Local Elections: Voter ID

Baroness Corston Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am very grateful to my noble friend. The chances of my presenting myself at a selection meeting for the Labour Party, when it chooses a new candidate, are small. However, my noble friend makes a valid point: people are now accustomed to being asked for various forms of ID during the normal course of their daily lives, so there should not be a problem as we introduce these pilots for voter ID in a few local authorities.

[Baroness Corston (Lab)]

My Lords, when I was in the other place representing Bristol East, I was one of the few Members who conducted a constituency-wide consultation on identity cards when they were proposed by the then Labour Government. There was a mix of replies and we then held a consultation with the Minister, Beverley Hughes—now my noble friend Lady Hughes. The people who were most in favour of identity cards were women from our ethnic minority communities, who said to us in terms that they had no access to their passports and no bank accounts; some of them were not even allowed to have a library card. This also applied to replies from another women’s organisation, representing women who were subject to coercive control. They all said, “I do not have any means of identity, and no man in my family will allow me any”. Perhaps the Minister will tell me how women like that will be able to vote because they will not turn up if they think that they will be turned away.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Baroness makes a valid point. Local authorities are implementing equality impact assessments and working with partners to ensure that voter ID does not risk preventing any eligible voter from voting. The noble Baroness has raised an important issue, and when the Electoral Commission evaluates the impact of the pilots, I will make sure that it takes on board the specific issue she raises.

Public Bodies: Israel Boycotts

Baroness Corston Excerpts

Thursday 25th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Corston (Lab)]

My Lords, given that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St John’s, has repeatedly said at that Dispatch Box that the settlements are a contravention of international law, that we deplore them and that they should not be there, how does it follow that it is illegal or impossible for a local authority to take action in response to those repeated statements by refusing to trade with those very settlements?

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

My Lords, to repeat what I said at the start, the guidance merely clarifies and reminds contracting authorities of their obligations under the WTO government procurement agreement, to which the EU is a signatory, which has been in place since 1996 and which the Labour Government and the coalition Government both upheld.

Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [HL]

Baroness Corston Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great privilege as well as a great pleasure to have heard the Minister’s maiden speech—I assume, in this case, written by himself—and to welcome him as a trustee of the Foundation Years Trust, a charity that aims, as he said, to develop and action the findings of Frank Field’s review of poverty, a review that was set up to prevent poor children becoming poor adults. The noble Lord’s work at Santander and Quiller Consultants, which advises multinational companies, may be slightly less relevant to this Bill, but we hope that it will be of use to him on his other portfolio. However, the experience that the House might appreciate most is indeed his time as a political secretary at No. 10, so if anyone can find his way around Whitehall, we trust that it is him. However, what my party would like is some of his political nous. Not only was he involved in the perhaps unexpected 1992 election victory, but a year ago he placed a bet on an overall Tory majority in 2015 of 12. So I congratulate him on his flutter and indeed on his assured maiden over at the crease. We wish him well in the tasks ahead.

Perhaps I may also pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, on his pre-legislative Joint Committee report, and to the committee members, including my noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, who unfortunately cannot be with us today but I know will play an active role later in our proceedings, and my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie, who joins me on the Front Bench for this Bill, along with my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark.

I turn now to my own declaration of interests. I have been the chief executive of two charities and the director of corporate affairs of the country’s largest one. I have been the chair of a small charity and I remain a trustee of two. It will therefore be no surprise that we support independent charities, harnessing as they do philanthropy, volunteering and social commitment. We celebrate the million trustees who give of their time, expertise and dedication to help make Britain a kinder, more interesting and caring society.

I hope that the Minister will be relieved to know that the Bill poses us no problems, and we are content to support its Second Reading. But there are some additional powers for the Charity Commission, and responsibilities for charities that should be added.

Let me start with a concern arising from the recent lobbying Act—it is before the Minister’s time, so he does not have to take the pain for this—which undermines the freedom of charities to speak out on behalf of beneficiaries. I was moved by the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds last week, when he quoted from the Book of Proverbs:

“Open thy mouth for the dumb”,

or, in his words,

“give a voice to the experience of those who otherwise are silenced”.—[Official Report, 1/6/15; col. 209.]

That is what charities have long done, but the Government sought to curtail that in the lobbying Act. We will seek to spell out in the Bill the common-law position permitting charities to speak out on issues in line with their objectives. This will give confidence to trustees that they are free to further their objectives in this way.

We are not against the right to buy, but we query the Government’s plan to force housing associations to sell their assets, against their will, regardless of their trust deed, their source of funds or the decision of their trustees. Ninety per cent of housing associations are charities and their property is not state property, so it is not the Government’s to dispose of. It is private property; it may have been donated for a particular cause, such as providing homes for autistic or disabled people, the retired, the homeless, recovering substance abusers or, indeed, a religious community; or the property might be built on rural exception sites in the National Planning Policy Framework, intended for affordable housing in perpetuity. Not only might it be a breach of covenant to use these assets for other purposes, but once sold and resold a sheltered block or a therapeutic or supportive community could be broken up as new private owners or tenants of buy to let with different lifestyles move in.

Charity assets are preserved by legislation for public benefit and may be used only for the purposes defined in the charity’s trust deed. Furthermore, charity law requires a charity to dispose of its assets in furtherance of its charitable objectives, and that does not mean simply for money. Indeed, the second part of the Bill, which the Minister has outlined, allows charities to use their funds as social investment, and we welcome this. Funds will also be used in the provision of homes for the homeless. But that will be completely undone if such homes have to be sold off, and then no doubt resold, as the owner can cash in on the Government’s subsidy.

There are small almshouses, there are “supporting people” charities, and there are large charities such as Peabody—150 years old, with 27,000 homes and its own Act of Parliament. Its chair has said:

“Peabody’s assets belong to us. They are not the government’s to sell”.

All are governed by charity law, based on principles dating from Elizabethan times to preserve charitable assets. Do the Government propose to amend charity law so as to override the trust deed or trustees’ wishes in order to implement their policy?

The Bill will rightly exclude people who have supported terrorism from being trustees, as well as people involved in money laundering or just subject to an IVA. But the Bill does not exclude people convicted of serious sexual offences; they would be debarred only after a complaint to the Charity Commission, leaving the responsibility for checking with other trustees, who may themselves have been involved in such activity or, if completely innocent, be unaware of the background of a new trustee. This cannot be right when charities have access to children or others with vulnerabilities. We want the Bill to add being on the sexual offences register to the automatic exclusions, which will still be subject to the normal waiver provisions.

We will also look to strengthen the Bill so that vulnerable people and children are properly protected. There are some worrying cases where charities become closed shops when abuse is uncovered. The Charity Commission should be able to investigate the fitness of trustees and consider replacing them where the charity fails to deal with abuse allegations. It is surely right for the commission, in regulating trustees, to have a duty to safeguard and protect children and vulnerable adults. Suspected child abuse should be as big a red flag as suspected financial misconduct. Could the Minister let us know the Government’s thinking on this issue?

Your Lordships will be aware of the tragic suicide of Olive Cooke, a 92 year-old poppy seller.

[Baroness Corston (Lab)]

My noble friend will be interested to know that one of the best experiences of my 13 years as Member of Parliament for Bristol East was my friendship with Olive Cooke. She had a face that could light up a room. She was one of the kindest people I knew. I always looked forward to her letters, giving me general and continual advice. Her outstanding contribution—selling more poppies for Remembrance Sunday than any other person in this country—is well documented. But the fact that a person who was, on the face of it, such a strong woman should feel driven in part to her death by being, in a way, prejudiced by her commitment to charitable giving, which was legendary, is quite a stain on our charitable sector.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

We have, indeed, heard many tributes to Olive Cooke from her family, from her friends and from the successor to my noble friend in Bristol for all the work that she did not just in selling poppies but in her charitable work. While her family do not think that the action of charities and their fundraising were responsible for her death, it is clear that Olive was persistently contacted by many charities and, being the generous and caring person of whom we have just heard, found it hard to say no.

Since the media coverage of her death, hundreds have come forward to say that they too have come under pressure. A major concern is where elderly relatives, sometimes suffering from dementia, have been targeted. Meanwhile, Croydon has become the 100th authority to have to crack down on chuggers, and at the weekend the Mail on Sunday reported some underhand methods of a private company working for Oxfam, the RSPCA and Cancer Research UK that broke every rule in the book to make money for itself as well as for the charities.

Many, including the vulnerable, feel hassled and harangued by charities, including by cold calling. I have my doubts whether cold calling is ever acceptable. Indeed, we strengthened the Consumer Rights Bill in an attempt to stamp it out. I regret the Government’s failure to live up to their promise to provide call-barring facilities to the particularly vulnerable, but while cold calling from a charity might elicit a donation, it could be at the expense of the trust that people have in charities, as the Minister just described. Furthermore, securing one donation can lead to a ratcheting up of demands, as many stories, including that in the Mail, have demonstrated. Indeed, the UK Giving report showed that a majority of donors agreed:

“I am worried that if I give I will just be asked for more”.

The sad case of Olive Cooke and the Mail’s exposé show that existing self-regulation is not working. A third of fundraising charities are not even members of the Fundraising Standards Board. We will investigate how we might use the Bill to strengthen the commission’s role in ensuring that charity fundraising is properly regulated, possibly by requiring charities to sign up to the industry’s code and to belong to the standards board, or by giving the Charity Commission stronger reserve powers. Olive’s law, or at least getting all charities to be regulated by the FRSB, would be a lasting testimony to this woman’s lifetime of work for charity.

We support the Bill and its protections, but they will never work if there is no one to answer the phone or investigate concerns. ACEVO, the Charities Aid Foundation and the Charity Finance Group all question the feasibility of increasing the Charity Commission’s case load without a commensurate increase in its budget—a budget halved since 2007-08. We recognise the need for savings and for the effective use of resources, but does the Minister think it is realistic for government to give more work to the commission while drastically reducing its resources? We support an effective, robust regulator for the healthy development and growth of the charity sector. I look forward to working with the Minister on his first Bill to enable it really to contribute to the aim that I think we both share.

Recall of MPs Bill

Baroness Corston Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, for that very brief Second Reading speech, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for the meticulousness with which she has pursued this delicate issue—although perhaps not for some of her slightly ungenerous little comments in moving her amendment.

There are a number of difficult issues here. There are issues of potential intimidation and certainly issues of electoral fraud that require that a marked register be assembled and is available to those who want to check against impersonation—so we are conscious both that this cannot be an entirely secret process and that there are arguments that it should not be an entirely public process. The Government have considered this and consider that we can designate a process that guards against impersonation but which also provides some safeguards against intimidation.

As I said in Committee, signing a petition, particularly in person, is unavoidably, to a degree, a public act. However, that does not go so far as sanctioning the publication of the full list of those who have signed the petition—the marked register—as is implied by the Opposition’s amendment. I agree that regulations should specify—

[Baroness Corston (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. I think he just said that there were safeguards: can he say what they are?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I hope that I will be able to explain, as I continue, what some of the safeguards against intimidation might be.

The regulations should specify that the marked register will be available for inspection, although, as at elections, that will be dependent on certain restrictions and an application to the petition officer. There are also some protections we can provide, such as choosing not to mirror the provision at elections where the marked register can be requested as a document for campaigning purposes by political parties and candidates. There is a good argument here that inspection should be allowed for reasons of preventing personation, but that the document itself should be kept securely and used only to test whether or not personation has been attempted.

Furthermore, the wording of the amendments implies a degree of ease of access to, and publicity of, the marked register, which does not exist even at elections. Those who wish to view the marked register must justify to the returning officer, or the Chief Electoral Officer in Northern Ireland, where problems of intimidation exist very clearly, why they need to inspect the marked register itself and could not glean sufficient information from the full register. Inspection is under supervision and the law specifies that, although handwritten notes are permitted, portions of, or indeed the whole of, the marked register may not be copied down.

I hope that this provides the assurance needed. There is only a small amount of space between the Government’s intentions for the regulations and the spirit of the noble Baroness’s amendments. There will be a marked register and it will be a document which can be made available for inspection—although, as I have said, there will be controls mirroring those at elections and, in some respects, further controls in that the Government do not intend that copies should be made available for campaigning purposes, for the very evident reasons given. I also accept that signing is, to a degree, a public act, although there will be those who prefer to sign by post and avoid attending a signing place; that is their choice to make. I also see the merit in the petition notice card making clear the degree to which signing is an open process; it will therefore ensure that suitable wording is included before it is user tested.

However, I believe that the regulation-making powers in the Bill are sufficient to deliver the policy outcomes under discussion. I therefore thank the noble Baroness for the care that she has taken to ensure that we address this delicate and difficult issue. I hope that we have satisfied her and, on that basis, I hope that she will be able to withdraw her amendment.

Recall of MPs Bill

Baroness Corston Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Crickhowell]

There was one election at which my majority was only 700 and something. It was therefore all the more necessary to cover every polling station and get to know the constituency. It was only by doing so that I increased my majority to a much more secure one.

Putting history to one side, the simple fact I wish to emphasise is that everything that the two noble Baronesses have said, particularly on the other side of the House, seems to be absolutely unchallengeable. If the Bill is not amended in the kind of way that they have suggested, the whole thing will be a total disaster.

[Baroness Corston (Lab)]

My Lords, I referred briefly to this issue at Second Reading. I confirm my support for the amendment in the name of my noble friends and I agree with my noble friend Lady Quin, who is drawing on her considerable experience as a Member of the other place. I said at Second Reading that four signing places in my former constituency of Bristol East, an inner-city constituency, would have given many people a challenge, because of its geography. It is banana shaped, to the east of the city, and many people would have needed at least two bus rides to get to a signing place. I cannot understand, for the life of me, why the Bill, which is going to cost a huge amount of money, cannot provide for discretion to be given to returning officers—who, after all, know far more about their constituencies than any of us on these Benches—as to how many signing places there should be in order for the Bill, dismal as it is, to have any effect at all.

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a remarkable fact that in the course of debate on the Bill not a single former Member of the other place has said a word in its support. That might be because some of us spent too long down there; it might purely be that we are prejudiced against Mr Nick Clegg, whose name appears as the main promoter of the Bill; or it might just be, as I hope the Minister will accept, that years of experience down the Corridor make us scrutinise proposals such as this, to try to put our fingers on fundamental weaknesses.

Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, I represented a borough constituency. I am speaking from memory, but I think that there were nine or 10 different places for people to vote in that constituency, and even then, there were complaints from some parts of West Bromwich, during the time I had the honour to represent part of that town, that getting to the polling station was a problem. We are to have a maximum of four places to sign a petition under the proposals in the Bill, and a minimum of four if my noble friends’ very sensible amendment is accepted. How would the Minister define a suitable place for this petition? I am aware that the memorandum says that this is a matter for the petitioning officer, but as my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, have said, there are not always convenient local government offices where these petitions can be signed. Would licensed premises, for example, be regarded as suitable places? After all, some local authority buildings are licensed for the sale of alcohol. Would that disqualify that building, in the Minister’s view?

Let us not stop at local authority premises. There are a number of working men’s clubs in the constituency that I represented. Would they be regarded as suitable premises under the terms of the Bill? What about political clubs? The last Conservative club in West Bromwich fell by the wayside some years ago—there were probably not enough patrons—but when it was open, would that have been regarded as a suitable place for a petition? Are politically affiliated clubs specifically disqualified under the terms of the Bill? I cannot find any mention of that in the memorandum, if it is the case, but I would be interested to hear the Minister’s view. After all, if a Conservative club, for example, were regarded as a suitable place, it might be possible to advertise the sophisticated humour of Mr Jim Davidson—“Come along and listen to Jim Davidson and sign a petition to get rid of your local Labour MP while you are there”. There are endless possibilities regarding the premises to be used.

What about staffing, of which mention has been made? Look at the likely procedures for signing a petition. We are all aware that when one goes to a polling station, one’s name is ticked off and one is given a ballot paper. In the privacy and secrecy of a polling booth, one puts a cross against the candidate of one’s choice. What happens regarding a petition? How is it laid out? Is it at the reception desk when one goes in? Is it possible to see who else has signed it? I ask that question because, like other noble friends, I am concerned about the number of staff who may be needed—first, to check the address and so on in order to establish that that person who is anxious to sign the petition is bona fide. Then, depending on the procedures, do we need other staff to ensure that the person signs only once? Over the years, we have all become familiar with petitions with false names that have received lots of publicity. Is it not possible, if there were only one member of staff there, for a would-be signatory to sign more than once? These are all valid questions in relation to the amendment, and I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically at it.

I started by saying that I had not heard any former Member of the other House speak in favour of the Bill. Indeed, the only person I have heard speak in favour of it is the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, who is in his place. As far as I am aware, he has never been elected to anything himself, although I understand that he tried to stand on behalf of the SDP many years ago. He writes an entertaining column in the Times; perhaps he will devote some of his future articles to pointing out—although I appreciate that he supports the Bill—some of the problems that those of us who have been involved in electoral processes over the years can see arising from the way in which it has been drafted.

I hope that the Minister, when he replies, will take these concerns seriously and carefully consider accepting the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Finkelstein]

The last thing that I would want to do is to offend my noble friend. However, the point was made directly, and by more than one noble Lord, that Members of Parliament understood why this Bill was impractical whereas others did not. Therefore, I am simply arguing that there is a reason why Members of Parliament should feel that way.

[Baroness Corston (Lab)]

My Lords, having taken part in the Second Reading and then read it in Hansard, my recollection is that pretty well everyone who spoke in that debate, particularly former Members of Parliament, said they agreed with the principle of recall but were opposed to this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, has not been paying attention.

[Lord Finkelstein]

Well, I would be delighted to hear the proposals for recall that are not the ones included in the Bill. I believe that noble Lords have opposed almost every practical measure that could be considered for recall, but I would be delighted to be told differently.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Norton of Louth]

My Lords, I will get in eventually. I outlined my alternative to the Bill on Second Reading. Addressing the amendments before us, I reiterate my support for Amendment 39 in particular. I cannot see the logic of eight weeks because I cannot see who benefits from that. Obviously, you can argue that it is unfair on the Member over whom this sword of Damocles would hang for that length of time, but I cannot see any benefit to electors. If there is that demand to recall a Member, they will want the by-election as quickly as possible, and this will just delay matters. If they feel that strongly, they would not want that length of time in which to do it. It would make far more sense to provide a much shorter period but with greater opportunities for those who want to go and sign. Therefore there should be a correlation: the more you narrow the period, the more opportunities you provide for those who want to go and sign, and it benefits everybody involved to do it as quickly as possible.

[Baroness Corston]

My Lords, I support Amendment 39. I will follow on from the comment made by my noble friend Lord Grocott against the eight-week signing period. In every election I fought I was preached against from pulpits on the issue of abortion. A general election takes about three or four weeks. I can imagine what would happen to a Member of Parliament in a constituency when an issue such as that moulders on for eight weeks, and the degree to which that single issue could influence the outcome of an election. However, to return more specifically to the issues raised by my noble friend Lord Foulkes on the necessity for returning officers to become petition officers and oversee the recall mechanism, can the Minister tell us in his response what discussions the Government have had with the Local Government Association about the way in which it sees this legislation working—and, if there have been such discussions, what was its response?

[Lord Snape]

My Lords, I support Amendments 38 and 39. I will ask the Minister a couple of genuine questions. He talked about the consultations that have taken place and will take place with local government officials about the administration of the Bill. I presume that the petition officer is more than likely to be the chief executive of the local authority—that is a reasonable assumption to make. Bearing in mind the numerous duties that chief executives have, it would be perfectly sensible for the Minister to look again at Amendment 38.

He has already said that among the matters to be resolved is the suitability of premises in which the petition is to be signed. Obviously, that cannot be done in a matter of hours; presumably it would take up a substantial chunk of the chief executive’s time. I do not want to go over the previous amendment again, but in his reply the Minister indicated the number of matters that are still subject to discussion between the Government and local authorities before the Bill is implemented. So I put it to him that surely, for those reasons, it would make sense for the number of working days to be increased from 10 to 21.

On Amendment 39, I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Norton. My noble friend mentioned abortion and the difficulties she had in her former constituency. Some years ago I was asked to speak about capital punishment on a television programme called “Central Weekend”, which might be familiar to at least one of my noble friends on this side of the House. Shortly before the programme went out there was a particularly brutal murder in the West Midlands. The question of capital punishment was raised—and understandably so—by local and national newspapers, in particular the newspaper covering my own constituency. I received a considerable amount of correspondence and some degree of odium because of the stance that I took. I would hate to think of someone in a similar position facing eight weeks of this sort of barrage, as well as whatever he or she had been charged with in the first place. An eight-week period would allow the media in effect to make the decision for the electorate, by putting on the sort of pressure that my noble friend faced on the subject she has just mentioned, which I faced some years ago and which many of us face. So both the amendments are sensible and I commend them to the Minister.

Recall of MPs Bill

Baroness Corston Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Corston (Lab)]

My Lords, like everyone else who has spoken in the debate, I support the principle of recall of Members of Parliament. Any Member of Parliament whose behaviour falls short of the standards anyone would expect, as judged by either a court of law or a committee of the Member’s peers, should face the electorate. But like everyone else, with the exception of the noble Lords, Lord Tyler and Lord Cooper of Windrush, I do not think that this Bill does the job.

One of the reasons for that was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Grocott: when the Front Benches agree, they are usually wrong. When I was first elected to the House of Commons in 1992, we had the Bill to set up the Child Support Agency. I remember going to Michael Meacher, who was then our Front-Bencher, to say, “This Bill is appalling. We should not support it”. I was told, “Oh Jean, you cannot possibly oppose a Bill where the principle is that parents should be financially responsible for their children”. I responded by saying, “No one would disagree with the principle. The problem is that this Bill does not examine the detail”. What followed were five years of heartache. I think that that has happened here. No matter what is said about scrutiny in the House of Commons, the Members of that House are in a very difficult position with regard to this Bill, given the low esteem in which many of them are now held—in my view quite wrongly.

I am appalled by the apparent attitude towards the Standards Committee. I will not rehearse much of this because it has been dealt with in forensic detail by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, but I was horrified to hear, in meetings I have held preliminary to today—and from the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, on the Government Front Bench today—that we cannot have MPs marking their own homework. I cannot think of a more pejorative description of the work of Members of Parliament. The committee does not mark the homework of the House of Commons. In the 13 years—only 13 years, compared with Members who have already spoken—that I was in the House of Commons, that committee always behaved in a quasi-judicial and absolutely impartial manner and I cannot remember anyone ever criticising its decisions, no matter how hard it was on some colleagues.

I think that the reduction in the suspension period that would trigger the possibility of a by-election from 21 days to 10 days is also wrong-headed, despite it having been introduced in the House of Commons by my party.

I am also very concerned about the effect on local authorities. This was dealt with magnificently by my noble friend Lady Hayter on the Front Bench. She rightly pointed out that the Government have now accepted that there should not be just one place where electors can go to signify that they wish for there to be a by-election in a constituency, and she cited Brecon and Radnorshire, a constituency that was familiar to me when I helped run the by-election in 1985. But even in my inner-city constituency of Bristol East, four polling places would involve most of my constituents having to take at least two bus rides, and I do not think they would do it. Of course, the effect on postal voting has only to be imagined.

Underlying a lot of this is an attitude towards Members of Parliament that I think we should deal with. They are not all scoundrels. They are not in it for the money. Most of them earn less as a Member of Parliament than they would outside—I certainly did, having worked as a barrister. I have been told that Members are having to respond to the coverage they get in certain sections of the popular press and from 38 Degrees. You cannot please these people. They are a bit like the Militant Tendency: whatever you give them, they want more. There has to be a line in the sand. We are now in a situation where Members of Parliament are having to testify that they will not accept a pay rise to which they are manifestly entitled, given that they now earn far less than the average secondary school head teacher.

We have to say that we accept that being a Member of Parliament is evidence of a desire to be in public service, not to be in it for themselves, because it means long hours and is a great responsibility. All I would say to both Front Benches is: of course the recall of MPs is desirable and necessary, but this Bill will not achieve it.

Food Poverty

Baroness Corston Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the Government are very happy to do that. After all, the whole food bank movement is a major civil society initiative. I entirely agree with the right reverend Prelate that this is a long-term problem and that we should not approach it in a partisan manner. Perhaps I might quote from the report:

“How a society protects the poorest from what appears to be a fundamental change in the way economies of the Western world are operating – which results in cuts in their living standards”—

that is, those of the poor—

“faster than other groups – calls for developing a political agenda which can only be delivered over decades”.

[Baroness Corston (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Minister accept that the number of families using food banks rose considerably during the recent half-term? What does he think is the reason for that?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I have been told by a friend who is involved in the food bank movement that demand for food banks has dipped when schools go back. The Government take some comfort from the fact that the expansion of free school meals in primary schools is clearly, therefore, a help in this regard, whatever the Daily Mail may have said in attacking the whole initiative.

European Union Committee: 2012-13 (EUC Report)

Baroness Corston Excerpts

Tuesday 30th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Corston]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate and to follow the noble Lord, Lord Boswell of Aynho, who chairs the main European Union Select Committee of your Lordships’ House with the utmost diligence and courtesy. I want also to place on record that for the majority of the 2012-13 Session Sub-Committee E—the committee on justice, institutions and consumer protection—was chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness. He certainly handed on to me a very well-oiled machine.

It reminds me somewhat of an exchange with the then clerk of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, when I was its founding chair more than 12 years ago. He told me that he had previously been clerk of the Defence Committee, which he described as like Inspector Morse’s Jaguar. It was a classic, needed a little light touch on the tiller and the accelerator, had regular servicing and caused very little trouble, whereas, he said, the Joint Committee on Human Rights was a kit car with the instructions in Hungarian. The committee handed on by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, was much more like Inspector Morse’s Jaguar and I am very grateful for that.

In the previous Session there was more than enough work for Sub-Committee E. In addition to very substantial scrutiny work, the sub-committee carried out one full inquiry, a joint inquiry together with Sub-Committee F, and a follow-up inquiry. I shall briefly describe each. We conducted an inquiry on combating fraud against the European Union’s finances. It was launched in July 2012. It was timed, in part, to coincide with the publication by the Commission of its proposed directive designed to protect the EU’s financial interests via the criminal law. Evidence was taken from a range of parties, including academics, the United Kingdom police, government agencies, the relevant European Union Commissioner and, after some reluctance, the Exchequer Secretary, Mr David Gauke. I will say at this point how surprised we were that the Government refused permission for us to take evidence from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and it took quite a lot of prodding for the Minister to appear before us at all. In addition, members of the committee travelled to Brussels to take evidence from, among others, MEPs, Eurojust, and OLAF, the European Union’s anti-fraud body. In total, the sub-committee held 13 evidence sessions with more than 30 individual witnesses.

Our subsequent report identified a number of weaknesses in the EU’s current anti-fraud system, including a lack of enthusiasm among the member states in taking their responsibilities to combat EU fraud seriously, weaknesses in the ability of OLAF to fulfil its remit to protect the EU’s financial interests, and a considerable mismatch between the known levels of fraud perpetrated against the EU’s finances. The Commission’s figure of €404 million for 2011 and the committee’s own estimate in the region of €5 billion are at variance to say the least. In their response to the report the Government stated that,

“no amount of fraud should or will be tolerated”.

While they recognise that in some areas the EU’s anti-fraud system needs improvement, overall, however, the Government believe that the system is “on the right track”.

In the course of the inquiry, we were unable to ascertain whether any government department or agency in the UK takes overall responsibility for fraud against the EU’s finances. No one was able to tell us with any confidence how much known EU fraud is perpetrated from within these shores, despite the fact that the individual member states are required to tell the relevant EU authorities when they uncover these offences. In our report, we called for a single government department or agency to take responsibility for fraud against the EU’s finances. However, the Government rejected this recommendation on the grounds that any move designed to place responsibility for the matter on to what they called a “single UK department or agency” would create duplication and slow the process down.

On the sub-committee’s estimate that the level of fraud against the EU’s finances is more likely to be €5 billion as opposed to the €404 million that the Commission estimates, the Government say merely that they are “concerned” by this figure, but that it,

“is not a figure that is recognised”.

They do not say who it is not recognised by, and the response may be somewhat perfunctory.

Finally, in relation to the upcoming proposals for the creation of a European public prosecutor’s office—the EPPO—the Government state that the creation of another EU body is not the answer to the problem of EU fraud. The Government recognise that the current system is “not perfect” but suggest that it works and continues to improve, and that, as far as the UK is concerned, the anti-EU fraud position is “strong”. The Government have stated that the best way of ensuring that the decision to prosecute remains a national matter is not to participate in any EPPO. They also point out that the treaty envisages a system whereby the EPPO will be empowered to,

“investigate, prosecute and bring to judgement”,

those responsible for committing EU fraud, which is a role that conflicts with the UK system where the investigation and prosecution functions are kept entirely separate. The proposals to create the EPPO were published last week and the sub-committee intends to launch an inquiry into these proposals in the autumn.

I now turn to the workload of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The sub-committee carried out a follow-up inquiry into this matter in the later part of the Session. We sent a call for evidence to all those who provided evidence during the original inquiry and also took oral evidence from the Minister for Europe. In our report, we expressed concern that the number of cases pending before the Court of Justice continues to rise year on year and we called for the right balance to be struck between the length of time it takes for the court to dispense with a case and the quality of its judgments in order to preserve its credibility. We also found that although the latest statistics from the general court indicate a reduction in the number of pending cases, the number of new cases has more than doubled between 2000 and 2010. Those cases are of great interest, principally to business in this country. We therefore reiterated that there is still a very strong case for increasing the number of judges in the general court and urged member states without delay to find a system for appointing additional judges to safeguard the stability of the court and the quality of the judiciary.

In their response, the Government agree with most of the report’s conclusions. They appear to have shifted their position a little in that they are being more positive about appointing additional judges to the general court as a means to deal with the court’s backlog of cases. Also, the Government now appear to favour a merit-based selection process to appoint additional judges to the general court instead of a rotating system of appointment. The sub-committee hopes that progress will be made soon on resolving the general court’s excessive workload and it will follow developments in this area with interest.

I now turn to the 2014 opt-out decision on Protocol 36 to the Lisbon treaty. I do not intend to go into any of the detail on this inquiry. I will leave that to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, when he addresses the House. Suffice it to say that on 9 July this year the Home Secretary made a Statement that provided more information about the Government’s approach to the opt-out decision. At the same time, the Government published Command Paper 8671—not the easiest of documents to digest—which sets out a list of 35 measures that the UK will seek to rejoin if the opt-out is exercised and includes Explanatory Memoranda that cover the 130 measures falling within the scope of the opt-out decision. The first debate was held in the House on 23 July and a vote took place on the opt-out decision. The House supported the Government’s decision to opt-out and endorsed the list of 35 measures they would seek to rejoin. A second vote on the final package of measures will take place in due course, following the conclusion of the negotiations with the Commission and the Council.

Sub-Committees E and F have agreed to reopen their inquiry and report to the House on the 35 measures that the Government wish to rejoin. The call for evidence for the reopening of the inquiry was published on 18 July and the deadline for submitting evidence is 11 September. Oral evidence will be taken from Ministers on 9 October. The sub-committee is looking forward to continuing working on this issue, together with the Home Affairs Sub-Committee.

As to the reform of Eurojust, last week the Commission published proposals for a regulation on the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Co-operation—known as Eurojust. The UK opt-in applies to these proposals and the sub-committee will consider them in September.

I turn to our enhanced scrutiny work. At the beginning of the previous Session, the sub-committee took over responsibility for consumer protection and culture from the now defunct Sub-Committee G. In this regard, we scrutinised the European Consumer Agenda and proposals for a common sales law. The sub-committee held an informal briefing with the consumer rights campaigning organisation Which? in October and heard oral evidence from Jo Swinson MP, Minister for Employment Relations, Consumer and Postal Affairs, on the alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes. More recently, the sub-committee held a private briefing from Ofcom on the Commission’s Green Paper Preparing for a Fully Converged Audiovisual World: Growth, Creation and Values. The sub-committee may continue work in this area in the autumn.

The sub-committee is also conducting enhanced scrutiny on the Commission’s package of proposals on trade mark reform. To this end, the sub-committee has sought comments from the Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys on the proposals, and further activities may continue in the autumn. The sub-committee has been interested for some time in the work of the Fundamental Rights Agency and the possible overlap with the work undertaken by the Council of Europe. Accordingly, the sub-committee will invite the Fundamental Rights Agency to give evidence on its role and the work it carries out. That is expected to take place in late October.

Finally, those noble Lords who were involved in the European Union Select Committee acknowledge that this committee represents and does some of the most important work done in your Lordships’ House. To scrutinise all European Union legislation is an extraordinarily important function. I am proud that this House does it so well and I am grateful for the opportunity to take part.

EU: Advocates-General of the Court of Justice

Baroness Corston Excerpts

Monday 10th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bowness]

My Lords, I am extremely pleased to see this Motion before the House tonight, and I thank my noble friend the Minister for his very full explanation. Indeed, he has pre-empted and answered a number of the questions that I would have sought to put to him.

The Justice, Institutions and Consumer Protection Sub-Committee of the European Union Committee has taken a close interest in this matter since its report on the work of the European Court of Justice. Among its recommendations was one that additional advocates-general should be appointed. They play an important part in complex cases, delivering a non-binding opinion on the legal issues involved and a recommendation as to how it should be decided. The figures that we had for our report suggested that a report from an advocate-general was produced in about half the cases brought to trial. It was a recommendation in the report that the number of advocates-general be increased. Before any noble Lords go away with the idea that perhaps that request was made prematurely or without thought, it is worth pointing out that there are still only eight advocates-general for 27 judges, and there were only eight for 15 judges.

In the committee’s follow-up report, published just before I relinquished membership and chairmanship of the Justice, Institutions and Consumer Protection Sub-Committee, we repeated the recommendation and urged the early appointment of the new advocates-general. I am delighted that the Government have now been satisfied that the appointment of the advocates-general should go ahead. I welcome that, and the assurances from my noble friend that the first appointment of the Polish advocate-general should be made during the course of the Irish presidency.

With regard to Declaration 38 on Article 252 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, I ask my noble friend whether he can clarify the position. It states unambiguously in a declaration annexe to the treaty of Lisbon that the advocates-general will be increased by three if that request is received from the Court. It says that,

“the Council will, acting unanimously, agree”,

such a request. Out of interest, I would like to know what happens if the Council does not agree unanimously. What prevails—the absence of unanimity or the declaration annexe to the treaty? Closer to home and more domestically, what would happen if your Lordships’ House or the other place did not agree? What would then take precedence: the treaty declaration or the provisions of the European Union Act? Dare I ask if we would have to seek the opinion of the Court of Justice of the European Union?

The Government have agreed in principle for some time, subject to the additional costs being found from the Court’s own resources, and they are now satisfied that this is the case. There are similar concerns about another recommendation of the committee: the appointment of additional judges of the General Court. The noble Baroness, Lady Corston, will pursue this in the debate this evening and I am delighted that the sub-committee is fortunate in having her as its new chairman. I had the privilege of serving under her when she chaired the Joint Committee on Human Rights when she was a member of the other place. I know that she will be an excellent chairman and advocate of the committee’s views. I am sure she will be pursuing the cause of additional judges with considerable diligence.

As I said, I am very pleased the Government have been able to overcome their financial reservations about expenditure in respect of the advocates-general. I understand that they are keen to restrict expenditure and I also understand that it is very easy to say that new expenditure should be found from within existing resources. However, with great respect to my noble friend, it is important, when that argument is advanced, to ensure that it is possible for these important things to be met from existing resources. Preserving the quality and effectiveness of the European Court system is important and we need to remember that expenditure on the courts represented only 0.26% of the whole budget of the European Union in 2011.

The Minister warned the committee that the issue of judges was unlikely to be pressed by the nearly ended Irish presidency and the forthcoming Lithuanian presidency. I hope that the Minister will see what the Government can do to bring the question back to the table. The administration and dispensing of justice, like the democratic process, has elements that make pure efficiency hard to achieve. Tonight’s procedure under the European Union Act 2011 does not exactly streamline the decision-making process in EU matters. It was an Act strongly advocated by some who are equally strong advocates for efficiency in the decision-making process, so to obtain the best of both cannot always be done in ways that are the most efficient. This is the price we pay for justice and democracy, and a failure to appreciate this leads, I fear, to a situation where you know the cost of everything and the value of not very much.

[Baroness Corston]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, in this important debate. I should like to place on record the committee’s appreciation of the fact that he served the committee with distinction and, in the post of chairman, conducted himself with absolute consideration for members and with great diligence.

This debate follows on from that on 23 July last year, under Section 10 of the European Union Act 2011. It requires a positive vote in both Houses before the Government can support any decisions in council. In July last year, the House debated a motion to approve amendments to the statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the appointment of temporary judges to the Civil Service Tribunal. The Court of Justice, the General Court and the Civil Service Tribunal, which together comprise the Court of Justice of the European Union, play a fundamental role in the effective functioning of the single market and the European Union. The Court of Justice and the General Court rule in matters of freedom of movement, of persons, goods and services, equal treatment and social rights, fundamental rights, European citizenship and trademark and competition cases. It therefore follows that their decisions have a direct impact on the functioning and operation of the single market and on the lives of the citizens of the European Union. So an efficient and effective court system capable of delivering justice in a timely manner in matters of EU law is essential for the rule of law within the EU.

The function of advocates-general is to support the work of 27 judges. They produce written opinions for the Court, setting out their understanding of the applicable law in each case and recommending how, in their view, cases ought to be decided. Their origins lie in the French legal system. Although their opinions are not legally binding, they tend to offer more comprehensive discussions of the EU law governing each case than the judgments themselves. As the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, said, in 2010 the EU Committee conducted an inquiry under his chairmanship into the workload of the Court, prompted by concerns about the Court’s ability to fulfil its functions effectively and in a timely manner. It noted that the ratio of judges to advocates-general was 15:8 in 2003, but 27:8 by 2011, following enlargement of the European Union. The committee therefore recommended that the number of advocates-general should be increased as soon as possible in order for the Court to increase the speed with which cases could be dealt with while improving the quality of decision-making.

In January this year, the committee was pleased to learn that the Court had requested an increase in the number of advocates-general. It is proposed that the first additional advocate-general would be appointed as soon as possible this year, with the other two taking up their posts in October 2015. It was very gratifying to hear the Minister informing the House that the Government were entirely happy with those proposals. The appointment is a welcome step and it can be achieved without the significant difficulties posed by treaty reform. It is to be hoped that people in another place take the same view.

I would like to take this opportunity to talk about the equally important issue of tackling the backlog of cases in the General Court by increasing the number of judges. In 2011, the committee commented on the backlog of cases and delays in the General Court, and recommended that the number of judges appointed to that court be increased by one-third. Indeed, some organisations, such as the Confederation of British Industry, had expressed concerns about delay and the effect on business within the European Union. Shortly after the report was published, the Court asked the Council to increase the number of judges by 12 which, in the view of the president of the Court of Justice, was the only solution to afford the necessary flexibility to tackle the increase in the number of cases pending before the General Court and the time needed to deal with them. During the debate on 23 July last year, the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said:

“The delay resulting from this backlog of cases is bad for British businesses, which wait months or years for their own case or cases of relevance to them to be heard and determined”.—[Official Report, 23/7/12; col. 564.]

The Commission agreed and commented on the Court’s request by stating that,

“an urgent solution is needed for the considerable number of cases currently pending at the General Court. Only by immediately increasing the number of judges … will it be possible to stem the flow of new cases and effectively tackle the backlog”.

In July 2012, the Council established a Friends of the Presidency group, which included representatives from all member states to facilitate examination of the case for increasing the number of judges in the General Court. The group met regularly but failed to reach agreement. In December 2012, the Cypriot presidency put forward a proposal for consideration at the General Affairs Council, whereby nine additional judges would be appointed to the General Court under a rotation system. Although it appears that there is agreement on the need to increase the number of judges, there is evident disagreement over the rotation system, and the proposals were rejected.

Parliamentary Boundary Commission: Electoral Administration

Baroness Corston Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Corston]

My Lords, it is a great privilege to take part in this important debate. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, who has done us a great service in allowing us to do so. What we are discussing—the proposals of the parliamentary Boundary Commission—is based on what I can only describe as a Faustian pact entered into May 2010, in which in return for an alternative vote referendum the Liberal Democrats agreed that they would support proposals to reduce the number of parliamentary constituencies in this country from 650 to 600. I have read in more than one place that that was based on naked party-political interest, in that there would be a guarantee of an extra 20 Conservative seats should those proposals be implemented.

The tragedy for the Liberal Democrats is that they will be the greatest casualty from all of this, because my experience after a lifetime of politics is that what has guaranteed many Liberal Democrats a seat in the House of Commons is what has been described as incumbency. They have indulged in what has been called “pavement politics”, whereby you are more concerned with dog mess than with China’s position in the United Nations. Actually, there is a lot to be said for that—but that is how they established themselves.

I worked 30 years ago as the regional organiser for the Labour Party in the south-west of England. I remember going to the Yeovil constituency Labour Party in 1981 when everyone was talking about the forthcoming election as if it was a dispute between it and the Conservative Party. I pointed out how misplaced that attitude was. I said, “Do you know there’s a chap called Paddy Ashdown who lives in Norton-sub-Hamdon, who has bought himself an offset litho duplicator, and he is going to snatch this constituency from under the noses of the Tories in doing so?”. And of course he did—I congratulate him. A few years ago I found some of the then Paddy Ashdown’s leaflets, which he distributed to the good people of the Yeovil constituency, which helped him to win the seat. I sent them to him and he was very grateful, because he did not have copies himself.

The success of Liberal Democrat MPs has been about what my noble friends have called a sense of place rather than electoral mathematics. However, I have been told on what I think is reasonable authority that, at an angry meeting of Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament after the proposals of the Boundary Commission were published, Mr Clegg promised those Liberal Democrats currently sitting in the House of Commons that should they not be successful in being elected, they would be at the top of the party list for the new senate. We can probably work out what that is about.

I want to talk here about the implications in the proposals for democratic representation. In doing so, I want to focus on two proposed seats from the Commission. The first is the Forest of Dean, which is probably one of the most enclosed and identifiable communities in this country. It covers what Dennis Potter used to call the “blue remembered hills”. If noble Lords want to know whether the Forest of Dean is special, they should just speak to my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon, a proud Forester herself. I have a long association with that part of the world going back 30 years. The new seat is going to include the centre of the city of Gloucester. One of my noble friends recently referred to what would happen to Gloucester Cathedral, but I point out that the new seat will contain not just the cathedral but the Gloucester docks, the county cricket ground, the city’s ancient gate streets, the council headquarters, the police buildings and the law courts. Everything which is identifiable as what has been described locally as the “historical centre of their city” will not be represented by anybody who is sitting for Gloucester. It will tacked on to the Forest of Dean, and anybody representing the Forest of Dean who has any sense is not going to spend as much time in Gloucester as they do in the Forest of Dean, a seat currently held by Mr Mark Harper, the Minister taking some of this legislation through the House of Commons. Such is the anger in Gloucester about these proposals that not only were 400 of the 503 submissions to the commission implacably opposed, but there was a protest march through the city of Gloucester with banners saying, “Save our city centre”. Anybody who tells me people do not care about this is profoundly misguided.

I now want to talk about the new seat of Mersey Banks. Mersey Banks is, as the name suggests, two areas on opposite sides of the River Mersey. They do not cover the mouth of the estuary; you have to drive right round the estuary to get to the other bit of the seat. It includes three local authorities—two have comprehensive school systems and one has a selective system—two police authorities and two fire authorities. There are absolutely no historical links at all. Nor are there any road links, because you cannot get from one bit of the constituency to the other without leaving the constituency in three places.

I do not blame the commission for what it has come up with because it was given a poisoned chalice. If all you care about is numbers, you are going to have constituencies that make absolutely no sense. It is a bit rich to have Conservative MPs repeatedly criticise the Boundary Commission—as they have done—because it was given an impossible job to do. As many noble Lords have said, electoral representation is not about numbers: it is about a sense of place. I was proud to represent part of the city of Bristol. When the local government financial settlement was announced each year, I looked to see what happened to Bristol. I could get up in the Chamber and fight Bristol’s corner; I could write to Ministers on behalf of Bristol; I could speak in the Bristol media and in meetings in Bristol about the treatment of the city. Just suppose my constituency had covered areas of Bristol, Bath and North East Somerset and Kingswood. What would I have done when the local government financial settlement was published? I would have been a disinterested observer and I would have tried to hold the ring. If anybody from Bristol had complained, I would have said, “Oh well, Kingswood’s not doing very well either” and vice versa. The great thing about being a Member of Parliament is the way in which you identify with the people in that sense of place.

It might sound a bit fanciful, but when I left the other place for health reasons not of my choosing, giving up a constituency—and I am sure it is the same if you are defeated—was like giving up a child for adoption. Even now when I drive down the M32 I look left and remember that that was the place I used to represent. That is an aspect of being a Member of Parliament which is probably ridiculed in the media and not understood, but it enables you to be an effective member because of the possibility of that personal engagement.

Finally, I want to remind colleagues that electoral legislation is based on the Representation of the People Acts from 1949. That is what this is about. It is not about some notion of geographical parity, it is about the sense of representation. As the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said, people do identify with their Member of Parliament. There is a great analogy with the NHS. If you ask people what they think of the NHS, they think it is not very good: if you ask them what they thought of the treatment they had a few weeks ago when they had a hernia operation, they say it was fabulous. Many times, people would say to me, “I don’t think much of MPs, Jean, but you’re okay”. There is a huge opportunity being missed here and huge damage being done to the fabric of our political life. All I fear is that there will be even more disengagement and even more trauma down at the other end of this place for people who do not deserve it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Corston]

Would the Minister acknowledge that we have also had a vastly growing population?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

Certainly, and I also acknowledge—this is very important—that there has been an enormous degree of centralisation in the way that British politics, and particularly English politics, has operated. Fifty or 100 years ago, certain casework was conducted by local councillors. However, as the central state has taken on what the local authority used to do, so people have come to their MPs more and more, and that has led to a tremendous growth in the amount of MPs’ casework.

I do not entirely recognise a golden age of constituencies in which every constituency represented a long-term and clear place. The noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, will know that the Colne Valley as a constituency has changed very radically over the years. The first constituency that I fought—Huddersfield West—disappeared very rapidly and is now part of Colne Valley, whereas Saddleworth has long since gone somewhere else. The constituency in which I live, Shipley, has a moor down the middle of it and part of Wharfedale, which is occasionally cut off by snow in winter, is part of the constituency. I found myself at my first election as a candidate there having to explain to people in Wharfedale that they were part of the Shipley constituency and not connected with Ilkley or Pudsey.

One could take many examples of this. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, talked about some of the Kirklees constituencies. When I first started thinking about politics in that region, the Spen Valley was a constituency. We then had Batley, Brighouse and Spenborough, and Batley and Spen. In the 2005 general election I spent an afternoon standing in Huddersfield marketplace meeting people coming in from Heckmondwike, Gomersal, Cleckheaton and elsewhere who said, one after the other, “Can you help me? I’m not sure what constituency I’m in”. I realised how little I knew about the changing boundaries of those West Yorkshire constituencies. As we all know, MPs identify very strongly over time with their constituencies, but their constituents very often do not identify so closely with them in return.