination can an argument be made for urgency in respect of the reduction of seats, whether it is from 650 to 600 or, under the timetable set by the noble Lord, Lord Maples, from 650 to 600, 600 to 500, or 500 to 400. At least let us debate that. That could well be compensated for in democratic terms by building up the intermediary bodies, be they the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament. Clearly, the English electorates have rejected regional assemblies, but that is another argument. Why not give more powers to local government and try to have more parish councils or urban parish councils? I had the privilege of serving on the first ever urban parish council and in my judgment that was almost as close as one could get to Rousseau’s forest clearing of democracy, whereby the people who know one another get together and make decisions related to their locality. Why not have this Bill accompanied by a massive devolution to local authorities—les corps intermédiaires, as the French would say? But no, there is none of that.

As regards the numerical range 650 to 600, there is a deep suspicion that 600 has been chosen for wholly partisan reasons. I interjected in the speech of my noble and learned friend to say that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. This is not the way in which we in this country carry out constitutional change. The pendulum will swing. Over the years I have frequently lectured on behalf of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I have run groups for new Members of Parliament in a number of African countries such as Somaliland. Apart from urging the case for more female representation in those Parliaments, as I am sure noble Baronesses would accept, one of my themes has always been that the majority should not force through constitutional amendments and should not fix amendments which happen to suit their own interest. When I next have the privilege of lecturing to Commonwealth parliamentarians—it is fair to say that they still, for the most part, refer to our own legislative body as the mother of Parliaments—I will be rather reluctant to talk about the principle that the majority should not fix constitutions in their own interest. There should be proper debate and an independent, outside body to monitor this legislation. It should be done not in unseemly haste but properly. If that is not the case, almost certainly one of those Commonwealth parliamentarians will use this as an example of what should not be done.

17:15

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords, at Question Time this afternoon the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, asked a very pertinent Question of Her Majesty’s Government concerning what proposals there were to limit the amount of legislation that is churned out by government. As far as I am concerned, he was speaking of Governments of all colours. I did not take part in that debate because so many other distinguished Members had more to contribute, but I feel that one solution to the problem is that there should be a general presumption against legislation unless, on a balance of probabilities, that presumption can be overthrown by showing that it is better to have that piece of legislation than not to have it. That would be a not unreasonable test for legislation in the months and years ahead.

If one holds up this issue to that template, the case against this part of the Bill is very clearly made out. We are told that the number of constituencies shall be reduced from 650 to 600. It seems to me that the arguments that are put in favour of that are woefully inadequate and, indeed, very thin on any account. It is said that it would save £12 million per annum. That is a vast amount of money as far as individuals are concerned but it seems to me that you can never guarantee that £12 million would be saved, or even that there would be any net saving at all, because if you change the rules to that extent one never knows what the costs of the other system—the alternative system—would be unless those have been calculated to a very fine degree, which is not the case.

The other argument deployed is that many other European parliaments have fewer than 650 Members. Of course they have, because two-thirds of them have a population that is a half, a third, a quarter or even a 10th of our own, so what sort of argument is that? When one compares the number of Members of Parliament in the House of Commons with the comparable situation in Italy and France, one finds oneself very much on a par. Therefore, it seems to me that there is no real argument at all in favour of a reduction. That, I suggest, is the real issue here—not whether the reduction should be X or Y but whether there should be a reduction at all.

The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, whose speech greatly impressed me, as always, made it clear that a decision should have been taken on the basis of evidence. He and I have lived in a world where people have been determined on the basis of evidence, and on inferences that can be drawn from evidence. Where is the evidence here? You would not hang a dog on these arguments—the £12-million argument and the argument of comparability with other countries. It is perfectly clear that in the past 60 years the number of Members of Parliament has increased—not by much, by 4 per cent—and that during that period the population has increased by 25 per cent.

The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, advocates an independent examination by the great and the good. I would dearly welcome that. I made my next point last week and apologise for repeating it but that body might come to the conclusion that there should be a reduction. On the other hand, it might come to a conclusion that there should be more Members of Parliament. As we have heard from many noble Lords, Members of Parliament are far more get-attable in this modern, electronic age than they ever were. I was a Member of the other place 40 years ago, and I had a very literate and, if I may say so, literary constituency. I had to reply in my own impossible hieroglyphic hand to dozens of letters nearly every day. I shudder to think what the situation would be now with electronic communication.

One does not need any great imagination to ask the question: upon what real evidence is a diminution in the number of Members of Parliament based at all? Is it based on party considerations? I hope not. That would be very unworthy of any of the persons concerned. Is it based upon populism? It may well be. If this issue had been raised perhaps five or 10 years ago, before there was the general opprobrium in which, rightly or wrongly, so many Members of Parliament are held, would the attitude have been the same?

Some years ago, a distinguished Conservative Member of Parliament was giving evidence to the Boundary Commission. I do not have the exact wording, but I can guarantee that this essentially is what he said: “Some of my colleagues are in favour of reducing the number of Members of Parliament, but I am not”. That was Mr Cameron, the Member for Witney. What has changed in the past five or six years? Do the Government really believe that there is a genuine case—a case in reality and in integrity—for a reduction in the number of Members of Parliament? It is only the Government themselves who can answer that question; and it is a vital question.

I make no apology for having taken part in this debate. I wish to mention one matter before I take my seat. My noble friend Lord Thomas of Swynnerton and I were suspected last week of having taken part in a filibuster. We spoke very briefly. We made very different points. His were at least as good as mine, but they were pertinent to the issue. I do not think that it came within a thousand miles of a filibuster. To my mind, a filibuster is what happened in the House of Commons at the very end of the 19th century. A Member by the name of Tim Healy—an Irishman who was a brilliant Member and was the first Speaker of the Dáil in the 20th century—had spoken for two and a half years—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

Two and a half hours. To the Speaker of the House of Commons, it may have seemed two and a half years. The Speaker got to his feet and said very politely to him, “Mr Healy, for quite some time now I have been trying to associate your argument with the matter before the House”. Healy said: “Mr Speaker, sir, I apologise profusely. In which case, I have no alternative but to repeat the whole of my remarks”. Nothing like that has happened in this place, and I certainly, apologia pro vita mea, et the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, plead that we did not come within a thousand miles of doing that.

[Lord Graham of Edmonton]

What we have listened to for the past hour and a half is a simple question: what is the evidence? Where are the facts? Quite frankly, I am as puzzled now as I was then, because we have heard only one contribution from the whole of the Benches opposite. Perhaps on this side of the Chamber there are more contributions because this House and the other House always relish people who speak from their own experience. What we are discussing is the impact upon not only Parliament but Members of Parliament, if the change takes place.

We can all speak from our own experience. I became a Member of the Commons in 1974. It is now more than 35 years since then. All I can say is that the workload for a Member of Parliament has grown from the days, for instance, when MPs could say to their friends: “I have to go down to the constituency this month. It is the quarterly meeting of the constituency party and they will expect to see me”. There are some constituencies—I will not mention the political party—which relished the fact that their MP did not live in the constituency. Not any more. The demands of the constituency party on the Member of Parliament are such that he not only lives there, but when they want him, they expect to see him there.

I once sat down to a meal in my first year, in 1974, when I happened to be an official on one of the all-party committees. Our guest was Sir Roy Strong, who lived in my constituency, Edmonton. He said, “Ted, I often see your name doing things in the constituency. That is marvellous. How often do you come there?”. I said, “I live there”. He said, “How often do you meet your constituents?”. I said, “I meet them every day, because I come up from Bush Hill Park station to Seven Sisters and change. I speak to my constituents”. He said, “Yes, but what happens about their problems?”. I said, “Every Friday morning, I go to Edmonton Green market and they stop to tell me their problems. If they are complicated, I say, ‘Come down to my surgery’”. He said, “How often do you meet your constituents in the surgery?”. I said, “Once every fortnight, without fail; but I deal also with big postbags and small”. I said I remembered that I once, from one fortnight to the next, dealt with 100 cases. I listened to them; it was not a case worker or researcher who did that for me. I did it for myself. He said, “That is impressive”. He turned to my other colleague and asked, “Do you have something like Ted’s record in this?”. The other parliamentarian said, “Perhaps I do not go down as often, but I meet my constituents about 15 times a year”. I asked, “How does that happen?”. He said, “I have five towns in my constituency. Three times a year, the Saturday before Parliament meets, I have a surgery. It is advertised. I am there at 9 o’clock, 10 o’clock and 11 o’clock. I have five places where I meet my constituents and I am there three times a year each. That is 15 times”. I said, “Do you mean that you give up three Saturday mornings?”. He said, “Yes, but it is not too far to come to Westminster by train. They can come and see me”.

I reflected upon the different ways in which a constituency MP looks upon his job. Some look upon it as literally being a shepherd—someone who is there to lead the flock, but is always to be there. I listened, as we all did, to the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Maples, who obviously spoke on behalf of the whole Back Benches on the government side, because we have not heard another contribution to this debate from them. He made me think, because he said that among his ambitions would be to reduce the amount of money spent on staff for Members of Parliament, who do all sorts of things that other people could do. You cannot have it both ways. If a Member of Parliament needs the assistance that Members of all parties have enjoyed for the past 10 or 15 years and this cannot be sustained, that means that the Member of Parliament will take on a heavier workload. I wonder what the Government are intending to do here. Do they just want to save money? Are they reorganising matters so that they are less costly? What will be the impact and effect of that on the quality of democracy and service that we as parliamentarians give?

17:30

I am puzzled by the silence of the lambs; that was the title of a film that I saw. Noble Lords on the other side of the Chamber are keeping silent, first, because they have been told to. As good party Members, they support their Government. I do not blame them for that. However, at the end of the day they must ask themselves whether this is the way that we should conduct our business. When I was the opposition Chief Whip many years ago, I dealt with four Chief Whips. The noble Lord, Lord Denham—Bertie Denham, a marvellous man—was succeeded by Alexander Hesketh, by the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, and then by a man who was then much younger and more sprightly, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I say without a shadow of a doubt that I never had a problem with any of the four, and nor did they have a problem with me.

Whenever I was asked outside the House what the Chief Whip does, I would say that he is a last resort for avoiding trouble in the Chamber. I wrote a book called From Tyne to Thames Via the Usual Channels. People asked whether “the usual channels” was an allusion to Tyneside or the Thames. I explained that the job of the Chief Whips, when there was trouble in the Chamber, was to meet, and that I could not recall an occasion when the government Chief Whip of the day was unable to come back and say that the matter had been solved. There was parley: you gave and you took, and there was a settlement. What I cannot understand about the present position is the downgrading of the worth and the quality of the usual channels. I am satisfied that if the government Front Bench wished, they would be able to find a compromise, because at the end of the day that is what the government Chief Whip is for.

In the last great constitutional debate, in 1998, I spoke on the second night at 2.30 am. I was speaker 184 in a list of 192. That was all done by agreement. Forget the issues: agreement was reached and we were happy as a Government to collaborate in that situation. When I reflect on the Government's intentions, I find it very sad. The two parties have come together as a coalition and each laid down what they want to get out of their agreement. What suffers as a result is the standing and stature of this place and of the Commons. We should not stand for that here. I am a loyal supporter of my leader, of my Chief Whip and of my Front Bench, and I will do what I am asked to do in this situation. However, I cannot help feeling that this is a sad day and that this is a sad Bill. It is one of many and we should not see any more.

[Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow such a distinguished parliamentarian as the noble Lord, Lord Graham at Edmonton. His remarks exposed the cynicism of the Bill. We are talking in essence about the relationship between the elected Member and their constituents. I am in a unique position as the only Member of the House who has ever taken action to reduce the size of the House of Commons. I was responsible for the legislation that reduced the number of Scottish Members of Parliament following devolution. One reason that I refer to that relates to what the noble Lord, Lord Graham, said about the usual channels. It was done as a result of consensus. The only lack of consensus that I found was from my own colleagues, because I was putting a number of them out of a job. However, the importance on a major constitutional issue of seeking consensus cannot be overstated. In this House, as distinct from the other place, we are appointed and not elected Members, so the quest for consensus should be even greater.

I was very disappointed to hear the Leader of the House criticise our debate the other night on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wills, on account of the length of the discussion. He implied that there was a filibuster. Frankly, the amendment went to the root of the issues that we must address. It concerned the complete inability of the government Front Bench to answer the question: why 600? If I have asked once, I have asked half a dozen times: why not 500, which is the Liberal Democrat position; or 585, which is the last known position of the Conservative Party? When I probed this with the Leader of the House, he laughed and said that it was a nice round number. That is an affront to democracy, as is the failure to address some of the substantive points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wills, about the need for scientific analysis of the job of a modern Member of Parliament. How much time is needed to conduct constituency work?

I return to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Maples. He is not in his place, but I hope that he might read this tomorrow in Hansard. He referred to the change in the number of Scottish MPs after devolution, when we had 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament. It is interesting that the workload of Westminster Members of Parliament did not markedly change. For a start, constituents are not meant to be experts in the constitution. They would come to whoever they wanted to talk to about issues such as education, social services, the local authority and housing. I worked closely with my Member of the Scottish Parliament. If somebody came to me with a problem, I would not tell them to go away because I was not a Member of the Scottish Parliament. I would take on the case and pass it to my colleague in the Scottish Parliament, and she in turn would do the same to me.

It was also interesting, following the reduction in the number of MPs, that all of us who remained had to get to know new parts of our constituencies and new people. The workload did not diminish, but changed in nature. I mentioned the other night, after an excellent speech by the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, about ethnic minorities, that I represented a seat that I had been born and brought up in, which was a white seat. I did not take on an immigration case probably until 2000. To some extent, that was because of demographic movement. People moved into the constituency and suddenly I found myself having to deal with immigration matters that I had never dealt with before. I had to deal with matters relating, for example, to forced marriage. The socio-economic structure of the constituency affects the nature of the work that a Member of Parliament does. I had two towns and 19 villages. Most of them were mining communities. In the areas of multiple deprivation, my workload was much greater than it was in the more middle-class areas of the constituency. This was, first, because the confidence levels of my constituents varied according to their socio-economic background. You cannot take a rule of thumb and say, “This is a constituency with lots of trees, so there will not be problems of multiple deprivation”. The nature of the workload of a Member of Parliament changes in relation to the socio-economic shape of that constituency.

One of the reasons why we had devolution in Scotland—I mention this point because it relates to what we will be going through tonight—was because Scotland had a smaller constituency electorate for its Members of Parliament prior to devolution. At the time of the Act of Union, separate legislation was enshrined in our constitution. At the time of devolution, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, was the Secretary of State for Scotland and the then Scottish Office was the equivalent of 13 different government departments. Scottish Members of Parliament might finish an education Bill in the other place and vote at 10 o’clock at night, then start a Scottish education Bill at 11 o’clock that night. One of the criticisms made of the arrangements at the time was in asking how you could you get proper scrutiny of legislation in the middle of the night. Those who have been Scottish Members—I only had a short spell at that—learnt how to scrutinise legislation in the middle of the night. If we need to do it, we will do it.

I go back to the point made by my noble friend Lord Wills about the pressing need to have some scientific analysis of what should be the ideal size of the House of Commons. It is almost as if people are picking up the pin numbers on their mobile phones in dreaming up the number of MPs that there should be in the other place. There is a need to look at the constituency work of Members of Parliament; there is also a need to look at the parliamentary work of Members of Parliament, whether they serve on select committees or whether they are taking through specific legislation. That is an opportunity that has again been missed. There was an opportunity in this legislation to consider whether people genuinely felt that the time had come to look in detail at the relationship of a Member of Parliament to his or her constitutional and constituency roles. There should have been some proper, defined research on it across the House. It should not be something that has been dreamt up for what can only be defined as an extremely cynical reason.

This Bill is not about improving the constitution of the United Kingdom. It is about buying off two parts of a coalition. That is one of the real reasons why there is such cynicism about the Bill and one of the reasons why it is an aberration on our constitutional arrangements that we should be criticised for seeking to scrutinise the Bill in such detail. I will no doubt return to this matter again and again. My noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton put it into context. If we lose sight of the people whose interests we are here allegedly to look after—the constituents and citizens of this country—then we have done no service to this House and we certainly have done no service to parliamentary democracy.

17:44

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, I rather differ from my noble friends on the Front Bench. I could not support this amendment were they to test the opinion of the House because I do not think that it is right for government to fix the size of the House of Commons, which would be the consequence of this amendment. However, I think that it is a valuable amendment if it has been tabled as a probing one, as we need to get at some principles on how the size of the House of Commons should be determined. Like my noble friends, I have sought in vain so far to understand the principle that is animating the Government’s policy in this Bill.

The Liberal Democrats, in opposition, took a principled position. They proposed that the size of the House of Commons should be reduced to 500 Members but that would be on the basis of their being elected on the single transferable vote system and of more extensive devolution and the creation of regional assemblies. On that basis it was entirely reasonable that they should argue for a reduction in the number of Members of the House of Commons. Before the election, the Conservative Party proposed that there should be 585 Members of the House of Commons, and it was more difficult to ascertain the principle underpinning that proposition. My noble friend Lady Liddell has already referred to the observation of the noble Lord the Leader of the House that a 10 per cent reduction was a nice round figure, just as he said that 600 in the House of Commons was a nice round figure. Both 585 and 600 are nice round figures, but we would all agree that that is an insufficiently convincing basis for introducing a very major constitutional change that would weaken the capacity of the House of Commons and would tilt the system of parliamentary representation by favouring the Conservative Party and disfavouring the Labour Party. We therefore need to find better reasons.

We have not yet heard any good reasons for reducing the size of the House of Commons. At least the noble Lord, Lord Maples, had a go at trying to persuade us that it would be a good idea. Conservative arguments, such as they are, have been that the House of Commons is expensive and that the British people are overrepresented in the House of Commons compared with representation in other legislatures. Those reasons simply do not stand up to scrutiny. The argument that you should take 50 Members out of the House of Commons to save £12 million is risible. It would be risible even if you would save £12 million, but as a number of my noble friends have already explained, we will not save £12 million because the costs for a reduced number of Members of Parliament serving larger numbers of constituents would be no less. Possibly, when the Minister winds up this debate a little later, he would be kind enough to remind us what proportion of the fiscal deficit is £12 million.

[Lord Glentoran]

My Lords—

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

Let me finish my sentence and I will give way. When the Bill was introduced, if I remember rightly, the deficit was running at about £180 billion, so how significant is the saving of £12 million?

[Lord Glentoran]

I am wondering what the constituents of the House of Commons have to do with this House. Why are we debating the numbers, finance and funding of the other end in this Chamber?

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

It is part of the constitutional function of the House of Lords to scrutinise legislation. We are a bicameral Parliament. We have two Houses of Parliament and a duty in that respect. Moreover, the noble Lord is, as I am, a citizen of this country and we are entitled to take an interest in the development of the constitutional structure of this country. It is legitimate for us to raise some of these issues.

[Lord Kinnock]

Perhaps my noble friend could usefully redirect the noble Lord’s perceptive question to the government Front Bench. Perhaps the Government could tell us why there is a Part 2 to the Bill and why, therefore, we are discussing matters related to the elected part of these Houses of Parliament, instead of spending a short time additionally on the referendum and the alternative vote, and providing the Government with their legislation in good time for that referendum on 5 May.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My noble friend is, as always, very wise. It would have been greatly for the convenience of both Houses of Parliament had this legislation been segmented and introduced on the sensible basis suggested by my noble friend.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

The intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, was very interesting, because that is the question that is being asked by many Members on that side of the House, but they never intervene during the course of debate. We would welcome an intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. Perhaps he would like to embroider his comments, because he would be speaking on behalf of all his colleagues on the Back Benches.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

I think I could even be persuaded by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, to sit down a little earlier than I otherwise would in anticipation of hearing him develop his thoughts at rather ampler length. I think that the whole House will look forward to that.

[Lord McAvoy]

Bearing in mind the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, I remind my noble friend of the point made by the Cross-Bench Peer, the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan: perhaps he should start his speech again.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

There are all sorts of possibilities. Happily, the Government’s business managers have ensured that we will not be excessively constrained for time as we debate these issues, so we can look forward to many noble Lords opposite helping us to understand, if they will, the case for what the Government are doing.

It is perplexing. Ministers have suggested that the size of the House of Commons has crept up—that phrase was used in previous debates. One hundred years ago, the House of Commons consisted of 670 Members of Parliament; it now consists of only 650, and a few years back, it was 659, as some of my noble friends have already mentioned. It is particularly interesting to see how the ratio of Members of Parliament to electors has deteriorated since 1950. There are now 25 more Members sitting in the House of Commons than in 1950, but in that period the size of the electorate has increased by no less than 10 million. The average electorate per constituency, which was 55,000 in 1950, is 70,000 now.

I do not know how Ministers can with a straight face tell the House of Commons and this House that the number of Members of Parliament has crept up and suggest that we are overrepresented. We are not democratically overrepresented in this country. Unlike the Federal Republic of Germany, we have no länder; unlike in United States of America, there are no states. Indeed, in all of our political lifetime, we have seen a weakening in local government in this country and a diminution in the number of local authorities. If, as the Liberal Democrats have proposed, there should be a large-scale redesign of patterns of representation at the different tiers of government in this country, you could make a serious case for reducing the size of the House of Commons. Unless and until that is done, you cannot.

The Government are setting about reducing the size of the House of Commons in a manner that will be to the party political interest of the dominant party in the coalition, the Conservatives, and, at the same time, increasing the size of the House of Lords in order to increase the majority on which they believe they can rely in this House, with no serious attempt to explain to us what the sound democratic principle can be in those processes. That is to let members of the Government open to the kind of criticism that we are more accustomed to hearing levelled at those who wield power in countries such as Kenya, Rwanda or even Zimbabwe. It will be very interesting as we begin to hear what international observers and professional and academic students of democracy in foundations and think tanks in this country and across the world have to say about the policies that we are experiencing at the hands of this Government.

It is absolutely right to ask two basic questions to try to establish a ground of principle on which to evaluate the Government’s propositions. We should ask: what are the requirements of a properly functioning House of Commons and how many people does it need serving in it to acquit itself of those responsibilities; and what are the properties of a Member of Parliament in his or her constituency? Until there has been a serious, rational and, as far as possible, objective analysis of both those issues, we should resist the suggestion that the number of Members of Parliament should be reduced. As we start to examine those issues, I think that we will find that, so far from there being a decent case for reducing the number of Members of Parliament, there is actually quite a strong case for increasing their number.

I do not want to speak for excessive length at this stage of the evening. We will have further opportunities to examine these matters as our discussion develops so, for the time being, I will not weary the House any longer.

[Lord Martin of Springburn]

I have listened to the debate on the amendment, and it is the amendment to which I wish to speak, not the Bill in its entirety, although I have expressed concern about some parts of the Bill. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Maples. We shared membership of the House of Commons around the same time. He mentioned finance, the cost of the running of the House of Commons. It might be worth mentioning that when he came into the House in 1983, Denis Healey, now the noble Lord, Lord Healey, was the deputy leader of the Labour Party. The funds available to him were such that he had to share one researcher with another member of the shadow Cabinet. Everyone agreed that that was unjust, and the Short money has now been increased to a fantastic amount.

That Short money goes on to the costs of the House of Commons. When I left, the Conservative Party in opposition benefited greatly from Short money—I think that the noble Lord would acknowledge that. That was so much so that when the coalition was created, there was deep concern among members of the Liberal party that they would not get a share of the Short money, because that would have a profound effect on how they got researchers for their Front-Benchers. I do not know how they got on with that argument. When noble Members talk about the cost of the House of Commons increasing, they cannot have it every way. You do not get democracy for nothing. Everybody praises the great Portcullis House.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

Perhaps I may give an illustration of the poverty of the Opposition at that time. When my noble friend Lord Foulkes and I were in Denis Healey's team, I once travelled with my noble friend Lord Healey, who had been Chancellor of the Exchequer and Secretary of State for Defence. We wanted to go to South Africa, which was highly in the news. My noble friend had to travel in economy class with Air Zambia. Those were the straits we were in at the time.

[Lord Martin of Springburn]

I agree with the noble Lord: it was ridiculous, and it has improved, especially for the Leader of the Opposition.

When we talk about finance, it should be remembered that in the other place, every honourable Member has the equivalent of two and a half members of staff. That does not come cheaply. Then there are premises. If we were to supply Members’ staff with premises here in Westminster, the most expensive square mile in the world, it would be far more costly than allowing them to go to their constituencies to get premises. They cannot get any old premises; there must be security because we have already had members of staff attacked. There has even been a fatality, as one noble Lord on the Liberal Benches will be able to testify. When we talk about the cost of computers and broadband, it should be remembered that it is not free.

18:00

I have spoken about the insecurity of Members of Parliament about the boundary reviews and about giving MPs at least some stability. When people make a career in Parliament, they at least should get the chance to serve for two Parliaments, unless the electorate decide that they should go, before a boundary commissioner becomes involved. I do not think that the reduction in the number of seats, which represents under 10 per cent, is unreasonable. Nor is it unreasonable for a Government to make that decision, whether it is arbitrary or otherwise, and to say, “Look, we have come to this figure and we should make a reduction”. The noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, described so well the difficult task that she had in putting it to the House that there would be a reduction from 72 to 60 seats.

However, it was a government decision, a Cabinet decision. It was not a decision of the parliamentary Labour Party that the number would be reduced from 72 to 60. I remember well that just after Tony Blair won, there was the big campaign—“Things can only get better”. Things got better and there was a Labour majority. All Labour MPs, some of whom are now here, were called to Dover House. I had a great affection for and remember fondly Donald Dewar. Those who knew him talk of his jokes and his generosity. On the day he told us that we were going to lose 12 seats in Scotland—it was not a collective decision by any of us—I remember that there was a buffet of two sausage rolls and three sandwiches. I said that it was the most lavish redundancy party I had ever gone to. That was how the reduction of seats came about.

If the Government say, “We have this reduction of seats”, someone has to start somewhere. I do not want to see anyone lose their job or position and I hope that the reduction can be phased in, but there are no two ways about it. Down the Corridor, there is terrible pressure on Members of Parliament who want to articulate for their constituents on the Floor of the House of Commons even to be able to speak. I was the Speaker and could not speak for years, but here at least I can speak. It is not so easy to do that down there. There are long-winded Cabinet Ministers who want to hog the Dispatch Box. If they take a while, you can bet your boots that their opposite number wants to take a while. Back in the days before the special arrangement, the Liberals wanted to have their tuppence worth before a Back-Bench Member of Parliament could come in.

The pressure got so bad that I agreed that there should be a limit of 10 minutes for Back-Bench speeches in order to give people a chance. Even at that length, at the end of a night I would instruct the deputies, “Look, do not have people sitting on those green Benches for hours and hours and not have a say. Split the amount of time that is left and tell the winder-uppers”. Another thing about the Front Benches was that there was not only a Cabinet Minister but a winding-up Minister and their opposite numbers. They had long faces if you let a Back-Bencher in instead of them. Sometimes it got down to three minutes for a Member of Parliament to have his or her say.

Some noble Lords will recall that a good experiment was brought in: namely, the parallel Chamber. The Westminster Hall debates allowed Members of Parliament who were complaining bitterly that they could not speak at least to have the safety valve that they wanted. That idea was taken from the Australian Parliament—the old Parliament learnt from the young.

The limit on speeches was not popular with some of the old timers. My dear friend Tam Dalyell said, “Michael, I like to develop an argument”. I said, “But Tam, it takes you 60 minutes to develop an argument and that’s you just getting warmed up”. He laughed at that. All those pressures about Members of Parliament not being able to speak for long enough was and still is an indication that the drop in the number of MPs proposed in this amendment might help to ease things and to make more room for speakers.

Councillors, elected representatives and Scottish Members came to me with problems. Even when I was Speaker, I had a policy that every weekend, except for when I was at the Cenotaph, I would be in my constituency. I enjoyed constituency work and dealing people and their problems. I never turned them away. If they came to me with a problem that related to a devolved matter, I did not take up the matter except to write to the appropriate MSP and say, “This matter was raised at my constituency surgery”. As for housing, I would write to the housing director and say, “I have notified this lady that the matter is for her councillor, and she will see the councillor on her next visit”. That is how I handled that.

Members of Parliament make a rod for their own back when they reply individually to every name on petitions that they receive. When I was in the trade union movement, I signed petitions but I did not expect an individual reply. Issuing envelopes in the House of Commons got to the stage where some Members of Parliament were drawing in the region of £13,000 per annum in envelopes. That is not 13,000 envelopes, but envelopes worth £13,000. No elected Member should reply to individual names on a petition. I make that point because people should be represented responsibly. It should not be a publicity gimmick to get your name on every door at every opportunity.

[Lord Rooker]

I am reluctant to intervene on a former Speaker, but I can assure the noble Lord that when my majority was 495, I dealt with everything. I answered everything and I did not use any subcontractors whatever because that is what people expected. I still did that when my majority was 18,000 because that was how I worked. Every MP does the job in a different way. I do not think that rules can be laid down in the way in which the noble Lord is setting out. However, I agree that I am 10 years out of date now.

[Lord Martin of Springburn]

I agree with the noble Lord, but if a Member of a devolved Parliament was paid to deal with health, prisons and social work, while the noble Lord quite rightly would not turn a person away he would find a way of notifying his constituent that the democratic process meant that some matters were devolved to another elected Member. That is the point I wanted to make.

As a trade union officer I noted that no two officers worked in the same way, and it is the same with Members of Parliament. What I am trying to say is that there are ridiculous practices and that I have highlighted one of them. There is no point in honourable Members saying that they are overburdened when they create rods for their own backs.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

I have to say to my noble friend that I am slightly disturbed by his comments about petitions. If I remember rightly, my noble friend’s constituency was an inner city seat in Glasgow, but what if he had been in a seat in rural Scotland and the village school was about to close and 500 constituents wrote to him about that closure? It would be a highly contested issue in that part of the constituency. Does my noble friend not feel that perhaps in those circumstances each of the 500 petitioners should receive a communication from their Member of Parliament? It makes them feel that they are participating in the debate and that their Member of Parliament is actually responding and not just taking them for granted.

[Lord Martin of Springburn]

All I can say to my noble friend, as he has called me, is that if three of the names on the petition were from the same household and they were sent three individual letters, something would be wrong. I say as well that something would be wrong if £13,000-worth of envelopes were being used. The point I wanted to make was that something was wrong with that.

Let me make another point about pressure. I thoroughly enjoyed listening to the noble Lord, Lord Graham. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, will remember, he was our Chief Whip between 1979 and 1981. I was sad to see him leave the House. He kept us until 10 o’clock on a Thursday night in the Commons. I know that to be the case because a whole load of us went up to Glasgow on the sleeper train. For years now, unless it has changed since the last election, debates on a Thursday are non-voting. That begs the question: is every Member of Parliament right there in the House of Commons, to which they were elected, on a Thursday, or are they elsewhere? I would hazard a guess that they are elsewhere. I am not criticising them because that is their business, but the case has been put that there are more pressures on this generation of Members of Parliament than there were on the old.

There was a fairly hefty pressure on Members of Parliament, if they were lucky, to leave on a Thursday. The Minister could not even take the sleeper train because of the distance to his constituency. He would not have been able to get back by the Friday. I was lucky enough to get to mine by the following morning. Also, constituency engagements were such that it was not pleasant to travel overnight. You would have surgeries and meetings with various organisations.

There are other amendments that I can comfortably support, and I know that this is a probing amendment, but there is no point in us being here if we do not express our views. I do not see that we need great academic bodies to do a study on whether we should have a reduction of 10 per cent.

18:14

[Lord Baker of Dorking]

My Lords, I am goaded to intervene in this debate because the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said that no one had spoken from this side of the Committee today, or that very few had done so apart from my noble friend Lord Maples. I made it clear at Second Reading that I support this Bill largely because of Part 2. I have not been in the Chamber, but I have heard every speech made during this debate because I have been watching it on my computer. I have heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, the noble Lords, Lord Lipsey, Lord Anderson and Lord Graham, who are not in their places, the noble Lord, Lord Wills, who is in his place, and the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, in the flesh. I can recommend to colleagues that watching the debate on one’s computer is a very good way of keeping up with the debate. I find that each speaker has a good first five minutes. There is no question about that; they put their arguments succinctly. But after that—I must choose my words carefully—there is what I would say is an elaboration of those first five minutes. Very little new is added, so you can switch to doing other things on your computer and return when the next speaker turns up. That way, you get the general thrust of the debate.

When it comes to a reduction in the size of the House of Commons, I have something approaching an impeccable pedigree in that even when I was a Member of the House, I felt that it was too large. In the 1990s, I made speeches and wrote articles about it, but they, like most of my speeches and articles, have disappeared into the mists of history. Some Members may recall that three years ago I introduced a Bill in this House that sought to reduce the number in the House of Commons by 10 per cent, which would have meant a reduction of 65 Members, not the 50 Members we are considering today. It went through this House with great ease. It got to the other place and was debated, but of course private Bills from Peers die in the House of Commons after a debate.

During the debate, people asked why there should be a reduction of 10 per cent. Here the noble Lord, Lord Wills, asked why there should be 500 rather than 65 and so forth. When I introduced my Bill, some Members of this House said that a 10 per cent reduction was not enough and that they want to see a 20 per cent reduction, which would have involved 130 MPs.

I believe that one of the reasons the House of Commons became too large was this. When I was first elected back in 1960, the Commons then comprised 623 or 624 Members. It then grew exponentially for only one reason: the Speaker’s Conference of 1917. The conference was held to discuss a reduction in the size of the House to 500. Unfortunately, I should say to the former Speaker that his predecessor at that time was not as particular as he could have been. No minutes were taken of the Speaker’s Conference so no one knows what actually occurred. The only thing that did emerge was that as society developed and the population expanded, it was thought to move to an average of about 70,000 constituents per seat. That was why, in my time, the number of seats grew from 623 to just over 650. So I believe that we are over-represented in the House of Commons.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, when the noble Lord talks about the need to reduce the number of constituencies, I suggest that he would have had a very different experience in his constituency of Mole Valley compared with that of a Member of Parliament with an inner city seat, like my noble friend Lord Martin of Springburn. The intense nature of representation of an inner seat is very different indeed from what the noble Lord would have experienced in Mole Valley. I am sure he served his constituents very well, but he should remember that when he is thinking of cutting seats.

[Lord Baker of Dorking]

I wish that the noble Lord had considered my political career with more care. If he had, he would have known that I represented two inner city London seats, both of which were quite small. I represented Acton, which was very much a working class seat, and St Marylebone, which was not. Both constituencies were quite small, with populations of around 40,000. I then went to Mole Valley which at one time had over 75,000 constituents. I have therefore had experience of representing both an inner city seat with considerable problems, which was the case in Acton, and a large county seat in Surrey.

The noble Lord, Lord Graham, made the point that MPs are now much more stretched than they were in the past. Both the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and I were Members of the House of Commons in the late 1960s, as I believe was my noble friend Lord Howell. We had no secretarial assistance, no research assistance, no desk and no telephone. We had to sit on the green Benches in the galleries opposite to conduct our affairs, and the only free telephone call we had was to our town clerk. We were also given 800 free sheets of parliamentary paper. After that we had to buy them, as we had to pay for all our post.

I ask noble Lords on the Labour Benches to wait. Let me develop this agony column for a while before I am interrupted. I do not believe that, in those days, Members acted in any way less significantly to their constituents. The noble Lord is nodding—of course they did not. Indeed, when I had a larger constituency—Mole Valley, about which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, reminded me—I had more than 75,000. I did not have a research assistant and I had only a part-time secretary. Were my constituents disappointed in what I gave them? Not at all; at every election, they returned me with a larger majority.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords—

[Lord Baker of Dorking]

Wait a moment, please.

So I do not subscribe at all to the view that having an average seat in the United Kingdom—75,000 under the Bill; mine was slightly larger—would in any way impair the relationship between a Member of Parliament and his constituents. What it comes down to is that it depends upon the personal activity of the Member of Parliament. Is he prepared to put himself out and deal with the problems of his constituents? Of course he can and today he has infinitely greater technological means than I ever had when I was sitting there without a secretary, a research assistant, a typewriter or a telephone.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

The noble Lord has been talking for more than five minutes. Since I am not listening to him on computer, what can I do?

[Lord Baker of Dorking]

I am coming to more interesting points. I have only just started on my reminiscences of my time as a Member of Parliament. Let me move on to the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, who said that we in the United Kingdom are not overrepresented. May I remind the House of the extent of overrepresentation in our lower Houses? We have a population of about 60 million people and 650 or so Members of Parliament. Germany, with a population of 82 million has 600. Japan, with a population of 127 million, twice ours, has only 470. Russia, with a population of 144 million, roughly three times ours, has 450. Can those who are familiar with all the parliamentary activities in these countries say that constituents are any less well served because they have large constituencies? I do not believe that the argument holds up at all.

The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, said, “Ah, but they have länder in Germany.” He should recall that in three parts of our country we have virtually independent Parliaments. We have, in Scotland, an independent Parliament. In Wales, the Welsh Assembly is a Parliament in all but name and the situation is virtually the same in Northern Ireland, where, in fact, all local matters are dealt with by the representative Members of those Assemblies, in a very similar way to that in the länder. So, international arguments are significant. Therefore, I believe strongly that this is a good measure. I have never put it forward from the view of saving money; I simply believe that the House of Commons can operate very effectively with a smaller number of MPs. I will give way to the noble Lord, because I heard his speech earlier on the computer.

[Lord Wills]

I am grateful to the honourable gentleman—I am sorry, the noble Lord. I do beg his pardon. He was kind enough to refer to my speech, so, before he sits down, as I sense he is about to do, will he answer this question? He has made his case for it being wholly possible to reduce the size of the House of Commons without any adverse consequence for constituents—I accept that there is a strong case for that—but in deciding on the number to which the House of Commons should be reduced, does he think, first, that the new figure should be based on some broad principle, some broad understanding of the role of Member of Parliament? Secondly, does he think that the public should be consulted on what the size should be?

[Lord Baker of Dorking]

On the first question, if you look at the history of the development of the House of Commons, it has never been based on broad principles. I remind the noble Lord that in 1707 there were 513 Members of Parliament for England and Wales and that, as a result of the Act of Union, 45 were added—a figure plucked out of the air with a huge overrepresentation for Scotland in relation to its population in 1707. No principle, just practice. With Pitt’s Act of Union—disastrous, in my view, but I shall not debate that—which abolished Grattan’s Parliament in 1800, 100 Members were added; a huge overrepresentation for the population of Ireland at that time. That overrepresentation was never effectively reduced. In 1922, Northern Ireland received 12 Members, but they did not take away the 88 extra, but only 55.

So there is no principle; it is a matter of pragmatic sense. I agree entirely with what the former Speaker of the House of Commons said. It is a matter for decision, a political decision at the end of the day. My decision is for a smaller House. I respect the views of Members opposite, but I do not think that we would, in any way, impair the workings of democracy in our country by having a smaller House of Commons.

[Lord Touhig]

This is the ninth day of the debate and a pattern is developing. We have a Minister who will speak on behalf of the Government and usually, if we are lucky, one Back-Bencher who will speak on behalf of all the rest. Indeed, until the noble Lord, Lord Baker, decided to leave his computer and enhance our democracy by coming to the Chamber and taking part, we had only the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Maples, who made a superb contribution. I may not have agreed with many things that he said, but it was certainly a contribution that was not only worthy of him, but worthy of the other side and worthy of the House. It is important that we engage in a proper discourse on this important matter.

[Lord Tyler]

If the noble Lord does not take too long, I will, I hope, be able to make my usual very terse, succinct and very relevant contribution to this debate. Therefore I am relying on him not to be too lengthy.

[Lord Touhig]

I am overwhelmed by the noble Lord’s modesty and I shall try to reciprocate by keeping my remarks as brief as possible.

I will chide the noble Lord, Lord Maples, in one way—he displayed an extraordinary ignorance of post-devolution Wales in terms of the work of Members of Parliament. I am sure that he did a fantastic job as a Member of Parliament representing 90,000 people. I did not represent that number, but I can tell him that my workload was no less. Like many who sat in the House of Commons, I worked 70 or 80 hours a week and there was very often a huge amount of sudden extra work. When the miners were successful in winning their case for compensation for diseases acquired working underground, I had 500 constituency cases out of the blue that had built up over a period.

The work of a Member of Parliament is not being taken into account in terms of the way that the Bill has been constructed. We heard some discussions earlier today about pre-legislative scrutiny. If the Government had engaged in pre-legislative scrutiny, they might have had a better understanding of the workload of Members of Parliament. When I entered the other place in a by-election in 1995, I was told that there was one Member of Parliament who never replied to any letters from his constituents. It was perfectly logical—he said that only a minority wrote to him and it was grossly unfair to the majority, who never troubled him, to write back to those who did.

That might have been the case then, but it certainly is not the case at the present time. Members of Parliament have huge constituency workloads as well as a huge amount of work in the House as well. Because of the lack of pre-legislative scrutiny, I fear that the Bill does not take account of that. I do not know whether any noble Lords on the Government Benches have done any pre-legislative scrutiny, but when I was Wales Minister I often came to your Lordships’ House with a draft Bill to discuss with your Lordships. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, from the Cross Benches, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, and the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, a former Welsh Secretary, always made important contributions to help us improve the quality of legislation. That is what pre-legislative scrutiny allowed us to do and it is sadly lacking in this legislation.

At the end of last week there was a brief debate on a Question from the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, about the conventions in this House. I think it is right, from time to time, to remind ourselves that there are proper ways to behave and to discuss and debate in this House and I have no complaints about the points that he raised. What greater convention can there be than the role of this House to defend and safeguard the constitution? That must, surely, be the most important of conventions and must be what we ought to do. I refer noble Lords to the Companion, where it says:

“The House of Lords is the second Chamber of the United Kingdom Parliament”.

That is a bit of news, perhaps, to one or two Members on the other side. The Companion continues:

“As a constituent part of Parliament, the House of Lords makes laws, holds government to account, and debates issues of public interest”.

That is why we are giving the Bill the kind of scrutiny that we are. This is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; it is not Zimbabwe, and we do not need a Government who act like Robert Mugabe in pushing through legislation on which there has been no consultation and for which there was no widespread support across the country before it was put to Parliament.

The Bill will mean that almost boundary of every constituency in the United Kingdom will be withdrawn, and is a triumph of arithmetic over accountable democracy. Those who say that the only way to have a proper and fair electoral system is to have equal-sized constituencies are missing the point. Why is that the only argument? There are all sorts of others. We will go into the issues relating to Wales later, but the Government have already accepted that there should be exceptions to that with Orkney and Shetland and the Western Isles. I will make a case later on—I do not know at what hour—about consideration for Wales.

The fundamental point that has been missed but that is coming out from a number of speakers in this debate is that, because of a lack of pre-legislative scrutiny, no proper account has been taken of the workload of Members of Parliament. I am not against reducing the number of Members of Parliament if that is appropriate. That is proper and fair. It is right that we should take stock and judge from time to time whether the numbers are right. Without any proper consultation and discussion, the figure of 600 is flawed—we have no scientific basis or proper research to show how it has been arrived at. That is a folly and a great disrespect to our democracy.

I can only echo the point made by my noble friend Lord Boateng when he spoke last week very powerfully about what we would say if one of the countries of the British Commonwealth had a newly elected Government that used their power in that country’s Parliament to reduce the number of seats in that Parliament and thereby harm that nation’s democracy. We would have plenty to say, and rightly so.

[Lord Tyler]

I want to contribute only very briefly. I echo what my noble friend Lord Baker said earlier about the experience that some of us had some years ago. I do not go back as far as he does in parliamentary experience, but when I was elected in 1974 there was very limited support for the Back-Bench Member. I remember that well.

What has been interesting about this debate is that a number of colleagues—from both sides of the House, as it happens—have contributed on the basis of their experience of the other place. With the exception, I think, of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, every one of the speakers has spoken with that experience and authority.

[Lord Lipsey]

May I correct the noble Lord? I was never in another place.

[Lord Tyler]

I am so apologetic. My noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness made this point earlier: we have all experienced the noble Lord’s considerable contribution so we have all assumed that he must have had such influence in the other place behind the scenes that he was, in effect, an ex officio Member.

My point is that over the past two hours and 46 minutes I have taken the opportunity to read the Third Reading debate in the other place. These are the real, live witnesses of the experiences of current Members of Parliament, and they have been able directly to influence the Bill, taking up the big issues, as they see them, on the basis of their practical experience. They did not spend two hours and 46 minutes discussing the reduction—

[Noble Lords]

There was a guillotine.

[Lord Tyler]

No, they could have done so if they had wanted to. In the Third Reading debate there was one mention of the reduction from 650 Members to 600. They did not see this as a big issue. The spokesman from the Labour Party’s Front Bench did not mention the issue. Why is it that your Lordships are more conscious of the strain and stress on current MPs than are MPs themselves? I am mystified by this. The only possible rational explanation is, as was pointed out earlier, that this House is enjoying itself and extending debates quite unnecessarily. With that, I am sitting down and finishing.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Before the noble Lord sits down—

[Lord Tyler]

I have sat down.

[Lord Winston]

My Lords, perhaps I may interject, although of course I have not been a Member of the other place either. This aspect of the situation strikes me as odd, and perhaps noble Lords can explain it. In every other branch of employment that I have been involved with—in education, running an embryology laboratory, running a research laboratory, running nurses within the National Health Service organisation, looking after doctors and appointing them to a particular service within the NHS—we have tried to ensure that we employ the number of people who are needed to fulfil the employment that is there. As I understand it, no one in the discussion on the Bill seems to have actually asked the important question that some of my noble friends are asking: what is a Member of the House of Commons required to do in terms of his duty in caring for his constituency and representing it? Unless we can answer that question, it seems impossible to arrive at a satisfactory number for him to represent in a constituency.

[Lord Soley]

When I come to the next amendment, Amendment 59, I want to focus on how we decide the size of Parliament, which I think is a critical issue—more important than the numbers. One of the strands running through the debate is the question, “Why 600?”. The Government have not answered that, although they have a duty to do so.

I start from a position similar to that of my noble friend Lord Wills. I have argued before that there is a case for reducing the size of the House of Commons. The noble Lord, Lord Maples, expressed a similar view. Although I do not agree with all that the noble Lord said, there is a case for it. I seem to remember the noble Lord, Lord Baker, arguing the same thing when we were both in the House of Commons. No doubt he will correct me at some stage if I am wrong, as I may be on this, but I think that he argued at the time that the size ought to be agreed by all parties concerned. That is one of the important principles that we will come to.

The issue of the figure of 600 puzzled me, and I began to look at the background to this. The issue is not new; there has been a debate about the size of Parliament for years, as people have mentioned, but it became more intense in the early part of this century. One of the people who put it in perspective was the Conservative MP, Andrew Tyrie, who in 2004 wrote the Conservative Mainstream document called Pruning the Politicians. After the expenses scandal the phrase became “culling the politicians”, which says a lot about the strength of feeling on the issue. It bubbled away along the lines of the arguments in that document. In an article in the Independent in March 2008, Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, argued that we should cut the figure by 150.

Andrew Tyrie’s document is well argued. I do not agree with a lot of the statistics in it, where I think he has left things out about the nature of how other countries represent people within their borders, but he makes a good case for reducing the size of Parliament. However, he does two things that are very important, and I hope we will cover them more fully in the following debate on my Amendment 59. First, while he does not say that there should be all-party agreement, he says that the changes should be agreed with the Labour Party; I would change that to “agreed with all parties”. Secondly, he says that if you reduce the size of Parliament, you must reduce the size of the payroll vote as well. That is very important but is not dealt with in the Bill.

My problem with the numbers issue is that, whatever number you choose, whether it is 600, 650, 550 or whatever, it is like pulling on a loose cord on a jumper—if you pull too hard, you suddenly find that you are wearing only the sleeves. The problem is that the number in your Parliament affects a whole range of other things in your constitution. That is why this issue is so important and is a constitutional matter, and it is why I would have liked the Government to have accepted the amendment of my noble friend Lord Wills, which was drawn up by someone who had the experience and knowledge of Government to do just that.

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

My objection to the present proposal is the evidence that the Government are relying on for the figure of 600; indeed, some people are suggesting a figure in excess of that. Should that not be tested by evidence? Is there not a clear case for an inquiry into this issue?

[Lord Soley]

I think that my noble friend is anticipating the debate on the next amendment, which stands in my name. A lot of the debate within the Conservative Party arises from the document written by Andrew Tyrie. It is a good document and worth reading, but the interesting point for me is that he argued that the number of MPs should be reduced by 120—that is, by 20 per cent—and that that reduction should be carried out over 10 years in two five-year periods. That is where the figure of 60 comes from—it was going to be the amount of the reduction in the first five years. I forget which noble Lord intervened to question whether this was a matter for the House of Lords, but one reason why it is a matter for the Lords is that there is a clear statement in Mr Tyrie’s document that the redundant MPs, as I think they were described, could be sent to the House of Lords. Of course, when you reduce the number of MPs, you have a big fight over who inherits the constituency and what the constituency boundaries are. The suggestion was that those who did not succeed in retaining a seat should be considered for a peerage. Therefore, there is some background to this matter.

The interesting point is that that figure of 120 was quoted quite frequently. I do not know where Nick Clegg got 150 from—he seems to have plucked it out of the air. However, the thing that troubles me most, and the reason why the number is important, as well as the way in which we decide these things—a matter that we shall come to when we deal with the next amendment—is that the figure of 60, mentioned in this document and in subsequent speeches by David Cameron when he was the leader of the Opposition, relates to the advantage to the Conservative Party in terms of winning more seats. It was not put like that directly. It was said that there was unfair representation and that the Labour Party had too many seats. The other reason given was finance.

However, for the moment let us focus on the fact that Andrew Tyrie based his conclusion on the number of electors in an area. He argued that a vote in one area was not worth as much as a vote in, say, a Labour constituency because of the number of electors in the constituency. However, as has been pointed out in many previous debates on this matter, everything hinges on voter registration and the socioeconomic factor of turnout. Those things matter, but the problem is that Andrew Tyrie does not take them into account. The Committee may be pleased to know that I am not going to go into great detail about MPs’ constituency work but, as we know, there is a difference in a constituency where, regardless of who represents it, registration is much lower. In many cases, the MP will be representing people who are not on the register.

Perhaps I may refer briefly to my own experience of this matter. Very few research projects have been carried out on MPs’ constituencies. One such project was carried out on my constituency over a period of a year and it threw up two things that are relevant to this debate. One was that an awful lot of people would say, “I supported you”, but, when you looked at the electoral register, they were not on it. In other words, what they really meant was, “I supported Labour”, or, if it was a Conservative MP, they would have said that they supported the Conservatives. However, that did not necessarily mean that they voted, because often they were not on the register. At times, that situation applied to 50 per cent of the people who turned up at my advice surgeries.

Another thing troubled me, and this is why I think that there is a case for looking at how MPs do their job and the numbers involved. Whenever anyone came with a council problem—my noble friend Lord Martin referred to this—we asked why they had not gone to see to their elected councillor first. Almost invariably, the answer was, “I thought I’d go to the top”. In other words, people view political power as a sort of pyramid. They think, “The MP’s at the top, so I’ll go and see him”. I have always been troubled by this problem of undermining local authorities. It is one reason why I began to question whether there are too many MPs. If you take cases away from elected councillors, you are in effect saying to them, “You don’t have to do your job. I’ll do it for you”. That is undesirable. However, if you go down the road of saying that MPs should not take council cases or Scottish Assembly cases or whatever and you enhance devolved power—something that I greatly support—you then have to ask: who does the MP represent?

One reason why I have been tempted to go for a smaller number of MPs is that, particularly over the past 40-odd years, MPs have largely become councillors and social workers, and that is not desirable. At the same time, MPs have paid less attention than they might have done had they had more time to the national and international issues with which our Parliament is rightly concerned. Therefore, there is an imbalance.

18:45

That takes me back to the central issue, which is that I am passionately against the Bill as a constitutional Bill. If you are going to change the number of Members of Parliament, first you have to take account of certain important key factors and the process by which you make that change. As I said, I shall come to that when we debate the next amendment. Secondly, the number has to be decided on a rather better basis than that the Conservative Party will do rather well if 60 seats are knocked out.

Much earlier today, someone said to me, “Well, we changed the number of people in the Scottish Assembly”, or the other Assembly, “and we didn’t make such a song and dance about it”. To that I say that, if you change the size of a House of Parliament without the consent of all the parties, and some parties, rightly or wrongly, believe that that enhances the position of one party, then, if they are right, the chances of those other parties forming a Government are reduced. The crucial difference between Parliament and the Assemblies around the United Kingdom is that, if you win a parliamentary election in Britain, you can change all those other things. You can change an Assembly or even get rid of the Assembly in Scotland if you like. There would probably be a riot by my noble friends here if you did that, but you would have the power to do it. However, if a political party’s chances of winning as well as it would have done are taken away from it, something much more fundamental is being changed. It is on this sort of point that this Bill is different from a normal constitutional Bill. A constitutional Bill that, for example, removes the judges from Parliament and puts them in a Supreme Court can be reversed by a future Government, but future Governments have to be elected via a system in which people have confidence.

This is a matter for the next debate but I hope that I have gone some way towards explaining where this figure of 60 MPs has come from. It originated very much in Andrew Tyrie’s document. It is argued as being a first step, but I should like to know from the Government whether the second step is still under consideration. If the first step was to bring about a 10 per cent reduction in the first five years, instead of, as was originally suggested, 20 per cent in 10 years, will we have in the next Parliament, if the present Administration continue, another Bill like this one reducing the number by another 10 per cent?

That is what is so dangerous about the Bill—we do not really know what the agenda is. We know that the figure of 60 has been discussed within the Conservative Party over the past eight or nine years, or probably longer. We also know that 20 per cent was the initial figure and that it was then reduced to 10 per cent—that is, 60, give or take a few—over a five-year period, and the document talks about how the political parties should adjust their reselection processes to allow that to happen. As I indicated, MPs who lost their seats would then be considered for a peerage. However, this is a wholly different agenda and one that I find rather uncomfortable. I am willing to support this amendment because of the next amendment, which stands in my name. As I said, I think that the way in which we do these things is more important than the number, but if we are to have a number, this one would do very well.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My noble friend has done a great service to the Committee by bringing to our attention the pamphlet of Andrew Tyrie—I remember it coming out, but I think that it has since slipped the memory of many of us. As he said, Andrew Tyrie laid down as a condition of a reduction in the number of MPs a proportionate reduction in the payroll vote in the House of Commons. Is it not the case that the Government have no intention as far as we know of reducing the size of the payroll vote but are going in the opposite direction? When I was in the Ministry of Defence, I thought that we could do better with one fewer Minister. Although the Government have come through with utterly irresponsible cuts in defence capability, they have increased the number of Ministers by one. That is quite extraordinary and shows that the Government are moving in totally the wrong direction.

[Lord Soley]

My noble friend puts his finger on a critically important point, which I want to cover, along with other related issues, in Amendment 59.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Before my noble friend sits down, will he comment on the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, who said that there had been no debate on the figure 600 at Third Reading in the House of Commons? I have with me Hansard from 20 October 2010. It shows that the debate started at 5.29 pm—

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords—

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

I am intervening on my noble friend; I was asking him to comment on this matter. The debate started at 5.29 pm and ended at 9 pm. That was under a guillotined proceeding on the Bill.

[Lord Soley]

I do not have detailed knowledge of that matter, but I know that my noble friend pays great attention to these things. I also know, not least from letters that I and, I think, others have seen, that Conservative MPs complained that insufficient time had been allowed to discuss issues relating to the size of constituencies. I shall give way to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. I just hope that I know enough about this issue to be able to give him an answer.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I have the greatest respect for both noble Lords, with whom I have worked in the past, and I would hate either of them to mislead your Lordships’ House. I referred very specifically to the Third Reading debate, when any issue could be raised, and the fact is that nobody raised this matter for more than one minute. The spokesman on the opposition Front Bench did not refer to it at all. I simply said that I thought that MPs might be better witnesses on this issue than Members of your Lordships’ House, however distinguished.

[Lord Soley]

I shall say only two things in response. First, far too little time was given in the House of Commons—I do not think that there is any dispute about that. Secondly, my predicament here reminds me of the film “The Go-Between”. The person who was the go-between suffered psychologically, and I am already feeling vulnerable.

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

My Lords—

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)]

My Lords—

[Noble Lords]

Bishop!

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

My Lords, I was going to end this very brief speech by saying that I thought that it was now time, as we entered our fourth hour of debate, for the Minister to respond. If the House will bear with me for less than the five minutes that the noble Lord, Lord Baker, would allow me, perhaps I could make a comment as someone for whom the other place probably means the General Synod of the Church of England rather than the House of Commons.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Winston, who is not in his place, that the absence of pre-legislative scrutiny and the speed with which the Bill is being put forward, with 5 May as a date to work towards, cast an unfortunate shadow over the whole discussion. However, the thought that, if there had been that scrutiny, all parties would reach agreement on such a contentious issue seems exceedingly fanciful. At the end of the day, a judgment has to be made. The fact that the Prime Minister made it quite clear that this would be among his proposals seems to undermine the criticism that it is profoundly undemocratic.

I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn, is not in his place, because his speech was important, indicating that there is a tendency in our society towards mission creep in all sorts of areas, not least in the role played by Members of Parliament. Something that has not been mentioned in the debate so far but which is very important is the development of the internet. If we go back over a long period, as we have done in our debates, we see that the relationship between constituents and their Members of Parliament was totally different before modern communications developed. Any reflection on the ideal size of a constituency must take into account a completely new arrangement. It means in some ways that individual representation of an area is not so important, as an MP can communicate with people very much faster and multiply those communications to a large number of people.

[Lord Wills]

Does the right reverend Prelate recall that the Prime Minister’s commitment during the election was not to a figure of 600 but to a lower figure? That is the source of so much unease, certainly on this side of the House.

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

I think that it was to a 10 per cent reduction. I suppose that I am used to nice round figures from the Bible, but that is another matter altogether. If it was a radically different figure, the noble Lord’s point would have greater power.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

I was going to coin a phrase and talk about a “preferential option for the poor”. Are not the most vulnerable less likely to have access to the internet than the more prosperous? If the right reverend Prelate wants in our democracy to relate to the less privileged, does he not agree that the old ways are probably the best?

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

In the year of the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible, I am sure that the old ways often are the best. My only point is that the arrival of the internet has changed much and that that should be the subject of reflection. However, the thought that an agreement would be reached by some scientific, objective process is fanciful. As the noble Lord, Lord Baker, wisely said, there is a judgment to be made. My judgment is that, into the fourth hour of this debate, the law of diminishing returns suggests that the Minister should now speak.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords—

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords—

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I am pleased to take the cue from the right reverend Prelate, because it is fair to say that, while not everyone has yet had the opportunity to speak—

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords—

[Noble Lords]

Order!

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I think that the cue was given to me by the right reverend Prelate and I intend to respond to it. I think that the Committee has heard sufficient—

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

Does the Minister not recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has not had the opportunity to make his intervention?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

When I rose earlier, there seemed to be a mood that I should perhaps give way to the right reverend Prelate, which I was happy to do—

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords—

[Noble Lords]

Order!

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

But, equally, I think that there was feeling around the Committee that the time had come when this matter—

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

This is an iterative conversation. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has not made a contribution to this debate. It is entirely in order for him to speak at this particular moment.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, it is entirely in order for me to speak at this moment. This being a Committee of the House, no doubt the noble Lord can speak afterwards. I do not think that anyone would suggest that it is not in order for me, having heard three hours and 10 minutes of the debate, to try to respond to some of the points that have been made.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester said that, being a theologian and a bishop, he was used to round numbers. I am only delighted that I do not have to argue a case for increasing the size of the House of Commons to 666.

The proposal of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, is for a House of Commons of around 650 seats rather than the 600 set out in the Bill. His amendment would not, however, set a fixed size for the other place; he used the word “anchored”, which is different and relates to the fact, as one or two noble Lords have indicated—possibly even the noble and learned Lord himself and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey—that there has been, over a period of years, a ratcheting up in the number of Members as the present arrangements are applied. It is possible that that could continue under the system proposed in the amendment, although the number would start at 650.

We are entitled to draw attention to the executive summary of the report that the British Academy commissioned on the Bill, which indicates:

“This new set of rules that the Boundary Commissions must apply is clear and consistent, and will ensure that equality of electorates predominates in defining Parliamentary constituencies while the frequency of redistributions will ensure that general elections are not held in constituencies defined on electoral data as much as 18 years old.”

The Bill’s proposal that the number of seats should be fixed such that the number could not increase over time is one benefit that will flow from our proposal.

19:00

I got the sense from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Soley, that there is some anxiety that, somehow or other, our proposal is a deeply partisan measure that is based on secret modelling. Therefore, let me just answer the points that have been made about the fact that the Conservative Party’s manifesto suggested 585 constituencies and my party’s manifesto suggested that the number should be 500. As was clearly explained by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, the Liberal Democrat proposal for 500 constituencies was in the context of a single transferable vote and much greater devolution to the regions of England. That perhaps answers the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, as to why the two parties did not simply split the difference. We would not be comparing like with like.

As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester said, an indication to reduce the size of the House of Commons was fairly clearly set out by the Conservative Party in its manifesto. Although we took a different approach in wanting a different voting system, a theme of my party’s general election campaign was nevertheless that there should be a reduction in the size of the House of Commons.

As the noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn, indicated—I hope that I have noted him correctly—a reduction of less than 10 per cent is not unreasonable, nor is it unreasonable, as he said, for the Government to propose a number. He also noted that a previous Government decided to reduce the number of Scottish Members of Parliament. I remember arguing for that in the Scottish Constitutional Convention when the proposal was resisted by the Labour Party, but, to the Labour Party’s credit, the change was proposed in the White Paper and subsequently enacted by the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell of Coatdyke.

It is a question of judgment as regards the figure of 600. We are mindful that Members in the other place must be able to serve their constituents and that the House must be of sufficient size to be able to carry out its functions effectively. My noble friend Lord Maples argued—and has tabled an amendment to this effect—that the number should be further reduced, ultimately to 500, in two stages. I think that I am right in saying that my noble friend previously proposed a Private Member’s Bill to that effect when he was a Member in the other place and has argued his case for some time. However, we believe that, in a House of 600, over a third of MPs will have constituencies within 5 per cent either side of a quota of 76,000. If there were only 500 seats, the constituencies would range in size from 86,000 to 95,000—only three Members have constituencies of that size at present. We believe that a House of 500 could lead to seats that would be of a less manageable size for Members and constituents alike. Moreover, to have two substantial reductions in two successive boundary reviews would, we believe, be unduly disruptive.

As I have indicated previously, there is nothing magical about the number 600. I have also sought to indicate that, given that both parties in this Government were committed to a reduction in the size of the House of Commons, 600 is a number that we believe, as a matter of judgment, will allow the Members to serve their constituents, will provide a sufficient size for the House of Commons to carry out its functions and will have a perhaps less disruptive effect than a larger cut might have, given that a third of constituencies are currently within the band of 76,000.

The noble Lord, Lord Wills, sought reassurance that there was no political jiggery-pokery in our proposal. That view has also been reflected by a number of noble Lords. In an answer to a Parliamentary Question from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, my noble friend Lord McNally has said:

“No modelling of the effect on, or implications for, political parties of the reduction in the number of seats in the House of Commons has been undertaken by Ministers, civil servants or special advisers. In framing the provisions of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, officials calculated the number of seats that might be apportioned to each of the four parts of the UK using the electoral register as of 1 December 2009. Consideration was also given in framing the Bill to the amount of time that parties might require to select candidates for election.”.—[Official Report, 23/11/10; col. WA 304.]

In other words, the Boundary Commission should be able to report by October 2013 to allow candidates and local parties to reorganise and select candidates for an election in May 2015. Those are all very practical, proportionate reasons and this has all been approached in a very reasonable way. I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Wills, that the number was not changed because of some modelling that the Government did to try to improve the benefit. Indeed, a number of noble Lords in previous debates have indicated that, on their figures, the Bill would not actually benefit any of the parties particularly well. I hope that that puts into some kind of context the suspicions that have been voiced in this debate.

[Lord Wills]

The noble and learned Lord is right that the Answer goes some partial way towards reassuring me, but I am afraid that it does not go all the way because he has not actually answered all the questions that I asked him. I also asked him about modelling that might have been done by the Conservative Party or within the Liberal Democrat Party. Can he confirm or deny that point? Equally, if he wants to have a look at the issue—I will accept his own reassurance on this, just as I accept the reassurance given by his colleague the noble Lord, Lord McNally—and make inquiries of those political parties and then come back to me, I would be perfectly happy with that. Can he address those particular questions now please?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I seem to recall that I started to get into this territory last week on the same circumstances. I was quickly told by a noble Lord opposite that I speak here for the Government rather than for an individual political party. I am unaware of any modelling that shows a political bias to the Labour Party or the Conservative Party and I am certainly unaware of what bias there might be to the Liberal Democrats. I have reflected on the point that both coalition parties were committed to a reduction in the size of the House of Commons and, although that pledge was qualified by the context in which it was made by the Liberal Democrats, I think that there is a general view that that should be the direction of travel.

Another issue that has generated considerable debate is the relative increase in the workload of Members of the other place. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, called for some scientific analysis of that, but my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking indicated that, in his experience from having been first returned as a Member of Parliament in the 1970s, I think, there is a considerable difference in the resources that were made available to Members of Parliament by the time that he left the other place. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester mentioned that there are now opportunities for Members of Parliament to communicate electronically with their constituents in a way that has never been possible before. It is a continually changing scene.

For me, the reason why a scientific analysis could never bear fruit—apart from the fact that it would produce 650 different responses—was evident in the exchange that took place between the former, esteemed Speaker of the other place, the noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn, and the noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Campbell-Savours. The noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn, indicated that, as a Member of Parliament post devolution, if he received an issue that was properly the matter of the Scottish Parliament, he passed it on to the MSP or, if it was a council matter, to council officials. He also said that he did not answer everyone on a petition. Frankly, having been a Member of the other place—indeed, for a short time, I was the Member of Parliament for Shetland but not the MSP for Shetland—I would have done exactly the same in those circumstances. I do not think—although I may have done so once or twice—I generally made a habit of responding to everyone on a petition. However, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, immediately took issue with that point, as did the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. If two very senior former Members of the other place can take issue with the position of the former Speaker of the other place and both sides are being absolutely honest in their approach and about how they would do their work, how in the world is anyone going to quantify or evaluate what the workload of a Member of Parliament should be? There would be a wide divergence over what individual Members of Parliament think should be the case.

At the end of the day, the judge and jury in such matters are one’s constituents, when one seeks re-election. They know how well a Member of Parliament has represented their interests over the previous lifetime of a Parliament.

[Lord Winston]

The noble and learned Lord has addressed the question that I was about to ask. Is it not the constituents who matter? Is not that one of the issues with which we are faced? Should we not try to assess this in a more rational way? I do not really think that the analysis needs to be scientific, but it should be based on evidence. Earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Baker, cited Germany and one or two other places, where there is a completely haphazard and arbitrary method of representation. Perhaps if we were to have a really satisfactory Parliament, we would try to research what would be ideal to ensure that constituents are represented and looked after better.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

In my experience, different Members of Parliament have different ways in which they think they should address their constituents’ problems and issues. It would be invidious to say that one was right and one was wrong, because different people can take a different approach. That may relate to the character and personality of the individual Member of Parliament, which may also determine what is right and what is wrong. At the end of the day, the constituents should decide.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Is not the different behaviour of the Members of Parliament determined by the size of their majority? When I had a majority of 503, I would have written to everyone whose name appeared on a petition. If you have a safe seat, you take a different view. Generally speaking, I think that all Members of Parliament work for their constituents, but it does not half concentrate the mind when you have a small majority.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My noble friend makes a good point. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said that he honed his skills when answering every petition when he had a majority of about 400, although he said that he also did so when he had a majority of 18,000. That just shows that there are different approaches. I do not think that anyone has the answer for what is absolutely right and what is wrong, but a scientific inquiry would not find an answer either—other than possibly 650 different answers.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, if the issue is that in safer seats the whole process of representation is conducted in a different way, surely there should be an evaluation as to what extent there would be considerably more safer seats arising out of a reduction to 600. If it could be shown that there would be more safer seats, that may be a very strong argument against the change.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

Even given a very short time to think about that point, I think that that is something of a non sequitur. There may be other ways in which we want to debate having safer seats.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, asked how the gender balance would be affected by the proposals. The equality impact assessment attached in an annexe to the Bill suggests that the effect would be neutral, but it is fair to say for the record—she asked about the commitments of the respective parties to diversity—that the Liberal Democrats have instituted a campaign for gender balance to provide encouragement and support, through a range of training, for women who are standing or considering standing for Parliament. The Conservative Party has a five-point positive action plan based on clear principles to guarantee that more women and ethnic minorities are selected for winnable seats. More pertinently, I recall from debating the Equality Bill in this Chamber before the election—now the Equality Act—that there are now specific duties on political parties.

Someone asked about the timing of the measure and suggested that it was not so urgent. However, if the Boundary Commission is to get on with its work of making proposals and recommendations in a report by 1 October by 2013 so that the 2015 general election can be fought on boundaries using an updated constituency electoral register, clearly there is a timing issue here as well.

I conclude with the words of my noble friend Lord Baker that these proposals to reduce the number of MPs to 600 would not impair the workings of democracy in the United Kingdom by having a smaller House of Commons. I commend that view to your Lordships' House and, on that basis, ask the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.

19:15

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

The Minister, in his final sentence, dealt with the point that I wanted to make, which has not been made during the whole debate so far. I am not in favour at this stage of having a fixed figure at all, whether it be 600, 650 or even 500. We should give some flexibility to the Boundary Commission, particularly the Boundary Commission for England. With regard to Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, in the past figures have been allocated—a minimum figure for Northern Ireland, Wales or Scotland—but not for England. The Boundary Commission has sensibly taken account of natural boundaries and community interests and come up with relatively sensible proposals. Therefore, it is absolutely imperative—even more so, given some of the other provisions in the Bill—that we give the Boundary Commission some flexibility, so that when it goes through these provisions it looks at natural boundaries and listens to community interests, although sadly it will not be able to do so at hearings now, and take some account of them. Later there is an amendment that says that the Boundary Commission is looking at these constituency boundaries and should start with the largest. I put down an amendment saying that it should start with the smallest. If you give the commission a straitjacket, it will be even more difficult, whether it starts with the greatest or the smallest or starts in the north, south, east or west. That kind of provision gives the commission a straitjacket. If it is only numbers that matter, particularly if it is plus or minus 5 per cent and not plus or minus 10 per cent, we will get ridiculous boundaries, cutting through towns and across natural boundaries, taking no account of these important matters. My noble friends on the Front Bench may not like this—I am not saying that there should be 650 seats—but there should be a clear figure and one that is specified by Parliament. I raised this when the noble Lord, Lord Maples, was speaking. For England anyway—and England is the important country in this regard—I do not think that a figure has ever been specified by Parliament before. We should give some degree of flexibility, taking account of the present boundaries.

That brings me on to another reason to have flexibility. A large number of Members of Parliament were recently elected, because there was a huge turnover in the House of Commons in the last election. They are just settling into their constituencies and getting to know their constituencies and to understand the boundaries. That is why the Boundary Commission should in my view start from existing boundaries. That may add a little bit to it, but it would give flexibility. If we specify so rigidly a figure, it will not be able to start from that. There is already going to be clear destabilisation of existing Members of Parliament. I have heard not just from Labour Members but from Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members that they are already worried about the effects that these proposals will have on the selection and reselection arrangements. It will be doubly difficult if the Boundary Commission is unable to get some degree of flexibility. I hope that the Minister will have some opportunity to deal with that and to say whether some flexibility might be considered.

I endorse what my colleagues said earlier and want to add a couple of points, first on the workload of Members of Parliament. A number of Members have dealt with the matter of the change here very effectively. When I was elected first in South Ayrshire, there were no mobile phones and no e-mail, which have made a substantial difference. I raised the importance of direct access to the Member of Parliament when the noble Lord, Lord Maples, spoke on this subject, and said that MPs do not have to take a personal interest in individual cases that come to them. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that even when I had a majority of 21,000—which was bigger than his ever was—I communicated with and replied to everyone. When people sent petitions about schools closures, I also contacted them. As my noble friend Lady McDonagh, who is in front of me, said, that may be why I ended up with a majority of 21,000 and why her sister has a large majority. It is because we deal with them in that way.

However, I remember the late Donald Dewar, when he was Secretary of State for Scotland and when he was Chief Whip. When he was doing all those important jobs, he used to deal with every constituent person. I remember him on the train—when the rest of us may have been enjoying ourselves a little—dictating long, detailed letters in reply to constituents so that he could—

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords—

[Noble Lords]

Order!

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I am in the middle of a speech. Does the noble Lord want to ask a question?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The noble Lord has been addressing the House for quite some time. He has not come up with new arguments or new points. The Minister has already spoken and I believe that we should bring this debate to a conclusion.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

The noble Lord will know that the fact that the Minister has spoken does not mean that the debate finishes. Noble Lords are quite entitled to continue the debate after the Minister has spoken and other noble Lords have indicated their interest on this issue.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I was in the middle of a speech. I have sat through the whole of this debate. Noble Lords will confirm that I have never been out at any stage. I have listened to it. Then a Whip comes in and interrupts me right in the middle of the speech. If there are any traditions or conventions in this House, I must say that I find that kind of rudeness detestable. I was talking about my late friend Donald Dewar and I want to make a couple more points. They also relate to the fact—I am sure that the Minister will confirm this—that we have spoken about the work in Parliament and in the constituency. Those of us who represented Scottish constituencies also had to spend a huge time of travelling to and from our constituencies. It takes a substantial amount of time to travel backwards and forwards between the constituency and Westminster.

I was hoping that the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, would be here because he usually makes some very positive interventions in such debates. He made one recently in one of our debates about the setting up of Select Committees. He, of course, was the architect of the Select Committee. When I came into the other place in 1979, there were relatively few Select Committees. There were only a handful: the Public Accounts Committee and one or two others. Norman St. John-Stevas, as he was then, set up a whole range of new Select Committees, one for each department of state. It was a very positive advancement as far as the House of Commons was concerned but with extra work for Members of Parliament, as my noble friend Lord Martin will confirm. He came in with me at the same time and saw those Select Committees being set up.

I served on the Foreign Affairs Select Committee for some time, which was very interesting, but we had to travel overseas with all of the work that that involved. I know that it was a great burden. Then my noble friend Lord Kinnock—I am looking at my good friend—when he was leader of the party, with great wisdom and sagacity, put me on the Front Bench along with my now noble friends Lord Anderson and Lord Robertson. We provided a great team, first under the noble Lord, Lord Healey—Mr Healey, as he was then—and under Sir Gerald Kaufman, as he is now. The responsibility and workload of an opposition spokesperson must not be underestimated. We did not have the resources that Ministers have, with huge departments behind us, but we had a huge amount of work to do. You had all that responsibility of looking after a constituency, sitting on Select Committees, being Front-Bench spokesmen and dealing with standing committees. It is a huge responsibility that has not been fully appreciated.

I do not think that there is enough understanding down in the other place of the importance of this place. That is something which we have to do. We have to educate them about the role and the importance of the House of Lords. However it would be useful, particularly for those people who have not experienced the other place, to meet new Members and to find out exactly what the workload is. While I endorse everything that my colleagues have said in relation to the workload and on all the other arguments about the numbers, I have raised this new point. It is a new point, whatever the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, may say. I usually see him at the airport on the way to Bergerac but it is nice to see him here. Thereby hangs another story, which I will not go into too much; he and I look very different on those occasions. I have genuinely raised another point on the degree of flexibility that we need to give the Boundary Commission. Can the Minister tell us whether the Boundary Commission for England has been consulted about this? I am sure that, if given the opportunity and asked, it would welcome that additional degree of flexibility.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

Can the noble Lord say succinctly whether he is for or against this amendment?

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Succinctly, if my noble friend pushes this amendment I do not think that I am minded to support it. I would rather see some degree of flexibility but I am waiting to hear all the other arguments. As I have said, I have already sat through all three-and-a-half hours of the debate and am prepared to sit through the rest of it. I will make up my mind at the end as, no doubt, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, also will.

[Lord Rooker]

I am not keeping to the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, as I do not want it thought that I can be intimidated by the Front Bench opposite. What I have to say will sound a lot better in the dog hours of 2 am to 4 am so I shall save most of it for later on. First, I support very much what the Minister said. He cannot answer for a political party at the Dispatch Box. I fully accept that but there cannot be a party manager anywhere in the country that is not working out the consequences of this. On my visit to the Conservative Party conference, I could not avoid seeing the glass-walled room where, hour after hour, the training sessions were going on for the boundary changes. I assume that it was happening at the other conferences as well, but you cannot answer for that at the Dispatch Box and no one would expect the Minister to do that.

I want to share something very brief. I went into the other place in 1974, when it had 635 members. Paradoxically, in 1983, when the boundary change took the other place up to 650, my constituency changed from 52,000 to 76,000. Not many had a 50 per cent increase in one go. It changed my working pattern enormously but it was absolutely manageable. There was no problem, once you got settled in and learnt which sides of the streets were odd and even and where the postcode boundaries were—that is the way I work; I got my hands on the detail—so it is manageable. To be honest, as I have already said, I take the view that there should be fewer than the 650. I would not put a figure on it. I would go much further.

The point from my noble friend Lord Soley was valuable. I was, in a way, responsible for doing the very thing that he said but you actually undermine local government. With my constituency at 76,000, I was once in Gloucester—with its inner-city, dockland and urban renewal problems—talking to councillors as a spokesman for the Opposition. I asked them, “How many councillors have you got?”. They said, “We’ve got 46”. I said, “Well, the size of your patch is about the same size as my constituency”. “Oh, well”, they said, “we’ve got 12 county councillors”. I said, “I’ve got 12 councillors”—and that was all there was for 76,000, because of the size of the wards in Birmingham being 18,000 to 20,000. I was not in a position of shoving on to my few councillors the council work that came my way, but in the end you have that ratchet effect of undermining local government because of that structure. That is the issue to be addressed. Frankly, there is an opportunity to address that.

Your Lordships can have a look at the numbers—it is not scientific and it would be preposterous to say so—and at what was said in our Select Committee report on the role and functions of Members of Parliament and then their numbers. It is the very thing that we should do in this place; the role and function, then the form of getting in here. It is not to say that MPs should be constrained in what they do. They have to be freely elected to speak freely but if they could concentrate on being the cockpit of the nation—the inquest, if you like—and turn their attention to more scrutiny of central government in a very targeted, forensic way, we would have a better democracy for it. That would come as a consequence, but it would be much better if we could take that along with the flow, by a degree of consensus, so that it is not seen to be—this is the perception—for party advantage and party-driven. The outcome may be something that we could all say is a big success. Why spoil it all in the method of getting there if, at the end of the day, we will get something that will be good for all of us? I have stuck to my five minutes.

19:30

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

My Lords, I will just deal with the central points. First, the suggestion has been made by some noble Lords that we should not be debating this at all because we are the Second Chamber. I utterly reject that contention. Our position has always been that we take a—I see that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, is shaking his head at that suggestion. He is the one who suggested that it should be left to the elected Chamber. I disagree with that. He said that we did not care about it at Third Reading in the Commons. I shall just quote Mr Sadiq Khan, who said that,

“this Bill is a bad means of delivering both objectives. It is too inflexible and too hasty, and it will lead to great and ongoing political instability. This House has failed to improve the Bill because it has not been allowed to do so. To our shame, that task now falls to unelected peers in the other place, whom we must now rely on to inject some democratic principles into what, to date, has been an inglorious episode in recent parliamentary history”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/11/10; col. 870.]

I agree with all that my right honourable friend said.

The second contention is that if one looks at history, this House has a proud history of dealing with politically driven attempts to change the complexion of the House. Some Members will remember the attempt by a Labour Government in 1969 to introduce an Act of Parliament designed to jigger with the boundaries. It was this House that blocked that proposal, so the idea that we should not be giving this proper scrutiny is completely wrong.

The third contention is that the numbers in the House of Commons should be reduced. It is an important issue to debate. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, who we have all come to respect in this House for the way that he has dealt with this Bill, put his case this strongly. He said that introducing a reduction in the number of Members of Parliament would “not impair” the working of democracy. That is not remotely a basis on which it could be said that the number of Members of Parliament should be reduced.

I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, that it is almost impossible, I would have thought, scientifically to work out what the approach of individual Members of Parliament will be to their constituents. It will change. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn, that it will be for each individual Member of Parliament to determine how it is done. I completely agree with Mr Tony Wright who, before the previous Parliament came to an end, presided over the Public Administration Committee. He said that there should be an examination of what the right role and function of Members of Parliament should be.

The debate this afternoon reveals that there are differing views about it, not just in relation to what you do in relation to your constituents, but about what is the right number to have as an effective national legislature that also selects the Executive. Surely before one embarks upon something that one seeks to justify by saying that reducing the number would not impair the working of democracy, it would be sensible for there to be some independent examination of this issue—for example, the Speaker’s Conference in 1944—but there has been nothing at all. In those circumstances, when Members on this side and on the other side of the House ask for the reasons why we are reducing, the answer given by the Government is that it will not do damage.

There have been two particularly signal speeches; one by the noble Lord, Lord Maples, and one by the noble Lord, Lord Baker. They sought to grapple with the issues. The speech by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, was funny and witty and was made slightly unfortunate by the fact that he wanted to tell us all off after five minutes, but we will forgive him for that. He has a consistent history of supporting reducing the number quite significantly, and I gathered from his speech that his view is that the Commons would be a better place for dealing with policy issues if it was smaller. I also rather understand that the noble Lord, Lord Maples, was putting the same argument. They were both putting the argument quite effectively that as far as the size as their constituencies was concerned, geographically in relation to the Mole Valley in Surrey and in relation to numbers as far as the noble Lord, Lord Maples, was concerned, they could cope. That was their argument. They may be right. I do not know whether they are right, but they are two, if I may say so with respect to both of them, admirable mavericks who have had that view over a long period of time. It is not a view around which moss has gathered.

That is why, instead of it suddenly bouncing out of a clear blue sky that we should reduce from 650 to what is in effect an arbitrary number, the right course is that there is a proper examination so that people outside this place will have some confidence. The consequence of doing it in the way that the Government have done it, the consequence of there not being an intellectual argument to support it, the consequence of there not being any independent body that has concluded that this is the right thing to do, is that you could not say after this debate that even the House of Lords supports this with any degree of unanimity. It is an unstable proposal as far as our House of Commons is concerned, and it is a very unwise thing to be doing.

My amendment was a probing amendment. In parenthesis, if the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, were here, I would, with respect, answer her complaint that we did not vote last Monday. My experience in the Lords is that we vote in Committee from time to time but, generally, we try to avoid votes in Committee. That has been the practice in relation to the something like 60 groups of amendments that we have had so far in this Bill. I apologise to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that that was not adequately explained to her by us.

This was a probing amendment. Three points came out of it. First, I am sorely unimpressed by there not being any sense of consensus about what should happen to the number. Secondly, the danger of it being done by fiat from the other place is very high. Thirdly, I think we need to come back with another amendment that seeks to ensure—

[A noble Lord]

Oh for God’s sake!

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I hear a noble Lord say “Oh for God’s sake!”. The tradition in this House is that we have the debate in Committee and then we produce a further amendment on Report. If it is the intention of the House to change that procedure, I would be interested to hear whether we are dissatisfied with our current procedures. Fourthly, a process whereby an independent body determines the size of the House, as is the current arrangement, may be best. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

[Noble Lords]

Object!

Amendment 58A negatived.

House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 8.39 pm.

Tunisia

Monday 17th January 2011 Lords Chamber

Statement

19:39

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, with permission, I shall now repeat as a Statement the Urgent Question that was answered by the Minister for Europe in the other place this afternoon:

“Mr Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to update the House on recent events in Tunisia and what is being done to assist British nationals. The House will be aware that, following a month of protests over government corruption and the lack of political and economic reform, a state of emergency was declared and President Ben Ali left Tunisia for Saudi Arabia. I hope the House will join me in expressing our sympathy to those whose friends and relatives have been killed or injured in these disturbances.

The Speaker of the House of Deputies, Fouad Mebazaa, has been appointed interim President in line with the constitution. President Mebazaa has asked Prime Minister Mohammed Ghannouchi to form a Government of national unity. Talks continue with opposition parties and civil society to agree a way forward. An announcement on the new Government is expected today.

An estimated 5,000 British nationals were in Tunisia when the situation deteriorated, the majority being tourists on package holidays. We changed our travel advice to “all but essential travel” on 14 January, and since then more than 3,000 British nationals have left Tunisia. Many of these were able to leave on additional flights laid on by their tour operators, thanks to the swift response of these companies. We believe there are approximately 1,000 British nationals remaining in Tunisia. This number is largely made up of long-term residents, as well as dual nationals and some independent travellers. Many of those still in Tunisia do not wish to leave.

Despite exceptionally challenging conditions, the embassy is working to help resolve the crisis and provide support to British nationals in Tunisia. We have sent a six-person rapid deployment team and two members of staff from the region to reinforce embassy staff and provide constant consular assistance. We have a 24-hour hotline which people can ring for help and advice. British nationals in Tunisia can call 00 216 71 108 713. Those in the UK should ring the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 020 7008 1500. We have staff at Tunis Airport to liaise with airlines and help British travellers with medical, passport and other consular issues.

Our embassy staff remain in regular contact with our network of wardens across Tunisia to better understand the evolving picture around the country and keep those British nationals that we are aware of informed of updates as the situation evolves. We are keeping those British nationals registered on LOCATE updated on developments through regular e-mails. We have been working very closely with tour operators and ABTA, which have been doing a great job. We encourage concerned British nationals to follow developments closely, and monitor our travel advice and the news for updates. Any British nationals currently in Tunisia can register with the embassy’s online registration system, LOCATE. We are receiving very few consular calls; those who are calling are mostly asking for updates on the security situation.

We continue to advise against all non-essential travel to Tunisia. We advise anyone in the country who does not have a pressing need to be there to leave by commercial means. The airports are operating, and airlines are flying into and out of Tunisia. Those still in the country should respect advice or instructions given by the local security authorities and tour operators, and avoid rallies and demonstrations. There is no indication that British nationals are being targeted by looters or rioters. However, given the unpredictability of the situation, there is always the chance of being caught up in incidental violence. If British nationals are in any doubt about the safety of their location they should stay in their accommodation.

Politically, we are working with partners, including in the European Union, to promote political reform. As soon as possible we will be seeking to engage the Tunisian authorities to help this. This week we have spoken with the Tunisian ambassador to London, and our ambassador met the Foreign Minister on Thursday. Mr Alistair Burt was interviewed on Saturday morning by the “Today” programme and my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has issued two statements on the issue. We encourage all involved to do all they can to restore law and order. We call for full inclusion of all legal parties in the formation of an interim Government.

The change in the past few days in Tunisia has been profound but it is not yet the political reform that many hope for. The authorities must not ignore the voice of the Tunisian people. We will be working with partners to try to ensure an orderly move towards free and fair elections, and an immediate expansion of political freedoms in Tunisia.

There were extended EU discussions on Friday. We have been calling for a speedy and substantial offer of EU support to underpin the move to free and fair elections, which will be critical in re-establishing calm and security in the country. The EU high representative, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, has today issued a statement which states that the EU stands ready to provide immediate assistance to prepare and organise the electoral process and lasting support to a genuine democratic transition. We will continue to provide the help and advice that British nationals need, and we will continue to engage with and support Tunisia as it works for peace and security”.

That completes the Statement.

19:45

[Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made today in the other place. I ask at the outset how it was that the FCO rapid deployment team was sent only yesterday. It seems that a certain amount of time elapsed during which people probably needed its support. After decades of authoritarian rule in Tunisia I had hoped for a stronger Statement from the Government on what has occurred there. We have seen demonstrations that have focused on high food prices and very high unemployment levels. These have escalated into nationwide protests against terrible corruption and government repression in Tunisia, which have been dealt with with inordinate violence and unjustifiable lethal force against civilians.

Has the Foreign Secretary spoken with the interim Prime Minister and is he in regular contact with the European Union high representative as the EU prepares to support efforts in Tunisia to bring democracy and good governance to that country? Has the Foreign Secretary also been following the Euro-Med discussions about the situation in Tunisia, if, indeed, these discussions are taking place? Does the Minister agree that the UK, as a member state of the European Union, must seize this moment to stand by the courageous human rights defenders in Tunisia and ask for accountable politicians in Tunisia and across the region to take a stand against what has been occurring in that country? There must be no tolerance by the EU of any efforts to undermine a nascent democracy in Tunisia. I speak about the possibility of that happening among states within the region.

There has to be accountability for those who are corrupt and who committed crimes under Ben Ali. There have been warning signals which point to the dangers of failing to act decisively when we see freedoms being abused in this way. There has to be an impartial and credible investigation into the killings and abuses to ensure that the perpetrators are held to account in courts of law. The departure of President Ben Ali does not exonerate agents of the security forces who committed such heinous crimes against demonstrators. I had hoped that some of these points would be made more strongly in the Statement. It is important that we stand firmly for respect for freedom of expression and information that belong to us all. The people of Tunisia longed for opportunity, political participation and stability. Incidentally, this view has been endorsed by the African Union Peace and Security Council. Now is the time at last to establish a basis for democracy in Tunisia.

19:49

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that response. First, I shall deal with the rapid deployment team, which has, by all accounts, done an excellent job. The initiative of setting up the rapid deployment team was taken by the noble Baroness’s own Government, perhaps by her and her immediate predecessor, and has worked extremely well. It is a very valuable initiative and I congratulate the previous Government on putting in place a team organisation of this kind which has helped in such dramatic situations as the tsunami a couple of years back, the Haiti horror and the effects of the volcanic ash.

The noble Baroness asked why the rapid deployment team did not move faster. In fact, it moved extremely fast but there was one snag which was outside its and indeed our power and control, which was that of air transport, getting it organised and getting the team into the country fast. However, it is now there and is doing an extremely valuable job. It is a credit to this country as a whole, quite aside from who happens to be in government, that we are able to mount this sort of operation.

The noble Baroness said that she had hoped for a stronger Statement. I understand that; we all feel very strongly indeed about our core principles as a nation and we should proclaim them at all times. However, the difficulty, particularly in these very early days, is understanding which way the trend of events is going so that we can be most assured that the number one step is achieved: namely, the restoration of order and calmness and the end of violence, killing and bloodshed so that a sensible pattern of government can evolve. Although parliamentary convention required my honourable friend to say that there was a prospect of a new Government, in between him making the Statement and me repeating it, such a Government have been set up, with opposition Members. If one dare say so, that is somewhat encouraging. As the noble Baroness rightly implied, this is the point when we urge that this new Government, who embrace opposition Members, put to the forefront the concern for human rights, realise that they have a duty to accountability and that there is much to be learnt from past events which have led to this very ugly and dangerous situation which may—who knows?—we hope calm down, but which may have all kinds of domino repercussions in a wider area, some of which could be very injurious to general global and regional stability and to the interests of this nation.

That is my broad answer to the noble Baroness’s questions. She asked about regular contact with European Union high officials. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is in close contact through his office at all times. We are particularly in touch at official level with the French Foreign Minister and with the office of the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton. They are key actors in the situation and strengthen our overall European Union approach as well as anything we can contribute bilaterally. I hope that those are regarded as satisfactory answers to the noble Baroness’s points, but I am very happy to elaborate on them in more detail in what is still a very fast moving situation.

19:53

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My Lords, I was about to question my noble friend on exactly that last point and ask whether he would welcome the announcement this afternoon of the formation of the interim Government. Under the Speaker, a new Prime Minister and members of the so-called opposition parties, plus civil society, there is at least a chance that order is being restored rather more quickly than we had expected. I am not surprised that he said in the Statement that a lot of members of the British community said they did not wish to return, because Hammamet, the main tourist area, has been largely peaceful. I was there recently, and should declare an interest as a member of the board of a company with interests there. Understandably, people want to complete their holidays. This may be tempting him too far, but does my noble friend agree that out of this tragedy there is a lesson to be learnt throughout the rest of the continent of Africa, and indeed the Middle East, that Governments who engage in corruption and lining their own pockets have a limited life shelf, and that others should be aware of what has happened in Tunisia and perhaps learn the lesson from it?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My noble friend offers some very wise and comprehensive comments on the overall situation. This is a lesson. We live in a much more transparent and e-enabled age, with television programmes in their multiple dozens, such as Al-Jazeera and others, fantastic media influence, fantastic rapid communication through the internet, e-mails or the varieties of web operation that we are beginning to know so well, and of course the mobile telephone. All these influence the transmission of both truth and rumour into situations such as the one in Tunis, which can become very volatile very quickly. The lessons should not be lost on others who seek to rule by failing to be transparent and failing to transmit all the knowledge and accountability that they should to their citizens. My noble friend has absolutely hit the nail on the head on that matter. He was kind enough to recognise the problem that the new Government have been formed since my honourable friend spoke in the other place. Now that they have been formed, we are very anxious to see that they go forward in a really constructive and balanced way, and we will do everything, through our embassy, our contacts and our colleagues in the European Union, to encourage that process.

[Viscount Waverley]

My Lords, what if there is a repetition of a party such as Islamic Salvation Front winning the national elections, as happened in Algeria 1992? Will the Government promote an EU line to allow any obvious winner to let be? Is there any suggestion that Tunisia’s neighbours, such as Libya, Algeria and Egypt, will intervene to keep a form of status quo?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Lord will understand that those are highly hypothetical questions. The Algerian situation of 19 years ago is one from which we should draw lessons, and so should the countries of the area. The neighbouring countries are, as we are, watching closely to see how this pattern will develop. However, these are very early days. One wants this newly formed Government to command confidence, get violence off the streets and ensure that non-democratic forces, and those that are inclined to violence, stay in and are kept under control. Then we will see what the broader implications are. I personally hope that the broader implications to the wider world are simply of the kind mentioned by my noble friend a moment ago, whereby democracy, transparency and responsibility to citizens are always wise if you want to stay in power.

[Lord Boateng]

My Lords, in welcoming the Minister’s Statement, and particularly his warm words, which are well deserved for the consular section of the Foreign Office, I must ask whether recent events in Tunisia do not underscore the importance of Her Majesty’s Government having an Africa strategy in which we are better able to co-ordinate the efforts of the FCO, DfID, the MoD and the whole machinery of government behind progressive change in Africa. That is because two things emerge very clearly from the Tunisian experience and are mirrored elsewhere on the continent. One is that food security and food prices are becoming increasingly an issue and a threat to stability and security. Secondly, unemployed young people with qualifications, unless given the prospect of jobs through growth, are likely to be led into actions that also threaten security and stability. Democracy has at last found a place in Africa as part and parcel of the ordinary people’s own agenda, to which they need to see a response. Does that not mean that this is a matter not just for the European Union and France, but for us to ensure that we have in place a whole-Africa strategy that strengthens and sharpens our response to this sort of situation?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Lord knows more than most about Africa strategies and speaks wise words. Perhaps he would also recognise that Africa is a concept, as it were, and a geographical continent, but that it contains a vast range of different societies, cultures and trends in political and social evolution, all of which must be calibrated to ensure that one gets right one’s relations with different countries and shows the necessary respect to different countries, rather than lumping them all together into one general formula by which they should be treated. I think the noble Lord accepts that point, and I hope he will feel that I am adding to, rather than subtracting from, his wisdom on this matter.

Food prices and unemployment are the uneasy shadows of the age. There are tremendous volatilities in the availability of food. Some experts tell us that it is not the basic lack of supply of foodstuffs but problems of distribution, processing, handling and getting the right kind of food into the right kind of supply chains that create so many of the problems. Unemployment is similar. What does a world, and particularly a region, do, given that we are talking about the Maghreb and the Middle East, where almost the majority of people are young and are waiting for an opportunity to fulfil themselves and find useful employment? What do they do if no employment is available and the opportunity to contribute to their community is not there? What do they do if they have no country that they feel they should love and no confidence about getting a fair share of a country's prosperity? That is one of the angry themes that has come through in Tunis: the feeling that some people were doing extremely well—the fat cats—while the majority struggled and did not benefit from the relative prosperity. I say “relative” because the country is not as poor as some. It receives a great deal of aid from France. Did that help the men and women, the families and children, in their homes? Clearly not, and now we are seeing the results.

[Lord Chidgey]

My Lords, will the Minister tell us a little more about the assessment of the reaction among the countries in the region to the situation in Tunisia? My noble friend will be aware of reports that Colonel Gaddafi's people have been providing arms for the guerrillas on the streets of Tunisia who supported the outgoing President, and also that the security council of the Egyptian Government met hurriedly a day or so ago in response to the situation. There are great concerns about stability and turbulence in neighbouring countries that have similarly suspect forms of government. Perhaps my noble friend would take us a little further on the Government's assessment of that.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

It is hard to add to the expertise of my noble friend. All the neighbouring countries are assessing the situation, as we are tonight in London. The implications are being examined very carefully. Broad themes lead to suggestions of domino theories. Articles by expert commentators have appeared in the newspapers saying that this could be the beginning of a very big transformation in the region. One hopes that it will be orderly and stable rather than violent and disruptive. That would be an important aspect of our foreign policy and national interest, and we would need to follow it closely. On the other hand, it may be possible to contain what is happening entirely in a Tunisian context, so that broader lessons could be learnt more slowly and in an orderly way.

My noble friend is right that the Egyptians are looking closely at the matter. Algeria has its problems, along with the Maghreb and Morocco, which is prosperous and well ordered but still concerned. The dark al-Qaeda jihadist extremist element is not apparently present in the Tunis situation. It is reckoned that al-Qaeda is operating in the Maghreb to the south of the area in Tunis that we are looking at. One can never be sure, but that is the broad assessment at the moment.

[Lord Hurd of Westwell]

I congratulate my noble friend on the balance he struck in his comments on the Statement. I will make one point. We all hope that the new Government who are being formed, or their successor, will restore order quickly. However, that may not be so; this may drag on for some time. I remember in other cases how quickly the news disappeared from our newspapers, but how the strains on our own people handling the daily problems that my noble friend mentioned remained. Exhaustion sets in quickly. Is the Foreign Office looking further than the next few days to the weeks and even months ahead, which may include periods of considerable distress and disorder—although we hope that they will not—to make sure that we continue to be able to manage the problems of our own citizens in the way that we have up to now?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I am grateful to my noble friend for his advice, which is invaluable in this kind of situation. I can answer firmly that that is what we want to do. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office needs to think about the implications of this further piece in the jigsaw of the new international order, which is fluid and changing very fast. Further to the east of where we are looking at—the Maghreb—is the Middle East imbroglio. To the east of that there is the Gulf, and to the east of that is a conglomeration of GCC states that are now reorienting themselves in the direction of the rising Asian powers. This is an entirely new world. We have to watch very closely and prepare for big changes in our existing assumptions.

[Lord Bannside]

My Lords, I am sure that we are glad of the Statement that we heard from the Minister tonight. However, I will stress one matter. Why did this come as a terrible surprise to the people in this area? Were the Government not aware that the matter was underneath the surface? We welcome the European part of the question. That must be worked on, because we need strong resistance to what has taken place, and strong assistance to those who will help to put it right.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that. Why does it appear suddenly to have caught certain people by surprise? The point when these things break through, into regrettable violence and protest in this case, is always a bit of a judgment. That there were forces at work that could lead to the situation is not such a surprise. I do not want to drag the rather overrated WikiLeaks into the situation, but leaks were flying around, which certain senior diplomats were observing some years ago, that the fundamental pattern of government in Tunis looked a bit unhealthy, and that the disease and infection of corruption and vast disparities between rich and poor were around and could lead to trouble. Senior diplomats saw that something was wrong some time ago, but it is always difficult to assess exactly when these things will explode.

[Baroness Browning]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a former chairman of the All-Party Group on Tunisia. I was pleased to hear what my noble friend told the House tonight about the involvement of the EU and the opportunity to oversee democratic elections. Will he assure us that, as things settle down, the British Government will use their influence both unilaterally and within the EU to ensure that as soon as possible, when it is suitable to do so, there will be a concerted effort to take trade delegations to Tunisia? With a more highly educated population, Tunisia cannot exist on tourism and dates. There are opportunities in Tunisia for much more trade, but the initiative must come from this side. I hope my noble friend will take that on board and understand that one of the many frustrations among that population relate to appropriate levels of work and the appropriate amount of trade that the country needs, with which we could help a great deal.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

This is a positive set of observations. Having visited Tunisia on more than one occasion, I wondered how the basis of its economy could be sustained by its very successful tourism and by what I am told are its 20 million date trees. How one can count them? I do not know. How can it be done? The answer is that it has been done, but clearly diversification and development are badly needed. I suspect that deep down inside the causes of this present disturbance is the fact that they have not been developed fast enough. We and the EU, bilaterally, certainly have a role to play, as do our French friends and neighbours.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

Our key national interest appears to be the security of our own nationals, and to that extent the Foreign Office appears to have responded speedily and in an exemplary manner. I congratulate the Minister on what he said. Successive human development reports of the UNDP illustrate the lack of poor governance in the various Arab countries, and I wonder to what extent we were already alerted to the problem and the way in which it was building up, although the spirit in Tunisia appears to be far freer than in some of its neighbours in the Maghreb. Can the Minister say to what extent he believes lessons will be learnt and the extent to which we will urge neighbouring Governments—perhaps not us, but, better, the European Union as a whole—to listen to the people and their legitimate grievances about food security and employment, even if we do not particularly like the Governments who emerge and who might have a rather different view from us on world issues.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I hope, as we must all hope, that the lessons will be learnt. They are fascinating lessons, and some very profound observations have been made. The emergence of the food shortage issue and its impact on political stability in certain societies is in itself a vast issue that relates to other aspects of crops for biological use, biofuel, and so on. That has all kinds of impacts on world food prices, which at the moment are rising very fast.

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, with his considerable experience of foreign affairs in the other place and here, for his kind words of congratulation. The Foreign Office to which I, as noble Lords will know, am relatively new, has demonstrated that in a situation of this kind, precise timing is always difficult to anticipate. However, the Foreign Office has acted with extreme speed, along with great help from ABTA and the commercial operators, who have done remarkably well in evacuating 3,000 tourists from the country at such enormous speed.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

Does my noble friend agree that although the formation of a more inclusive Government is to be welcomed, it is very limited in its inclusion? The Islamist parties, for better or for worse, have been left out of it, as have the liberals. Does he agree that in order to have a pluralistic framework, which is what the people want now, all parties should be invited to come on board? Can he assure the House that the EU will monitor those elections?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

It is early days to give a definite current on the last point, but that seems utterly sensible. As to the precise balance and formation of a new Government, the delicate, fragile gain for the moment is that a new Government are being formed and announced. Exactly what balance they should have and which parties should be included is a very difficult matter for those outside Tunisia to intervene on at the moment. All that we can do is offer our support and give them our good wishes and blessing as fast as we can, so that government rather than chaos emerges out of the present street violence and disorder.

20:14

Sitting suspended.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Monday 17th January 2011 Lords Chamber

Committee (9th Day) (Continued)

20:39

Amendment 59

Moved by

[Lord Soley]

59: Clause 11, page 9, leave out line 18 and insert—
“The number of constituencies in the United Kingdom shall be decided by an independent commission established by the government, but shall not exceed 650 or be less than 500.”

[Lord Soley]

My noble friend Lord Lipsey will speak to Amendment 60. These amendments go together. Amendment 59 is one of the core amendments about the nature of what the Government are doing. As regards this Bill, I have been troubled for a long time about the importance of constitutional issues. Everyone, including the Government, accepts that this is a constitutional Bill. I get the feeling that the Government have not recognised just how important this issue is, particularly to the opposition party, because the Opposition have not been consulted on the size of Parliament. I regard that as particularly important.

I have been a member of the Labour Party for a long time. But it is not being a member of the Labour Party that drives me in politics; it is my strong belief in parliamentary democracy and the rule of law. I have held that view for many years. It goes back to when I was about six years old and watched adults dancing around an effigy of Adolf Hitler burning in the street. I wondered what sort of planet I had ended up on that people should be behaving like that. Over the coming years, it made me understand better why parliamentary democracy was so important and, much later, made me understand why the rule of law was so critical to it.

This, for me, is not a party political issue in that sense, but it has become party-political precisely because the Government have chosen to determine the size of the House of Commons. This amendment points out that that is not right way to do these things. There ought to be an independent assessment of what the size of Parliament should be, and ideally—it is why the amendments are grouped together—that should be done through something like a Speaker’s Conference or, better still, all-party agreement.

That is profoundly important because what matters in constitutional Bills of this type is that if it is perceived that a party in government is altering the size of the House of Commons to suit its own party purposes, that immediately makes the Bill deeply party political. That is what I do not think the Government have taken on board. In summing up, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, said that there was some suggestion of secrecy about the numbers. There has never been any secrecy about the numbers. Actually, I quoted from Andrew Tyrie’s paper which made it clear that the Conservatives would win more seats if they could reduce the size of the House of Commons by 60 seats, and originally they thought they would win even more if they reduced the size by 120 seats. That does not mean that he did not also have a view that the House ought to be smaller, because he did, as did other people who supported him. It also did not mean that he was wrong to say that it would save public money; it probably would. But what you do not do is just change the size of the House of Commons without all-party agreement.

To his credit, as I said in the last debate, Andrew Tyrie made that point. Indeed, he made two points, the first of which was that the Government of the day should seek all-party agreement. He referred to agreement with the Labour Party, but I would simply talk about all-party agreement. His other point concerned the payroll vote issue, which I shall come to in a moment. Why is this so important? I have said in one or two other interventions that one of the problems we face is that whenever we act as international observers in overseas elections, which many Members of this House have done from time to time—certainly I have done it—we do not just look at how well protected the ballot boxes are or at how well the polling stations are protected. We look not just at how the electoral register has been drawn up, but at how the number of seats in the parliament has been drawn up. If we found a situation where one of the major parties in that parliament had been excluded from that process, we would be deeply worried.

I want to put it this way, particularly to Members opposite. They may recall that on the last amendment I referred briefly and in passing to when we decided, quite rightly in my view, to remove the judges from the House of Lords to a newly created Supreme Court. One of the many factors behind the change was that European countries coming out of communist regimes were saying, when they were told by the European Union that they had create judiciaries separate from their legislatures, “But Britain doesn’t”. We were trying to create a situation where we could separate the legislature from the judiciary, but what matters now is a question that I would like the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to address, if he is going to respond to the debate. If anyone from this House is observing an election, not least in one of the eastern European countries, and they are told that the Government of the day have decided on the size of the Parliament without the permission or agreement of one of the major political parties, will they really say “Yes, that is all right. It is not a problem”? I ask this of all the Members sitting on the Benches opposite because it is very important.

20:45

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

I cannot resist. Did the noble Lord think that it was outrageous that the Labour Government decided in 1997 to remove the hereditary Peers from the House of Lords without any consultation and agreement? Of course he did not.

[Lord Soley]

I answered that question before, but in a different way. I said, and I say again, that what matters is that, if you change the constitution in a way that reduces the chances of a political party winning an election, you cannot reverse what the Government have done. Removing hereditary Peers from here did not change the opportunity for a party to win an election. It is an important difference. That is why I make the case that one has to look at constitutional Bills differently. Of course, constitutional Bills about removing hereditary Peers or judges are very important, but when you change the composition of a House, which alters the ability of a major party to win an election, that party can no longer assume that it is in a position to reverse what the previous Government have done. That makes all the difference.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has thrown in our face the deal done in 1997 or 1998 over the future of hereditary Peers. I hope that my noble friend will agree that that, surely, was a fine example of negotiation—a very delicate and complicated but very successful negotiation. I believe, indeed, that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, played a not-undistinguished part in that very successful and historic compromise. What we have this evening is a complete absence of any desire to even talk, let alone have a negotiation or a compromise. Surely that is the fundamental difference between the two situations.

[Lord Soley]

My noble friend is quite right and he has reminded me of something. I remember being in the Corridor outside when the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, had had talks with the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, or with his office, and William Hague, the then leader of the Conservative Party, had got to hear about the deal that my noble friend refers to. I happened to bump into William Hague as he came back down the Corridor having seen the noble Lord. His face was as black as thunder. I only heard a bit of what he was saying, but it certainly was not complimentary about the deal that had been done. I diverge, but the point is right. There was a negotiation.

[Lord Snape]

Will my noble friend acknowledge the courage of the Leader of the House at that time? He fell on his sword as a result of those consultations and negotiations, which the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, now denies ever took place at all.

[Lord Soley]

I must admit that I was always impressed that the noble Lord survived the experience, so I give him full marks for political survival. Let me get back to the central point, because it is critically important. When we observe elections in other countries—this was particularly true of the communist countries in eastern Europe, where a number of the communist parties had reformed themselves but still wanted to hold on to control—we see that, if you allow a Government to decide the size of a Parliament, you prevent another Government from having a chance to come in and alter it. You see it in Russia today; it is precisely what President Putin has been doing. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and David Cameron are not President Putin and the British Parliament is not the Duma or the Russian Parliament in general, but this is one of those principles that matter. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, said that principles do not matter in these things. I have to say that, on things like this, they do. They matter a lot. The feeling, rightly or wrongly, is that if one party loses out you undermine the credibility of your electoral system in a major way.

The other problem that the Government have got themselves into is that, presumably, the Liberal Democrats signed up to this 60-seat reduction on the basis of the discussions that had been going on in the Conservative Party over the previous seven or eight years, which I referred to in my earlier speech. However, there is absolutely no need to have a set number of seats. One of my noble friends made the point that you can instruct the Boundary Commission to create a number of seats within a certain range. That is much better, because it allows the commission to take into account everything from geographical to socioeconomic factors. You do not need to decide the number of seats in a precise format.

The reason why I put the range of 500 to 650 in my amendment is that I recognise that the Government have said over many years that they want to reduce the size of Parliament. I also recognise the importance of the deal politically between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Party. For them it is crucial and it is one of the reasons why we are having this big fight right now. I say again to the noble Lord, though, that I would like to compromise to some extent. Personally, I would prefer these things to be decided by all-party agreement, and I toyed with putting that in. I do not think, however, that the Government could live with that in the present climate. What they could maybe live with and recognise is that it is vital that Governments do not decide the size of Parliament.

With the amendment, I have tried to give flexibility to the Government, not only in setting up the independent body but also in deciding its timescale. I do not pretend that it would be possible for that body to come up overnight with a definition of what MPs should and should not do, but there are different ways in which this can be addressed, one of which is to say, “If we’re going to have a smaller number of MPs, what parameters should there be?”. You could do that as a starter before addressing some of the other issues.

What are the other issues? One of the most crucial, which has been totally ignored in the Bill, is that if you reduce the size of the House of Commons but do not at the same time reduce the payroll vote—those people who depend on the Government for their jobs—you immediately increase the power of the Government and decrease the power of Back-Benchers. There are fewer Back-Benchers to hold the Government to account and more Members in the pay of the Government of the day. That is not desirable. Someone else referred earlier to the professor at Essex University whose name escapes me for the moment—

[Noble Lords]

Anthony King.

[Lord Soley]

Professor King made the point that, if you reduce the number of MPs from which Ministers are drawn, you also reduce the “gene pool” for Ministers, as he described it. He said that that was quite important. I do not want to get into a detailed argument about why I am sympathetic to the idea of reducing the size of Parliament; I just want to make a couple of points in relation to it.

[Baroness Wall of New Barnet]

Would my noble friend describe for us what he means by an “independent commission”? I cannot understand why the Government would resent that and be opposed to it. My noble friend is suggesting that they would establish it and it would be independent. Can he give us some reason why he thinks that they may not want it?

[Lord Soley]

I am afraid that the only answer—this is the core of the problem that is making us do things such as debate this late at night when we could be doing other things with our lives—is, quite simply, that there is a political agreement between two parties, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, to do this regardless of the consequences or of the Opposition. That is what they are doing.

I accept that the wording of my amendment is not perfect and that the Government would have to take it away and work on it, but there is no doubt in my mind that they could appoint an independent commission to look at this and come forward with some guidance on the basic issue of the numbers.

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

What is highly relevant is that this commission would be able to examine the evidence behind what my noble friend is proposing. Is that not very important?

[Lord Soley]

It is very important and it would also allow the commission to look at what is, for me, a critical point: the principle of a Government deciding the size of Parliament without the agreement of the parties within it. That is what is so dangerous and undesirable about this proposal.

I want to extend my comments a little on the implications of the payroll vote. As I said earlier when I referred to pulling a thread on a jumper, the trouble is that when you pull at the thread of the number of parliamentarians and change it, you change other things as well. If you reduce the number, you inevitably change the power of the House to challenge the Executive. You also inevitably, as Professor King points out, reduce the pool of people from which Ministers can be drawn. However, it is possible to provide answers to those problems, although this is why I say that reducing the number is not a nice, simple option. It is perfectly possible to say that we will reduce the payroll vote in the House of Commons. You could, if there were agreement, then increase the number of Peers in the House of Lords or you could take a really radical step and increase the number of Ministers who are drawn from outside Parliament but who have to be called before Parliament. You could pursue all sorts of very radical proposals if that was what you wanted to do. The Liberal Democrats have occasionally said that they want to do things such as that. They have said that they want Ministers from outside this place who can be called in and cross-examined on the way in which they run their departments. All those things are possible, but what is not possible—

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords—

[Lord Soley]

I shall give way in just a second. What is not possible is to reduce the size of Parliament and not reduce the payroll vote without losing a lot of power for that Parliament.

[Lord Strathclyde]

What the noble Lord is saying is very interesting, but he is now speaking to Amendment 91A. Perhaps he would like to talk about this subject when we reach that amendment, rather than while we are debating this one.

[Lord Soley]

I am pleased that the noble Lord is on the ball. That is probably why he ran rings round William Hague. He is quite right, but I cannot not mention it in the context of an independent commission looking at the implications of a reduction in the size of Parliament. The other point that I want to make—

[Lord Snape]

Before my noble friend leaves that point—it is not for me to make his speech, as he is doing a more than adequate job—why does he not reply to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, by pointing out that the noble Lord, Lord Baker, who is in his place this evening, has made it quite clear why he feels that the size of the House of Commons should be reduced? It is for pure political advantage. That is what he said in his article in the Times and that is what this debate is all about.

[Lord Soley]

My noble friend is quite right, but I am seeking to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I am wooing him, if you like. He does not look as though he is being wooed, but we will keep working at it and I might even get the noble Lord, Lord Baker, on my side. I indicated earlier that, when the noble Lord made his suggestion, he knew that it should happen with all-party agreement. I think that I am also right in saying that it would have implications for the size of government.

I want to touch on another very important point. If this proposal goes through in its current form, the Government will be not just opening the door but laying out a welcome mat to any future Government of any complexion to say, “We’ve decided that this is the right size for Parliament and we are going to legislate to make it that size”. That is what is so dangerous about this measure. If it goes through in its present form without an independent assessment of some kind, all-party agreement or a Speaker’s Conference, the noble Lord will have no grounds for complaint if a future Government—

[Lord Morgan]

My Lords—

[Lord Soley]

I shall give way in just one second. The noble Lord will have no grounds for complaint if a future Government, be it a Labour Government or any other kind of Government, come forward with a proposal that, they will have worked out, will benefit them politically.

[Lord Morgan]

Does my noble friend not agree that it is very puzzling that this completely arbitrary figure has been given for Members of the legislature but that no figure has been given for the size of the Executive, even though many civil servants have made such proposals? Perhaps, in the course of his fascinating remarks, he will be able to draw out from the Leader of the House an explanation as to why one aspect has been stressed and not the other.

21:00

[Lord Soley]

My noble friend is quite right. I am waiting for that point to be answered, but, then again, there are a number of points that are not answered.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Perhaps I may marginally disagree with what my noble friend has just said. He said that a Labour Government would have to have in mind the way in which we have been treated. The reality is that a Labour Government would not do it, because we think that it is wrong and unprincipled. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, should understand that, and that is what is making us very angry.

[Lord Soley]

My noble friend is right, although I thought that I said “any future Government”, not particularly a Labour Government. Any future Government could come in and simply say, “We are going to change the size”. That goes back to the previous amendment, on which I do not want to dwell but where I quoted from Andrew Tyrie’s booklet produced for the Conservative Party and referred to things that were said by other members of the Conservative Party in the intervening period; that is, that the figure of 120 over 10 years was too many, too fast, but that 60 over five years was manageable. My noble friend intervened with a question, but the real question is: should this Government win the next election, will they then go for the other 10 per cent? It is in the booklet; it is not a secret. There was considerable discussion of that figure. The Deputy Prime Minister said that he wanted the House to be reduced by 150. It is legitimate to ask whether the Government think that it is wise even from their point of view to have a system where the Government of the day get elected, look at the size of the House of Commons and say, “Well, we could have done better if we had this number” and then legislated accordingly. If in five years they are here, fighting such a proposal late into the night, they will not be feeling as they are feeling now and going around saying, “Oh, this is a filibuster. We don’t like it”. They will say, “This is an abuse of the constitution”. Every one of them will be doing it, the Liberals more than anyone else. This is where the Liberals say one thing in one place and another in another place.

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno]

Nonsense!

[Lord Soley]

I thought that the noble Lord was agreeing with me, but I might be wrong. Let us make no bones about it: if we are going to lay out the welcome mat to any future Government, not just a Labour Government, to be able to legislate on the size of Parliament, we are breaking one of the principles that we all observe when we check international elections. We are going against what is said in the European Union, the United Nations and the Commonwealth about checking elections. We all look at that as international observers for those bodies, yet here, all of a sudden, we are saying, “No, it’s all right for the Government to legislate for the size of Parliament. It doesn’t matter at all”. Of course it matters.

This Government might think that cutting the number MPs will be popular. Up to a point, they are right, but the problem is that they are playing the role of the overly powerful Government. It is not just the Public Bodies Bill and powers which they have taken which are over the top—Henry VIII powers are used in so much legislation now. I would be the first to concede that Henry VIII powers were taken to some extent under the Labour Government, but it is happening much more now—the Public Bodies Bill is virtually a Henry VIII Bill. But it is not just that; it is also putting enough new Members in this House so that the two political parties which form the Government, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, have a near-majority over the other political party. In other words, we are in danger of breaching that constitutional principle which we have all followed for years: that no political party should have a majority over the others here. I understand fully that the Government do not have a majority over the Cross Benches and the Labour Party jointly, but they certainly come very close to having a majority over the Labour Party. That differs greatly from what happened previously.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

They have it.

[Lord Soley]

My figures may be slightly dated, but, either way, it is profoundly dangerous. I will end on this note—

[Lord Grocott]

Before my noble friend concludes, am I the only one—I am sure I am not—who can see the irony that since we started debating Part 2 of this Bill last Monday, which is basically about reducing the number of Members of Parliament by 50, during just that week 14 new Members have been introduced into Parliament—into this House? Can he explain the rationale of that situation?

[Lord Soley]

It is what I call over-powerful government again. Again I point out what Andrew Tyrie said. I am not attacking Andrew Tyrie. There are things I think he got wrong in that document, particularly about the figures of representation in other countries. However, it is a well written document and well argued. One of the other things that might make my noble friend sleep less soundly at night—assuming he gets to sleep any night in the near future—is that Andrew Tyrie actually said that the MPs who are displaced by this reduction in size should be given peerages, so we will have even more coming in here. It would be quite nice if the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, answers this and says that will not automatically happen, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it might.

[Baroness Wall of New Barnet]

I have sat, like many other people, for many hours and have only just decided to contribute. There are several reasons that have been given by noble Lords on this side of the House why this is absolutely unacceptable. For me the most moving and convincing argument was that of my noble friend Lord Boateng, who talked about the role we play when we are asked to go out to Governments who are being formed as democracies. The Governments we belong to have always prided ourselves on being absolutely the epitome of governance and everything else. How do we ever accept the opportunity to go and guide and help those people when we have this situation ourselves now?

[Lord Soley]

My noble friend is making a point I made with very great emphasis right at the beginning of my comments. It is important to understand that we will be doing something radically different from everything we tell other countries to do. We look at elections overseas with the various bodies we work through—the United Nations, the European Union, the Commonwealth and so on—but we will be doing something we are telling other countries not to do. There are no ifs and buts about that.

[Lord Garel-Jones]

Like me, the noble Lord spent a bit of time in the other place. Like me, no doubt he can recognise a filibuster when he sees one. Can I please invite him to consider the danger under which he is placing this House in standing up against the expressed will of the other place by a substantial majority, and in masquerading and taking advantage of the customs of this House whereby we do not enjoy the facilities that are enjoyed in the other place precisely to bring to a conclusion boring filibusters of this kind?

[Lord Soley]

I am sorry to hear the noble Lord say that. He is so wrong and so misled on it. I have not in any way filibustered at all. The Committee has sat for nine days. I have made 13 speeches, none of them more than 15 minutes. I have made 19 interventions in nine days. Is that a filibuster? I am asking the noble Lord. Of course it is not. If he thinks that, he has a very strange definition of a filibuster.

[Lord Garel-Jones]

The noble Lord must be very aware from his experience in the other place many moons ago that there it would have been proposed that the question be now put.

[Lord Soley]

On a constitutional matter of this importance in this Chamber? What makes the difference is that this Chamber safeguards the constitution against abuse in the other Chamber at times. If the noble Lord does not understand that, he does not know why he has been here. Maybe he ought to think that perhaps he should not have come here if he takes the view that we ought to just roll over and have our bellies tickled every time the House of Commons says so. It is not like that at all and I think it is sad that someone of his experience should actually say that. This is a matter of considerable importance. It really is. If he is complaining that it has become party political, he needs to take on board that it has been made party political by a Government who have decided to do what other Governments are not allowed to do under all the systems we observe when checking elections—to change the size of a Parliament to suit their own political ends. That is what makes this different, and that is what makes it party political.

I shall end with a quote from Vince Cable, who put it very well.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

Before my noble friend concludes his valuable and very interesting remarks, would he care to remind the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, that until very recent years it was unthinkable that constitutional legislation would have been timetabled and programmed in the House of Commons. This really is an abuse. Since it has happened, it is only in this House that it is possible to give adequate scrutiny to this legislation. Does my noble friend recall that, in the House of Commons proceedings on this Bill, Clauses 3 to 6 on very important matters—the conduct of the referendum, combining polls and the rules about media coverage—along with Clause 11 that we are now debating, on the number and distribution of seats, were entirely undiscussed in the other place, in Committee and on Report? My noble friend is absolutely right to treat these important matters at some length and searchingly as he is.

[Lord Soley]

That is right. It is not just Labour Members in the other place but Conservative Members too who wrote to us asking us to cover these matters in our debates in the House of Lords, because they were not covered in the House of Commons as they should be.

I end with a quote from Vince Cable, who, in an eavesdropped conversation—and in my view the journalists have something to answer for, but it is out so it must be said—stated that there was a real danger of the Government becoming Maoist in their tendencies. That is right. There is a foolish rush of power—perhaps of power to the head—which is driving them forward.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Soley, for giving way. I perfectly understand the legitimacy of arguments about the proper way in which one should reduce or not reduce the number of MPs. Where I do not follow him—and what seems an illegitimate argument—is for him to say, as he has said a number of times, that this is being done as a gerrymander, in effect. I put it to him that there is no evidence for that. What is the purpose of the Boundary Commission if it is not to ensure that any change in constituencies is fairly effected?

[Lord Soley]

Nobody has moved the word “gerrymandering”, myself included. But let us be very clear what was being said, and not just in Andrew Tyrie’s document. He says that the current numbers are unfair as they overrepresent the Labour Party and that the Conservative Party is underrepresented. He does not use those last words, but it is there throughout. In a number of the speeches, comments and articles written in newspapers, which I have going back over that period, it is repeated on numerous occasions by Conservatives that the Labour Party has too many seats. What he is basing that on—although I do not want to go over my last speech—is the number of the electors. But of course it rules out the underregistration problem and the social and economic factors that we referred to, so it is not appropriate. What matters is that with those figures, he has worked out, quite rightly—although I know there are arguments about this—that the Conservatives would win more of those seats. The argument gets a big convoluted if you put in the alternative vote, when it becomes more difficult to predict. But there is not much doubt that in the mind of the Conservative Party since 2004 there has been the view that the Labour Party has too many seats in Parliament and that the Tory Party should have more.

[Lord Tyler]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Soley. Uncharacteristically, he seems not to have been attending to all these debates. If he had been listening, he would have heard the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, making it quite clear from the democratic audit analysis of the potential effects of the proposals in the Bill that there is no substantial increase in advantage for the Conservative Party. Indeed, I have to say that there is some disadvantage to my own party. In all fairness, I should have thought he would recognise that. It is the most legitimate, careful analysis of the potential impact of this Bill.

[Lord Soley]

I said a number of times, as I did in my last speech, that I am not sure whether the Tory Party would gain as much as it thinks, but it clearly thinks that it is going to gain. They are saying it over and over again. Does he deny there is evidence of that? It is also in the speeches. David Cameron said in 2009, “We are unfairly treated”, so what is he saying? Do your Lordships think that he really has not asked his party workers to work it out? Of course he has.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

Surely, even if were not to turn out that way, the very process raises the question. It will be a tainted process and people will suspect it as such.

[Lord Soley]

The point I made earlier is that if a major party is left out of the arrangements for deciding the size of the legislature, there will be trouble. I give way to my noble friend, who has great experience of this sort of thing.

[Lord Wills]

I am grateful to my noble friend. I wanted to suggest that he might direct the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, who asked for evidence of the partisan nature of this legislation, to the website of Mr Mark Field—a prominent Member of the other place on the Conservative Benches—where he made it explicitly clear. I think that this is still up there; it was a few days ago. It says quite clearly that the party managers in the other place were going around seeking support for this legislation precisely because it would be to their partisan advantage.

[Lord Soley]

There is no doubt that that is how most people in the Conservative Party view it. I shall simply sit down on this point; the Government have made a fatal flaw. They are trying to decide the size of a Parliament without the agreement of the major parties. No other modern democracy would do that. All the bodies that we are part of, which oversee elections in countries emerging from dictatorships, look for that problem, identify it and point it out. The Government have also not looked at the other factor which I have referred to: the size of the payroll vote. They had something in here which said that they would reduce the size of the payroll vote. I know that we will come to that later. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will vote for it. He has obviously noticed it and clearly recognised its importance. It may be that I can tempt him into the Lobby on that one; who knows?

This is so important, not some stupid idea of: “Well, just filibuster for the hell of it”. I do not want to go back to what we did in the other place, staying overnight. I have far better things to do, frankly, with the remaining years of my life than to stay up night after night. But if a Government change the size of a Parliament without all-party agreement, they are driving a coach and horses through all the agreements that exists between parties in this place. They therefore cannot and must not assume that we will not fight it, because they would fight it if we did to them. If we did come back—and, as my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours says, I hope that we will not—with a figure in the House of Commons that suited us, do not tell me that they would not all be lined up on the other side doing everything that they could to prevent it. I beg to move this amendment.

[The Lord Speaker (Baroness Hayman)]

I have to inform the Committee that if Amendment 59 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 60 to 63ZA for reasons of pre-emption.

[Lord Lipsey]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 60, which is a companion amendment to that moved by the noble Lord, Lord Soley. Before I go into the substance of the argument, perhaps I could make an offer—I must say that this is without any permission from my Front Bench—to the party opposite. We will happily stop accusing you of gerrymandering if you stop accusing us of filibustering. I heard the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Soley. It was all material and to the point. If I was filibustering, I would have been extraordinarily grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, who unfortunately is not still in his place—I expect he thinks that he has made his point—for prolonging the debate. Yet I was not grateful for it because it seemed to do what we all want to avoid doing: to turn this into a party political argy-bargy instead of being, as it should be, a proper scrutiny of the Bill before this House of Parliament.

In the interests of proceeding reasonably rapidly, I shall not go over again the arguments that my noble friend Lord Soley put so well for an independent look at this. My remarks are devoted more to the case for that being done by a Speaker’s Conference. A range of views have been expressed on the substantive issues of whether we should stick with 650—my conservative noble and learned friend Lord Falconer has strongly argued that case; or whether we should reduce the number—the reductionists include the noble Lord, Lord Maples, and my noble friend Lord Rooker; or should, like me, sit on the fence but say that there are arguments against a reduction. I am bound to say that I did not find the Minister’s response to the earlier debate terribly convincing on why the number should be 650. He did not say the figure was plucked out of the air because he is too shrewd an operator to do so, but it did not sound very different from being plucked out of the air to me. I am therefore taking as made the case for independent inquiry, and I will detain the House only to make the case that that should be by a Speaker’s Conference and not, for example, by a royal commission, an independent inquiry headed by a judge or whatever.

The main reason that I think it should be by a Speaker’s Conference is that this is essentially a matter for parliamentarians. I say “parliamentarians” because I should want this House to be represented on any such Speaker’s Conference. This is not because it is Members of another place who are going to be most adversely affected by what is being proposed. That is an issue—they have trade union rights, if you like—but that is not a good reason why they should be involved. The first reason that they should be involved is that they are the most knowledgeable about the issues involved. They may not all agree, but they have the experience of representing their constituents and existing in the House of Commons to weigh the arguments. There are arguments for a reduction; there is no doubt about it. It is difficult, for example, to get to speak in a debate in the Commons now. It is important that they should be weighing those arguments with the issue of which they have more knowledge than anybody else, which is whether the workload can be coped with by the average MP with the current level of staffing or even an increased level of staffing. They would bring that wisdom to bear, and we need it.

The second reason for thinking that a Speaker’s Conference is right is that however wise the verdict, if it does not attract political consensus, it will not be right and it will not necessarily stick. It is important that we achieve such a consensus, and it is important that all parties are agreed on it. A Speaker’s Conference could achieve this. The coalition should be very sympathetic to this line of argument because the figure we have came about not because either one of the two parties involved was committed to it but because they sat down together and this was the figure they came up with. Widening the consensus to embrace all parties would seem to be an argument that should appeal to the coalition. It seems to me that those are the two fundamental cases for a Speaker’s Conference.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I wonder whether my noble friend heard me arguing earlier for some flexibility for the Boundary Commission. Would it not also be possible for the Speaker’s Conference to recommend a range so that it should be between figure x and figure y to give a little bit of flexibility to the Boundary Commission? Is that not another advantage of his proposal?

[Lord Lipsey]

That would be a possible outcome of a Speaker’s Conference. It might also decide that the way to deal with the particular problem that he is advancing is by increasing the tolerance allowed in the size of constituencies, and that is a matter to which this House will return.

In order to have a look at whether a Speaker’s Conference is the right way forward, I devoted a happy Sunday to examining the records of past Speaker’s Conferences. Funnily enough, that is not as easy a task as you might think, partly because there is no agreement on how many Speaker’s Conferences there are. I started off with British Political Facts, which is the bible on all these matters, and it said six, but I then found a speech made by Jack Straw in another place—Official Report, Commons, 12/3/98; col. 781—in which he listed two Speaker’s Conferences not listed by British Political Facts in 1908-10 and 1930. There is also the ambiguous case of the 1919 Speaker’s Conference on devolution, which was chaired by Mr Speaker Lowther, and nobody seems to be able decide whether it was a Speaker’s Conference. Let me confine myself to the six Speaker’s Conferences that everybody agrees on and the progress that they made.

There was the Speaker’s Conference on electoral reform of 1917, which is my favourite. It not only advocated extending votes to women but—prize of prizes for the Lib Dems—it recommended STV. This, alas, was subsequently voted down by seven votes in the House of Commons. There was a Speaker’s Conference on electoral reform in 1943-44, which dealt, for example, with Welsh representation. The 1944 Speaker’s Conference was notable, incidentally, for including three Peers of the realm. It set out lasting principles for redistribution and directions to the Boundary Commission, which endured well. Sixty of 71 quite controversial recommendations by the 1965-68 conference on electoral law and procedure, under Mr Speaker Hylton-Foster, were accepted.

The 1973-74 Speaker’s Conference was under Mr Speaker Selwyn Lloyd. I am sorry the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, is not present because I believe he sat on that as an MP, as did the noble Lord, Lord Pendry. That brought about an increase in election expenses, which otherwise would not have come about, for the February 1974 election. There was the 1977-78 Speaker’s Conference, under Mr Speaker Thomas, on Northern Ireland representation. I see my noble friend Lord Radice is with us evening but the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, who also sat on that conference, is not present. That managed to solve the question of increased representation for Northern Ireland, although not everyone got everything they hoped for out of that. Then there was Gordon Brown’s Speaker’s Conference on electoral turnout and women and ethnic minorities in Parliament. It is not a flawless record but it is a considerable one, covering some of the most difficult problems that have faced this country’s constitution.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

Does the conference on the future of home rule, which took place in the summer of 1914 at Buckingham Palace, and was certainly presided over by the Speaker, not count as a Speaker’s Conference?

[Lord Lipsey]

I do not know whether it should but it does not count in Mr Straw’s list or in British Political Facts. If my noble friend wishes to inform the House further about that, I am sure it would be immensely valuable to our proceedings this evening.

[Lord Morgan]

I think the difference is between a conference convened by the party leaders, which they ask the Speaker to chair, and a conference that the Speaker is a dynamic element in arranging.

[Lord Lipsey]

I defer absolutely to my noble friend. Indeed, I was quailing in my seat at the thought of the intervention he might make, which might have sent me back to the classroom on this matter.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

On the Speaker’s Conferences, I genuinely am ignorant about this one question. To what extent was there a clear remit to each of these Speaker’s Conferences? From this debate, it is rather important that there should be flexibility and that a number of principles should be put to the Speaker’s Conference to decide. Has it been the practice to give a very broad remit or to set out in extenso the various principles on which the Speaker’s Conference should decide? Since my noble friend has devoted all of one Sunday to the study of this subject, I am sure he can enlighten us.

[Lord Lipsey]

Noble Lords will find that a range of experiences are set out in a Speaker’s Conference Standard Note, House of Commons document, SN/PC/04426, which has in it most of the knowledge that I have tried to impart. In some ways we should learn from the shortcomings of past Speaker’s Conferences in setting up this new one. They have tended to be rather big, often having 27 members. Not all of them have included Members of this House. For very good reasons I am sure that this time we would want to include Members of this House this time. In particular—this deals with the point that the Government might make against them—this one will need a speedy timetable as it is no part of the purpose of this side of the House to delay a decision or to make it impossible to introduce these changes for the next general election, if that is the desire of Parliament. Indeed, it would speed the passage of this bit of the legislation through this House if there was such a speedy conference. I really do not think this issue is so complicated that two or three months of hard work would not get us a good verdict which would enable the whole process to go forward on a sound basis of consensus, and therefore to endure.

The Government have rushed us into a bad place and now they are complaining that we are rushing willingly into that place. The figure they have come up with may be right, but if it is right it is by sheer fluke, not by plan or consideration. This House, of the parliamentary Houses, stands for a reasoned approach to public policy, and in particular to public policy on our constitution. I therefore commend this amendment to the House.

21:30

[Lord Morgan]

My Lords, I support the amendment admirably moved by my noble friend. This is my first intervention in discussing this measure. I do so partly because late at night one has an opportunity to make a speech without being shouted down by mass of numbers and because the constitutional issues raised are so enormously important. The proposal for a Speaker’s Conference is very serious and admirable as it gives an opportunity for objective measured reflection, which is manifestly something we are not having through the procedures chosen by the Government to get this measure through. There has been much debate on this and I have heard many noble friends on these Benches correctly say that Parliament has not had a proper opportunity to deliberate on the principles of this Bill. I say, never mind Parliament, the electors have not had a proper opportunity to do so. That is one of the extraordinary anomalies of this case, which was not put together in a manifesto. The Liberal Democrats gave a quite different number for the membership of this House. The Conservatives prudently did not give any number at all. It was not in the manifesto. It was not actually even in the substitute for the manifesto, which in itself was a constitutional anomaly, the coalition agreement, which was not put before the electors but was put before the people in that rather small room who put the present Government together. Some issues are not even in the coalition agreement, which I understand did not produce the figure of 600. This has simply emerged out of the ether and is therefore not to be found in any document, written or unwritten, other than the Bill we are discussing.

A Speaker’s Conference would also provide objective reflection on this portmanteau Bill of policies yoked together haphazardly, as the coalition parties were yoked together. As we have heard so frequently, it is at variance with constitutional tradition whereby major changes have been deliberated over at very great length and with great care. The Bill is being rushed through not because of the constitutional needs of good government in this country but because of the nature of the relationships between the Liberal Democrat leaders and the Conservative Party leaders which affect the date of the referendum for their own, no doubt, proper purposes. This is simply a matter of private deals, not of constitutional necessity.

One of the things that a Speaker’s Conference would most certainly do is what Speaker’s Conferences have previously done, and that includes the very important principle of localism and local identity, which is being swamped in this Bill. Incidentally, if I might add to my noble friend’s admirable historical disquisition on this—I was sorry to interrupt him—the Speaker’s Conference of 1919, which he passed over rather rapidly, dealt very specifically with localism and regionalism and was a conference, incidentally, where the issue of Welsh home rule came up quite strongly. One of the ironies is that the proposals for Wales are likely to make Welsh home rule rather more likely—and they are the work of the party of the union—because of the way in which Wales is being treated.

Speaker’s Conferences have looked at a variety of criteria for assessing whether constituencies should exist, where they should be drawn, their geographical, economic and cultural aspects, and so on. They have used historical identity and the relationship with local government. None of these subtleties are being looked at in detail in the Bill. On the contrary, we have simply a crude mathematical formula. That is not the way that change has been done in this country.

We have heard in previous debates about the Chartists, who called for equal electoral districts. However, the Chartists, in that pre-railway age, had a very strong sense of localism and historic identity. Chartism was an amalgam, a coalition, of dispossessed people in different parts of the country. The Chartists were very aware that a variety of localities were represented in the country’s political system—or that they should have been. They were not objecting to the disparities; they were saying that Old Sarum was deemed to be a community, even though nobody lived there—it was just a lump of ground owned by someone. Other constituencies are equal in historical aberrations. Manchester is a community. Sheffield is a community. Liverpool, Hull and Birmingham are communities. That was the kind of consideration that the Chartists tried to bring.

The Speaker’s Conference on Wales, as my noble friend Lord Lipsey said, considered very carefully the nature of localism there. Like me, my noble friend who lives there is aware of the subtleties of localism, geography, historic identity and historic relationships in Wales. If I may digress, I am aware of that because my mother and father came from two Welsh-speaking areas three miles apart, but their Welshness and their language were totally different. They were divided by the River Dovey. I grew up not bilingual, but trilingual, because I spoke in my father’s Welsh and my mother’s Welsh, as well as trying to struggle along in the English language, which I am still trying to master after the passage of years. I am doing my best.

It is extremely important that these subtleties should be looked at by a judicious body, chaired by the Speaker, with a variety of legal and historical evidence adduced. No evidence at all has been adduced, as the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, said, for the figure of 600 Members of Parliament. That is just a figure, worth no less and no more than any other figure. There is plenty of evidence that the size of the House of Commons is not out of line with that of other Assemblies in the European Union or in North America. Some of those other countries have, in any case, federal systems, such as those in Germany and Spain. Therefore, the comparison is totally meaningless.

It is disturbing that the Bill, with little opportunity for consideration and reflection, not merely decides arbitrarily without evidence, but sets up a yardstick for future determination. Once you have started with this kind of system, it will continue, and its inevitable logic is that the representation of the House of Commons will go down and not up. Therefore, we need to take a careful, considered view of these matters, which are important not just for our constitution but for our historic identity.

I will say one final thing. The Speaker’s Conference of 1944 was an admirable, careful and thorough study of the geographical, sociological and other aspects of the distribution of constituencies. There was quite a lot going on in 1944. A total war was being fought and the resources of this country were strained to the limit. Nevertheless, the Speaker's Conference held its deliberations carefully and at length. It was typical of Winston Churchill, who showed great loyalty to parliamentarism, that he endorsed the work of the Speaker's Conference in 1944. If we had time in 1944 for a proper, considered look at the distinction between national and local considerations, we have time for it now, instead of this botched and rushed procedure.

[Baroness Wall of New Barnet]

I have listened very carefully to my noble friend. There was a lot of history that I found very interesting. What struck me most was the issue of localism. I find very confusing the position of the Government. They say that they are all about the big society and that people will decide locally what schools they would like and how their hospitals are run. Local issues are presented by the Government as the way forward. My noble friend mentioned that it was fundamental in the conference that local issues were taken into account. However, this seems totally unacceptable to the current Government. Perhaps my noble friend can elicit from the Government why that is the case.

[Lord Morgan]

I am most indebted for that very interesting intervention by my noble friend. Very often those who claim to be localisers are actually centralisers. No Government rolled forward the frontiers of the state more than that of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, in the 1980s. Hers was one of the most centralist Governments in our history. The present Government claim to advocate localism. Mr Pickles says that he advocates localism and the big society. He does that by telling councils what their policies should be on lighting, on the emptying of bins, on the number of local employees, on the stipends of local government officers and so on.

Localism is shot through the history of this country. It is an honoured tradition of the Liberal Party, which was pluralist. Lloyd George spoke of assizes of the people being set up in different parts of Britain. He was a radical liberal and I hope that his spirit still has resonance in the ranks of his mutated successors. The Labour Party used to claim that, but it lost its way. In the era of Keir Hardie and George Lansbury, Labour was committed to localism and local government. It then became a party of centralisers. That was one reason why it lost the last election and why the Conservatives’ spurious claims to be localisers made some headway. I was very pleased on Saturday to hear Ed Miliband reclaim localism for the Labour Party.

The Conservatives used to be a localist party. They used to claim as their patron saint Edmund Burke, who saw localism and varieties of identities and localities as the key to what he called prescription: the evolutionary historical character of a nation.

[Baroness O'Cathain]

I always love listening to the noble Lord, Lord Morgan. I have been to some of his lectures and there is no historian like him. Perhaps I may ask him a simple question. What has all that to do with this amendment?

21:45

[Lord Morgan]

First, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her great kindness. Secondly, I was endeavouring to say that the Speaker’s Conference and any rational detached look at the electoral system would introduce the issue of localities. That is what I was trying to say and, if I did not say it very clearly, I apologise. It is essential to segregate local and national identities. Edmund Burke said it and I say it.

[Lord Winston]

My noble friend cites 1944. Would he like to opine on whether he feels that Parliament was held in greater respect then and whether that is relevant to how it is regarded now?

[Lord Morgan]

The answer is clearly yes. If you look at the material of the Army Bureau of Current Affairs in 1944, you find that, when people were asked why they were fighting, they said that they were fighting for Parliament and the Crown in Parliament. That was in the literature. It spelt out, among other things, the imperishable doctrines of the Levellers, who were seen as pioneers of a democratic Parliament.

I am sorry if I did not make it clear, but I think that a Speaker’s Conference would introduce a subtle variety of criteria on the basis of constituencies. You would then conclude the total appropriate number for the House. This should be done in a detached, careful and scholarly way. I hope that even though the present Government are trying to destroy history with their higher education policy, with so little room for history, they will look at the way in which these matters are decided—any way other than this, which seems to me a botched non-compromise and a disgrace to democracy.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I rise with some trepidation because I am going to disagree with my noble friend Lord Lipsey and, I am afraid with my noble friend, the very eminent professor, who has just spoken. Instead, I would prefer to support the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Soley, which calls for the number of constituencies to be decided by an independent commission. I hope that the reasons for that will become clear.

It is probably agreed—perhaps not by the Leader of the House, but by everyone else—that we do not know the right number for the other place. Your Lordships will probably not remember, but in one of our earliest debates—it may have been on Second Reading—my noble friend Lord Dubs made from a seated position perhaps the most effective intervention when he mimed plucking from the air how that figure of 600 was arrived at. He claimed that that got him more fame than all his speeches, but I am not certain about that.

I am less interested in the question that has taken so much of the Committee’s time of how that figure of 600 was reached than by how any number should be reached. That is why I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Soley. Incidentally, he may not know it, but in a book that I have just been reading by Jonathan Powell he is described, as he was at the time, as one of the sanest MPs. He has now been transferred into one of the sanest of our noble Lords—hence the amendment.

What is of interest to citizens—not us, the political class, if I can put us all into the same category, including even the Cross-Benchers, who as legislators would be deemed to be in the political class—on whose behalf we are all here, for whom we work, to whom we owe our legitimacy, to whom surely we have some duty of care and attention and who are the basis of our motivation in everything that we do, should be uppermost in our minds in this debate. For many years I represented the consumers of various goods and services on a variety of bodies and was in negotiations with suppliers from big business and small business, in the public sector as well as in the private sector. I learnt enormously from those whom I was supposedly there to help but who unfailingly taught me much.

I think that we should be thinking of some of the things that I learnt about how consumers, citizens, users and, yes, voters see and relate to those who take decisions on their behalf or whose decisions affect their lives, as we debate. Those people want to know: who decided what? When did they decide it? Where did they decide it? Why did they decide it? Those people ask, “Were we consulted? Were we warned about it? Were we thought about in advance?”. They often asked me whether those decisions respected their interests and their needs. Perhaps most importantly, they would say: “How can I get my voice heard by those people who take decisions that affect me?”.

That is why, historically, trade unions were formed: to give workers some say. It is why user groups are formed, whether of people who use libraries, parent groups, or car groups—all sorts of groups where people who share an interest want to get a voice. What bigger issue is there than how people can get their voice heard by Members of Parliament, who take decisions that affect them or can influence decisions taken by others that affect them?

How constituencies are put together and how many there are should perhaps not be decided at all by the political class, which is why I have to differ with the view that there should be a Speaker’s Conference. I think that the decision on the number should be taken by an independent group hearing from local people as to how they can best relate to their Member of Parliament, who will vote on the big issues here in SW1 but who will also use their influence and interventions over numerous issues—be they planning, hospitals, education, local government services, housing or private issues, such as complaints against a provider.

[Lord Morgan]

I have enormous sympathy with the spirit of what my noble friend is saying, but the point is that a Speaker’s Conference would only recommend; it would not decide. The decision would be taken by people very similar to those whom my noble friend discussed.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

It is the decision-making that I am interested in, but it seems to me that we need an independent committee that can go out to hear those views before it makes its recommendations. We need to decide how many electors can effectively be represented by a Member in the other place and not how many electors an MP can represent. Let us look at it the other way round: how many electors can effectively be represented by a Member of the other place? That means talking to those voters and asking them how they see the need for such direct communication with their representative, how they want to feel represented and how they want to be consulted.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

I think that my noble friend is arguing both for an independent group and for a Speaker’s Conference, because either, in their different ways, could achieve her aim. A Speaker’s Conference could commission public opinion surveys and would have the benefit of having Members of Parliament who could give the view from the front line. That would have a more valuable conclusion. I do not see why my noble friend is arguing against a Speaker’s Conference, which could do very much as she is suggesting.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

If I may say so, I think that that is the voice of the trade union of former Members of the other House, as opposed to those of us who have never been there.

[Lord Morgan]

I have never been there.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

Indeed, my noble friend, the most eminent professor, has never been there.

My view is that this should be a matter for the electors; their views should have a big say. It may be that these two amendments can come together to meet the essence of what we both want. I am trying to stress that this decision should not be taken by the political class; it should be taken after hearing from voters, citizens and those who will become voters how they think they can best be represented. How will people want to relate to their elected Members? Will it be by phone and e-mail? Will it be in person, one to one, or will it be through groups? I am not on Facebook, but people increasingly want their views to be heard through groups and texting, along with others of a similar position.

That may result in all sorts of needs for the size of the House, because it may be better to go, as I think was said on the Benches opposite earlier, for big constituencies, rather like the old Euro constituencies, which were the size of nine of our current constituencies. It was clear to electors that that was not where they should take local issues and that they should go to their councillors, or that they should take just big policy issues to Members of Parliament. I am not certain whether that is the right or the wrong answer. Perhaps we should have smaller constituencies, so that people can meet their representatives more. The needs of the electors should be uppermost in our minds, or in the minds of those who take these decisions, in relation to the number of seats and, therefore, the relationship that Members can have with their electors.

The same applies to the personal issues or issues of policy that electors have. Again, it may be that people will much more want to gather together, whether they have an interest in the environment, historic buildings, health or education. They may want to be grouped much more when talking about policy. Surely these issues need serious debate, rather than a quick and easy decision.

I do not know what the right number should be but, from my work with the consumers and users of any service, I know that they want to be asked, to be consulted and to be involved in those decisions before the decision is taken. That is why I support my noble friend Lord Soley in calling for an independent commission to work on this, to do real work with voters and to think about those sorts of issues. Then we might get an answer that is accepted by the whole electorate and provides for a House of Commons that really reflects the will of the people.

[Lord Goldsmith]

My Lords, I too support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Soley. It is a hugely important issue—I am troubled that there is some appearance on the other side of the House that it is not—for two reasons. First, it is hugely important for this country how our people are represented. The number of Members of Parliament, for all the reasons that have been described previously, is very important. It is also important for the reason put by my noble friend Lord Soley, and mentioned by my noble friend Lady Wall; namely, the example that we set to the rest of the world.

Other Members of this House have the experience, as the noble Lord, Lord Soley, spoke about, of the Council of Europe talking to other countries and helping them to build their democracies and their systems. I have that experience, through a slightly different route, through the work that I have done across the world involved with human rights organisations and lawyers’ organisations. I ask myself this question: if they said to me, “Why have you reduced the number of Members of Parliament? What was the reason for it? What was the rationale? How did you arrive at the number?”, at the moment I can do no better than refer to the answer given to the Select Committee on the Constitution, on which I have the honour to serve.

When we pressed the Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform, Mr Mark Harper, with the question, “Why have you chosen 600?”, he could not answer. He told us that it was not a horse trade and that he did not think that it would qualitatively affect the representation of people in this country. But he could not tell us where the number came from. He ended by saying, and here I quote from paragraph 28 of our report:

“I am not going to pretend that there is a magic science to all this”.

I have been listening to cross-examinations all my life, so when someone says that there is no “magic science” to something, what they mean is that there is no science at all. There is no basis for this figure. I cannot explain to people across the world why Britain, the cradle of democracy, has chosen this number. They will know that people have accused the Government of looking to find a way of reducing the number of seats for the party in opposition if I cannot even explain the Government’s own view.

The merit of both the amendments, although I support the amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Soley rather than that of my noble friend Lord Lipsey, is that they do two things. They propose a rational way of deciding what the right number should be and they provide it in a way that is either independent or at least non-partisan. Both have the merit that after the event people cannot say, as has been said in this House, that this is being done just in order to favour one party rather than another. I do not want to be part of a democracy, with the tradition we have, where that is what is said about us.

22:01

What is the process that is reached? I understand entirely that the Bill, so far as the referendum is concerned, is necessary for the coalition agreement. I have no difficulty personally with that part of the Bill going forward within the timeframe I know the Government want. That is understandable. What I do not understand is why there is a rush to change the number of Members of Parliament without even a degree of rational assessment of what the right numbers are and without considering the evidence.

I want to refer to one of the issues that has been raised, and unlike the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, I think it is absolutely a part of this debate on this amendment, and not just for subsequent amendments. I speak of the issues that have been raised, for example, of not just knowing what the people want, or not understanding localism because those issues can be looked at properly through some form of independent assessment. I would not object to a Speaker’s Conference, although an independent commission may be better. The key part is the two things which the Government have not done, but which must be done. The first is a rational assessment of the numbers, and the second is at least a degree of non-partisan agreement about that, or better still, independent assessment.

I turn to the issue that the Leader of the House said, when my noble friend Lord Soley was moving his amendment, was not really for this amendment: the relationship between the Executive and the number of Members of Parliament. I understand it because I was a member of the payroll vote for quite a long time.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, we are dealing with that under Amendment 91 later on. I look forward very much to hearing what the noble and learned Lord has to say when we get to it.

[Lord Goldsmith]

I am afraid that the noble Lord is going to have to listen to me about it now. I have explained to him why I want to speak.

[Lord Strathclyde]

There is a fundamental regulation in this House that we speak to the amendments that have been moved. I have respectfully pointed out to the noble and learned Lord that the amendment to which he wishes to speak will, I am sure, be moved later on. That is when we should discuss it. He should stick to the rules of the House.

[Lord Goldsmith]

I am absolutely sticking to the rules of the House because what both of these amendments propose is an assessment rationally based on evidence as to what the numbers should be. It is impossible, in my view, to answer that question without knowing what the relationship between the Executive and the legislature is going to be. Let me remind the noble Lord and members of the party opposite of what was said by the Deputy Prime Minister in explaining the rationale of the constitutional reform being put forward. One of the things he said was this:

“It is an unambiguous judgment on our part that reducing the power of the executive, seeking to boost the power of the legislature, making the legislature more accountable to the people … collectively introduces the mechanisms by which people can exercise greater control over politicians”.

These are good and fine thoughts, but how do you unambiguously reduce the power of the Executive or seek to boost the power of the legislature if you reduce the number of Back-Bench MPs and do not proportionately or in some other way reduce the membership of the Executive?

It may be that it is not right, as the later amendment proposes, to do that simply on a proportionate basis, but in the Constitution Committee we asked both the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister, Mr Mark Harper, about the relationship between the Executive and Back Benchers after these reforms. I remind noble Lords what they both said—it is in paragraph 32 of the seventh report of the Select Committee on the Constitution:

“The Deputy Prime Minister recognised that ‘There is a strong argument that says that you must look at this and adapt the number of people who are on the government payroll so that you do not get a lopsided imbalance between those on the payroll and those holding them to account’”.

He is quite right. When is that going to happen? He said: “I totally accept that”, but it is not happening in the Bill. Unless the Leader of the House is going to surprise us by accepting the amendment later—I strongly suspect that he is not going to do anything of the sort—it is not going to happen in the Bill.

The Minister was asked the same question. He also accepted that,

“there is a problem that needs to be dealt with”,

but argued that the Bill is not the right vehicle to do it. What I say, and I care about constitutional reform—sadly, lawyers do—is that this House is being asked to accept, and indeed the country is being asked to accept, a change in the balance between the Executive and Back-Benchers, purportedly in the context of a programme which argues for a reduction in the power of the Executive in circumstances where we do not know what the end result will be.

[Lord Martin of Springburn]

On the power of the Executive, I accept the noble and learned Lord’s case that we have to reduce the Executive, but will he accept that when that reduction takes place those who are left should respect the constitution of this country and that the first people to be informed of any ministerial change should be the Members on the Floor of the House of Commons? I am not putting him, as a former Minister of the Crown, in this category, but there were Cabinet Ministers and junior Ministers who could not wait to get into a television studio, but would not come to the Floor of the House. That is why Urgent Questions were accepted. Complaints would come from the then Opposition about this practice, and now I see that the roles are reversed. We are back to square one and there are Ministers who love going to the media, but are not prepared to come to the Floor of the House. The Executive should always be prepared to get on to the Floor of the House.

[Lord Goldsmith]

I entirely agree with the noble Lord and I apologise for not realising that he wanted to intervene. The point that he makes is that part of the point of the relationship between the Executive and the legislature—the Executive and Back-Benchers—is precisely that Back-Benchers and Parliament as a whole can keep Ministers to account. If you get an imbalance, where the Executive stays the same but the number of Back-Benchers reduces by 10 per cent or thereabouts, that ability for accountability disappears.

I come back to the question raised by the Leader of the House—why is this relevant to this amendment? It is relevant to this amendment—to both amendments—because both talk about the need for assessing on a rational basis what the right position should be. I do not see, given how important is the relationship between the Executive and the rest of the legislature, how we can address the issue without dealing with the number of Back-Benchers compared to the size of the Executive. An independent commission could look at the question and make recommendation; so, indeed, no doubt, could a Speaker’s Conference. Either of the amendments has the benefit of that assessment.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

Does my noble and learned friend accept that, when he talks about the members of the Executive as a whole, he should include not only the Government, but also Parliamentary Private Secretaries, the numbers of whom have proliferated and who feel themselves equally to be within the big tent of government?

[Lord Goldsmith]

My noble friend Lord Anderson is right about that, which is one of the issues that needs to be dealt with.

On the essential principle, these two amendments raise the critical question: do we have to rush to judgment about the number of MPs, and how should that number be reached? I am going to listen with great interest to what the Minister says—perhaps he will come up with a better answer than the one that the Select Committee on the Constitution of your Lordships’ House was given—but at the moment there is no answer as to why, in those circumstances, the number should not be determined independently, or at least on a non-partisan basis, by rational judgment and by evidence. The case for that, in my view, is overwhelming.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of the spirit of Amendments 59 and 60.

First, though, the suggestion has been made more than once in the past few hours that it is wrong in some way for this House to be concerned with matters that affect the membership of the House of Commons and how those Members should be elected. That, in my respectful submission, is an utterly absurd view. Parliament is one and indivisible. Whether we like it or not, we are wholly responsible as one of the Houses of Parliament—technically, the senior House, although that is not so in practice vis-à-vis the elected House—and we have a duty. That trusteeship means that we cannot avoid scrutinising in the greatest detail anything that affects the future of Parliament as a whole.

Having said that, I believe that, as has been spelt out clearly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, both amendments have this in common: they are a cri de coeur for a grave and weighty constitutional problem to be decided on the basis not of a stab in the dark nor of instinctive feelings—no matter how genuine those feelings are—but of evidence.

The noble Lord, Lord Morgan, with whose speech I completely concurred, in a very scholarly dissemination of the problem—as one would expect from a distinguished historian—put the matter clearly in the context of history, whereas the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, put the matter in the context of law. As one who has spent most of his time in the courts, in one way or another, I ask myself this question: if a grave and weighty decision is to be arrived at by any tribunal, how can that tribunal decide other than on the basis of cogent evidence and on the basis of questions such as what construction and weight should be placed upon that evidence and what conclusions and inferences should be drawn therefrom?

The argument that was put forward—with great respect, I think that I do no disservice to the noble Lord the Leader of the House nor, indeed, to the noble Lords, Lord Baker and Lord Tyler—was this: “We know exactly what the parties think about this and what they have said in their various manifestos, so there is no need to look any further”. That misses the point completely. There is every need to look further because we all have deep instinctive feelings, probably genuine and sincerely held, but they are nevertheless no more than feelings and instincts and are not based on evidence. Whether that evidence is gathered in the way that Amendments 59 or 60 suggest or in some other way, provided that it is gathered by an authoritative, independent and well qualified body, our duty in the situation will have been met.

There are two duties in ensuring that Parliament can decide. As the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, has said, the matter should be determined not by the Speaker’s Conference or by any other conference but by Parliament. First, Parliament must be able to arrive at an informed decision on the basis of the facts—indeed, the facts may well be in dispute, and Parliament will have to select which facts it accepts and which it does not. Secondly—this is equally important—the people of this country should understand why it was that their legislators came to that decision.

22:15

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, my noble friends Lord Soley and Lord Lipsey have done a great service to the House by bringing forward their two amendments this evening. I think that they have also done rather a good service to the Government, although I am not sure that the Government realise it yet, because they may have provided a way out of this situation that would enable the Government to get substantially what they want with the general consent of the Committee.

I am trying to act according to what I think should be the principles of the House of Lords—that is, in good faith, with good will and with a genuine openness to compromise. I think that those are important values, particularly in a Second Chamber, or revising Chamber, as this House is. Therefore, I say straight away in that spirit, and at the risk of shocking some of my noble friends, that I accept that the Government have a democratic mandate to reduce the size of the House of Commons. Unfortunately, the Tory party and the Liberal Democrats won the election. Both parties had in their manifestos a commitment to reduce the size of the House of Commons and that must constitute a democratic mandate. We do not necessarily like that—some of us dislike it less than others—but I think that in all honesty we have to accept that.

However, what the coalition parties sure as hell do not have is a mandate to reduce the number of MPs in the House of Commons to 600. A different figure was given in the two manifestos. The coalition parties can change their mind, as I hope we are all allowed to do, but the fact is that the mandate does not cover the number; it covers the principle. Therefore, by definition, the number must be open to debate and discussion. It is totally legitimate for us to go into that debate and discussion to see whether we can find either the ideal number—which, for reasons that I shall explain, I do not think we can or will find—or an alternative mechanism for ending up with the right solution. That is clearly what we must do.

On this side of the House, we should be honest enough to recognise that the Government have a mandate to reduce the size of the Commons, and the Government should be honest enough to recognise that they do not have a mandate for a specific figure and that, therefore, the debate on the figure must remain open. The Government have already changed their mind about the number and, as I said, they have a perfect right to do so, but perhaps they will change their mind again in the light of the debate that is taking place. That would not be in any way humiliating for the Government; it would be very sensible and democratic for them to listen to the debate and then come to a more mature conclusion.

Again, I may find that I am in disagreement with some of my noble friends on this side of the House, but I am not, and never have been, against the principle of reducing the number of MPs in the House of Commons. I do not feel particularly strongly about the figure of 650, although I think that we would all accept that there must be a limit to the size of the reduction that can responsibly take place.

I enjoyed what I considered to be an important contribution to the debate by the noble Lord, Lord Maples, although I am sorry that he is not in his seat at the moment. However, I disagreed with him very strongly when he said, “Well, it’s all right if Members of Parliament have more people to deal with—more constituents, more electors and a greater population, whether registered or not registered—in their constituency, because they can use their staff to look after them”. Having served in the House of Commons for 33 years, perhaps I may say to the Committee that I do not think that that is a good argument. Of course, I had staff—I had very good staff—and I used them to deal with constituency cases, to verify the facts, to look at possible solutions and ways forward, and of course to follow up cases, which is always a very important aspect of a constituency MP’s work.

I also used my staff to draft letters, but I always signed them myself, and I always made sure that I knew the considered advice that I was giving my constituents. It was always I who sent a letter to the authority, local authority, Minister or quango, or whoever I needed to contact to try to resolve the question. It is extremely important that Members of Parliament continue to take direct personal responsibility for that kind of action—responsibility both to the constituent who has appealed to him or her and to the organisation or perhaps colleagues in government to whom one appeals on behalf of the constituent.

I am absolutely horrified at—as has been referred to already in the Committee this evening—the habit of Congressmen in the United States, who allow their staff to draft letters and send them using an automatic signature machine so that it looks as though the Congressman has reviewed the case when he has not. That is deeply shocking. I would be appalled if that habit came into this country. However, if you talk to Congressmen, you begin to understand, because they typically have 250,000 or 300,000 electors, which is far more than anyone here is proposing.

There must be a dividing line somewhere. For most of the time that I was in the House of Commons, I had a constituency that came close to having 75,000 electors, so I would not be shocked by that figure—if the Government had wanted to make it 77,000, I am sure that I could have coped with that, too. However, there is a limit, and we should be aware of the trade-off between having a more cohesive House of Commons, with fewer people there, and being able to offer a personal service to, and have a direct relationship with, those who send Members of Parliament to Westminster, which is such an important part of our democracy.

We have to look at how we achieve that solution and trade-off and how we optimise or reconcile those two different considerations. It is extremely doubtful that this or the other House could ever come to a resolution on that; we would never be completely happy with such a solution. There is no perfect, idealised, atomic number somewhere in the air that, if only we were clever enough, we could identify. The only practicable solution for achieving a majority of a particular number in this House or the other place would be for the Government to take up that number and push it through via the Whipping system. That would be highly undesirable.

I shall not accuse the Government of gerrymandering, as I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, would be a willing party to that. I am sorry that the gerrymandering issue has arisen, but I have to tell the Government in all honesty that any Government who at any time start directly to determine things such as the number of Members of Parliament will open themselves to suspicions of gerrymandering. That is very dangerous. Gerrymandering is like corruption. It is so awful and so damaging to the legitimacy of our—or any other—democracy that not only should we not get involved in it but we should conduct ourselves in such a way that there is not the slightest suspicion that we might be getting involved in something of that kind. That means that we have to take the determination of the number away from the Floor of this House and the other place.

My noble friends Lord Lipsey and Lord Soley have produced alternative solutions—very much for the reasons put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, so I need not repeat them. I prefer the solution of my noble friend Lord Soley. I tell him now that, if he is minded to press Amendment 59 to the vote, I shall be happy to follow him into the Lobby. In other words, it is far better to allow the Boundary Commission or some independent body to determine exactly what the number should be.

[Lord Renton of Mount Harry]

It surprises me that the noble Lord and others have said that an independent commission should decide on the right new number for MPs. What makes anyone think that we would agree with the result of an independent commission? We would surely disagree for one reason or another. For that reason, I firmly think that it is right for a majority in the Commons to decide on what the number should be, as they did by a vote of 321 ayes to 264 noes, because they are in a far more rightful place in history to make that decision than any commission will ever be.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I disagree with the noble Lord. I am quite surprised to hear him advance that position, because I know him well and believe him to be a man who believes not only that we should be guided by the political wisdom of the past, by history and by tradition but that we should not ignore that past and should be very cautious in doing violence to the traditions that have served us so well in British parliamentary democracy for so long. I know that there are many other contexts in which the noble Lord would be entirely with me.

We have heard figures given this evening—I do not remember them entirely—for the way in which numbers in the House of Commons have varied during the past 100 years. That has been a reflection of the Boundary Commission’s decisions, not of decisions taken by the House of Commons or this House to go for a specific number. Those variations have been a consequence of decisions made by the Boundary Commission when it has conducted its responsibilities, as it regularly does every decade or so, to look again parliamentary boundaries in this country.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

There is another example. The Liberal Democrats will remember it very well; we had arguments about it in the last Parliament. It is the Electoral Commission. There were many times when the Liberal Democrats objected to our objections to aspects of Electoral Commission reports and recommendations, so there is a tradition of accepting independent body judgments when it comes to issues of elections and boundaries.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I am grateful for my noble friend’s support. That, indeed, is the right answer to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. In practice we have accepted these decisions. Part of the consensus on which British politics has been based is that we do not interfere with the Boundary Commission. We let it get on with its job, and we respect its decisions and its independence. It is deeply conscious of its responsibility in the light of the trust placed in it by Parliament and the public. When it has concluded its work, we accept the umpire’s decision. That is in the best British tradition, if I may say so.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

Is not the problem with what the noble Lord, Lord Renton is saying that he is arguing that the majority in the other place should be sufficient for the time being? That majority might change after an election. I can imagine the roars of disapproval at that new majority if we in opposition became the majority, and the roars of opposition from the other side. After a change of government, we would have as much legitimacy in changing the numbers as the current majority has if there were no interposition of some independent body, whether it be a Speaker’s Conference or some other form of independent commission.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I very much hear what my noble friend says. Of course, he has said similar things in the debate this evening, and he said them very well. I repeat that I was saddened and surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Renton, take the line that he took. I know he is very conscious of the history of this country and the history of the world. He just has to look at the history of other European countries over the past 100 years to see the terrible things that arise when Governments allow themselves to use a momentary parliamentary majority to change the rules of the game and change the constitution of the country. That is a very dangerous road to go down. If you compare the degree of legitimacy, public support and stability that we have enjoyed in this country for centuries with some of the histories of countries whose parliaments have not had that sense of moderation, limit and self denial in the exploitation of the momentary majority, I think you conclude that we have been very blessed by those traditions. It would be a very sad day if we were to overthrow those traditions and go down the road which the Government appear to be leading us tonight.

[Lord Kinnock]

On that point, does the noble Lord not agree that at this juncture we need an independent commission to assess and recommend the effective size, given the objective realities of parliamentary service and representation? We need an independent commission to provide advice that would be accepted consensually, as, under the terms of this Bill, the Boundary Commission, which has provided us for 61 years with a fundamental protection against any suspicion of gerrymandering, is to be railroaded and provided with parameters for its operation. Whatever else happens, it must conclude with recommendations that result in a House of Commons of 600 Members. Given the inexact nature of that, and given the absence of science or the absence of objective rationale supporting the figure of 600, is not an independent commission of wise people a fundamental essential?

22:30

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I wholeheartedly agree with my noble friend. The most succinct way in which to put this issue is as follows. The Boundary Commission, charged with its very delicate task, as we know from debates this evening and from our own experience of determining a fair pattern of electoral districts and constituencies in this country, has to manage three variables. They include acceptability, which is very important and which means the degree to which the parliamentary constituency boundaries correspond to local people’s feelings of self-identity and community and perhaps how much they coincide with local government boundaries and boundaries involving other health authorities, travel to work areas and economic and social factors of that kind.

That acceptability has always been a major consideration in the mind of the Boundary Commission, which has always made great efforts to ensure that its recommendations are accepted as far as possible. That is part of making a democracy legitimate and accepted and therefore work happily, and that is why the commission has always placed great emphasis on the opportunity to have public inquiries on its recommendations. It has not run away from that at all. As I am sure the Leader of the House will remind me if I go on any further, that is a subject of further amendments, so we will have other opportunities to discuss that very important matter. The Boundary Commission has always recognised that acceptability is a very important aspect of their work.

The second issue is the extent of the uniformity of numbers. The Boundary Commission has always felt that, other things being equal, it was always desirable that constituencies should have the same numbers. Other things are not always equal, and so it has often made recommendations that do not involve very equal numbers in constituencies. Nevertheless, that has always been a principle at which it wanted to aim.

There is a third criterion, which the Government are introducing now—the actual number of seats that emerge. We all know that there is a trade-off between these things, and that if you have greater acceptability you will have greater variation in numbers because the commission will be more elastic in accommodating local susceptibilities, but at the expense of having some constituencies that have different numbers of electors than other constituencies. Equally, if you enforce a particular ceiling such as 600, you very much restrict the ability of the commission to achieve either of the other two purposes—uniformity of numbers or acceptability. There are three variables, and there is a trade-off between the three. That is inevitable; any system that you had would involve a trade-off between the three. The question is whether you honestly recognise those trade-offs or whether you do not.

My own view is that of these three criteria, two are recognisable general principles. Acceptability is a general principle. It is something that we can all say is right in theory and principle. We want to aim towards it; it is part of the good in our constitution, not part of the bad or dysfunctional. Equally, it is very desirable that we should as far as possible have constituencies of equal numbers, so that everyone has the same weight in terms of their representation in Parliament. Again, that is a general principle. It is part of the good in a constitution, not part of the bad or the dysfunctional. I put it to the Committee that a particular number is not a general principle. Six hundred or 650 is not a general principle, and neither is 525 or 535—whatever the Liberal number was. These are just pragmatics and incidentals. They are the result, or should be, of achieving the optimum trade-off or reconciliation between the two general principles.

My noble friends Lord Soley and Lord Lipsey have actually helped the Government, because they have provided a way by which they could achieve what the Government really want—what all of us really want: a system that is as acceptable as possible and that as far as possible involves constituencies of equal numbers. We could do it by leaving it to the Boundary Commission to come, as it always did, to the consequential conclusion as to what numbers of seats should emerge. If necessary—and I agree with my noble friend Lord Soley here—we could set an absolute maximum and give it some parameters. Fine; I would not object to that, as long as the parameters are wide enough for it to do its job without undue distortion and thereby to achieve, as far as possible, the implementation of those general principles to which all of us in this House must ultimately attach the greatest weight and importance.

[Lord McAvoy]

I wish to speak to my noble friend Lord Soley’s amendment, but before doing so I shall briefly draw attention to the comments made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones—he is, unfortunately, not in his place. The noble Lord comes down from the mountains bearing great prophecies of doom because of alleged filibustering on this side of the House. Before I start on the detail of the amendment, perhaps I might give some detail from an answer obtained from the House of Lords Library by my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark on the time spent on Bills in the last Parliament between May 2005 and April 2010. The Marine and Coastal Access Bill had 19 days, the Coroners and Justice Bill had 16 days, the Identity Cards Bill had 16 days, and the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill had 15 days. It really is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, is not here—

[Lord Strathclyde]

Can the noble Lord tell us—

[Lord McAvoy]

Are we bringing House of Commons habits here?

[Lord Strathclyde]

Perhaps the noble Lord can tell us how many of those were Bills of 18 clauses.

[Lord McAvoy]

I cannot say off the top of my head, so I give that one immediately to the noble Lord. The point is that there are 300 pages here on the second part of the Bill, which is constitutional. Surely that must be recognised. That brings me to the point. Now I am being subjected to House of Commons tactics and bullying. I thought that I had escaped all that, but I will try to survive. Let us get to the context, which is that this is a constitutional Bill. I have mentioned this before but I still have a slight sense of disorientation, because when I came here I was told that this was a place of revising—a place where you take your time to study things, make points and get on with things—and that the conventions were there.

Let me say right away—and I can speak only for myself—that the difficulty I have found is that I have come through here at a time of great constitutional upheaval because of this Bill. The normal conventions have not been applied and are still not being applied because the Government are riding roughshod over that process, which is causing problems. Many Members opposite, and, I think, Cross-Bench colleagues, have made the point that people have not been obeying conventions. I have reviewed my conduct and watched what I have been saying and doing. That pressure is not allowing people like me to learn to adapt to the normal pace of events in your Lordships’ House.

In reviewing how I have conducted myself, I have certainly modified my behaviour because I do not intervene now on Ministers or on other Members, because I know full well and have realised that it is counterproductive. It does not work and the House does not like it. I have had to learn that in a compressed sense of rivalry and animosity, in many ways, particularly because the Government are riding roughshod over the House of Lords on a constitutional Bill. That is the only thing that I recognise.

An independent commission would certainly be far better than what we are getting now. I have a lot of time for my noble friend’s amendment, but it seems not to be accepted because I find that there is an element, especially from the Liberals, of, “We are the masters now”. It is like Hartley Shawcross after the Second World War. We now have an illiberal, authoritarian streak not from Conservative Ministers but from Liberal Ministers and Liberal Back-Benchers who are being dictatorial in their approach to any opposition. Before Liberal Lords fall about laughing too much, I remind them that Mr Adrian Sanders has called Danny Alexander a cuckoo in the nest because he is more Tory than the Tories now, so let them laugh at that as well.

Look at where we are. This is illiberal and authoritarian. I take the point of view that consensus, which has always been my way, is the best way forward, especially on constitutional and electoral matters. I shall give an example of why there should be consensus, and I think an independent commission would have a better chance of getting consensus. It is what happened in the Scottish devolution negotiations between the Labour Party and the Liberal Party. I very much regret the absence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, because he was a beneficiary of that consensus. Orkney and Shetland got two places; Orkney got one place in the Scottish Parliament and Shetland got another. Between them, they have about 33,000 voters. I went along with that consensus because it is a way of trying to get agreement. You look at situations, and there is good will there. I will tell your Lordships' House that there is very little good will and consensus for the Liberals in my heart, especially after the deal that they have got there. If the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, wants to defend his Liberal colleagues—

[Lord Strathclyde]

Does the noble Lord think it would have helped the distribution of seats in the Scottish Parliament if there had been an independent commission or indeed a Speaker’s Conference on it?

[Lord McAvoy]

With the benefit of hindsight, yes, I think it would—if the noble Baroness allows me to answer because I am having a conversation here. We are reviewing the legislation and discussing, which is what I always thought the House of Lords was supposed to be like. With the benefit of hindsight, I think that would have been better because, quite frankly, my late right honourable friend Donald Dewar made a deal with the then Jim Wallace, but we have lived to see the same people who were beneficiaries of that consensus and that deal taking a completely hard line and an authoritarian attitude towards people who have got problems with their constituencies.

I have an amendment for a later stage, and I will be interested to know why Orkney and Shetland is a reserved constituency compared to my old constituency of Rutherglen. The Scottish Parliament negotiations are a clear example of why an independent commission should go ahead. Take the Isle of Wight, for instance. I think that an independent commission would give great weight to the Isle of Wight case. We have had appeals from Mr Andrew Turner, the Member of Parliament for the Isle of Wight, and a consensual letter from all the political figures in the Isle of Wight Council. That is very impressive: consensus works. I think an independent commission would have a better chance, and it would certainly look free.

I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Davies of Stamford. I do not think anybody seriously thinks that there are corrupt people sitting on the Front Bench over there who have corrupted the boundaries. I do not think that. If I thought it, I would say it, but I do not think it. However, matters like this have to be not only pure but seen to be pure, and I do not think that is the case when you get political interference with the political composition of the House of Lords. I am very conscious. I have said what I have got to say. I have said what I wanted to say. I am glad the noble—the mocking and the abuse and the verbal talk when people are supposed to be speaking is nothing less than bullying and intimidation and it really should stop. I am not used to it. [Laughter.] Well, perhaps I should say that I am not used to receiving it.

[Lord Rennard]

Perhaps the noble Lord is an expert in intimidation from his experience as a Whip in the other place. I have just been doing a little maths on this subject, and I think this is now the 19th day that Parliament has debated this Bill. There have been 19 days so far. When the noble Lord was a Whip in the other place on the then Labour Government’s Constitutional Reform Act 2005, a total of 56 hours, 45 minutes was spent deliberating on that Bill.

22:45

[Lord McAvoy]

I did not realise how busy I was in the other place. I am impressed that the noble Lord has an impression of my workload there. I do not agree with the grounds for saying that what we are doing on this Bill is not correct and proper, although I agree that there are grounds for saying that we are talking too much. However, this side of the House is subjecting the Bill to scrutiny; that side of the House is not.

[Lord Radice]

My Lords, I support the proposition put forward by my noble friend Lord Lipsey, although I also think there is a lot of merit in the proposal of my noble friend Lord Soley. I am attracted by the idea of a Speaker’s Conference, partly because I sat on one. I am not sure that many Members of this House have been on one. I was a very junior Member of the House of Commons when I served on the Speaker’s Conference of 1977-78 under Speaker Thomas. It was set up to consider and make recommendations on the number of parliamentary constituencies that there should be in Northern Ireland. It had a cross-party membership. For the Conservatives there was Sir David Renton and the late Ian Gow. The Ulster Unionists were represented by Enoch Powell and Mr James Molyneaux—now the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux. The Liberals were represented by Clement Freud. I have not mentioned the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, who was also there for the Conservatives.

It carried out its deliberations very quickly. It took written representations. Nine papers were received from political parties and six from individuals. You can have far more than that but that is what we had. It was a contentious issue that we had to solve. We took oral evidence from the Registrar-General of Births and Deaths in Northern Ireland. The key issue was the population increase in Northern Ireland, which justified further seats for Northern Ireland. This had been resisted by different Governments. We also received evidence from the deputy chairman and secretary of the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland and the Lord President of the Council.

We had eight meetings and resolved, by 18 votes to four, that there should be an increase in the number of parliamentary constituencies in Northern Ireland, and by 22 votes to one that the figure should be 17. We also decided—this is a matter of interest—that the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland should be given a degree of flexibility to overcome any practical difficulties. We then agreed, by 22 votes to one, to the final recommendation that the number of parliamentary constituencies in Northern Ireland should be 17, but that the Boundary Commission should be given power to vary that number, subject to a minimum of 16 and a maximum of 18.

[Lord Trimble]

I congratulate the noble Lord and the Speaker’s Conference on the deliberations that he mentioned. However, it arrived at a result that coincided exactly with that which had been agreed as a political deal between Jim Molyneaux and the Labour Government before it was set up.

[Lord Radice]

Yes, that may well be so but it was a sensible way of proceeding on a very controversial issue—more seats for Northern Ireland. However, it produced a result that, if it was not supported by all the parties in Northern Ireland, certainly had the backing of all the major parties in the Commons. That is precisely my point: it produced consensus, which is what the Government have not achieved with the present Bill. I recommend the idea of a Speaker’s Conference or the commission, as suggested by my noble friend who is sitting next to me, as a better way forward if the Government want to achieve consensus. It may well be better for them in the long run if they achieve that consensus.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Soley proposes that the number of constituencies for the future should be determined by an independent commission and the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Lipsey prefers that the recommendation should be made to Parliament by a Speaker’s Conference. I do not think that the difference between these two manners of proceeding is necessarily very great. Indeed, an independent commission could turn out to be a Speaker’s Conference. However, I prefer the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Lipsey because my noble friend Lord Soley has thrown into his amendment a stipulation that the number of constituencies to be determined by the independent commission should not in any case exceed 650. If we examine the arguments on whether there should be more or fewer Members of Parliament, there is a strong case not for reducing the numbers of Members of Parliament but for increasing them. But whichever device were to be adopted, both of these modes of proceeding are designed to be reasonable, to gather evidence, to enable all concerned to work towards consensus and for their conclusions to be perceived to be unimpeachable. That last point is extremely important.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, in responding to the earlier debate—he did so entirely admirably—defended a case that is very difficult to defend. He reminded us that in the approach to the previous general election both the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrat Party signalled their view that there should be a smaller House of Commons. He suggested that there was therefore a mandate, but, of course, no mandate for a smaller House of Commons was provided by the electorate because neither the Conservative Party nor the Liberal Democrat Party won the election. Certainly, the coalition agreement has no status as a mandate at all. Of course, there needs to be a coalition agreement and of course this House treats with the greatest seriousness what the coalition agreement has put forward for the country, but this House is not intimidated by the coalition agreement, nor does it consider that it has some special quality.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, was of the view that in the end the size of the future House of Commons had to be a question of judgment. That is possibly so but, as the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, reminded us, when you are making a judgment it is your responsibility to make it on the best basis of evidence and of reasoning. Moreover, it is essential that the judgment is perceived to be disinterested. That is where the Government are in some political difficulty as they wax indignant at any suggestion that they are tilting the system in the political interests of one party or another. I will not impugn their sincerity in that matter but their political problem is in part that there is a perception that they are not objective in this matter. Irrespective of whether an independent commission or a Speaker’s Conference were involved, at least the matter would proceed reasonably, whereas the proposition that we have before us in the Bill—that the House of Commons should in future consist of 600 Members of Parliament—is not really even a product of judgment but of an opportunist wheeze.

The Prime Minister was of the view that Members of Parliament were unpopular and that there was a large deficit, which needed to be reduced. It occurred to him and his advisers that it would be a good wheeze to propose to the people that we should therefore have fewer Members of Parliament. That is the kind of opportunistic gimmick that political parties devise and resort to to get them through their relations with the media for a day, but it should be forgotten just as quickly as that.

You need a better basis for determining the appropriate size of the House of Commons. You have to start by looking at what those who elect Members of the House of Commons expect and, indeed, require them to do. Above all, they expect them to debate the great issues of the day, to scrutinise legislation and the propositions of the Government and to hold the Government to account. It is very important that there should be enough Members of Parliament who are not members of the Executive and not Parliamentary Private Secretaries on the payroll vote to be able to hold those independent debates. Such Members will take the Whip and they will have their party loyalties, but when push comes to shove those who elected them expect them to exercise a certain independence that is rightly not permitted to members of the Executive.

I was very interested in and listened very carefully to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn. Any of us must listen carefully to the views of a former Speaker of the other place. He favoured a reduction in the number of Members of Parliament on the basis that it might make for better debate, because he recognised that there is a problem for Members of the other place in getting into debates and having the opportunities to speak as often as they would no doubt like. That is true and relates to the procedures that the other place, in its wisdom, has developed over many years. It is interesting that Members of your Lordships’ House, who are more numerous and every day becoming significantly more numerous than Members of the House of Commons, can all individually get into debates when they wish. Indeed, there will be ample opportunity this very evening for noble Lords on the other side of the House to expound their views at length on this extremely important legislation. No Member of your Lordships’ House can say that they do not get the opportunity to contribute to debates. Therefore, it is just possible that the other place, in considering its procedures, might consider how it is that this House, which is more numerous, enables everyone to participate.

My noble friends Lord Soley and Lord Rooker were both of the view that it would be better if the size of the House of Commons were to be reduced. My view is that the House of Commons has great difficulty in performing all the functions that the citizens of this country want of it. It is getting more difficult as more and more Ministers are appointed. We are told that we have to look forward to there being more frequent coalition Governments—heaven forefend, but that is what is anticipated by quite a lot of people. We have seen that, when a coalition Government are formed, there have to be jobs for lots of the boys and girls in each of the parties that form the coalition. We now have an Administration in the House of Commons who have more Ministers than any other Administration have ever had. We are going to need more Back-Benchers who will still have an independent voice of their own.

[Lord Elton]

Can the noble Lord refresh my memory? I thought that the number of Ministers in the House of Commons was regulated by statute.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

The noble Lord will find that, one way or another, Members of the Administration, including Parliamentary Under-Secretaries and Whips, have become even more numerous than they used to be.

[Lord Myners]

Perhaps I may suggest to your Lordships’ House that the number of Ministers receiving salaries is limited by statute, not the number of Ministers.

23:00

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

But even before we saw this unfortunate growth in the size of the Administration, it was commonplace that the House Commons had great difficulty in examining all the legislation that came before it with the care that everyone would wish. For example, the Commons found it very difficult to find the time to scrutinise European legislation with any adequacy. It is an important part of the history of government in this country that over several recent decades there has been a vast increase in the quantity of secondary legislation—statutory instruments—which the House of Commons is entirely unable to scrutinise as much as would be desirable.

Legislative committees, which used to be known as Standing Committees, are set up ad hoc to scrutinise pieces of legislation, but so difficult is it for very busy Members of the other place to give their detailed attention to Bills that these are now routinely programmed. Members of your Lordships’ House will also wryly acknowledge that important pieces of legislation such as this one come through to us without having been exhaustively examined in Committee in the other place.

Separate from the scrutiny of legislation is the work of Select Committees. Departmental Select Committees did not exist before 1979. They are a source of great pride to the other place and to us all, but it is not disrespectful to the other place to note that attendance at Select Committees is less complete than perhaps it should be and that, because Members of the other place are legitimately very busy on a host of matters, sometimes one has the possibly erroneous impression that not all those participating in the work of a Select Committee have entirely mastered the papers before them.

The Public Administration Select Committee, chaired in recent years with enormous distinction by Mr Tony Wright, has persuaded not only the other place but the Executive that there should be greater independence for Select Committees. That raises hopes for the future work of Select Committees. It raises expectations about the amount and quality of the work that they will do. That is a large responsibility that falls on the other place and it may need more rather than fewer Members of Parliament to do full justice to it.

Party committees are a very valuable presence in the life of the other place because they enable the Executive and the Back Benches to explain themselves to each other. However, these meetings take time and, again, their attendance is not always as full as might be ideal. There are also all-party committees that come and go. All noble Lords have a view on whether it is necessarily a good thing that there are quite as many all-party committees as there are at any given moment. However, the best of them have enormous value. I will mention, for example, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Disablement, in which the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, when he was a Member of the other place as well as when he became a Member of your Lordships’ House, played an outstandingly distinguished part. I see the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, in his place opposite. When he was the Member for Daventry in the other place, he inaugurated the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Archives, in which I, too, had the pleasure to serve. It is a very valuable committee, which brings together from all sides of both Houses Members of Parliament who have a particular interest and some expertise in a topic and, through the work of the committee, are able to relate to professional interest groups and others outside. This is extremely important in the representative work of both Houses of Parliament and very important for ensuring that there is a depth of knowledge on a range of specialised topics.

I mention also the All-Party Parliamentary Archaeology Group, which I have been involved with. I promise the House that I will not recite the entire list of all-party groups, tempting though it may be. The noble Lord, Lord Allan, when he was a Member of Parliament—I think it was for Sheffield Hallam—was a distinguished, active and expert member of that group. That is important. However, the reality is that it is very difficult for all-party groups to get a sufficient number of Members in the other place to take a full part in their meetings because there are not enough colleagues to carry out all the work that needs to be done. I could mention the all-party groups that are necessary to enable the House to function, such as the House of Commons Commission, for example, which has to be staffed and served. There is also the Speaker’s Panel. The enormous volume of legislation, particularly from the coalition, that is churning through Parliament creates a lot of demand. There is the international work of the other place. For some years, I was a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee. We have an important job to do on behalf of the Parliament of this country.

[Lord Elton]

My Lords—

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

I know that the noble Lord is going to remind me of the Companion, and quite right, too. That is one of his valuable sentinel roles in this House. Is that right?

[Lord Elton]

I did not quite catch what the noble Lord asked, but would he accept that we have a general idea that there are a lot of committees in the House of Commons which have a lot of things to do. The noble Lord thinks that there should be more people to do it. He has made his point; we have got it.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

I am infinitely obliged to the noble Lord. He is always rigorous and helpful to the House in exactly that respect.

[Lord Winston]

There is an important issue and I do not know whether my noble friend has addressed it. With the impending reform of the House of Lords, we may lose much expertise. For example, in my area of science and medicine, we may lose a great deal of expertise. Reducing the number of people in the House of Commons who may have that expertise, particularly scientists who might wish to stand for election, would be a grave problem.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

I very much agree with my noble friend. What he says on this subject is bound to carry weight on all sides of the House. We have a scientifically illiterate democracy, but the position has improved somewhat in recent years in that we have seen more people elected to the other place with a scientific background. There has been some improvement in the capacity of the other place to debate issues of science and technology, but it must be self-evident to anyone reflecting on it that this is extremely important. If there is a deficiency in the number of Members of Parliament who are versed in science and technology and able to maintain an adequate debate in this extraordinarily important realm, that must be a worry.

The noble Lord, Lord Elton, has anticipated my point that if we reduce the size of the House of Commons it will be a lot more difficult for all those necessary functions to be carried out. My final point is that the House of Commons has also to furnish members of the Executive. That means that any comparison with legislatures in a presidential system or one in which the Executive are appointed from outside the ranks of the legislature is nonsensical.

I hasten to draw my remarks to a conclusion because I know that the House is keen to make progress. I could have said much more, but we will see how the debate develops as the evening wears on. It may be that I will have the opportunity to make some additional remarks, but for the time being I rest my case.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Strathclyde]

Noble Lords have complained for some time that there has been no contribution from this side of the House. I have heard nothing new said by noble Lords opposite over the course of the past four or five speakers, so I wonder whether it would be helpful to the House if I gave an authoritative view from the Front Bench as to my thoughts on the amendment. I am utterly clear as to the views of noble Lords opposite on the amendment, so I will now give a comprehensive reply.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the House intervened to ask whether that would be helpful to the House. I have a sense on this side of the House that a considerable number of Members want to speak. The normal way that we deal with it here is that the Minister responds, but not conclusively. I think that it would be best if we heard from this side of the House, and if then noble Lord the Leader responded, because that is the normal way that we do it.

[Lord Strathclyde]

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for telling us how we normally do business. It is not normal for us to spend two and a half hours on an amendment—this one—and to have spent three hours on the previous amendment. If we are talking about normality, I rather wish that this whole debate had been conducted in a more normal way—

[Lord Wills]

My Lords—

[Lord Strathclyde]

May I finish this point? I said that I have not heard anything new. I have no promise that anything new is to be said, so would it not help, rather than noble Lords opposite continually saying the same old thing, if I now gave a view on the amendments?

[Lord Wills]

To that very point, I have been trying to get in to speak to contribute something new to the debate, which is something of which the noble Lord will not be aware. That was my experience of dealing specifically with these issues and the process for dealing with them when I was the Minister responsible for them. He will not have known this, because obviously, it is a convention that the previous Government’s dealings are not passed to the new Government, so this would be new. I wonder whether he would allow me to share that information with the House before he commences his remarks.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I think that there the sense that we should go on for a bit. Some noble Lords opposite are shaking their heads; there is a very strong sense from behind me that we should go on—the norm should be followed.

[Lord Strathclyde]

Perhaps I should not have given way to the noble Lord, Lord Wills.

This has been a great debate. I can tell the House—

[Lord Wills]

My Lords—

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

My Lords—

[Lord Strathclyde]

No, I am no longer giving way. I have the Floor and I am not giving way to the noble and learned Lord. We cannot carry on if the noble and learned Lord will not give way. I was asked to give way; I will not give way to the noble and learned Lord. He can speak after I have spoken, when I give way to him.

The Committee will be interested to know that, a few hours ago we passed a landmark where we in this House have spent twice the number of hours in Committee on the Bill as they did in another place, and we still have not completed the Committee stage. The House of Commons debated the Bill for five full days in Committee, and a further two days for Report and Third Reading. Moreover, the Government made use of their ability to programme business to ensure that debate at Report was focused on the provisions which were given relatively less scrutiny in Committee, including what are now Clauses 8 and 11, which were previously Clauses 6 and 9 respectively. So to those noble Lords who said that these issues have not been debated, that is not quite the case.

What we have seen tonight is worth while and instructive to anyone from outside coming to see how the House of Lords now does its business. This is the last hurrah of the dinosaurs in the Labour Party seeking to defend the status quo. All of them wish to see a House of Commons with 650 Members, completely denying that people want fewer politicians. If there has been one growth industry in the past 13 years, it has been in the number of politicians. They have more in Scotland and Wales, they wanted regional government in London, and now they do not want to see a reduction in the number of Members of the House of Commons.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

In the light of is condemnation of extra politicians, why have this Government made so many new Peers?

[Lord Strathclyde]

That is rich coming from the noble and learned Lord, who was one of Tony Blair’s closest advisers. Tony Blair made more Peers more quickly than any Prime Minister ever, including Lloyd George

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

We did not seek to reduce the size of the House of Commons on the basis that there were too many politicians. At least we were not hypocritical.

23:15

[Lord Strathclyde]

Absolutely, there was no hypocrisy. The noble and learned Lord has to wait only a few more weeks to see the draft Bill that the Deputy Prime Minister will publish on this Government’s views on the future of your Lordships’ House. These amendments say that this House, or this Parliament, is not capable of deciding for itself the number of Members of the House of Commons. They also would lead to the boundary reviews not being in place in time for the next election, which is of course what I know noble Lords opposite really want.

Perhaps we have got it wrong. Let us suppose that people up and down the country think, “You know, we can’t just get by with 600 Members of Parliament, we need 650”. I assume that that will be the Labour Party’s policy going into the next general election. It may be that the electorate decide to support the Labour Party in that view, but at the last election, in our manifesto, we said that there should be a reduction. We struck a coalition agreement to say that there should be a reduction and we are now producing it as part of the new politics.

[Lord Touhig]

Does the noble Lord also think that the British people might be somewhat sceptical about putting 400 more paid politicians in this House?

[Lord Strathclyde]

I have got no idea from where the noble Lord gets his figure of 400. But of course he is one of the new politicians in this House. If he did not want to come here and he thought that it was wrong, he could always have turned it down, which one or two have.

[Lord Touhig]

Forgive me if I have not made myself clear: I was referring to 400 more elected paid politicians, which is the view of the Liberal Democrats, his partners.

[Lord Strathclyde]

The figure remains to be seen. I very much look forward to the lengthy debate that we will have. There was a curious sense coming from noble Lords opposite. Some thought that there should be a Speaker’s Conference to make this decision. Some thought that it should be an independent group which had nothing to do with politicians, as if politicians can make all sorts of great decisions about the future of this country, such as on going to war or taxation, but cannot be trusted to decide how many Members should sit in another place. It is the most extraordinary proposition and it is one, frankly, which I find deeply patronising.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

Will the Leader of the House tell us the last time a Government in this country determined the exact number of Members of the House of Commons?

[Lord Strathclyde]

The number of Members of the House of Commons has increased and decreased on several occasions over the past 20 years. Noble Lords opposite are making the case that it is wrong for a majority of the House of Commons to decide what their numbers should be. I do not follow that at all.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, the question I asked has not been answered.

[Lord Strathclyde]

The noble Baroness is right. If there is such an example, I shall find it and let her know.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Perhaps I may advise the House that it was nearly 180 years ago. After that date, it was always targets that were set. It was never caps.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, surely, the issue is not about the overall numbers; it is about how those seats are distributed. That will continue to be done by the independent Boundary Commission under the instructions under this Bill to aim at an average of around 75,000 over the country.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, I asked the noble Lord when the Government of the day last decided.

[Lord Strathclyde]

I heard the question and I said to the noble Baroness that if I can find the answer to it, I shall let her know. Our contention is simple. There is no reason why Parliament should not decide on the numbers of Members of Parliament. We have no need to go to an external body or to a Speaker’s Conference to decide that for us. We have all the expertise. Noble Lords opposite have demonstrated just how much expertise they have on another place. That is why we took the view we took. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Soley]

I shall say straightaway that from the way in which the noble Lord has started his contribution I am unclear about whether he is summing up the debate. I do not think he is right to do so because, frankly, he has not answered me. If the noble Lord would listen to what I am saying, he has not actually answered the questions I put to him. I understand that the normal courtesy of this House is for the Minister to answer the questions that are put to him. The questions were things like: what does he say when we are faced with a situation, of which I gave many examples, of overseeing elections in other countries where there is a constant expectation that a Government should not decide the size of a House of Parliament? He has also not dealt with my other question.

I assume that at some stage the Minister will respond to the questions that he has been asked. For the moment I reserve my right to sum up this amendment when people have finished speaking. But I have to say that he has not answered my questions, and I think he knows it, because they are difficult questions for the Government.

[Lord Strathclyde]

The noble Lord, Lord Soley, has suggested in the most bizarre way that because the Government have decided, and if Parliament decides it as well, that there should be 600 MPs, that somehow this turns us into a Soviet dictatorship and that no noble Lords opposite will be able to go anywhere in the world and argue that we are a democracy. That is completely absurd. In the past 13 years noble Lords opposite decided on the electoral system for Europe, they decided on how many Members should sit in the Scottish Parliament, in the Welsh Assembly and in the London assembly. None of these questions was raised. I do not know how much embarrassment the noble Lord, Lord Soley, can take when he travels abroad and people point out these terrible errors.

This is my winding-up contribution and my answer. We simply do not accept any of the premises that noble Lords opposite have made.

[Lord Soley]

I will sum up when other people have spoken. I want just to repeat that the Leader of the House does no good for this House if he fails to answer the questions that are put to him. I would also say to him that anyone coming to this debate out of the blue would think that his recent contribution was, if anything, a filibuster because it did not answer the question.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Soley]

I am serious. Let us hear the arguments for a moment. I have brought forward considerable evidence to support what I said about the problems that any Government would have with this. I also asked the noble Lord what he would do if a future Government of any political complexion came forward at the next election or the one after that and said, “We think that this number of MPs would be more beneficial to us and therefore we are going to drive it through”. I challenge him to say that he would not fight that every inch of the way. Those are the questions he has not answered. I am afraid that they have to be addressed because they are too important for the House and too important for the country.

[Lord Wills]

My Lords, I had thought that the noble Lord had given way to me, but I hope that I can now make the speech that I wanted to make earlier, which I make genuinely in the hope of helping the Government.

As the then Minister responsible, I went through all these issues in a great deal of detail, so I think that it might help the House to know the judgments that we made when we were in Government. Both Amendment 59 and Amendment 60 speak to the importance of having an impartial process—which, crucially, is seen to be impartial—in dealing with these issues. I have already spoken about why that is so important, so I will not rehearse those arguments again now, but the instances that I gave of the consideration that we gave to these issues in Government might—even at this late stage and with all the bad feeling that there is about it—persuade the Government to think again.

It is no secret that we looked at these issues. Since 1997, as a Government we were embarked on a developing programme of constitutional reform, whose latter stages have been largely adopted by the new Government, which have claimed credit for the proposals as the new politics. As part of that developing programme of constitutional reform, we were looking at these very issues. As Minister, it was quite clear to me that all the issues that the noble Lord and his colleagues are so concerned about were real issues that should be engaged with in bringing forward any measures. We looked at these issues for some time. It is no secret that the amendment that I moved last week—Amendment 54ZA—was largely based on the conclusions that I came to as the Minister for constitutional reform. I hope that the noble Lord is listening to this, because he might learn something about why he has got himself and the Government into such a mess with this legislation.

Having looked at these issues, we came to the conclusion that the best way forward was to set up the sort of independent inquiry that my amendment proposed last week and that we have again heard advocated today. We did not bring forward that proposal for one simple reason: we felt that there was too little time left in the lifespan of that Government to be sure that we could bring about an all-party consensus on the mechanism. That is why we did not bring forward the proposal, although it was ready and prepared and officials had done the work. We believed that it was absolutely essential to achieve cross-party support for the mechanism. We thought that that would be difficult, because these issues are contentious and complex. As we did not think that we had enough time, we did not think that it was proper to introduce proposals that did not have that basis of cross-party support for the mechanism—not for the conclusions or outcomes or for 650 or 600 or 500 seats—by which we were to get there.

The reason that we thought that that was so important was not that we were unworried about what an incoming Conservative Government might do—of course, we were worried about that. We knew—I knew—that there was a possibility that we might lose the election and that we would get a Conservative Government. Politicians are always worried about what the other side might do, so this was not an easy conclusion. However, so important did we consider the impartiality of the process that we did not introduce our proposals. Even then, I hoped and honestly believed that, whatever Government came in—I did not expect a coalition Government, in the event that we were not re-elected—would abide by those basic constitutional proprieties, which are now being so flouted.

Cross-party agreement is so important precisely because of the element of trust. The issue is not just what parliamentarians think about the process and whether the Labour Party in Parliament thinks that the proposed process is flawed; fundamentally, the issue is about the people whom we serve. The people have to believe that politicians can be trusted to run the system impartially, without any appearance of partisan self-interest. I do not know whether the Government’s calculations are based on partisan self-interest because they simply have not provided the information, but it is so corrosive when such doubt remains. The Government have ample opportunity to deal with the issue by accepting either of these amendments or by saying that they will look at the issue again. What the Government must do is recognise the doubts that their process has created in the minds of many, many people. This will be poisonous if it is allowed to fester in the way that the Government are allowing it to fester.

I do not think that anyone on this side of the House wants to stop the Government getting their legislation through. [Laughter.] As I have said many times, I do not think that that is the case. I do not know how many noble Lords opposite, who are commenting from a sedentary position, have actually looked at what I have said. I have made it clear over and over again that I support the objectives of both parts of the Bill. As Minister, I was going to bring forward legislation. We brought forward legislation for the proposals in Part 1 of the Bill and I was preparing, as I have just said, to bring forward legislation that would have dealt with the issues, in the same way, that are dealt with in Part 2.

I want to see these objectives realised, but I want to see them realised in a proper way that will command consent across all parties and among the British people. The Government could still get their legislation through in this Parliament if they took a pause by taking advantage of one of these amendments to institute an impartial process. Such a process need not take very long—it need not take the three years that my amendment proposed—and could take just a short number of months, if the Government so wished. At least, there would then be an independent, fair-minded inquiry. That is what we were going to do in Government, and I urge and, indeed, beg the Government to follow that example.

23:30

[Lord Judd]

If I had not already intended to intervene, the remarks of the noble Lord the Leader of the House certainly strengthened my conviction that I had something that I must say.

The more that I have listened to this debate, the more disturbed I have become. Why? Because I do not believe that there is anyone, in this House or the other House, who believes that the state of democracy in our country is at a peak in terms of quality and spirit. What undermines some of that quality and spirit is a widespread feeling among the public that politics as practised in Westminster is a closed community of politicians and that elections for the other House are about people gaining access to that closed system, from which they continue to run the country without overmuch sensitivity about the real convictions and anxieties of the people.

I do not believe that that is a very mature attitude in society as a whole and it is not altogether valid. To the credit of Parliament, much has been done over recent decades to try to meet that situation—by, for example, the introduction of the Green Paper system whereby, when serious legislation is being proposed, there is a genuine attempt to generate public consultation and debate about the proposal and to give the wider public an opportunity to shape the legislation that is finally put forward. That exists for all kinds of important legislation on social and economic issues.

Nothing is more central to our democracy than its constitution. We have to be incredibly sensitive about this because the constitution is not ours in Parliament—we are the practitioners within the constitution. The constitution belongs to the people. We operate within the context of something in which the people must have confidence.

I am by no means the person with the longest experience in our Parliament, but this year I will have been here for 33 years, in one House or the other, and for the majority of that time in the other place I was involved in government. When I look back, whether from the standpoint of being inside government or outside it, I often reflect that one of the things that have gone wrong is that, so often, politicians of good will and serious intent put forward legislative proposals as a solution to problems before there has been any sufficient attempt to build up a widespread understanding among the public of what the issue is that is being addressed. We get the solutions ahead of the understanding of why we are putting the solutions forward. If that is true about legislation as a whole, how much more central it is to the issue of how we handle constitutional matters.

What alarmed me about the noble Lord’s intervention was that he said, “We have demonstrated to ourselves in this debate”—of course, there was an element of sarcasm in what he was saying—“that we have the knowledge and the qualities that are necessary to make these decisions”. By saying that, he illustrated exactly the problem. The proposals that my noble friends put forward are not exclusively about the decisions; they are about having in place a system that would enable a debate and widespread discussion to take place, so that, when in the end the legislation was introduced, it would happen in the context of the widest possible public understanding of why it was necessary. Our case is that that simply has not happened on this Bill; it is being rushed through without that widespread public discussion.

For me, the discussion is infinitely more important than where the decision is made. I want those making the decision to have to make it in the context of an opportunity for the public really to have debated and discussed what they wanted. From that standpoint, I feel that my noble friends have done a great service by putting these amendments forward today. I beg noble Lords on all sides of the House to take seriously the issue of our being the practitioners of the constitution, not its masters.

In that context, I have been toying with whether I wanted to make the following observation, because it could so easily be misunderstood as playing at partisan politics, but it really grieves me to see Liberal noble Lords sitting there silently while this debate takes place. Almost to the suspicion of some of my colleagues on a number of issues about which I care desperately, I have found myself extremely close to the spirit and values of many Liberal Democrat Members opposite. I have found myself challenged by their conviction on some of the issues about which I feel very deeply. They have always argued that they are about the power and the influence of people in our society. However, here we are debating this issue tonight and where are they? They are locked into a coalition that inhibits them into silence. This is a tragedy in our political situation and I felt that I could not allow this debate to go by without making that absolutely clear.

Motion

Moved by

[Lord Trefgarne]

That the Question be now put.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, I have listened to a number of speeches this evening. Many of them are an abuse of the procedures of this House and others have been demeaning to this House in the face of a wider public. Therefore, with the utmost regret, I beg to move that the Question be now put.

[The Lord Speaker (Baroness Hayman)]

My Lords, the Companion is very clear as to the procedure when a Motion that the Question be now put is moved. It instructs me to read to the House in the following terms:

“I am instructed by order of the House to say that the motion ‘That the Question be now put’ is considered to be a most exceptional procedure and the House will not accept it save in circumstances where it is felt to be the only means of ensuring the proper conduct of the business of the House; further, if a member who seeks to move it persists in his intention, the practice of the House is that the Question on the motion is put without debate”.

I therefore have to ask the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, whether, in the light of that advice from the Companion, he wishes to persist in his intention.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, I do so insist.

23:38

Division 1

Ayes: 219

---

Conservative: 135
Liberal Democrat: 68
Crossbench: 12

Noes: 130

---

Labour: 123
Crossbench: 4
Independent: 1

23:53

Division 2

Ayes: 131

---

Labour: 120
Crossbench: 8
Independent: 1

Noes: 211

---

Conservative: 136
Liberal Democrat: 66
Crossbench: 5

12:07

Amendment 60 not moved.

Motion

Moved by

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

That the House do now resume.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

My Lords, I make this application with a view to the House adjourning. Noble Lords will know that the Companion says in paragraph 3.01:

“The House usually sits for public business on Mondays and Tuesdays at 2.30 p.m., on Wednesdays at 3 p.m. and on Thursdays at 11 a.m. The House also sits on Fridays at 10 a.m. when pressure of business makes it necessary. It is a firm convention that the House normally rises by about 10 p.m. on Mondays to Wednesdays, by about 7 p.m. on Thursdays, and by about 3 p.m. on Fridays. The time of the meeting of the House can be varied to meet the convenience of the House”.

It says that where there are to be changes there should be consultation through the usual channels. We have now had a very exceptional move by the House, as the Lord Speaker made clear in her warning to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, before he moved his Motion. So exceptional was it that the consequence was that the Front Bench on this side did not get an opportunity to respond to either Amendment 59 or Amendment 60. If that were to be repeated there would, in effect, be a guillotine on debate in this House. I am happy to see the former Chief Whip Lord Hesketh nodding. The consequence would be that what makes this House exceptional—namely that there can be indefinite debate, particularly on constitutional issues—would be lost. I respectfully suggest that the House should now adjourn. That is why I have moved this Motion to resume. It is far better that we, as a House, keep our reputation—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

Noble Lords might laugh but it is appropriate that we do things in the right and proper way. This House exists properly to scrutinise business. The prospect of there being proper scrutiny of legislation deep into the night, then again tomorrow, then again on Wednesday and then again on Monday, in my submission, significantly undermines the standing of the House. I therefore invite the House to resume. It would be the sensible thing to do and would avoid the sense that we are no longer concerned about the constitution but are properly concerned instead about the change in the circumstances in the House. Given that there is a Liberal Democrat and Conservative coalition, unlike in my previous time in the House it is now possible to ram things through without proper debate. Indeed, the coalition has just done so. That would never have happened when there was not—

[Lord Greaves]

There is a certain amount of this that I can listen to, but after a while I find that I cannot listen to it any longer without intervening. The Committee started at three o’clock. It is now 11 minutes past midnight. That means that the Committee has spent the best part of eight hours considering two amendments. If the noble and learned Lord believes that that is ramming things through, his brain does not work in the same way that mine does.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I have always suspected that my brain does not work in the same way as that of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and I have always regarded it as being to my credit that that is the position. We have debated two amendments over eight hours—four hours each. The first concerned whether we should reduce the size of the House of Commons from 650 to 600. I regard that as an important constitutional issue. The second amendment that we debated before the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, brought the debate to an end was whether the size of the House of Commons should be fixed by an independent commission or a Speaker’s Conference. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, whose brain does not work like mine, or, I suspect, like anyone else’s in the House either, might not think that those are important things to debate but I do.

[Lord Greaves]

The point I am attempting to make is not that the time that has been used up on these two amendments is excessive, although many Members around the House believe that it constitutes an abuse of the conventions of this House. The point I am making is that this is not a case of ramming things through.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, thinks that the time involved is not excessive. I do not know how he voted just now. I assume that he voted on our side in that respect if he did not think that the time was excessive. It is time for the House to stop this, resume and go back to considering this measure in the normal way. That is what has made the House so successful over the past 13 years.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord complained that I had brought the debate to a close. I did nothing of the sort; the House did.

12:14

Division 3

Ayes: 124

---

Labour: 113
Crossbench: 8
Independent: 1

Noes: 188

---

Conservative: 124
Liberal Democrat: 53
Crossbench: 9

12:26

[Baroness O’Cathain]

I wish to ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, whether he is prepared to offer an apology for the personal abuse that he levelled at the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. We have listened to Members of the House and the problem is that the noble and learned Lord deliberately made fun of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. Not only was it abusive to him and upsetting to us, it did nothing for the conduct and behaviour of this House. I trust that the noble and learned Lord will feel duly ashamed when he reads Hansard tomorrow.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

Of course, I apologise immediately to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I did not mean to cause him any upset. I agree completely with the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain. I was teasing and mocking him and I went too far. I unreservedly apologise.

[Lord Greaves]

I suppose that I ought to thank the noble and learned Lord for that apology. I can say to him and to the House that it takes a great deal to worry me. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, having a good laugh. If noble Lords, in addition to the noble Baroness, and other former members of Lancashire County Council knew the abuse I got there, your Lordships cannot touch it.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

That is what I thought, but I was obviously wrong.

Amendment 61

Moved by

[Baroness McDonagh]

61: Clause 11, page 9, line 18, leave out “600” and insert “630”

[Baroness McDonagh]

I have asked for this amendment to stand alone in the group. I believe that it is right to get on with the business of looking at the number as it was adequately debated in the other place.

I believe that 630 will give the Government the ability to achieve all their aims: to reduce the number of constituencies, equalise the number of voters, and for our constituencies to represent a community of interest, which is important. This is a genuine attempt to be helpful, as was my Motion to split the Bill before the Second Reading began. I wanted the Government to be able to meet their deadline of having a referendum on 5 May and I hope that they understand that this amendment is in the same vein.

Before looking at the reasons behind having a House of 630, it is important to go through why I believe that the figure of 600 will not work. I am against setting a House of 600, because I believe that it will take away the power of the independent commissioners and put the power to draw boundaries in the hands of politicians. That is a bad thing. When you consider the number of 600 and begin to draw maps across the United Kingdom, you see that it will end up looking like the rush of the former colonial powers to carve up Africa. At the time, they thought that it was okay to carve up countries along straight lines—not to recognise a community of interest, natural borders and other interests. This will be a great mistake.

I have a previous experience of something like this happening to a constituency where I lived. My noble friend Lord Beecham referred to that example previously. In the mid-1980s I lived in a constituency called Tyne Bridge. That constituency was drawn from four local government wards in Newcastle and four in Gateshead. While I was living in that constituency, there was a parliamentary by-election. I had worked in some by-elections. I had worked in Peter Tatchell's by-election in Bermondsey and in a by-election in Mitcham and Morden during the Falklands War, so I am used to voters being forthright in their views on the doorstep. I have never had as much abuse on the doorstep as when a constituency was combined from wards from Newcastle and Gateshead, which had the River Tyne running through them. People know where they live. In that by-election, they voted with their feet. It was the first by-election for many decades when less than 40 per cent of voters turned out.

The figure of 600 will also create constituencies that are too large. There are 49 million voters in this country eligible to be registered. Therefore, the constituencies that we draw must allow for 49 million people to be in constituencies. None of us knows what the cut-off register will be at 31 December as it has not been published; and we do not know where the cut-off will be until the Bill is passed. So we need to start with the premise that constituencies will hold the number of people who are entitled to vote. With 600 constituencies, we have about 81,000 electors each. It would have been 75,000 based on the 2010 general election. That is 81,000 if all voters on the register last year are on the new register at the cut-off of 31 December.

A ceiling of 600 constituencies does not take account of any population move. I ask the Minister to answer on this point. Over the next 20 years, the population of the United Kingdom is, we are told, to exceed 70 million. That increase to the voting population will come through in any event. Over the next 20 years, it may also be added to by, for example, lowering the voting age to 16. I have only to look around in my local authority to see that the rising-fours will add 25 per cent to the primary school population. It is wrong and ill thought out to cap a number that does not allow for a movement of population. It would be much better to do it on the basis of the number of voters that you wish to see in a constituency. But if you do not do that, setting the number at 600 makes the constituencies far too large.

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

Will the noble Baroness acknowledge that under the present arrangements, some of us, myself included, have had the privilege or the task of wrestling with an electorate approaching 90,000 already? Some of her concerns about these overlarge constituencies are less than well founded.

[Baroness McDonagh]

The difference in the situation proposed under the legislation from that which has formerly been is simply that the number of voters in a constituency is taken together with a whole series of other factors, one of which does not have primacy—so you do not split local government boundaries or county boundaries. You can take into account the geography in the Boundary Commission’s book when you know that there is going to be an increase in population. You can take into account other physical barriers, such as motorways and so on. In large constituencies you tend to have an electorate with a community of interests which it is possible to represent. A good example of that would obviously be the Isle of Wight. With this, you will go across vast areas where people do not recognise the other parts of the geographical area in the same constituency.

I need to go back to this issue because I feel that I can answer it. How do we end up with the number 600? I will explain why it would be right to have a House of Commons comprising 630 MPs. How do you end up with 600 MPs when one part of the coalition is suggesting 500 and the other is suggesting 585. I do not suggest that either party is innumerate, but generally you would fix somewhere around the figure of 540. You would not come up with a figure that was larger than either of the two figures suggested if it was not based on something else.

I have seen the figure published on current affairs and news items, and I have read it in the newspapers. I cannot believe that I am the only person in your Lordships’ House who reads newspapers and watches television. From examining them, I know that eminent psephologists of all political persuasions tell us that 600 is the figure that most benefits the Conservative Party. I knew that already because that is what my former counterparts at the Conservative Party head office had told me, so it was no surprise. The problem is that the figure is based on what I would describe as an obsession. There is a belief in the Conservative Party that it was robbed of the elections between 1997 and 2010, and that if only the electoral system had been different the Conservative Party would have won the election.

I will give three quotes from the debate so far. These are just examples, but I could go through Hansard and repeat them. The noble Lord, Lord Maples, said that,

“the general election in 2010 … required the Conservative Party to get 40 per cent of the vote to get an overall majority, but Labour to get only 34 per cent cannot possibly be considered fair”.—[Official Report, 15/11/10; col. 571.]

This is an example of trying to change the constituencies because of a belief that this is what prompts the differential between the numbers of votes for the parties.

The noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, said that he,

“remembers the 2001 election in which we won the vote in England … we ended up with 60 or 90 fewer seats, having received more votes in England. The whole thesis of the Opposition is to keep the situation like that”.—[Official Report, 12/1/11; col. 1522.]

I have heard some noble Baronesses opposite even say that they were robbed of three constituencies through electoral fraud. The reality is this. At the last election, the electorate decided that it no longer wanted Labour to be in government. That is clear. However, it was not sure that the Conservative Party was ready to govern. That is why the Conservative Party did not get an overall majority.

I shall give one other quote:

“The equalising of the size of constituencies would remove an unfair advantage currently enjoyed by Labour”.

That was from a publication by Andrew Tyrie MP in 2004, with a foreword by Damian Green MP, to which I think my noble friend Lord Soley has already referred. This has been going on for many years in the Conservative Party, but it is apocryphal. It is not true; it is a falsehood. Labour gets elected on fewer votes because in Labour constituencies, the voters are people who are less likely to vote because of their social and economic demographics. The reverse is true for the Conservative Party. It seems to have become a real obsession, and I believe that the Government now need to move past it.

When I was in the Labour Party during 18 years in opposition, I remember that I wanted to see my party put many Bills through the House of Commons and the House of Lords. They were on matters such as introducing a minimum wage, education reform and reducing hospital waiting lists. My personal experience was that my mother had to wait 18 months in severe pain for a hip replacement operation. I wanted to see handguns removed because of the Dunblane massacre. It is telling that one of the first Bills that the Government wish to introduce would reduce the number of constituencies from 650 to 600.

Why the figure of 630? I believe that if we introduced 630 with an eligible electorate of 78,000, that would make for reasonably sized constituencies for Members to represent. I also believe that reducing the House by 20 seats would take away some of the worst excesses of large constituencies. Like all around the House, I want as far as possible to see constituencies of the same size, and this figure would allow for that. I say again that the average size of the constituencies of all three parties—Labour, Lib Dem and the Conservatives—does not differ by the quota set out in the Bill, but a figure of 630 will allow county boundaries and local government boundaries not to be crossed. That will make the exercise of the Boundary Commission much more efficient and much quicker. It will also allow a community of interest to prevail.

I would prefer that we concentrated on the number of voters in these constituencies. I think it is important that we represent the public from the grass roots up, not from the top down. The Government have already made it clear that they are not prepared to accept that view, so I am introducing an amendment which I believe will allow them to do what they are trying to do, but in a way that will represent our communities and take the public with us.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

Although the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is no longer in his place, I am certain that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will be aware that the answer to my question about when a Government last sought to control the absolute number of constituencies in the other place was 1832, which is a long time ago. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will accept that there could have been an element of gerrymandering then and now.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords, my noble friend has made a persuasive case that has drawn on her personal experience in a very effective way, but I am not, in fact, persuaded because I do not see what is the magic about the number 630 as against, say, 625 or 635. In my judgment, the exact number should be left to the work of the boundary commissioners, who should be given fairly strict criteria on which to work. That should be the way in which we reach a particular number.

Before going further along the approach that I would favour, I want to make one or two preliminary remarks. First, we are in some interesting and, indeed, unprecedented times. The political scientists among us—I think I saw the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, here, but he may not be in his seat—must be salivating at the way in which we are making precedents. The closure was moved and it may well be that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and other noble Lords intend to move further closures. That is unprecedented, but it may well be that we are moving along the route of virtual guillotines, as they have in the other place. That would put a very different complexion on the spirit of debates in this House. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, will be rather like Max Boyce—whose name was mentioned by, I think, my noble friend Lord Kinnock—who used to go around great rugby games in Wales and say, “I was there”. When he is lecturing to his students about this great new precedent, the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, can say, “I was there”. He has probably gone home by now, but at least he was there at the relevant time. When the closure was moved—which could, as I say, be analogous to a guillotine—and the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, heard the Lord Speaker read out that that could happen only “in exceptional circumstances”, I was reminded of Alice in Wonderland, where “words mean what I want them to mean”. Clearly, in his vocabulary, “exceptional” is a very flexible word indeed. We are moving in this very interesting way.

Secondly, I just want to comment on the intervention made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. Given that we had had a debate of about two hours and 45 minutes, it is normal and courteous at the end of such a lengthy debate for the speaker from the government Front Bench to give due weight to the contributions that have been made, but we had just a few minutes for that. Some might have thought that that was arrogant, but I was prepared to give the noble Lord the benefit of the doubt and assume that that was just an hors d’oeuvre—a little taster on the way—and that far more debate would be allowed, to which he would give a second and far more substantive reply. But, no, he colluded with the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, in truncating the debate at that stage. Again, that is closer to arrogance.

Finally, I think that the reason that the magic figure of 600 has been raised is due to the inflexibility that has come about as a result of the coalition. A deal has been done in a smoke-filled room—although perhaps we no longer have smoke-filled rooms—and neither party to the coalition is prepared to move one iota away from that. Clearly, that inflexibility may change. Who knows what will happen to the Liberal Party over the next four or five years? Will there be a formal merger of the two parties? In the recent Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election, there were hints that one party might make way for the other or at least tell its supporters to support, as best they can, the candidate who has the better chance. Indeed, we do not know in which party Mr Clegg will be by 2015. Things are moving along, anyway, and that may well be the reason for this inflexibility.

I personally am not convinced of the case for 630. I do not know what the right number is—I am prepared to leave that to the wisdom of the Boundary Commission—but I know that any number that is chosen will have party-political consequences. If there are party-political consequences to 600, there will also be party-political consequences to 630 and to 500. In deciding on the numbers, or indeed on the approach, a Government can move in one of two ways. They can make up their own mind and bring down some figure as if on a tablet of stone, like Moses from the mountain, and say, “That is the number that we insist upon”. The problem with that is that the Government’s decision will be tainted. If we accept—as I think everyone should—that any number will have party-political consequences, people will believe that the number that the Government have chosen is the number that the Government think is to their party advantage. However, being an innocent in politics, I am sure that the Government had before them a little notice saying, “The national interest”, and that, in their judgment, the number 600 accords exactly with the national interest. However, the public and the chattering classes may be a little more sceptical than I am.

If one is serious about the numbers, surely one must adopt another device that, in so far as is practicable in the circumstances, enjoys the greatest amount of political support. Otherwise, what will happen is that, just as one Government can choose a number that—rightly or wrongly—the public believe is in the party interest of that Government, so another Government could come along and say, “We will alter the rules for our political advantage”. Surely that is wrong. It is wrong that any number should be considered to be based on partisan grounds. The only way of ensuring that the figure is believed to be legitimate and of ensuring that it has staying power in the longer term is for the Government not to impose a number but to bring in some system whereby there is an independent assessment.

Therefore, however persuasive my noble friend has been—she made a very good and plausible case—I think that her magic figure of 630, although it would be more acceptable because it would provide greater flexibility and a greater opportunity for the boundary commissioners to take account of localism and time boundaries and all the other important matters, would still lead to inflexibility. My judgment is that the boundary commissioners, subject to strict rules, should be given as much flexibility as possible to take account of all relevant criteria.

[Lord Winston]

My noble friend Lord Anderson was so quick on his feet that I did not have a chance to ask my noble friend a point that is directly related and relevant to the amendment that she has moved. I should like to ask her now, if I may. Noble Lords opposite know that I never give long speeches and I always try to speak to the point of a debate when I join it. I should like my noble friend to clarify how she arrives at the figure of 630. I genuinely do not understand why it is not, for example, 625 or 635. It would be very helpful to have the mathematics behind what she is proposing. I do not have a view about how big the House of Commons should be. I am inclined to believe that the number probably should be reduced but I do not understand how she has arrived at the figure that she is proposing.

[Baroness McDonagh]

I thank my noble friend and I shall deal with all three interventions, as well as that of the noble Lord opposite. When my noble friend Lord Anderson of Swansea said that the number of constituencies has political consequences, the noble Lord shouted back, “Of course it does. We all know that”. That is the first admission that we have had in this debate so far that there is a political reason for coming up with the figure of 600. I do not believe that that is a good reason to state what the number of seats in the other place should be.

Coming back to the three interventions, I absolutely agree with my noble friend Lady Farrington. I personally believe that it is wrong to set in law a cap for the number of seats in the other place. However, in answer to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Anderson of Swansea, because you cannot do everything that you need to do, sometimes you should do something to protect the interests of the public. I believe that setting the number of seats at 630 will allow that to happen and that we will not end up with a map of the UK on which the constituencies are marked out by straight lines.

I turn to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Winston. Under the current legislation, county boundaries are sacrosanct and constituencies are not allowed to cross them. Perhaps a small sample of us should go out and ask the public whether they believe that we should cross their county boundary. I do not know how many people here would like to come with me to Cornwall. I do not know it particularly well because it is not an area where we have had a lot of Labour constituencies. However, if we stopped people in the street and asked them whether they wanted their parliamentary constituencies to cross the county boundary to Devon, I think that we know what the answer would be.

01:00

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

I am awfully sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is not in the Chamber, because he could support me in the argument that it would be very dangerous to go to the dividing line between Lancashire and Yorkshire and start interfering with the boundary. As a former Lancashire county councillor like me, he is aware that there are parts of the dividing line between Lancashire and Yorkshire where people insist on having both the red and the white rose, because they still have not finished the War of the Roses.

[Baroness McDonagh]

I thank my noble friend for that intervention. I hope that noble Lords opposite will not see these points as being petty. These matters really mean something to people; people really know where they live. I have witnessed many noble Lords taking groups of people around the House. It does not take long—it is usually two minutes into the conversation—for them to tell the assembled group, whether it is an after-dinner group or a school party, about how they got their title. It is always the same conversation: “I said this to Garter; Garter said this to me”. Great rigmarole is attached to the story, and that is because your Lordships believe in a community. In our hearts, we believe in a place that has a community of interest. It is what this democracy has always relied on.

My noble friend talked about Lancashire and Yorkshire. I do not know who would think of drawing a constituency that crossed that boundary—I would rather not have to explain it—but it will happen. We are talking about straight lines and not about communities of interest. If the Government wish to do that—

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top]

My noble friend is being overly generous to the Government. We are seeing the first part of PR put into the British consciousness. PR cannot work if it is linked to a community. You need to break that link of accountability between place and representative if you are going to have proportional representation; that is the very essence of the system. I believe—and I may be being paranoid—that that is the road down which the Government are taking the first step. I am not sure that every noble Lord understands that, but when one looks at the parts of the Bill together and the Government’s determination not to split them, one sees that that is one of the purposes behind the Bill.

[Lord Glentoran]

My Lords—

[Baroness McDonagh]

Perhaps I may answer my noble friend’s point. I will then be happy to give way to the noble Lord.

[Lord Glentoran]

I just wanted to answer that point.

[Baroness McDonagh]

No, it is my point to answer, I believe. I shall be happy to give way to the noble Lord afterwards, if he will let me answer. I thank my noble friend Lady Armstrong for making that point, which she managed to put much more articulately than I could.

If the Government want to break with a community of interest, they should introduce a system like that which exists in Israel. It is a pure PR system, based on a list. I would have no problem with the Government putting that to the electorate. What I have a problem with is their coming in by the back door with a system of government on which nobody has been able to have a say and of which nobody has had any pre-legislative notice.

I turn finally to the question of how I came to the number 630. My starting point was not what would benefit the Labour Party but the assumption that county boundaries are sacrosanct. I used local government boundaries as building blocks, because most local government wards are communities. I also believe—I know that we will get into this later in the debate—that we will cause terrible harm if people have to seek different councillors and MPs within a small area such as a local government ward. By doing this, we will just turn people off our politics and our democratic system. I used those as building blocks. How then can you get constituencies that are roughly the same size? To do that you are forced up; you are forced to build up and you get to 630. It was not a top-down effort on my behalf. I did not approach the exercise in the same way.

[Lord Glentoran]

I thank the noble Baroness. I have two or three points to make. I did not talk to anybody to get my peerage—I happen to be a hereditary Peer. That is why I am here and why I have been here as long as I have. I am a Conservative through and through, although I of course support the coalition. I live in a country where we have single transferrable voting and a total nonsense at the moment of some form of Executive which seems unable to make decisions. I for one—I think there are many people in my party like me—am not looking to pave the way for a different form of voting, as the noble Baroness said.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, I very much welcome the contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. We have been looking forward to it for some hours since he trailed it a little earlier in the evening and it has been a sweet moment. It has also been a sweet moment listening to my noble friend Lady McDonagh as she moved her amendment. She spoke with a profound knowledge of elections and how they work, and, more importantly, of politics in this country much more broadly and of what makes people respond and behave as they do in politics. I have enormous respect for her judgment. I therefore have a natural disposition to be drawn to her proposal that the House of Commons instead of being reduced from 650 to 600 should be reduced only to 630. However, I have some difficulties with her amendment. One of the difficulties that I find in it I expressed in discussion of the amendments tabled by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer. I do not think that it is appropriate for the Government to determine the size of the House of Commons. My noble friend and I both agree that, for all sorts of reasons that we touched on in earlier parts of the debate, it should not be for politicians to fix the size of the elected House of Commons.

However, I do think the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady McDonagh is moving in the right direction. I shall probably be more inclined, when we come to them, to favour the amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Snape and Lord Kennedy of Southwark. I am very much looking forward to those debates in due course. As I have already said to the House, I think there is a very strong case for a larger rather than a smaller House of Commons. I put some thoughts to the House earlier on why I think the pressures of business and demands on Members of Parliament within the House of Commons are very great and are difficult to be accommodated with the existing size of the House of 650. Equally, I think that when whichever body it is comes to consider the appropriate number of constituencies, it will also want to look very carefully at the volume of work that is expected of Members of Parliament in their constituencies—the expectations, indeed the requirements, of electors.

As a result of the defeat of the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Soley, we know that a generically independent commission will not determine this, but I live in hope that the solution put forward by my noble friend Lord Lipsey will in the end recommend itself to the House and that we can come back to that at Report. I mean his proposal that the Speaker’s Conference should determine the matter. As the Speaker’s Conference considers what the appropriate size of the House of Commons should be in future, I hope that it will take account of a number of factors that seem relevant. We all know that the age of deference is long gone, but the demands of constituents upon Members of Parliament will grow and grow—and will grow further should we see the introduction of a new constitutional arrangement proposed by the coalition, at the instance of the Liberal Democrats who have been keen, at least up until recently, to introduce a right of recall. I have been interested by the fact that, whereas all the rest of the agenda for constitutional reform, about which the Liberal Democrats have hitherto been so enthusiastic, has been pressed forward energetically and urgently, for some strange set of reasons we are not seeing them put the case with any comparable urgency for the introduction of a right of recall. I do not know whether my noble friends have any idea of why that might be, or whether it is anything that transpired in the politics of our country in recent weeks and months that could have caused them to have second thoughts and even, possibly, to lose their nerve over this.

[Lord Kinnock]

While the House reflects on the fascinating question that my noble friend raised about the evaporation of the passionate commitment to the right of recall, I take issue with him on his declaration that the age of deference has long past. I look across the House and see the age of dual but disproportionate deference actually in operation. I see the Liberal Democrats who fought the last election on a commitment to have 500 Members of Parliament in conditions of a single transferable vote, proportional representation, and devolution in England. I see a Conservative Party that fought the last election on an arbitrary and populist reduction of 10 per cent in the number of current Members of Parliament, taking us down to 585. It appears that both have deferred to the other, but the Liberals have done a damn sight more deferring, sacrificing a commitment to PR and devolution as well as a commitment to the right of recall. That is a pretty good definition of knee-crawling deference.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

Indeed, as my noble friend suggests, they tug their forelocks quite obsessively. My noble friend makes the same very valid point as did my noble friend Lord Judd made so plangently in the previous debate. It is sad to see the Liberals defer to the Tories within this coalition in the way they do. None the less, the threat that the right of recall might have been be instituted has not entirely gone away because those cruel Tories might decide to bring it in, even if the Liberal Democrats have changed their mind about it for very understandable reasons. If there were to be a right of recall, that would enormously compound the uncertainty that already faces Members of Parliament in their own constituency, which would be yet further compounded by the increased uncertainty generated by the more frequent changes of boundary that the coalition proposes in this measure. Members of Parliament are naturally going to be watching their backs even more than has been the case in recent years. They will be worried that they might be recalled and worried in any case that their constituency will no longer exist, or will be so altered that they will have to spend a very great deal of time and energy salvaging their own political situation if they are to have a prospect of being returned again to the House of Commons. For those sorts of reasons, I fear that Members of Parliament in future are unlikely to give the same amount of attention and energy to their work in the House of Commons as they otherwise might have done. That seems to have a bearing on the question of how large the House ought to be.

01:15

We also know—the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester drew this consideration to the attention of the House some time earlier—that the new means of communication are placing enormous additional demands and pressures on Members of Parliament. I believe that a Member who was newly elected at the last general election testified to the Hansard Society in an inquiry that, as a Member of Parliament, she had received 20,000 e-mails between last May and September. We were talking earlier about the undesirability of importing the American practice of having automatic or electronic signatures—it is pretty well inevitable that you have electronic signatures if you are responding to e-mails—but that will not do. Constituents are not going to be satisfied if they have a sense that the Member of Parliament’s staff are dealing with their representations and speaking on behalf of the Member of Parliament, to the extent that the Member is completely unaware of the representations and requests being put to the MP by his or her constituents.

That is an enormous and growing demand upon Members of Parliament in their constituencies, or at any rate in their offices within the Palace of Westminster or nearby, which again will distract them and draw them away from their duties in the Chamber and in the Committee rooms. It tends to make the case for having rather more Members of Parliament than would otherwise be the case.

We can also expect, in the very fraught politics of the foreseeable period, that added demands will be made upon Members of Parliament in their constituencies. We are shortly to see expenditure cuts being brought in on an unprecedented scale in this country. Their consequences will be felt not just in the relatively near term but for years ahead, and in the period after any measures that are enacted in this legislation actually apply. In particular, what is to be done to social security provision in this country will produce enormous demands on Members of Parliament in their surgeries, as well as in other activities of their constituency life. Consider, for example, what will happen to housing benefit. People are going to be removed out of neighbourhoods by the force of the new, reduced housing benefit—certainly, out of affluent neighbourhoods. They are going to be bewildered, dismayed and desperate for help. They will turn to their local councillors, who will be powerless. They will turn to their Members of Parliament, naturally and properly, who will be very busy seeking to support them.

We are also about to see an assault on elective local government in this country. The so-called new localism is not a policy designed to rehabilitate and revive elective local government but one designed to marginalise and discredit it. Members of Parliament will have to work rather closely with their colleagues, who are elected members of local authorities within their constituencies, in order to sort out what the implications of that will be. Among those implications, for example, will be the drive in education policy towards the establishment of more free schools and academies. The creation of surplus places out of a budget for education which will be, if anything, contracting will lead to enormous stresses and some extremely vexed local proposals and decisions to be taken. Members of Parliament will also have to be deeply involved in those decisions.

We are to see major, gratuitous and unheralded reform of the National Health Service. Let us wait and see what the politics of that turns into once the British Medical Association gets to work, putting the frighteners on the constituents of Members of Parliament. There will be some very rough and unpleasant politics, and very real issues that Members of Parliament will be wrestling with in their constituencies as they seek to rescue or retrieve a worthwhile health service out of the upheaval that the Government have decided that it is appropriate to bring in.

There is going to be a new planning regime and, at the same time, there are going to be far fewer planning officers in local planning authorities. Planning issues are immensely contentious and sensitive within constituencies. While they are arguably not properly the responsibility of Members of Parliament as they are decisions that fall to be taken locally, all the same there are going to be questions that MPs will be invited to involve themselves with and any MP who cares about his constituency will certainly wish to be involved.

[Lord Glentoran]

My Lords, I am so sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, once again, but he is giving us a lecture about all the possibilities of the future and about all the things that MPs at the other end do. What I, and I am sure people on this side of the House, would like to hear from him is what the party opposite thinks and considers is a sensible number of MPs to be elected to the other House.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

I cannot, of course, speak for the Front Bench of the Labour Party, but in my own view it should be not less than 650. I therefore disagree with the proposition from my noble friend Lady McDonagh, although she is shifting the debate in a direction I want to see it move in. I am making a case not only that she is proposing too few Members of Parliament—630—but that we ought to have an amendment down on the Order Paper, and probably will on Report, that will provide for an increase above 650. I do not want to detain the House unduly, but I think that some of these issues—

Let us consider the question of immigration, which is such a staple of Members of Parliament’s surgeries. Indeed, Mr Greg Hands, the Member of Parliament for Hammersmith and Fulham—

[Lord Kinnock]

Before my noble friend moves on to that point, in response to the interesting point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, which he answered with perfect rectitude and transparency, neither he, I, nor anyone in this House, or indeed in the other place, can anticipate what the finalised policy of the alternative Government—the Labour Party—will be on numbers in the House of Commons. However, does my noble friend not agree with me that it is a supreme irony that the only way for our parliamentary democracy to prove absolutely that the coalition Government are not engaging in gerrymandering is by seeking not to change the number after the next election, which will be won by the Labour Party, in order conclusively to demonstrate that while others may have sought to meet their political convenience by establishing a fixed number for election to the House of Commons, the Labour Party will not engage in the same nefarious practice?

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

I completely agree with my noble friend. I have said that I do not think it is appropriate for Governments or politicians to fix the size of the House of Commons. That should emerge from the deliberations of the Boundary Commissions, themselves informed by the criteria that a Speaker’s Conference or some other independent body has formulated and proposed for discussion and debate in the country and upon which I hope we could reach consensus.

As I say, I am anxious to conclude my speech, but I just want to say something about immigration. I was mentioning that Mr Greg Hands, the Member of Parliament for Hammersmith and Fulham, stated in 2007 that he had between 700 and 800 unresolved immigration cases in his constituency case load. It is immense. We are now seeing a tighter cap on immigration brought in by the coalition Government, so that it can only be expected that this pot will boil even more vigorously and fiercely than it has in the past and that Members of Parliament will be very busy with that. Of course, they are going to be busy dealing with the crisis about student debt and, very possibly, with bankrupt universities in their constituencies.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My noble friend has given some examples of the increased workload on Members of Parliament: for example, the fact that with increased boundary changes there will also be a degree of internecine strife between Members of Parliament who will fear that a neighbour, perhaps of the same party, will seek to oppose them in future boundary revisions. Is he also aware that it is increasingly difficult to find Members of Parliament to be members of Select Committees? We pride ourselves on our Select Committees, but even the Foreign Affairs Committee—which I had the honour to chair over two Parliaments and which was, along with the Treasury Committee, probably the most prestigious and sought-after committee—frequently did not have more than two-thirds of its members present. That problem is surely likely to increase.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My noble friend Lord Anderson of Swansea must not tempt me to repeat myself. We must not repeat ourselves in these debates because there are many substantive issues that we need to look at. However, I suggested in some observations in an earlier debate that there was a problem in finding all the people needed to be members of the important committees in another place.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

I was not talking about finding people to be members but getting them to attend.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

I had the temerity to touch on that, too, but I did not have time—because I did not wish to detain the House—to talk about the importance of finding people to serve on the Council of Europe and the NATO General Assembly, and for all the other important responsibilities that Members of the House of Commons, between them, all carry.

My noble friend touched on the possibility of internecine strife developing between existing Members, who might find themselves in some contest for the nomination for a future constituency. I will give way in a second. I do not think that in the Labour Party people would be so uncomradely as to engage in that, but who can say what might happen among the Members of Parliament of the parties opposite?

[Lord Winston]

I do not want to delay the House very much, but my noble friend has talked about committees. Is it not also true—I do not think this has been raised before—that Members of Parliament often deal with a large number of very technical issues? For example, as a scientist presenting to them on embryology, it was extremely difficult to get proper comprehension of the science that we were discussing and the ethical issues that were involved. MPs were eager to learn about this but it took a lot of time.

One of the problems I found, both as a Member of this House and before I joined it, was that it was very difficult to find enough Members of Parliament to attend meetings that we had organised with experts to make sure that there was a thorough recognition of the subtleties of the legislation. This certainly applied to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. That is only one of several issues. More recently, it was also true of the issues of hybrid embryos, when there was great difficulty in explaining those things. Members of Parliament would attend a committee for 15 minutes and then be off to the next job. That, I hope my noble friend will agree, is one reason why he is making a very pertinent point.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My noble friend makes an extremely important point. With the abolition of bodies such as the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, which the Government seem to be contemplating, and a whole series of expert bodies that is adumbrated in the provisions of the Public Bodies Bill, we will face yet greater difficulty in ensuring that there is an informed body of knowledge among Members of Parliament to enable them to debate effectively these immensely important and sensitive issues. My noble friend Lord Winston has tempted me to explore that avenue but, in view of the time and the impatience of so many of my noble friends to make their own contributions to the debate, I ought to sit down.

[Baroness Nye]

I support my noble friend Lady McDonagh. I have worked with my noble friend over many years. On matters of organisation I always follow her lead because she has great expertise in this area. It has not always been the case on, perhaps, politics or personalities over that period, but this is not the place.

When I spoke at Second Reading, I started by saying that I thought there was a consensus among all the parties that we had a duty and responsibility to look at legislation to see whether it restores trust and confidence in our parliamentary democracy. I have listened to most of the debate in Committee and I am afraid that nothing I have heard has managed to change my mind. In the Second Reading debate I had the privilege of following the noble Lord, Lord Maples. Unfortunately, he is not present. I did not agree with him then and I do not agree with him now.

As has been said, there has been no pre-legislative scrutiny or any kind of consultation on this constitutional reform. We heard this afternoon—it was actually yesterday afternoon—from the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that the Government still strongly advocate pre-legislative scrutiny. If this Bill had had that scrutiny or consultation, more progress might have been made and we might not have found ourselves in such problematic areas.

I disagree with my noble friend Lord Kinnock—it does not happen very often and I apologise for it in advance—but I understand the position of the Liberal Democrats as before the election they wanted to introduce STV, and therefore saw no need for the other place to have any more than 500 elected representatives. They also wanted to have a thorough overhaul of the state and to introduce a form of federal government which would involve many decisions being devolved to the institutions. I will not comment on whether or not that was a good policy. I do not agree with it but at least it had the merit of being coherent and understandable. The Conservatives also went into the election seeking a reduction in seats of 10 per cent, which would have brought them down to 585. When they drew up the coalition agreement, because the Liberal Democrats agreed to a referendum on AV and not on STV, their proposal to reduce the number of MPs to 500 was obviously not appropriate and was withdrawn. In my humble opinion the next best thing would have been to go back to the figure of 585, but that did not happen. As we have heard in the debate tonight, yesterday and at other stages, we have not really got to the bottom of where the figure of 600 came from. We have heard that savings to the public purse is a priority. I should have thought that forgoing an extra 15 Members would have added to those savings. To go back to my point about confidence being restored, I do not think that it is restored if, within weeks of campaigning for a reduction to 585, the figure suddenly switches to 600, with no explanation.

I take the point that my noble friend Lord Soley made that, whatever the figure is, if this Government set a figure it establishes a precedent for any future Government to set a different figure. Governments should stay out of deciding the number of seats. The amendments proposed by my noble friends for an independent body to look at this would have been a good way forward. Why am I therefore supporting my noble friend? One of the things that the Government could have done was to look at the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949 and the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, which both had targets of 613 seats. It was a target, not a specific number that we should have, but there was a feeling that we all agreed on 613. An independent boundary commission would then put that into place. When the Minister winds up, I hope that he will say whether that figure was considered and whether the Government considered amending that legislation to make the 613 figure not a target but the limit.

I support my noble friend’s amendment because I think that 630 is closer to that 613 figure and therefore would also get rid of some of the problems regarding Cornwall, Ynys Mon and certainly the Isle of Wight, as my noble friend has pointed out. Therefore, it is a way of addressing the issues. I take the point that both parties in the coalition have put forward a reduction in seats and therefore we must take that seriously. I would prefer not to go down this route but, if we are going down it, we need some leeway in what the figure is, and 630 to me would be the best way of achieving that. Therefore, I support my noble friend.

[Baroness Billingham]

My Lords, I should like to speak about something slightly different, but I am pleased to support the amendment of my noble friend Lady McDonagh.

Before I came into this House, I had the great privilege of being a Member of the European Parliament. That gives me an insight into what it is like to represent a constituency because I represented not only one constituency—as most people here will have done or will have associated themselves with—but seven Westminster constituencies. It just so happens that, before I was elected MEP, each of those constituencies in Northamptonshire and part of Leicestershire were held by men, and each of those men were Conservatives. It was a shock to all of us, including me, that I was elected then—I promise noble Lords that I have never asked for a recount—but that gave me an opportunity of working with those constituencies which, although they were side by side, were unique in themselves.

Perhaps I may remind noble Lords of those constituencies: Northampton North, Northampton South, Wellingborough, Kettering, Daventry, Corby and part of Leicestershire known as Blaby. I can assure noble Lords that, when I spoke in Northamptonshire, I always referred to my constituency as Northamptonshire and Blaby, but it will come as no surprise to anyone that, when I was speaking in Blaby, I called it Blaby and Northamptonshire. I learnt so much working with all those constituencies. Those were places that have developed over the years and over generations. They are not areas from which people move away, as people tend to stay in rural and middle-England areas such as Northamptonshire. Generation after generation can be traced back in those villages. I would urge enormous care to be taken on making too many radical changes in such constituencies.

Each of those constituencies had political divisions within them, but they also had things that united them. If there was ever a threat of a hospital closure, you can be assured that people would all be out on the streets together. In other ways, too, traditional industries were represented quite separately in those seven constituencies—one need only think of Northamptonshire’s old boot and shoe industry. Within a decade, we lost 22,000 jobs. One of my roles in those constituencies was to try to get the European Parliament to provide further support, which we achieved very successfully.

Noble Lords will also remember that Corby was a steel town that had more than its share of misfortune. The whole of that industry was wiped out in the 1980s, but you will recall that the people who arrived in the 1930s to work in the steelworks came down from Ravenscraig in Scotland. I could take you tomorrow to primary schools in Corby where you would not believe that you were not still in Ravenscraig, because the accents are still so strong. The constituencies were unique and the boundaries really mattered.

[Lord McAvoy]

On Corby, I agree with and understand my noble friend’s point about Scotland. Is she aware that there is even a Rangers FC supporters’ club in Corby?

[Baroness Billingham]

I most certainly am aware of that. On a Friday night, if you asked anyone in Corby, “What are you doing at the weekend?”, they would say, “We are going home”. I would say, “But you have lived here for the past 50 years”. Coaches were lined up in the high street for the supporters—some to watch Celtic and some to watch Rangers. Traditions died hard in Corby.

What I am trying to say is that we should not upset the apple cart by making radical changes. The development of the composition of constituencies and the way in which they function is important, not only politically but to the organisations that strive to make their constituencies better.

Finally, let me say that I had a great opportunity in 2000 to look even more closely at the constituency, when I was asked to chair an urban regeneration company in Corby. For five years we rebuilt the town: we built a new city centre, new schools, new roads and 22,000 new homes. One would have thought that the surrounding constituencies would have been jealous, but not a bit of it. The villages worked together in the county council because people knew that the need in Corby was extremely great. They supported the planning applications and the funding, and the result is there for all to see.

We should look very carefully before we tear up historic and important places where people not only want to live and work but enjoy living and working, and where they want their children to live and work and to have some sense of history. We should be aware of what we have at our disposal and of the jewels that are already in our hands.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady McDonagh, for the way in which she moved her amendment, which I am strongly inclined to support. I come here—as I often do to debates in this Chamber—not having made up my mind in advance and wanting to listen to the debate. Further amendments have been tabled and I will listen intently to the expositions that will be made, but at the moment I am heartened.

It is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, is no longer in his place, because his intervention—like that of the noble Lord, Lord Winston—sought a response from the noble Baroness on how the figure of 630 was arrived at and what criteria were brought to bear. Having looked at the previous debates in which I did not intervene and having listened to the debate so far today, I think that for the first time we are starting to see some criteria laid down that could lead to a figure that rational people might see as appropriate.

So far, we have two parties that have come together on this issue in a coalition. They have both broken the promises that they made to their respective electorates about the number of MPs that they would put into place if they were elected. They then came up with a figure of 600. From listening to the Leader of the House, it seems that 600 was plucked from the air as a nice round figure. Now that at last the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, our expert on constitutional issues, is with us, I hope that we might be able to persuade him to give us the benefit of his experience and advice on what he would see as an appropriate set of criteria that should be brought to bear in an examination of the number of constituencies that we should have in the Commons. I am serious about this. We need a proper debate that is not based just on figures plucked out of the air because they are nice and round.

In conclusion, although I do not have any great expectation of getting a response on this, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who is smiling at me, will be prepared to give us some criteria. Not just this House but the public at large deserve no less. As the noble Baroness, Lady Nye, point out, if we are to start to build trust and confidence in how the Government conduct their business and to open up parliamentary activities, we must set the facts and figures in front of people rather than just do what is most appropriate to the mood of the party of the day. I hope that we will focus on hard facts, real statistics and real issues, so that we can move forward in what I hope will be a lengthy and informative debate that should lead to a proper position being reached rather than something that is plucked out of the air.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, when I saw the amendment on the Marshalled List, I thought that we would have a very different debate from the one that has emerged. Until the speeches of my noble friends Lady Nye and Lord Brooke, I thought that we were not going to touch on what I understood was the essence of the amendment that my noble friend Lady McDonagh has moved.

I had assumed that the amendment represented not a real belief on the part of my noble friend that 630 should be the proper size of the House of Commons but what, in a traditional Committee stage of a Bill, we would regard as a probing amendment. The reality is that we have yet to have exposed to us any rationale for the size of the House of Commons that the Bill proposes. My noble friend Lord Brooke referred to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who talked about plucking a nice round number out of the air. I remember also the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, telling us with enormous earnestness—and, I assume, absolute honesty—that no political considerations were contained in the figure that emerged. So what were the reasons for choosing 600 as opposed to 650, 630, 575 or 585?

I was tempted to say that there was some sort of arcane numerology about this. Noble Lords will be aware that 650 is the product of three prime numbers: two, five squared and 13; 630 is of course the product of four prime numbers: two, three squared, five and seven. I defy anyone to find a similar formulation or number that involves five prime numbers. Maybe my noble friend Lord Winston, or some such person could come up with something.

01:45

[Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke]

Perhaps I could postulate another figure, given the nature of the debate. Could we maybe go for 666?

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

It is interesting that the noble Baroness suggests that. When I looked in more detail at the combinations of prime numbers, I was going to say that perhaps the figure of 600 was chosen because it was a round number and that it would be very different from choosing 666, which is the mark of the beast, which no doubt noble Lords opposite would not have wished to use.

[Lord Snape]

As the mover of the next amendment, let me just assure my noble friend that there will be no fancy mathematics from me.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

I would expect nothing less.

However, 640 has the virtue of being the product of only two prime numbers: two to the power of seven and five, as I am sure the noble Lord is well aware. Actually, it is interesting that you could choose a number that is simply one prime number—I have not done the analysis of to which they will be—but there is a comparatively small number of options that we have considered that are the product of two prime numbers.

I do not believe that that was the motivating factor in the Government choosing that figure, but the people of this country have a right to know what were the determining factors for the choice. Essentially, we have two options. One is that it is a political fix, as a number of noble Lords have suggested, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, has assured us that that is not the case. What is the answer? Has the number been entirely been plucked out of the air, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally perhaps suggested? If so, that is an extraordinary way of choosing the size of the elected House of Commons. It is bizarre. Are we being told that the only two possible reasons why 600 has emerged as the figure is either a crude political fix or a random number plucked out of the air?

I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, would not be party to a crude political fix, nor do I believe that he would treat the country with such contempt as simply to allow a number to be plucked out of the air. There must be a rationale, so why is that not being shared with your Lordships in this House or with the country? What exactly are the arguments? In the absence of being given a convincing explanation that is not numerology or a number that seemed nice—a number that is less than 650 but a bit more than any number that we have previously mentioned in the run-up to the election, which may be the way that these things were done—I begin to believe that perhaps there was some political undercurrent in choosing the number 600.

I want to hear the noble Lord, Lord McNally, reaffirm that there have been no political calculations of that sort. I want him to say that none of the special advisers supporting Ministers involved in the decision have been exchanging e-mails on the subject of what will be the political consequence of choosing 600 as opposed to 585 or 650. Let the noble Lord make the assurance that there are no e-mails between special advisers, that there have been no conversations with Ministers and that work in the political parties has not been done—or, if it has been done, that it has not been shared with those who have been making the decisions.

It cuts no ice if we are being told that the number of 600 has been arrived at for no reason whatsoever. Frankly, we will believe that it was political chicanery. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, will have to work very hard to convince us otherwise and that there are not smoking e-mails or smoking correspondence somewhere that demonstrate that that was the motivation driving the Government to the figure that has been chosen.

[Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan]

My Lords, I come to this debate remembering what my noble friend Lady McDonagh said at the beginning about the boundaries being redrawn here in a manner comparable with imperial Britain carving up Africa. My mind goes back to 20 years ago today, when our forces went into Kuwait and we entered the first Gulf War. In some people's minds, that was to correct a cartographical error of British imperialism. When British Governments adopt arbitrary means to achieve quick political fixes, eventually the problems blow up in their faces.

I remember that, not that many years ago, when the noble Lord, Lord Lang, was Secretary of State for Scotland, he had the very bright idea that he could change the political character of Scotland, particularly at local government level, by taking away an entire tier of local authorities—removing the regions. He was then going to re-establish the political map of Scotland by having a number of single-tier authorities. Much to everyone's surprise, he believed that in some instances, those single-tier authorities would be run by Conservative administrations. As it happened, the neighbouring authority to my constituency—in fact, part of my constituency was in it—was Stirling, which was to be the Tories’ jewel in the crown. They did not win anything across Scotland.

The Scottish electorate turned on them with a ferocity that was even greater in 1997. They did that because they resented the cheap, quick fix of a bit of political gerrymandering. The irony was that not only were we, as a consequence of that victory, able to have the road to 1997 and a Labour Government, but it provided us with the elimination of one of the major obstacles to devolution: a two-tier system of local government in Scotland. There are innumerable examples of Governments—invariably Tory Governments—who have tried to be too clever by half when they have messed about with our constitutional and electoral arrangements.

[Lord Snape]

It is not just in Scotland, of course, where the Conservative Party has messed up local government. It did exactly the same thing in England under the Local Government Act 1972, which created metropolitan county councils that it thought it could win. The Act was created by the Heath Government in 1972 and abolished by the Thatcher Government a decade or so later because they could not win them. It was at enormous expense; yet here we are debating legislation that will supposedly save money by reducing the number of Members of Parliament. The whole thing reeks of hypocrisy.

[Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan]

My noble friend makes a very good point, but I will not go down that road. It is interesting that it is not only north of the River Tweed where there have been mistakes of this nature. It is endemic in the Conservative Party and, at the moment, in its running dogs, the junior members of the coalition. The point I want to make is that the boundaries in Scotland have been changed. The constituencies were changed as a consequence of devolution. We reduced the number of seats from 72 to 59. We did so because there was a precedent or a reason for it. As a consequence of the treaty of Union 1707, Scotland was to be overrepresented in the Westminster Parliament because Scotland gave up the three estates at that time.

As for some of the earlier discussions today about the reduction in the number of seats, such a reduction can have legitimacy if there is a reduction in the inequality of the legislatures. As a consequence of devolution, when Scotland began to get responsibility for a number of the powers that it had previously had in England, we in Scotland we could not disagree with a reduction in the number of seats.

My noble friend Lady Liddell of Coatdyke and I disagreed about what I thought was the consequence of that, which was to reduce the number of seats in the Scottish Parliament as a consequence of a reduction in the number of seats in the British Parliament represented from Scotland, but we do not need to go into those battles this evening. The point I want to make is that there were well laid out precedents for a reduction in the number of seats. They were on the basis of a broad constitutional settlement, which the Conservatives grudgingly accepted but now embrace because the proportional representation arrangements in the Scottish Parliament and in Scottish local government, which I deplore, to be perfectly frank, afford them a foothold in Scottish politics that they would otherwise not enjoy under any other system. However, that is not what they are offering here, although my noble friend Lady Armstrong suggested that this might be the precursor to some grander programme of electoral reform. Frankly, that is a bit premature at this stage.

It is clear that if we reduce the number of seats on the basis that we are talking about, the Labour Party might well lose 25 seats, the Liberals about seven and the Conservatives about 10 seats. I am not sure of the arithmetic, but it would be wrong to assume that it will necessarily be to the electoral advantage of the proposers of this scheme that there will be much advantage, because it is so blatantly unfair and unjust that the British public will probably turn on this wretched Government and its associates—running dogs if you want to call them that.

I happen to believe that in some respects the reduction in the number of seats will not present too many electoral problems for us, but it will leave a rotten taste in the mouth of the British electorate. Electors will see the manner in which this whole project is being pursued: the indecent haste, the lack of consultation and the inability of individual Members of Parliament and interested parties across the political spectrum to have a say in what is happening to areas in which they have worked for over the years. This is what sticks in the craw of so many people at this time.

We have an arbitrary figure that has been plucked out of the air but which seems to suit someone’s convenience. Frankly, I think it will blow up in their faces and in the end will not be that significant. What is more important is the impact in the interim if this is carried. It will have an effect not only on the body politic in Britain but on the actual operation of politics in this country. People have said that a reduction in the number of seats and an increase in the number of electors will have an impact on the job and responsibilities of Members of Parliament.

We know that at the moment in the other place, every penny spent by a Member of Parliament is under the closest scrutiny, but if you increase the number of people a Member of Parliament has to represent, you increase the workload and the responsibilities of the staff. As has been suggested, there is likely to be a continuing rush of activity resulting from the indiscriminate sending of e-mails that often cannot be traced back to a constituent. You have to add the caveat, “I am sorry. I cannot answer this query until you give me your postal address rather than your electronic address”. This kind of thing will increase and make the job of MPs to represent their people effectively that much more difficult.

It has been made clear that if the economic difficulties that we are facing continue, the workload of Members of Parliament will rise. I represented a seat that for many years had in excess of 20 per cent long-term unemployment among the electors because of the decline in the textile industry, the closure of pits and the like. The point I want to make is that those people did not have just one problem; they had all the problems that poverty brings. It is assumed that somehow we can get out of this difficulty and that there are some bright and sunny uplands that the economy does not really worry about since there will only be 600 MPs and we are going to reduce public expenditure on political representation. That is nonsense. Frankly, I think that in playing with the political system, this Government are playing with fire.

I do not really worry about the impact of a reduction in the number of seats on the outcome of the next general election because I think that Labour will win it substantially. It will win it because of the daft notions of the people on the Benches opposite about matters such as this. What is equally worrying, however, is that as public representatives—we are appointed, not elected, but we are part of the system—we will see the political system in this country suffer as a consequence of the arbitrary and arrogant way in which this Government are approaching a fundamental proposition: the manner in which we are represented.

It is always difficult for Members of Parliament to adjust to and work out how to deal with particular areas when boundaries are changed. One reason why my title refers to Clackmannan is that for 26 years it was the one part of my constituency that I represented continuously over the period. Local government boundaries came and went, and constituency boundaries came and went, but I kept a hold on the county of Clackmannan. It is the smallest county in Scotland and the one that was never big enough to be represented on its own. It has a population of only about 55,000, with 36,000 to 38,000 electors, so it always has to be added to other bits, although the people of Clackmannan always say that other bits are added on to us.

It will be quite a traumatic experience for a number of people in the House of Commons, newly elected Members who have been nurturing the seat for the past four or five years, to be confronted at future general elections, earlier than they had anticipated, with selection conferences and the problems that they will cause within the party. There will have to be completely new strategies developed by these individual Members of Parliament—the people who, in most instances, are blameless of the excesses of their predecessors, but who, nevertheless are being treated with the contempt that many of their predecessors deserved. These individuals do not need that; they do not need the hassle of boundary redrawing; they do not need the hassle of being told, “The job you are doing is not sufficient, you should be doing a bigger one”. Because, at the end of the day, that is what this means—the addition of another 10,000 or 12,000 people to an MP’s workload. It can be quite significant and quite unsettling. It comes with the job, but it does not have to come quite as early as we are talking about as a consequence of accepting the changes that the Bill would afford.

The figure of 650 is one that we can live with at the moment. We can consult widely and effectively by means of a Speaker’s Conference, or by means of other forms of consultation and we can change it if that is seen to be appropriate, but to pluck a figure out of the air and to drive it through in the arrogant manner that this Government are adopting is, frankly, totally unacceptable. They will face the same consequences that their predecessors faced when they tried to gerrymander and to fiddle with our electoral system and our constitution.

[Lord Trimble]

My Lords, I had thought of intervening during the speech of the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, but it occurred to me that the comments I was going to make would not be appropriate to address to him, as they relate to earlier speeches. I want to share with noble Lords the fact that a few moments ago I received a text message from my younger son, who is a university student. He told me that he is watching this on BBC Parliament and his comment is that Labour are consistently waffling.

[Baroness Mallalieu]

My Lords, I hope that the House will forgive that I was unable to speak on Second Reading on the Bill and that this is the first time that I have intervened in Committee. It is not intended to be in any way discourteous to the House. I shall try to avoid waffling and I shall try to be brief.

Surely, what all sides of the House want to achieve is a figure which will enable the House of Commons to carry out its work most effectively and at reasonable cost. What we have in the Bill—and I say it to my noble friends who have put down amendments with specific figures—is horse-trading, and that is no way to change the constitution of our country. The thought that it is only Members of this House or another place who should be making that decision, without assistance or consultation from outside, seems to me to be insulting to the electorate. It is the electorate who must decide what they want their Members of Parliament to do and how many of them are needed to do it. The failure to consult independently on the Bill in any proper or meaningful way seems to me to greatly diminish what the Government intend to do with the Bill as at present.

What cannot be decided, surely, is how many Members of Parliament are required until we are clear what we want our Members of Parliament to do. That is what my noble friend Lord Winston said earlier in relation to the medical profession and I think that we sometimes lose sight of it in politics.

We have heard conflicting evidence in the course of what I have found a fascinating evening. On the one hand there have been noble Lords like the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, who have said that there is no difficulty in representing a constituency of 96,000, I think he said, and the noble Lord, Lord Maples, who said that he could not understand what either the Scottish or the Welsh MPs were doing with their time because they had so little to do. On the other hand, I have listened to others—on this side, mainly—who have spoken of huge workloads, caused sometimes by complex legislation such as on immigration.

I have never had the good fortune to be in the other place—not for the want of trying a couple of times—but I have had second-hand an opportunity, over a considerable time, to see the way in which the job of an MP has changed and is continuing to change. That is why I feel that to set in stone a particular figure for the numbers is wholly wrong.

I was born in 1945, which, coincidentally, was the year that my father was elected as a Labour MP to another place. At that time there were 640 Members of Parliament and, I think, an electorate of some 33.5 million. That electorate has shot up many times since then, whereas the number of MPs has not. My father, as I understand it from those who knew him, was regarded as an excellent constituency MP.

[A noble Lord]

Hear, hear!

[Baroness Mallalieu]

I am grateful to that person who knew him. In those days, a Member of Parliament was not required or indeed expected to be totally full-time. He was expected to have another job, and the hours of the House were designed with that in mind—indeed, frankly, people were paid with that in mind—and the burden on those people was very much less. My father was a good constituency MP because he went once a month to his seat in Huddersfield, which was his home town but where he did not live; he had surgeries there, and he reported back on what had happened in Westminster, where he considered his main job was. He dealt with constituency problems but he did them one afternoon a week, when his secretary, Mrs Whibley—how could I forget her name?—used to come to the house and sit down and deal with the whole of his parliamentary correspondence when he dictated the replies to her. As I understand it, when I was asked as a child, “What does your father do for a living?”, my answer was, “He cuts the grass and sometimes he writes articles”. I saw an awful lot of him because Members of Parliament were not required to be in the House at that time until later in the day, and my father followed his profession as a journalist.

What I have seen of my friends who are in another place, though, is that it is a wholly different world now. Some have spoken of the difficulties of Members of Parliament attending committees. When I first came to this place—which, I am reminded by my noble friend Lord Desai, who came at the same time, was nearly 20 years ago—I was mildly irritated, to say the least, by the fact that whenever one went to a meeting, particular all-party groups and so on, Members would inevitably come in late and leave early. I thought that it was some sort of bid to appear to be very busy and important, but the more I have seen of it, the more I have realised that it is genuinely a problem. They have such a great burden, not only because of meetings to attend but because the hours of the House have changed so radically over the past 50 years or so that they are genuinely pressed to devote the amount of time that is required, particularly, by committees and Select Committees of the House. They are also dealing now not just with a vastly increased workload from constituents but with a much more sophisticated political lobbying system and with pressure groups, all of which require attention. Others have spoken of e-mails, faxes, mobile phones and other things that simply did not exist all that time ago.

To put it frankly, although I have heard from others in the House today that they have no problem in dealing with huge constituencies, the Members of Parliament who I know best seem the whole time to be pushed to achieve what is required of them. I do not know whether reducing the number would make that harder. I do not have the ability to make that decision; all I can do is listen to the conflicting accounts from both sides. It seems that there may be considerable constituency variations, some where it is possible for a Member of Parliament to deal with a much larger number of electors, and others where the workload is almost unbearable, even given the considerable support that MPs now have. If it is intended in this part of the Bill to reduce the costs of the electoral system for the general public, I just wonder whether the general public really appreciate that if the burden is great, they will not receive the service that they currently have unless there is also an increase in expenditure on staff.

I am coming to the end of what I want to say. Ultimately, whether the figure is arrived at by horse trading, as I suspect, or whether it is plucked from the air, that is wholly wrong, but even more wrong is setting the number in stone, as the Bill does. We need flexibility. We need independent people, such as boundary commissioners, looking at the whole process and deciding what is right and, above all, we need the public to be involved in the debate.

For the life of me, I cannot understand the Government’s attitude in refusing to split the Bill. It seems to me that, if they were to do so, it would be perfectly possible in a relatively short time for us to have the debate and for the public also to have their say on what they want of their MPs and whether they want to see a reduction in the size of the Commons and, if so, to ensure that they understand the consequences. It may be that they will do that, and it may be that, having heard those arguments based on the evidence that the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, called for—we have not seen any of it tonight—I will come to the same view. However, I cannot accept that the Government are seeking to make a major constitutional change without any proper consultation or pre-legislative scrutiny and without giving us any explanation of how they have determined that this vital change should be made.

[For the continuation of today’s proceedings, see Official Report, 18 January 2011.]