Victims and Prisoners Bill

Lord Bach Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 25th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, I speak having taken some advice from the Clerks—I am grateful to them. The first two items in this group are notices of my intention to oppose Clauses 53 and 54. We debated the amendments in both clauses in our previous Committee sitting on 12 March and the Minister, whom I have spoken to this afternoon before coming to Committee, gave certain undertakings following that debate about discussing further the issues raised with his fellow Minister, who sits by his side, and with the Ministry of Justice. In all the circumstances, I will not press the stand part notices in my name on either Clause 53 or Clause 54. That is why I have got to my feet at this stage.

Clause 53 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Debate on whether Clause 55 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, I put my name to this clause stand part notice, which was originally in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. He, alas, cannot be here this afternoon as he is on parliamentary business abroad, and he has asked me to open this short debate. I do not think that the Committee will be that surprised to hear me say that what I am about to say owes much to the noble Lord.

Clauses 55 and 56 prohibit a prisoner serving a whole-life tariff from entering into a marriage or civil partnership with another person, without the written permission of the Secretary of State, to be granted only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances. At Second Reading, on 18 December, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, referred to

“a recent case in which surviving families of the victim of a most serious murder were openly mocked by the convicted offender, who trumpeted his right to marry, causing distress to many”.—[Official Report, 18/12/23; col. 2056.]

It is my view, and I suspect the view of many on the Committee, that it is deeply unsatisfactory to legislate on the basis of one such incident, however upsetting it was for the victim’s family, as it undoubtedly must have been. That point was made at Second Reading by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lord Ponsonby. Is this one incident, serious though it was, the only basis for seeking to legislate in this context?

Beyond that, there is a question of principle. However repellent their crimes, whole-life prisoners are allowed to eat, exercise, read books, watch television and send and receive letters, so why are they to be denied the basic right to marry a consenting adult? I say “basic right” because Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights states:

“Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry”.


What the state cannot do, consistent with human rights, is impose restrictions so extreme that they impair the very essence of the right to marry. That is the test stated in the consistent case law of the European Court of Human Rights, which considered how this applies to prisoners, in particular in the case of Frasik v Poland in 2010. The court stated in its judgment that an effective bar on any exercise of a prisoner’s right to marry is a breach of Article 12. The court added:

“Imprisonment deprives a person of his liberty and … of some civil rights and privileges”.


The authorities are, of course, permitted to impose restrictions on civil rights to protect the security of the prison regime, but:

“This does not, however, mean that persons in detention cannot, or can only very exceptionally, exercise their right to marry”.


The court added that the state cannot prevent a prisoner enjoying the right to marry because of the authorities’ views as to what

“might be acceptable to or what might offend public opinion”.

That is the basis, it seems, of Clauses 55 and 56. It is very doubtful whether these clauses are wise in any event. My noble friend Lord Ponsonby made the important point at Second Reading that if we are to lock people up for very lengthy periods, perhaps the whole of their lives, we must surely give them some positive purpose in life: some hope, some encouragement to maintain relationships with the outside world, not just for their own self-respect or mental health but because it will help those who have to manage the prison regime and prevent the inevitable frustrations of long-term prisoners erupting in violence against prison officers or other prisoners.

Clauses 55 and 56 have, in my view, no sensible justification. They are objectionable in principle and they will impede good management of the prison system. They seem to have more to do with populism than with any sensible policy. I submit that if these clauses become law, this is an example of bad legislation that an experienced Parliament such as this should not pass. I invite the Minister, when he replies to this debate, to say that the Government will think again about this issue and, I hope, come to the conclusion that it is not worthy of this important Bill.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I have added my name to both stand part notices. The first question I asked myself way back before Second Reading, and I still need to ask myself, is why on earth the Government put these two clauses in the Bill. They do not seem to do anything to make the prison regime any better or to make the work that goes on in supporting people in prison any easier. In fact, they appear to be cruel in a variety of ways.

The Secretary of State being able to approve a marriage or civil partnership only based on exceptional circumstances, even if you felt there was a rationale or a reason, is surely the wrong way around. Surely, the Secretary of State should be able to deny them only if there are exceptional circumstances. This measure will apply regardless of the way in which anybody in future seeks a partnership or marriage.

It worries me, as I am sure it does many others in this Committee, how much placing people in prison for their lives will add to—or detract from—what happens inside the prison. It is going beyond punishment. Whatever anybody feels about what happens in a prison establishment, providing some hope for the future of their lives, understanding how their lives work and making sure they feel a sense of purpose in remaining alive is part of the job of the state, which must retain that ability.

These clauses, once again, chip away at those fundamental human rights, disapplying human rights to a specific cohort of people. The universality of human rights in this circumstance is doubly important because, of course, the state is totally responsible for whatever rights and purposes prisoners have. It has to manage them. It is precisely in custodial institutions such as prisons that human rights protections are most vital, because the individuals are under the control of the state.

It would appear, as in the Illegal Migration Act and the safety of Rwanda Bill, that we are beginning to see a testing period for making controversial changes to our human rights framework. It seems to me and those on these Benches that this particular measure is offensive to that spirit of how the state should manage the lives of people in this circumstance. If there were to be a case for saying that somebody cannot get married or have a civil partnership, that is surely by exception rather than by practice.

It appears to me that these clauses do not really fit into this Bill, because of that sense of things being done in the wrong direction. More than anything else, I seek to understand from the Government why they have put this in place. If it is because of a single case, as we have just heard, to write law on the basis of a single case is surely not the correct way to go about it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their comments in this short debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for setting out his intention to oppose that Clauses 55 and 56 stand part of the Bill, and the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for his comments in support of that.

It is important that the Committee examines the rationale behind these clauses. Clauses 55 and 56 will prohibit prisoners in England and Wales who are subject to a whole-life order from marrying or forming a civil partnership while in prison or another place of detention. The Secretary of State may grant an exemption in truly exceptional circumstances. A whole-life order is the most severe punishment in the criminal law of England and Wales. It is reserved for exceptionally serious offences, such as serial or child murders which involve a substantial degree of premeditation or sexual or sadistic conduct. Unlike other life sentences, offenders subject to a whole-life order can expect never to be released. Their tariff will never expire and they will not be considered for parole at any point.

As the law stands, a prison governor cannot reject a prisoner’s application to marry or form a civil partnership unless the ceremony creates a security risk for the prison. This includes whole-life prisoners. Those subject to whole-life orders can expect never to be released. As they are not working towards life on the outside and the prospect of being able to enjoy married life, any rehabilitative effect of a potential marriage is likely to be significantly reduced. Being married or in a civil partnership does not have any practical impact on an individual’s ability to maintain a relationship with a prisoner. Prisoners are not entitled to conjugal visits and rights to access fertility treatment do not require the prisoner to be married to or in a civil partnership with their partner. Neither do spouses, civil partners or their children have any additional right to visits, telephone calls or video calls. Whole-life prisoners can therefore benefit from supportive relationships while in custody in the same way as other prisoners. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord German, this is not cruel—they can maintain relationships.

While the right is protected under Article 12 of the ECHR, the convention allows states to impose restrictions in a proportionate way for a legitimate purpose. In line with the opinion of the European Court of Human Rights in Draper v the United Kingdom, we consider that a restriction on whole-life prisoners’ right to marry can be justified on the basis of public interest. The public set great store by our response to the most heinous crimes. The current position undermines confidence in our criminal justice system and its ability to deliver justice and protect the public. These clauses allow the Secretary of State to make exemptions on a case-by-case basis in exceptional circumstances. Any discretion available to a Secretary of State would itself be exercised compatibly with ECHR obligations.

We have taken a proportionate approach in applying these measures to only a small cohort of offenders who are already singled out in our domestic framework due to the exceptionally serious nature of their offences. As of December 2023, there were only 67 whole-life prisoners in England and Wales, representing less than 0.1% of the total prison population—less than one in 1,000.

To answer the question from all noble Lords, this is not about a single case. While it was a particular case that brought this issue to the Government’s attention, this is not about any individual; it is a broader point of principle. The justice system must be able to deal appropriately with the worst offenders, to drive up public confidence in the justice system. We consider that these measures are justified on the basis of that public interest. This is not just due to the distress that such an event may cause to the families of victims, whose lives these prisoners have cut short in heinous ways, but, more fundamentally, because of the real risk of damage to public confidence in the criminal justice system if it cannot deal appropriately with the most serious offenders. The Government are resolved that this is an appropriate measure. I therefore propose that Clauses 55 and 56 stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his response, and the noble Lord, Lord German, for his support in this matter.

I have two points for the Minister, if I may. Is it really considered proportionate as an answer to Article 12 to say that these measures would be allowed only in exceptional circumstances? That seems not very proportionate at all. Secondly, I personally do not see the relevance, when we are talking about a matter of principle such as this, of what percentage of prisoners are in this category. It does not matter what percentage are. If it is right, it is right, and if it is wrong, it is wrong. In my view, it is a matter of some principle that this should not be imposed upon people who have done absolutely terrible things and are paying the price for it. This is a step too far and, as I say, not worthy of Parliament. Having said that, I am not going to take this matter any further today.

Clause 55 agreed.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Lord Bach Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 26th February 2024 Lords Chamber

Our suggestion is that this is a new process or procedure, which has not been adequately researched. It breaches the fundamental point: that the Parole Board is, in effect, a quasi-judicial body exercising an independent jurisdiction, whereas if the Secretary of State is going to have the power to refer it should be to a Divisional Court, as we have suggested. Before these clauses are brought into effect, there should also be a report laid before Parliament which it can consider. This departure would be delayed until that report had been laid and considered.

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, briefly, I support the amendments moved and spoken to in this group by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks. I spoke on this matter at Second Reading and agreed with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, said in his speech then.

The Committee may know that, along with others, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, I have put my name to later amendments that question the changes proposed by the Government to the Parole Board. In my view, those changes attack pretty fundamentally the independence of that board and allow the Secretary of State to interfere in these matters to an extent that affects the separation of powers. As a rule, I argue that it is never a good idea, however tempting for Governments, for the Executive to interfere with matters that should be the role of the judiciary. Taken as a whole, these changes are unnecessary and overcomplex, and will prove to be extremely costly.

Today, we are discussing the amendments so well put by the noble and learned Lord, who speaks with such huge authority; I am pleased to support them. They argue that the Upper Tribunal is entirely the wrong body to hear these cases. The Government would be well advised, with respect, to listen to him, and to remind themselves of the powerful speech made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, at Second Reading. It is not often that this House is privileged to have the support of the last two Lord Chief Justices on a matter that they are profoundly expert in. I ask the Minister, who is always very reasonable, to think very carefully about how powerful the case that has been made this afternoon is.

Of course, I strongly agree with the amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, on the necessity of a report from the Secretary of State on the implementation of these proposals, which I consider to be pretty disturbing on the whole. I ask the Minister, when he replies, to consider carefully where these amendments are coming from.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak with the leave of the Committee and with many apologies; I was delayed in a committee. Amendment 143A is a probing amendment to seek to understand whether the Secretary of State will issue guidance on these matters, and if so, what that guidance will include. The Prison Reform Trust is particularly concerned about this, being aware that an overturned release decision would be likely to undermine public confidence in the parole system and so on. I am sure that the Minister will want all the actors in the sector to understand how these arrangements are intended to work and how they can be scrutinised.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Lord Bach Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 5th February 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Bach]

34A: Clause 6 page 5 line 25, at end insert—
“(4A) Regulations under subsection (2) must require information about compliance with the victims’ code to be linked to a consistent victim identifier that is used across the agencies of the criminal justice system.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment comes from the perspective that achieving the Bill's aims of putting victims at the heart of the criminal justice system requires addressing the issue that the information systems used by criminal justice agencies do not at present collect or share information satisfactorily.

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, although this amendment has been put down rather late, I hope that once the Committee has heard about it, it will realise that it has some potential importance in this debate. I want to thank publicly the Public Bill Office of this House, which is superb in the way in which it deals with each of us in turn so ably. For it to be able, on Friday afternoon with an hour to go before closing, to deal so satisfactorily with the issue that I now raise is a real compliment to it, and I do not think you would see that in every part of the public or private services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I do not think I could have put it better than the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. It is a good idea, but there are lots of complexities. I am sure that noble Lords agree that, in many ways, joining the dots and handling data is one of the most critical challenges any Government face—whether it is between departments or within the NHS, within the justice system, within or across police forces, et cetera. We still have 43 different police forces with computers that do not even necessarily talk to each other.

I thank the noble Lord for his amendment, which would introduce a consistent victim identifier for the collecting and sharing of code compliance information. This is extremely important so that we can better understand and meet victims’ needs. As I understand it, there is a Ministry of Justice pilot called the Better Outcomes through Linked Data—or BOLD—programme, which is already exploring how to link victims’ data to improve our understanding of their experiences. It is right that we should have a much better knowledge of the victim’s journey through the system and, in particular—to pick up a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, made—better understand why people drop out of the system at a certain stage. Although I do not have a more precise date, I gather that the results of that pilot will be available in 2024.

Whether it is something that is either sufficiently developed or should be in the Bill as a matter of principle is perhaps another question. At this stage at least, the Government are not persuaded that it that should be in the Bill, but they are persuaded that it is something we should continue to work on to understand the complexities and arrive at practical solutions.

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this fairly short yet important debate. I thank the Minister for answering the question so positively. Whether or not it is for this Bill is a matter for discussion between now and Report, but it seems that while there are, of course, considerable issues around this in practice, the idea that the victim should be treated in the same way, being known about and followed, as it were, in this area seems an important principle, and would raise the position of the victim—as the Bill says it intends to do. I hope we will come back to this issue. It is worthy of discussion and has had a good outing today in Committee. I do not think it will go away—if we do not take advantage of digital advances in this area, as in every other, we are not doing our duty. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 34A withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, I am going to speak to my Amendment 65. I am delighted that the noble Baroness who has just spoken supports it. It was supported also by the noble Lord, Lord Wasserman, who cannot be in his place today. I remind the Committee that I was a police and crime commissioner for five years and had some responsibility for victims’ services at the time. This amendment springs from a view of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, and I am very grateful for its help.

Noble Lords will have seen that the duty in relation to victim support services to collaborate and the strategic guidance under Clauses 12, 13 and 14 refers to police areas in England alone. The purpose of the amendment is to try to persuade the Government that the duty to collaborate should apply to elected policing bodies across England and Wales while, of course, respecting Welsh devolved powers.

The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, which of course represents all police and crime commissioners across England and Wales, is enthusiastic and welcomes the Bill—I should say that to start with. However, it thinks that there is a problem in that, as the clause is drafted now, it could make a real difference to the effectiveness of Welsh police and crime commissioners, and more particularly to how they are perceived in both Wales and England. I want to make it clear that I am advised that the four Welsh police and crime commissioners who would be most directly affected by the amendment are all strongly in favour of it. I emphasise to the Committee that they are not all from one political party; politics does not come into this particular issue.

All noble Lords will of course appreciate that policing in Wales is a reserved power of the UK Government, so that these four Welsh police and crime commissioners operate under the same rules and regulations as their colleagues in England. Nevertheless, of course, they operate entirely within the boundaries of the principality. Therefore, to be effective they have to take fully into account the ways in which health, local government, highways, housing and their local public services are organised and delivered in Wales, notwithstanding the fact that they themselves are not under the control of the Welsh Government.

The four Welsh police and crime commissioners have expressed concerns about the Bill, hence this amendment. Their concerns are that while the Bill imposes on their English colleagues a duty to collaborate in the exercise of victim support services, it does not impose the same duty on them. The Welsh police and crime commissioners believe that this could make a significant difference to their effectiveness in this field and, more significantly, lead to a perception that they are less committed to dealing with such issues as violence against women and girls than are their English colleagues—and nothing could be further from the truth.

Equally, and this is perhaps a significant point, although Welsh police and crime commissioners engage enthusiastically at present with the partnerships set out in the Welsh legislature, they are under no statutory obligation to do so. There are impending elections, and these could change collaborative approaches without such a duty as this amendment seeks to safeguard continued partnership engagement.

It is for this reason that the amendment has been drafted. It recognises the special circumstances under which the four Welsh PCCs operate, but at the same time makes it clear that Welsh police and crime commissioners are no less determined to support victims of crime than are their English colleagues, and no less determined to collaborate with other agencies in Wales to achieve this object.

Neither I nor, with great respect to him, the noble Lord, Lord Russell, are experts in the details of the Government of Wales Act 2006, or the legislation, regulations and administrative arrangements that flow from it. If the Government, in further discussion with the Welsh Government, have concerns with the drafting of the amendment and suggestions for improving it, we would be very happy to welcome them. We are concerned here with the principle of the amendment: to ensure that the obligation that the Bill imposes on police and crime commissioners in England to collaborate in the exercise of their functions to support the victims of crime is extended to the four police and crime commissioners in Wales, whose powers are in every other way identical to those of their English colleagues. On that basis, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I want to pick up the last point of the noble Lord, Lord Bach. The duty to collaborate is extremely important, and both his amendment and that of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, are certainly worthy of consideration. The lighthouse model that has been referred to is extremely impressive. I have also seen, in times past, really effective local working, particularly through services for child victims. However, it would be good if this were strengthened to ensure that part of the victim’s journey, regardless of their age, was helped.

It is a convention in this House that, if we are not quite sure where to go next, we ask for reports. However, we have tabled a lot of amendments about a lot of detail because we are concerned about the practice, and this is one instance where reports actually become vital. They are vital not just to hold the Government to account in Parliament but to ensure that the Government are forced to reflect on how the systems are working, because if this continues for yet another decade, we will be going through another Bill in 10 years’ time saying the same things. A report might help focus the mind when the systems are not working.

I support the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, in her comments about the provision of DA support and the real crisis times that victims face, with their lives in complete upheaval. I agree particularly with her points about economic coercive control, which is really worrying and something I have heard more and more about. I have been working with one victim for about 15 years; it took her 10 years to clear the debts that she was left with as a result of the coercive control of her partner, who completely disappeared. She is on the minimum wage, and it has been very difficult and has affected her life for that long.

I signed Amendments 54 and 81, which the noble Lord, Lord Russell, outlined in his speech, on including stalking in the list of relevant victim support services and placing a duty on the Secretary of State to assess a number of advocates, including stalking advocates. I go back to the issue we discussed in the last group: how important it is to have a victim journey number.

In the case where my colleagues and I were victims, our first barrier was finding one crime number. The man who stalked me pleaded guilty to 67 crimes and asked for another 100-and-something to be taken into account. Not all of the crimes happened to me; some of them happened to council colleagues and supporters of my party, and some happened to people who were, unfortunately, parked on the driveways of supporters of my party. Each time we rang the police, we were given a different number. As the PPC, I started a spreadsheet, and when it got to 30 I went back to the police and said, “This is impossible”. We did not know who it was—we had suspicions—but we knew that it was a very particular campaign.

At that point, about six months in or perhaps slightly more than that, we had the one funny incident of a two and a half year-experience, where, every week in the Watford Observer, there was a letter being very unpleasant about me and occasionally about my council colleagues. The letters got more vitriolic, but each was signed by somebody else. I went with a colleague to see the editor of the newspaper, and he said, “Politics is a tough old game, and you just have to accept that, if people want to write in and tell me that you are poor on this topic and not a very nice woman given what you do with your children, I will print it”. I asked him if I could read out the surnames of the people who had written in over the last few weeks: they were Freeman, Hardy, Willis, Debenham and Freebody. At that point, he realised he was being had, but we had been watching the letters go in for four months at that stage. The objective was to destroy my campaign—that is what the judge said when the man was sentenced. But that was the only funny part.

The other thing about stalkers is that, when they do not achieve what they want, their behaviour becomes more drastic; the Suzy Lamplugh Trust will tell you that this is well-known. The man then started printing completely fictitious letters about one of my council colleagues who lived just round the corner from me and literally scattering them along the road in his car. At that point, we thought we knew who he was, but we could not get the police to take it seriously. The letter said that my council colleague—who was married to his one and only wife—had deserted his previous wife and was not paying her maintenance and that his daughter was distressed; funnily enough, my colleague was up for election that year. That was a step up, and then it went a step further up during the 2005 general election, when all the poster boards were pulled down. My husband, who happened to be our poster board supremo, kept creating higher and higher stakes for the poster boards—we really made it into an artform. When one got to three times the normal height, the man scratched the car on the driveway of the house. Thereafter, it moved on to petty crime, but it was not stalking because it was petty crime against other individuals. That is why we need one crime number for this sort of thing, but also recognition that, although there is a core victim, there are other victims because of the nature of stalking.

What really freaked them out was when he started to put knives through the tyres of cars on driveways at night and spray epithets on the homes of councillors. My husband had installed 10 closed circuit cameras on the most likely places by then. The police provided one on our house, and our house was never targeted—I cannot imagine why. We were able to use that evidence, along with a picture of him where you could see that he was wearing a watch on his right arm which matched the one seen during the spray-painting. At that point—this was the worst day—the police said that a forensic psychiatrist had come in as they were worried about the behaviour, and it was clear that he was going to go for people with the knife next, and it was a 10-inch knife.

At that point, we were well over two years in. That is why, 15 years on from his sentencing, when the noble Lord, Lord Russell, spoke about knives the other day, my blood ran cold. I was remembering when the police came to our house and upped security. Stalking can be very dangerous. I was lucky; we got it taken seriously and he pleaded guilty when caught, but there are other cases.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Bach Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 23rd October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, within this group is Amendment J1 in my name; I wish to speak very briefly to this revised amendment in lieu. First, I send my good wishes to my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook and wish her a speedy recovery. She has been indefatigable in her presence otherwise on this Bill, so we wish her the very best for a speedy recovery.

I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Howe and others for attending the very useful meeting we had last week, as a result of which I have tabled revised Amendment 22B in lieu. As my noble friend pointed out, both during the meeting and in his response to the revised amendment in his opening remarks, it has been brought forward in recognition of the fact that the Government wish primarily that council meetings be physical. However, the purpose of this amendment is to recognise the position that pertains in the House of Lords, certainly as regards the position of hybrid meetings and some Members being able to attend virtually under certain conditions. It is incumbent on us to extend the same criteria to those who meet in local authorities.

I am grateful for the support I received from both the Local Government Association and the National Association of Local Councils. We debated this in Committee and on Report, and it is fair to briefly sum up that this amendment reflects the challenges of those living in rural areas in particular but also other areas. As we have seen in the flood and storm conditions over recent days, the distances that councillors in rural areas have to travel are much greater than for those in urban areas, and in many cases there is no adequate public transport. In addition, as I mentioned, due to the weather we have seen in parts of the country over recent days, such as in Scotland, North Yorkshire, Lincolnshire and Derbyshire, councillors have been prevented from attending physically.

I understand from the National Association of Local Councils survey that one in five councillors cited childcare commitments as one of the top four reasons for wanting to attend meetings virtually. There will be other reasons, such as temporary or permanent illness and disability, that, under the criteria that I have set out in Amendment 22B, will permit councillors to attend virtually as opposed to physically.

I accept that a large part of the meetings of local councils will continue to be physical. The terms of Amendment 22B reflect that, but would permit the Government to bring forward, by regulation, conditions which, while mostly reflecting councils meeting physically, would allow councillors to join virtually or remotely in certain circumstances according to the criteria to be set by the Government. One would hope that, in setting the regulations, the Government would consult with councillors and the organisations that represent them to set the criteria.

Amendment 22B recognises the fact that I got the balance wrong in the earlier amendment, with councillors meeting only virtually. I accept that we wish councillors to meet physically, but certain set criteria to be determined by the Government, I hope in consultation with those concerned, would allow councillors to represent their wards and attend remotely. It would equalise the situation between, for example, House of Lords committees and others which can meet virtually, physically or in hybrid form. It seems extraordinary that, despite the fact that this worked so well during the Covid pandemic, when all meetings of councils were virtual, councils have now been excluded from having any form of virtual representation whatever.

With these few remarks, I hope my noble friend will accept that this would work extremely well for councillors. It is not fair that they should be excluded from attending a meeting because they cannot get there physically either because of weather—floods and storms, or snow in the winter—or due to some disability or illness or childcare commitments. I hope my noble friend will look favourably on this amendment, and I intend to test the opinion of the House.

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Motion ZE1 as an amendment to government Motion ZE. My Motion is on the same terms as my amendment on Report which the House was good enough to vote in favour of.

The Mayor of the West Midlands wants to be the police and crime commissioner as well; he is from one political party, the elected police and crime commissioner from another. The mayor wants to ensure there is no election for the post of an independent police and crime commissioner in the West Midlands in May next year. The way he will do that is that he and the Government will abolish the independent role of police and crime commissioner in the second-largest metropolitan area in England by the stroke of a pen. To achieve this extremely undemocratic power grab, the Government’s Motion means that Clause 59 of the Bill will come into effect on the very day the Act is passed, in marked contrast to similar reforms which allow for a longer period.

I am, of course, grateful to both Ministers who have spoken and written to me on this matter, aided by their very able officials; however, disappointingly, no real concession has been offered. This remains an attempt to provide for an elected representative from one party—by a stroke of the pen, as I say—to abolish an elected representative from another party, not while that other one is serving but post election without any real consultation. The Government are not prepared—according to the letter I received from the noble Lord—even to suggest guidance in the statutory instrument that would have to follow this process; they are merely going to advise a mayor that he should do some consulting.

In his letter to me, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, cites Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire as examples of what the Government want to do here, but I am afraid that is incorrect. I have spoken to the chiefs of staff of the mayors of Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire, and it is clearly not what happened. In both those cases, the transfer of the police and crime commissioner’s powers to the mayor was an essential part—as my noble friend said a few minutes ago—of the devolution deal, agreed and signed by all parties, from Ministers to local authorities to others, after, inevitably, considerable consultation and, very significantly, general consent. All this happened before the respective mayoralties in Greater Manchester or West Yorkshire began.

Without that consultation and consent, it just would not have happened. Here, no consultation or consent is required: the mayor will ask the Government to abolish the independent PCC role and then there will be no election for a PCC on 2 May next year, even though the devolution deal signed in the West Midlands after consultation and with consent maintained the two roles, both to be elected every four years. The Government will agree with the mayor’s request—I am sure the House is not so naive as to believe this has not been sorted out already—and the abolition will take place, I repeat, without any consultation or consent.

This is close to an abuse of power. It goes against this country’s constitutional traditions and relies, absurdly and ridiculously, on the Government’s insistence that the local consent, which they agree is necessary, is given by the mayor himself. However, the mayor is the guy who wants the job—talk about being judge in your own case. I am of course not referring to the case in question, but it is the sort of device that some tinpot dictator might use to increase his power. You can imagine the conversation, what he tells himself: “I want more power and I therefore give consent for it. That will do nicely”. It is Newspeak at its best and Parliament should not permit it. This unseemly and undemocratic rush to abolish the independent post of police and crime commissioner in the West Midlands is quite unacceptable. If passed, my amendment would attempt to stop it happening.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Bach]

Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 273 and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 273A.”

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, a few hours have passed since this matter was debated. My Motion argues that it is fundamentally and constitutionally wrong to allow the mayor in the West Midlands without any consent—except of course his own and that of the Government—and without any real consultation, certainly no statutory consultation, to abolish out of existence a separately elected, independent police and crime commissioner in the West Midlands so that that there can be no PCC election next year. This is all in the second largest metropolitan area in our country.

I thank noble Lords who have supported me—the Liberal Democrats, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, from the Cross Benches, and the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, from the Conservative Benches. I beg to move.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Bach Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 18th September 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Bach]

307A: In paragraph (fa), leave out “on” and insert “at the end of the period of nine months beginning with”

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, I appreciate, of course, that these matters have already been debated on 13 July. However, because of the gap in time and, in my view, the considerable importance of the issues at stake, I intend to make a few short comments.

The Mayor of the West Midlands wants to also be the police and crime commissioner. Clause 59 was put into the Bill solely to achieve that end. Now, he wants to be the police and crime commissioner straight away—before the election, which is due on 2 May next year. Thus, government Amendment 307 says that Clause 59 must come into effect on the day on which this Act is passed. This is in marked contrast to Clause 58 and Clauses 60 to 62, which do not come into force until two months after the Act is passed.

Why the difference? The simple answer is so that the democratically elected and excellent police and crime commissioner for the West Midlands can be removed from office and the mayor take his place without any consultation. Clause 59 allows for no consultation, with either the constituent councils or the other local authorities involved. Again, this is in marked contrast to Clause 58, which demands consultation by statute.

However, with a cynicism not worthy of a British Government, the Minister, whom we wish well, was obliged to say on Report:

“Clause 59 maintains the triple-lock model … That triple lock is that … transfer … of powers needs local consent, the agreement of the Secretary of State and approval by Parliament”.


Of course, the Secretary of State agrees—he has been hand in glove cooking this up for months with the mayor—and of course Parliament does not vote against statutory instruments, but what does “local consent” mean? It beggars belief that “consent” means, in this case, the consent of the mayor, the very guy who wants the job straight away. Listen to the words of the Minister, who said,

“local consent will be given simply by the mayor”.—[Official Report, 13/7/23; col. 1916.]

That is not consent; it is its exact opposite. It is Newspeak, and it is taking this House and the people of the West Midlands for idiots. The unseemly and unconsidered rush to remove the elected police and crime commissioner is quite unacceptable. My amendment, if passed, would stop that and insist that any such changeover, involving, as this does, the complex issues of funding, staffing and other matters, must be made properly for the sake of both good government and common sense.

I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

Iraq

Lord Bach Excerpts

Friday 26th September 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, the contributions to this debate have done justice to the seriousness of the matters before the House today. On behalf of the Opposition, I thank all noble Lords on all sides who have spoken. The House has benefited very much from speeches reflecting the enormous experience and knowledge, and of course the concern, that noble Lords bring to this debate. If one were to count the number of former Defence Secretaries, Foreign Secretaries, Lord Chancellors, Attorneys-General, other senior Ministers, Permanent Secretaries, ambassadors and other experts, it would add up to a very large number indeed. Last, but certainly not least, to have heard from the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and his three colleagues on the Bishops’ Benches has also helped us immeasurably.

Given the very limited time available, I am sure that the House will forgive me if I do not acknowledge individually the contributions that we have heard today. I start with a word about ISIL itself. I agree very much with my noble friend Lady Symons that the expression “Islamic State” is completely unsatisfactory; indeed, the Secretary-General of the United Nations rightly observed earlier this week that it should more fittingly be called “Un-Islamic Non-State”. No religion on earth and no secular ideology can justify its barbarism.

We are not, and never will be, in conflict with Islam as a religion. Islam teaches peace and I know that many noble Lords feel proud, as I do, to live in a country where millions of our fellow British citizens of Muslim faith live their lives and play their part in our national life at all levels. We should never forget that there is a constant need to win hearts and minds. That has been a significant feature of this debate, which I am sure we will come back to. Comments have been made by many noble Lords about the Prevent programme. Indeed, to counter what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, said just a few minutes ago, it is worth reminding the House what the British Muslim scholars and imams said about ISIL just a few days ago:

“They are perpetrating the worst crimes against humanity. This is not jihad—it is a war against all humanity”.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, the noble Lord has misquoted me—

[Lord Bach]

No, I am not going to take the intervention.

ISIL’s modus operandi has been to attack minority groups—Christians, Yazidis, Turkmens, Shias, Kurds—on either side of the Syrian-Iraqi frontier. We heard today about the Kurds in northern Syria close to the Turkish border who have been made refugees. These are minorities that clearly cannot defend themselves and are often faced with a choice that is actually no choice—convert or die. Just to say it shows how completely unacceptable ISIL’s behaviour is and how it cannot remain unanswered.

However, even limited military intervention brings unforeseen and uncertain circumstances. If in a short while the other place supports the Motion before it, it will be supporting action to prevent at least the foreseeable and certain killings of Sunni, Shia, Kurdish, Christian and Yazidi Iraqis by ISIL, and this country will be supporting action that has broad support in the region and follows, as we have heard, a direct request from the democratically elected Government of Iraq.

I will repeat what the Opposition need to be satisfied of before supporting the Government’s proposal in another place: just cause; that the proposed action is a last resort; proportionality; a reasonable prospect of success; a legal base, of course; and broad regional support. On all those bases, we are happy to support the Government today but of course it is a mark of our freedoms and our democracy that the Opposition can and will continue to question, probe and scrutinise. We believe the Government have a duty in these circumstances to act in the national interest and it is the duty of the Opposition to support them when they are acting in the national interest, as they are in this case. I hope that in the time ahead—and I am sure that the Minister will be able to agree to this—the Government will ensure that the House is brought up to date at all times and that debates will be held where and when necessary.

The House will be united in its wholehearted support for the men and women of the Armed Forces who will take part in this perilous action with skill, courage and their characteristic devotion to duty—and, of course, our hearts should be with the families who they leave behind. As for ground troops, our view is that the Government are right to resist putting substantial combat forces back into Iraq. There does not seem to be much public or parliamentary support for such action. But, as importantly, it would undermine an essential point that needs to be made again and again to the Iraqi Government and their Sunni Arab neighbours—that this has to be their fight, if it is to be successful.

The fight against ISIL is, at its core, a struggle for the future of the Sunni world, so it is crucial that Sunni Governments have not only offered support but are participating in the multilateral mission. ISIL is too entrenched, well equipped and wealthy to be defeated by air power alone, and it can only be defeated on the ground with someone to replace it on the ground. Notwithstanding the very impressive capabilities of the Peshmerga, that will take time, given the current condition of the Iraqi army. Air strikes are essential to stem ISIL’s advance and degrade and destroy its operations and, at the very least, to contain it. However, we should be clear that these objectives of containment and disrupting and weakening ISIL must be in the service of creating the conditions for a new form of governance in Sunni Iraq. There must be an underpinning by a clear political strategy. The ultimate answer lies in local politics, not in external intervention.

The commencement to military action should not be a signal that the time for diplomacy is over. We have a duty to devise a comprehensive and effective political and diplomatic strategy for eliminating the threat of ISIL throughout the Middle East. So while today we have a clear legal, moral and political mandate to act to help to defeat ISIL in Iraq, we must also acknowledge that this mission brings with it unforeseen consequences and acknowledge that military action alone will not defeat ISIL. That is why the international community’s military response to the threat that ISIL poses is just one element of a long-term multinational political strategy in the region. As my noble friend Lord Foulkes said, it is necessary but not sufficient.

ISIL is a real and present danger, not just to the Middle East but to all of us. The world is too small for Britain to be able to just look the other way and say, “Well, this is really nothing to do with us”. This appalling mixture of medieval barbarism and state-of-the-art modern technology and finance has to be stood up to. Britain has to play its part in that enterprise. Force is not enough but, without it, does anyone seriously believe that ISIL can be contained, let alone defeated?

Israel and Palestine

Lord Bach Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

As the noble Lord rightly points out, there are unfortunately individuals on all sides of this conflict who seek to derail any attempts at peace. The Government stand with those who are looking to work towards peace between Israel and Palestine, and the UK consistently outlines steps in this regard and raises these issues. Indeed, my right honourable friend Hugh Robertson, the new Minister of State responsible for the region, is currently visiting the region and he will be raising this issue with all sides. Let me once again reiterate that we are calling upon both sides, because the violence we have seen by extremist settlers and the rocket attacks on Gaza are derailing a peace process which really needs to reach a conclusion.

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, perhaps I may say straightaway that the Opposition are, of course, at one with Her Majesty’s Government in welcoming the renewed peace negotiations and remain committed to a comprehensive peace in the Middle East based on a two-state solution and a secure Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state. In that context, will the Minister tell the House what judgment Her Majesty’s Government have come to on the role that the UK might play in the next important few months and what role the quartet might play in that same period?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord for his words. Of course, irrespective of the colour of its Administration, over the years the UK has been consistent in ensuring that we require a two-state solution, which, as he said, secures the borders of Israel in a secure way and ensures that the Palestinians have a viable state. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has made it clear that there is no greater global priority for the UK than the search for peace in the Middle East. Let me assure the noble Lord that Britain is working intensively to support all parties in their efforts to achieve a negotiated end to this conflict, which has gone on for far too long.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Bach Excerpts

Wednesday 9th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 31ZA and shall speak briefly to Amendment 31ZB, which is also in this group.

Amendment 31ZA adds to the matters on which the chief counting officer may give directions to regional counting officers or counting officers, direction about the discharge of their functions in relation to voters with disabilities. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, gave very welcome reassurances, setting out the Government’s clear expectations around the accessibility of the referendum for disabled people. It was most welcome that the noble Lord stated on 31 January:

“The chief counting officer will issue guidance and directions to RCOs and COs that will cover their duties in relation to accessibility and disabled voters under relevant equality and electoral legislation. These include: ensuring that polling stations meet the accessibility requirements of the DDA; ensuring that information, forms and notices relating to the voting process are available in alternative, accessible formats; making available enlarged sample versions of the ballot paper in polling stations; and providing a tactile voting device in each polling station to enable voters with visual impairments to vote”.—[Official Report, 31/1/11; col. 1292.]

I know that disabled people’s organisations outside this House have very much welcomed those reassurances, but it would help to underline the priority that should be given to meeting the needs of disabled voters to have the power to give directions on these matters on the face of the Bill.

Amendment 31ZB gives the chief counting officer power to give directions regarding the handling of complaints from persons dissatisfied with the way in which regional counting officers and counting officers have discharged their functions. This would apply not only to disabled voters but to voters generally and would in effect establish a complaints procedure that could be used by voters dissatisfied with the conduct of any aspect of the referendum. I raise this matter because it is surely right that there should be an avenue other than the costly and legalistic process of judicial review for members of the public to register complaints about the conduct of the referendum—whether that be over a failure to make reasonable adjustments to inaccessible polling stations or to provide the tactile voting template to a sight-impaired person, or because they feel that the arrangements for access made by regional counting officers and counting officers have fallen short of the standards that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, set out in Committee.

The nature of the complaints procedure would be up to the chief counting officer to decide, no doubt in consultation with local authorities and other stakeholders. Following the serious access problems experienced at the last election, it is essential that we provide a lighter-touch, non-legalistic way of addressing complaints which enables the chief counting officer to investigate and leads to the complainant receiving a report of his findings, perhaps an apology, and a statement about the steps which will be taken to ensure that the problems do not recur. None of this is a million miles away from the powers given to the Electoral Commission by Section 67 of the Electoral Administration Act 2006 to determine and publish performance standards for electoral officers, to direct them to provide the commission with reports on their performance against those standards and to publish an assessment of that level of performance.

Noble Lords may say that my amendment will have no impact on future elections. I accept that. This amendment is designed purely to ensure that we can deal with complaints that arise during the referendum. That is all we can do in this Bill. However, if the Government could see their way to accepting the amendment, I think it would provide a good platform on which to build for the future. I hope very much that we might see provisions along the lines I am seeking by having this amendment enshrined in future electoral legislation as soon as there is a legislative opportunity. I beg to move.

[Lord Bach]

We on this side support very much the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Low. We hope that the Government will react favourably to them; he is quite right to say that the noble Lord the Leader of the House reacted sympathetically in Committee to the debate that the noble Lord introduced. We hope that the Government might be able to go a little further this evening and agree with the amendments as far as they are able to do so. We look forward to what the Minister has to say.

[The Archbishop of York]

I, too, support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Low. I hope that when we talk about functions in relation to voters’ disabilities, we do not forget one particular category of people—that is, deaf people. It is no good getting people in if there is no British Sign Language available. I hope that that will be taken into account as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Archbishop of York]

My Lords, the incident referred to by the noble Lord happened in my province, Sheffield. Had that happened in Africa or India, we would have said it was scandalous that people had been in the queue for three hours but, because the voting had to stop at 10 o’clock, were told to go away. There would have been an outcry that people had been queuing for hours and were denied a vote. For me, the purpose of the law is to state public policy. This amendment is a statement that such an occurrence must not be allowed to happen again, and the regulations should make that clear. If you do not prescribe it now, the same will happen somewhere else. The African saying, “People in Britain have watches, while in Africa we have time”, might come true in the end.

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lipsey raises an interesting couple of points in the amendments. They seem to us on the Front Bench to be absolutely unarguable. They are sensible and deal with the situation very well indeed. My noble friend’s points about the Electoral Commission were interesting. I should make a revelation; I found the Electoral Commission much more impressive when I was in government than I do now, sitting on the other side of the Chamber. That may reflect on me, but it also reflects to some extent on the Electoral Commission. I know that the noble and learned Lord who will respond will deny that it is anything other than pure coincidence that the Electoral Commission should change its mind so quickly on this issue and shut off any chance of my noble friend’s amendments being accepted.

[Lord Tyler]

Perhaps the noble Lord also saw that the Electoral Commission, in its advice to your Lordships' House, also said something that the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, did not mention: namely, that while it supported the principle of the amendment, it did not feel that it was necessary as its intended outcome could be achieved through the chief counting officer's power of direction for the referendum, as provided for in the Bill. Therefore it is not entirely fair to say that the situation has changed in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, and the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said.

As someone who has in the past given informal advice to the Electoral Commission, I agree that it is not beyond criticism. I am sure that some criticism of it is entirely proper, but it would be unfair to suggest that it has changed its mind in the way that was mentioned.

[Lord Bach]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, as always—and the Electoral Commission must be even more grateful than I. These are sensible amendments that one would have thought the commission would have supported, given all that it said about the scandalous issues that arose in Sheffield and a few other places during the last election. It is remarkable that it seems to have changed its mind.

I will put that to one side. The Government will make up their mind about whether to do something about the scandal in May last year. My question to the noble and learned Lord is: what do the Government intend to do to make sure that this does not happen again in May this year?

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for returning to this important issue in his amendment. Many of us who watched the election night coverage of the scenes at certain polling stations where people who had been queuing were not given the opportunity to vote found that it offended our sense of justice as democrats. The Government certainly take it seriously. The Electoral Commission's report found that queues built up at a number of polling stations on 6 May for various reasons. It identified 27 polling stations across the country. In most cases, it found that the common factor was inadequate planning processes and contingency arrangements that were not in place.

I assure the House that the Government are considering the Electoral Commission's report. We will consider what steps are necessary to prevent a repeat of the problems. It is important that we make sure that any changes to the rules are workable and will benefit the public. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, referred to the briefing from the commission to Members of your Lordships' House in which it indicates that a change to the rules on the close of polls would be significant; that details of any changes would need careful consideration to ensure that they could be consistently applied and would not have any unintended consequences; that the amendment could lead to inconsistent practice; and that there has not been sufficient time to consider the implications of how the provisions of amendment might work in practice.

We previously assured the House, in a reasonably long debate on this issue in Committee, that the Bill already gives the chief counting officer the necessary powers and discretion to ensure that the referendum runs smoothly. She will have sufficient flexibility to decide what is right in particular circumstances, including the steps that have already been taken by the Electoral Commission to ensure that some of the problems that occurred on 6 May are not repeated. This will include all counting officers having effective planning processes and contingency plans. We advised the Committee that the Electoral Commission had indicated that the chief counting officer intends to issue directions to counting officers on the maximum number of electors who will be allocated to any polling station, and the associated minimum number of staff who must be present at each polling station to ensure that polling runs smoothly and that all electors who wish to vote are able to. The Government take this seriously and are considering the Electoral Commission's report.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Bach Excerpts

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McDonagh]

This amendment seeks to provide that when the average size of constituency reaches 74,000 voters, the Secretary of State will bring forward legislation to increase the number of constituencies. This is a probing amendment, as I want to hear the Minister’s views on this issue. I am not sure that the Government fully appreciate the enormity of what they are doing and the impact that this Bill will have on our democratic system.

I shall address a few of the arguments briefly. We have a representative, democratic electoral system in the United Kingdom. It is not proportional, nor is it meant to be. In 1979, for example, the Conservative Party gained 42 per cent of the popular vote and 61 per cent of the seats. Fast forward to 1997 and the position was reversed, with Labour gaining 43 per cent of the vote and 63 per cent of the seats. The first election in which I was active was that of 1979, when 58 per cent of the vote was cast for parties other than the Conservatives. Therefore, it was surely not intended that the Conservatives should win. However, it was very clear to me at the time that the electorate wanted the Labour Government out and the Conservative Party in power. By creating such large electoral constituencies with a ceiling of 600, when we know that the population will increase to 70 million over the next 20 years, and by doing away with community links at the same time, the Government will create PR through the back door. We should have a referendum on that in its own right.

In a previous debate on this issue I talked about differential turnout, and the Minister was good enough to say that I had a point, for which I thank him. I do not know whether it will show itself in any change to the legislation, but I mention one statistic to explain this point again, and that is the turnout in Labour and Conservative seats in the 2005 election. The average turnout in Labour seats was 57.5 per cent. In Conservative seats, it was 65.3 per cent. That situation will not change under the current legislation, but it represents tens of thousands of people as we go across the United Kingdom.

One issue that I did not mention causes a problem under the first past the post electoral system. I did not mention it for political reasons; I felt that the Conservative Party might feel that I was doing more than explain: that I was making a political point. I therefore start by using Labour as an example of what psephologists refer to as an inefficient distribution of votes. In my language it means that the first past the post system needs political parties, particularly the main parties, to be broad churches that are largely representative of the public. When parties become narrow in their views, extreme or unappealing, the electorate punishes us through our electoral system. That is what psephologists call an inefficient distribution of votes. If I give the example of 1983, I think the House will understand the point I am making.

In 1983 it took 33,000 votes, on average, to elect a Conservative MP, and 41,000 votes, on average, to elect a Labour one. I am sure the House would not expect me to say that Labour lost the 1983 election because of an unfair electoral system. Indeed, if I did, anyone who was medically qualified on my own Benches would escort me with a firm hand from the Chamber. We lost the 1983 election because we deserved to lose. We were unrepresentative of the population at large and, it pains me to say, of my own party.

Moving on to the Conservative example, the right honourable Theresa May, when she was chairperson of the Conservative Party, referred to the Conservatives, at the annual conference, as “the nasty party”. She did not put that view into the voters’ minds; it was how they felt at the time. To the public, the Conservative Party had become very narrow and, because of that, built up votes in small areas of the country and no longer had representation in Scotland, Wales or many northern towns. It could no longer command support across the United Kingdom and, because of that, deserved to lose.

Let me give one more recent statistic to show how that shows itself. In the 2005 election, in the south-east region, which is only 12 or 13 per cent of the population of the United Kingdom—just a small proportion of nine English regions and the nations of Scotland and Wales—the Conservative Party had 36 per cent of its vote: over a third. It is impossible to win enough constituencies to form a Government by piling up votes in your hinterland, and that is a product of your politics, not the electoral system.

Let us look at the average sizes of our current seats. To the nearest 500, in England and Scotland, Labour and the Lib Dems have an average of 70,000 voters for every seat. The Conservative Party has 73,000, so that is well within any quota. Obviously at either end there are some larger constituencies that are outwith the quota, and there are some smaller constituencies. We need to change that. I am happy with having a boundary redistribution before the next general election. I agree with the principle, as far as is practical within a reasonable quota, that we should have constituencies of the same size. Indeed, if the same sensitivity were granted in a bipartisan way to my colleagues from Wales as was granted to the two constituencies that we already have in the Bill, I am sure they would also be happy with those arrangements.

The constituencies are not largely different. Where they are very large, the largest is the Isle of Wight, of which we are making an exception—we certainly passed an amendment on it. I believe that the second largest is East Ham, which is a London constituency. In the top 10 largest constituencies, roughly half are Labour. We will find more or less the same at the other end. Indeed, in the 1980s, there was a larger disparity between Labour and Conservative. Labour had much smaller seats, yet for that whole decade the Conservatives remained in power.

I moved this amendment because I want to understand the Government’s thinking on the matter. I do not want to see such large constituencies in which, in a small number of years, we will have seats in excess of 100,000 voters. They would hold no community of interest and MPs would not be able to have a relationship with the areas that they represented. We might as well have introduced PR.

This is also a much bigger problem than we making of it at the moment. The manner in which the Government have introduced this, and their reasons for doing so, are associated with the sort of democracy that we do not want to be associated with. If a country such as Zimbabwe were doing this, we would deplore it.

In a previous debate, one of my noble friends said that we had to be very careful because we do not have a written constitution. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, asked what difference that would make. I have a huge regard for the noble Lord and all the work that he has done over the years, but having a written constitution would make a huge and significant difference. I have a few examples of how you would have to do this if you had a written constitution.

If you have a written constitution and the method by which you arrive at seats is within that constitution, you generally change it by referendum or you need two-thirds of your Parliament’s agreement. In some cases, you cannot change the constitution at all. When we look around at countries, and I have picked a few different ones, I have not yet come across any that could introduce this legislation in the way in which our Government are introducing it—with no debate, no pre-legislative scrutiny and a limited debate in the other place.

I shall go through a few examples. Holland’s Parliament cannot interfere with how seats are determined as that is set out in its constitution. To amend that constitution takes a two-thirds majority on First Reading. You then have to have a general election and at Second Reading there has to be a further two-thirds majority. The constitution of Ireland, one of our closest neighbours, sets out that if the Dáil were to change the size, there would have to be a referendum of the Irish people. Latvia’s seats are set out in its constitution and for its Parliament to change that it needs three sittings of a two-thirds vote. In addition, many constitutional amendments require a further referendum of the Latvian people.

Slovakia needs a referendum to reduce the size of its Parliament and a majority of the country’s vote. It had a referendum on that, and it was lost. Spain has two Chambers that are not allowed to change their own numbers of seats. Again, to amend Sweden’s constitution two identical decisions are needed, with a general election in between. Denmark also requires a constitutional amendment. The Cook Islands need non-binding referenda to alter the number of seats; then there has to be a two-thirds majority in Parliament. In Australia, the process is set out in the constitution and Parliament cannot change the principle. It is also not allowed to reject or vary a boundary commission report.

In this last part of my contribution, I really want the Committee to consider the enormity of what we are doing. It is not just that we are creating enormous constituencies that will have no community link. We are also denigrating the esteem in which our democracy is held all around the world. We are also showing as parliamentarians that we can no longer be trusted with an unwritten constitution, something which I personally support. I believe that if we pass this through in the way that we are doing, we will look back and see this as the starting point of when we lost the argument and when a written constitution became inevitable. The worst part of all is that if this all happens, it will not address the problem which the Government seek to address, which is that the Conservative Party believes that the reason for its electoral loss is to do with the differing size of constituencies. It has nothing to do with it. I beg to move.

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, the Committee should be grateful to my noble friend for having raised, with her great experience, this important matter. She seeks a response from the Leader of the House to the points that she has made. From the Front Bench, we have pointed out a considerable number of dangers in the scheme that the Government propose, and we look forward to what the Leader of the House has to say in response to my noble friend.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Bach Excerpts

Tuesday 25th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, my noble friend’s Amendment 75 alters the extent to which the Boundary Commission is able to take account of possible factors extraneous to the size of parliamentary constituencies when conducting boundary reviews. It alters the weight that it can place on these additional factors. It would permit the Boundary Commission to give priority to special geographical considerations, including the shape and accessibility of a constituency, to local government boundaries, and any local ties when defining the new boundaries. It would subordinate the size of a constituency, its fit within the electoral quota, to these other factors if, but only if, the relevant boundary commission were to deem the other factors to be of exceptional importance.

The various boundary commissions are acknowledged experts in this field. They have been doing their job for a long time. It is their job to come to an informed and reasoned definition of a constituency boundary. I judge that it is they who are in the most suitable position to make an assessment on whether geographical or local factors are of exceptional importance to a particular constituency.

My noble friend’s amendment strikes us as reasonable, but I put it to the Committee that, if the Government had been amenable to accepting the Front Bench’s Amendment 75A that we debated last night, during the long debate that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, answered in the wee small hours, the amendment before us would not be necessary. As the rules currently stand, without this Bill being passed—I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for reminding the Committee of the 1986 rules, which stand today—boundary commissions are permitted to use their judgment in cases where geographical or local factors may need to override the size of constituencies. We think that this should remain the case. A concerted effort to achieve more equally sized constituencies can be consistent with allowing the Boundary Commission this discretion.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

How does my noble friend consider that the Boundary Commission could be in a position to make a well informed judgment as to whether factors in rule 5 should be considered to be of exceptional importance if it is not to have the opportunity to hear representations from members of the public in the process of inquiries?

[Lord Bach]

Obviously, I do not believe that it can. That is why I think that public inquiries, which we will come to later, are of such fundamental importance to the position.

Of course, the Boundary Commission draws up conclusions at present and then, in many cases, particularly where there is controversy, there will be public inquiries in order to see whether the original suggestion by the Boundary Commission should stand or be altered. Of course, arguments as to whether these are exceptional cases or not would be argued out both early on, I suspect among the commissioners themselves, and then also at the boundary review—that is, the public inquiry. That has proved to be incredibly successful over the past number of years and I think that the boundary commissioners, if they were standing here, would agree that this has prevented some Boundary Commission suggestions that were not very sensible coming into effect. Therefore, I agree with my noble friend’s point.

My noble friend Lord Lipsey emphasised in his amendment that he is thinking about exceptional factors. He is not advocating—nor are we, for that matter—that the factors mentioned in rule 5 should dominate in all cases, just that they should be given their due weight and that, in some areas, this weight is pretty significant. Existing rule 6, by which I mean rule 6 in the 1986 rules, says:

“A Boundary Commission may depart from the strict application of rules 4 and 5 if special geographical considerations, including in particular the size, shape and accessibility of a constituency, appear to them to render a departure desirable”.

That does not make the present rule 6 more important than size but makes it equally important. Both are considerations that the independent Boundary Commission can take into account. The difference with the way in which the Bill is drafted, of course, relates to the size of the constituency; unless the constituency is within 5 per cent, none of the considerations in the Bill’s rule 5 will come into effect.

I remind the Committee that if the flexibility in the variance in the size of constituencies were increased from the 5 per cent stated in the Bill as it stands, the problems that my noble friend set out when moving his amendment, and which his amendment seeks to avoid, would be far less likely to occur.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I start by indicating to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, that in the days when I had to attend economics lectures from the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, I also had to read Richard Lipsey’s Positive Economics. I hope he will take it in the spirit that it is intended when I say that I find the noble Lord’s contributions much more engaging than what I recall of his textbook.

The amendment would allow the Boundary Commission to decide, in particular instances, that the factors in rule 5 are so important that it should override the preceding rules. It has been evident from the debates that we have had so far that the core principle of this part of the Bill is to ensure that votes cast across the country have an equal weight. The best way to achieve this is to ensure that there is broad equality in the number of registered voters in each constituency. The principle of parity must be paramount.

In introducing his amendment, the noble Lord said that there was consensus in the Committee on the principle of equity, although he indicated that there was no consensus on the 5 per cent or 10 per cent variation from the electoral quota figure. I pay tribute to the noble Lord’s ingenuity for coming forward with this amendment. He claims that it is a very narrow exemption but, while ostensibly reasonable, the amendment would undermine the principle of parity that we have said ought to be paramount by allowing other factors to take precedence over the equal weighting of votes. This could, and almost certainly would, perpetuate a situation in which constituencies can be of very different sizes, and votes cast in one part of the country can have a very different weight from those cast in another.

The amendment would override rule 2(1), so it would not just be a question of a debate about a 5 per cent or 10 per cent variation. Indeed, by that rule being overridden, the variation could be sizeable indeed. Existing differences in constituency size matter. There is a 41 per cent difference between Manchester Central, with 85,522 electors in 2009, and Glasgow North, with 50,588 electors in 2009. That means that 10 voters in Glasgow North have the same weight as 17 voters in Manchester Central. Frankly, that simply cannot be right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

I was born in the borough of Hackney. I lived in Hackney. I was a member of the council there and I represented Hackney in the House of Commons for nearly 13 years. People who came from Hackney came from all different parts of the world. There were Turks, people from the West Indies, Indians, Pakistanis and many, many Jews. The important thing was that they had a common bond, as my noble friend Lord Graham would acknowledge, and the important thing from their point of view was that they were quite different from people in adjoining boroughs such as Islington and Tower Hamlets. They had some shared preoccupations, undoubtedly, but in the main they were different and they recognised that difference. It was very important to them as far as their lives were concerned. I do not think that that ought to be underestimated. We are talking about the River Thames but we are also talking about tributaries of that river, such as the River Lea. In my time, it was absolutely inconceivable to consider that people in Hackney could be divorced from the River Lea. They were part of it, they recognised it, and when we think of the possibilities of change it would be very remiss of us to consider that the people who live in Hackney should be part of another borough. That is inconceivable.

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Morgan of Huyton for introducing this group of amendments, which have led to an engaging and important discussion about both rivers and communities. My only regret was that she did not reveal the list of bands that her son gave her to see whether noble Lords knew about Liverpool or not. I have to say I have longed for many a year to use the expression that the unfortunate High Court judge used many years ago, “Who are the Beatles?”, but I am sure all noble Lords these days know very well who the Beatles are and many of the other bands that she kept from us. I am very grateful to her for moving this amendment.

We have heard from noble Lords on all sides of the Committee today. It is interesting to consider that the following place names have arisen from their speaking: Huyton, Kentish Town, Edmonton, Furness, Jarrow, Newport, Detchant, Hill Top, Harringey, Portsea, Marsh Green, Lambeth, Tankerness—he hopes very shortly, I am sure—Hammersmith and, last but not least at all, Gateshead. For unelected noble Lords, place names are important. Lutterworth is important to me, and I am sure that Tankerness is important to the noble and learned Lord. That shows that a sense of community runs not just in the House of Commons, where it would run a great deal for those fortunate enough to represent people of a particular community, but in this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale]

I think that both those things are clear about the Opposition today. Then, the Opposition were not supposed to be delaying the Bill, but my goodness they certainly took a very long time and went to very late hours in moving their amendments, which were all supposed to improve the Bill—changed days indeed, judging from the behaviour of the present Government. I suggest that it would do all noble Lords opposite a great deal of good to reflect on that. I oppose the amendment.

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, I will be brief. I agree very much with a great deal that was said by my noble friend in moving his amendment. The trouble is that we cannot support the amendment, although we think that he talked a great deal of sense about matters of important principle that have been raised before in Committee, which I am sure the Government have taken on board.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Ramsay for her contribution. The Leader of the House asked how many clauses were in the Scotland Bill. Perhaps he could remind us how many printed pages were in the Bill. I remind him that this Bill is now 301 pages long, many of them having been added during the last knockings in another place, and there will no doubt be a few more government amendments in this place, too.

On the amendment and why we on the Front Bench cannot support it, my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer said in the last debate that we supported the fact that Orkney and Shetland was to be a preserved constituency. The effect of my noble friend’s amendment would be to instruct the Boundary Commission in Scotland to treat Orkney and Shetland in exactly the same way as the rest of the country. The electoral quota would be applied to Orkney and Shetland. With an electorate of 37,000, Orkney and Shetland would have to be joined up with the mainland to form a constituency to meet the size of the electoral quota.

We have argued that there are cases in which special geographical and local features of an area require the Boundary Commission to think differently about how it will redraw constituencies. Island communities including the Isle of Wight, on which there was a strong view on all sides of the Committee, Anglesey, which has already been debated tonight, and Argyll and Bute, about which there is strong feeling across the House that it is not being fairly dealt with, merit such an approach. We on the Front Bench believe that Orkney and Shetland should obviously fall into this category. After all, the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 first preserved the status of that seat. I am afraid that we cannot support my noble friend in his amendment.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, nobody has risen to support the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, but I would not think of suggesting a degree of mischief in his moving the amendment. I said to my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness that he was far too expert on the subject of this great constituency to respond to this and that I would gladly do it for him.

To reply to one small part of my exchange with the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Bach, there are only 18 clauses in the Bill. It is so long because the schedules are included in it, which would otherwise form part of secondary legislation. There is no need to remake that point; it explains the thickness of the Bill.

I think that noble Lords now understand what the amendment would do. It would remove the exemption from Orkney. We have in this Bill provided two named exemptions to the parity rule, for Orkney and Shetland and for the Western Isles, Na h-Eileanan an Iar—that is said in an Ayrshire accent, to help Hansard.

We believe that it is very important for electors that their vote has the same weight wherever they are in the United Kingdom. The noble Lord has been urging us through the debate to break down the parity. In the amendment, he is saying that we should be even more vigorous on the parity, but we have created the two exceptions named in the Bill because they are dispersed island groups that are not already included in a constituency that covers part of the mainland.