Estates of Deceased Persons (Forfeiture Rule and Law of Succession) Bill

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, spoke in the very first debate on the first amendment in Committee—or perhaps it was on Second Reading—he said that he was like a minor character in Shakespeare referred to in Act 1, Scene 1, and never heard of again. It has, however, been to the benefit of the entire House and the Committee that instead he has been bestride the stage like a colossus. Great as my respect for the noble Lord is, I do not feel that a sunset clause on this Bill is any more appropriate than a sunset clause on a local government reorganisation, a National Health Service reorganisation, or anything else.

However, there has always been an argument for attaching a sunset clause or a sunset condition to some EU legislation with great advantage, because so much EU legislation is irreversible. That is a point that I have made before, but I repeat it simply because I think that that is the problem of connection between the public, Parliament and the EU, and one of the reasons why there is scepticism and mistrust about the European Union.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

Is the great distinction about referenda which the noble Lord is making—he has made it twice this afternoon—whether a decision once taken becomes irreversible, and that in that category there should be a referendum; and that in other categories there should not? If so, why will there not be a referendum on reform of the House of Lords? Surely that will in practice be an irreversible decision. Once you have a democratically elected legislative Chamber, you can hardly go back on that.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

I have not heard that there is not going to be a referendum on legislation for the House of Lords; I have heard many people speculating that amendments may be moved. We shall see, and I shall see how I vote on the interesting suggestion made by the noble Lord.

It has been said that this debate has at times been something of a Second Reading debate on many of the amendments. That is because the Bill has been misrepresented in several of the debates in an exaggerated way. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, has made it clear again and again that we are not going to get a plethora of referendums, for several reasons. First, changes in competences and powers tend to come in packages, in treaties. Secondly, we have been assured many times that we will not have more great treaties. The fact that certain vetoes and certain competences remain after we have had Lisbon, Nice and Maastricht shows that there are very good reasons why national Governments wish to retain them. No Government are going to invest a huge amount of political capital in pursuing some relatively minor matter. That is not how these things operate; they tend to come in packages.

People talk about these issues being trivial. We are talking about competences and powers. We are talking about vetoes, for example. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, referred to the amendment very well proposed last week by the noble Lord, Lord Davies—I think it was Amendment 22A—about exempting defence procurement from the requirements of the internal market. He said that that is something that could advantage the country, and surely we ought to have the flexibility to move to QMV. Actually, I think it is important to be able to buy certain types of defence equipment and certain weapons, or produce them where you want to, and not have them subject to the full rigour of the market. In the previous Government, Des Browne himself—now the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton—said that he regarded that as a vital power to be retained by the British Government. Judging by the previous Government and what the former Secretary of State said, that is an extremely important power for this country to retain.

The noble Lord said the Bill was otiose because the Government were not intending to hold referenda in this Parliament. As the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, the Bill will apply in this Parliament. It is not otiose any more than the Act giving effect to the Maastricht treaty. It had an opt-in for Britain to opt into the euro, but it was made very clear that we were not going to opt into the euro in the next Parliament. That did not make it otiose.

Then we have heard the argument that we are legislating for future Parliaments, but of course it is perfectly open to any future Government to repeal the Bill. With great respect to my noble friend Lord Jopling, we would be getting the worst of all worlds if we enacted the Bill but then said that the whole floodgates could be opened again without any specific intention at the beginning of each Parliament. I can think of nothing that would inflame public opinion more and get the tabloid press—about which we have heard a lot in this debate—going again than if, without any specific intention, a Government decided at the beginning of each Parliament to open the floodgates to the reversal of this legislation. We are told that it will lead to inflexibility in negotiations. However, other countries have procedures that take a long time and they have certain provisions on which they have to hold referenda. We have seen how it takes time for some of these treaties to be legislated for in other countries. Therefore, I do not think that the position of Britain’s negotiators would be any different from that of other countries.

What has been confusing in these debates is that this legislation is about competence and powers, whereas people try to make it about issues and policies. Nice, Lisbon and Maastricht have all given a tremendous amount of power and transferred sovereignty to the European Union. What in terms of power and competence do the Opposition and those opposed to the Bill think the European Union needs? What is the issue? What is the European Union not able to deal with at the moment? We have had many changes in recent years. The United States constitution has had only 27 amendments since coming into existence but we produce endless changes. The European Charter of Fundamental Rights was written in very dense language and was much longer than the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the charter of the United Nations.

The noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Hannay, have certainly enlightened our debates with their enormous expertise and very abstruse knowledge of difficult and complex issues. However, when I listened to them I was reminded of what Winston Churchill said when he became Chancellor of the Exchequer. He came out of the Treasury and said, “These chaps speak Persian. I prefer generals and admirals”. Of course, the contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Kerr, have been extremely important and enlightening in these debates, but I think that with some of these abstruse issues—the language used and so on—there is a real problem of connection between ordinary people and the European Union.

What has not been recognised enough by opponents of the Bill is the tremendous crisis that is taking place in Europe over the European Union. We have seen dramatic changes in public opinion on European integration in countries such as Finland. However, I would particularly single out what has happened in Holland. Throughout my life, Holland has been the most pro EU-integrationist country in Europe; now, it is the most obstructionist. It is strongly opposed to the bailouts of Greece, Ireland and Portugal and it wants to dismantle the Schengen provisions as well. The Bill draws a red line to say that in this Parliament, and beyond if this Government are re-elected, there will not be a transfer of powers. It seems to me to be sensible legislation and we should be determined to carry it forward. I think that the red lines we are drawing will go some way to restore some trust in the European Union.

Privacy Injunctions

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Monday 23rd May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, I strongly support the suggestion made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, that the proposed Joint Committee should also examine the parallel dilemma—and it is a very difficult one—of the balance to be struck between parliamentary privilege and the need for Parliament to respect the separation of powers and not to undermine the administration of justice. Surely if the Government propose to bring forward a Bill on parliamentary privilege, it is particularly important that this Joint Committee, which is examining such a closely related matter, should have an opportunity to consider that as well, and the Government should have an opportunity to hear the conclusions of that committee before it frames its proposed legislation.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

As I indicated, it is a draft Bill, so there will be opportunity to consider issues on parliamentary privilege that go wider than the important issues raised here. The terms of reference of the Joint Committee are not yet established, and it would be wrong of me to pre-empt that, but I will certainly draw to the attention of my right honourable friends the comments made in the Chamber today on the importance of parliamentary privilege as it pertains to this particular issue, and it may well be that in these circumstances the committee may want to reflect on that and have its own input into any future draft Bill.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

Technically, perhaps the county of Durham is no longer a county council as such; I do not know. It seems to me all the more important that there should be recognition in the Bill of the important contemporary reality of unitary authorities.

Among his observations in debate on a previous amendment, the noble Lord noted that parliamentary constituency boundaries crossed the boundaries of a significant proportion of unitary authorities. That is not a good reason to surrender those unitary authorities, assuming that there will be no concern among the people who live within them that their integrity should be preserved when drawing parliamentary constituency boundaries—and, very importantly, the working relationship between Members of Parliament and the local authorities governing the areas, the communities, which they represent. It must be desirable that Members of Parliament deal with the smallest possible number of local authorities. The complexity, the multiplication of tasks, the time-wasting and the cost involved in Members of Parliament having to deal with a proliferation of different local authorities overlapping with their constituencies is clearly undesirable. I hope that the Government will accept that the Bill should be amended on the lines of my amendments.

I say just a word on the question of wards as building blocks. If it has to be accepted that, with the tight tolerance around the electoral quota, it will be more commonly the case than it has been hitherto that individual wards will be bisected in the drawing up of constituencies, some administrative questions follow. What is to be the subdivision of wards that the Boundary Commission will need to take account of? If it is to be polling districts, how can we be sure that local authorities will not redefine polling districts so as to frustrate the purposes of the Boundary Commission?

Those administrative processes ought to be sensibly related to each other. If we are to see the fragmentation of wards, we need some sub-unit which the Boundary Commission will respect. If it is to be the polling district within the ward—which it could be—we need a guarantee that the polling districts will not be arbitrarily chopped and changed. I beg to move.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I suspect that at this stage in the proceedings and at this time of night, there is not a great appetite in the House for a long speech. I want to speak briefly to my amendment, Amendment 22, which is grouped and is about wards.

It would be churlish not to start off by saying that I recognise—and am grateful and appreciative—that the Government have moved some way in our direction. The Minister will recall that I pressed him on the matter of wards at some length in Committee. After quite a long discussion, he ended up by saying that there may be,

“some merit in placing discretionary consideration”—[Official Report; 24/1/11; 713.]—

of wards in the Bill. I place on record that I recognise that the noble and learned Lord has done what he promised to do and has tabled an amendment, which he has not yet had a chance to move, Amendment 27A, which puts wards in the same category as other local authority boundaries for the purposes of the Bill.

Your Lordships may say: why are you rising at all to speak to the amendment? The reason is that there is a significant difference between what the Government propose—I recognise that they have taken steps in the right direction—and what I propose. The essential phrase in Clause 5, which all of us will remember, is that the Boundary Commission “may, if it sees fit” take into account local government boundaries. Wards are now included for the first time as a local government boundary.

“May, if it sees fit,” is a very weak indication or encouragement to the Boundary Commission to take ward boundaries seriously.

I have a greater degree of optimism in practice, because I have a great respect for the Boundary Commission and it is as familiar as we are with the strong arguments for respecting wards made very well by my noble friend Lord Bach. They are that wards are the building blocks of both local government and the major political parties in this country. To break them up or cut across them would be an attack on democracy at the grassroots. I am quite sure that neither the Tory party nor the Liberal Democrat party really want to do that. However, there is considerable merit in having a stronger formulation as in my amendment:

“Except in circumstances they judge to be exceptional, a Boundary Commission may not allow a ward to form part of more than one constituency”.

The obligation is placed on the Boundary Commission to make a case of exceptional circumstances if it decides to split a ward. That seems a much stronger formulation and I would be grateful if the Minister could say why he cannot accept an amendment which seems to encapsulate the spirit of the debate we had in Committee.

[Lord Myners]

My Lords, I was not intending to speak to this series of amendments but I believe there is an important generality here of respect for established boundaries and division points that define one community from another, be they county council boundaries or wards or other forms of distinct governmental boundaries and definitions. The House should proceed with great care before we disturb natural groupings—natural directions in which people look to have influence and where decisions will be taken which affect their lives and communities.

I have added my name to an amendment about Cornwall which the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, will table tomorrow. Unfortunately I am unable to be in the House then so I will speak for one moment now. The people of Cornwall recognise it as a unit of great integrity; they are very proud of being Cornish. The six MPs from Cornwall, three Liberal Democrats and three Conservatives, are all agreed that Cornwall must remain an intact area in terms of preserved constituencies. I will not be able to speak tomorrow in support of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, but I want to use this generality around respect for boundaries and traditional definitions of areas in relation to Cornwall. In would be a monstrous outcome if Cornwall was required to share a constituency with Devon.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Monday 7th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

It must be wise to learn from the experience of other countries that have been ahead of us in considering these matters. I contend that STV, above all, should be a major option. My own amendment simply would have added it to the question that is set out in Clause 1 of the Bill: do you want first past the post?; do you want AV? I would have added the option: do you want the single transferable vote system?

I certainly do not intend to discuss at any length the merits and the demerits of STV. The virtues of proportional representation are that it is perceived by some as being fairer and that it tackles the problem—which I think is a very real problem and one of the explanations for the disaffection with our parliamentary system and our political culture that is so widely felt in this country—of the feeling that most people’s votes are wasted, that elections are determined by small minorities of voters in small minorities of constituencies, and that other voters hardly need to take the trouble to vote because it is not going to make any difference to the eventual outcome as to who forms a Government. That feeling of unfairness—the feeling that the system at the moment does not give adequate and equal force to everyone’s vote—is a real problem. To that extent, there is a case for STV.

People will not, however, agree about what fairness is. Some will say that a fair system is a system that creates representation in Parliament that is in exact proportion to the distribution of votes between the parties in the country as a whole. Others say that a fair and representative system is one that expresses and represents communities in Parliament. That has been our tradition. The defect of PR is, of course, that it ignores people’s sense of identity in their constituency. It means that you no longer have the single member constituency—the constituency in which one person of whatever party is elected to represent and serve all the constituents—which is a very precious and valuable part of our system.

Another unfortunate consequence of STV can be that it leads to a great deal of fratricide within parties as candidates seek to persuade people to vote for them rather than for other candidates in their own parties. I will not go on about the pros and cons, except to say simply that they are numerous on both sides.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

Before my noble friend leaves the disadvantages of proportional representation in any form, does he agree that among its most serious problems is, first, that it dilutes individual responsibility, and secondly, that it greatly enhances the power of party bosses because of their power to move an individual around in the list on which the party is elected?

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

I agree entirely with my noble friend that these are further defects. PR condemns us to a perpetuity of coalition Governments and gives disproportionate power to third and lesser parties, as we have seen for many years with the Free Democratic Party in Germany. I would not wish to vote for it, but my point is that people should be allowed the opportunity to vote on all the serious choices that ought to be considered when we are contemplating the possibility of changing the electoral system. I am confident that first past the post would prevail and I would campaign for it, but it would be a salutary exercise in our democracy if we were to reconsider what our electoral system should be, with every reasonable option being available to the people.

I am surprised, therefore, that what Mr Clegg thought of as a “miserable little compromise” in offering the option of voting only for AV now appears to him to be a happy little compromise. I fear that he regards it as a stepping stone towards another referendum, which he hopes will not be long delayed, in which people, finding that they have been sold a pig in a poke with AV, decide that they do wish to move on to STV after all. In an earlier debate I quoted the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House, which deprecated the resort to referendums. Indeed, I think that to lead us from one referendum to the next because the first referendum offers an inadequate choice to the people that they quickly find unsatisfactory would be a thoroughly bad thing.

For these reasons, I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, and I hope that he will want to pursue it with all the vigour he can muster.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Monday 7th February 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

11: Clause 8, page 6, line 21, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“( ) over one third of those eligible to vote in the referendum have voted in favour of the answer “Yes”, and”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, this amendment has been very happily and felicitously overtaken by the House’s decision to adopt Amendment A1 in the name of my noble friend Lord Rooker. I think that it is possible to produce substantive arguments in favour of a threshold before a referendum comes into effect and it is possible to produce another set of arguments in favour of a threshold before a referendum becomes mandatory. However, I suspect that the whole House will be unanimous on this. It would not make any sense whatever to have two thresholds in relation to a referendum. Therefore, I have no intention whatever of asking the House to vote on this or of taking the matter further. I just want to make one comment.

Whatever the substantive arguments for the two types of threshold that I have just outlined, my noble friend Lord Rooker seems to have won the argument in favour of his approach and his amendment. The House of Commons has not yet pronounced on that. It has considered the approach, although not the actual figures, that I suggest for a threshold and it has rejected it. It is right that this House should be very conscious of the views of the elected House on a matter such as this. My noble friend Lord Rooker has come forward with a totally original idea. It was not considered in the other place or by anyone in this place before he ingeniously came forward with it. Therefore, it is with great pleasure that I say that my own amendment ought, in my view, to be eclipsed, overtaken and indeed buried by Amendment A1, and I have no intention of taking it any further.

[The Deputy Speaker]

My Lords, the Woolsack is confused. Amendment proposed—

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

Not moved.

[The Deputy Speaker]

No, my Lords. That is not on. Amendment proposed: in page 6, line 21, leave out paragraph (a) and insert the words printed in the Marshalled List.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lipsey]

I understand why those on the Lib Dem Benches do not rise to their feet to dispute the amendments. But, as one who, on the AV referendum, agrees with them, I shall do and speak for a minute or two. I think that thresholds are a bad idea in referendums. I supported the amendment proposed earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, because it seems to me that, generally, a pre-legislative vote is a good thing, but I do not support a threshold.

If there is a vote on this, if the threshold proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, is to be reached, it will require 264 Peers to vote in the Content Lobby for it to be carried. If that of the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, is to be reached, we will need a total turnout of 316 Peers. And if that of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is to be reached—50 per cent, and 25 per cent yes— we need 395 peers to vote with 198 saying yes. I do not see why we should have a different test for the legitimacy of the vote in the country than we have for the legitimacy of the vote in our own House. Thresholds are arbitrary, they introduce bias, they distort debate and they have absurd consequences. I deal very briefly with each of these. As regards them being arbitrary, look at the range of numbers before us. They could be nice round numbers. As Sir Patrick Nairne, chairman of the independent Commission on the Conduct of Referendums, said, the main difficulty in specifying a threshold lies in determining what figure is sufficient to confer legitimacy. There is no answer to that. On the bias aspect, one side has to achieve only one thing—

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I find that my amendment inadvertently has provoked a rather interesting discussion on this matter. I am listening to my noble friend with great attention. Of course, there is no scientific way of determining what the particular figure might be, but is my noble friend arguing that even if a major constitutional amendment is, say, passed by 6 per cent voting in favour, out of 10 per cent who vote altogether, that that would be an adequate degree of legitimacy justifying constitutional change?

[Lord Lipsey]

It is a good point that my noble friend makes. The answer to it is that that is why I want a pre-legislative referendum, so that the judgment can be made in the light of all the facts after the referendum and not be made in advance in what is necessarily an arbitrary way.

On bias, one side has to achieve only one thing: it has to prevent a majority voting against the change it opposes. However, the yes campaign has to do two things: it has to win more votes and to do better it has to make sure that the turnout is up. This also raises questions about legitimacy of the result. Would the side against which this bias exists really regard a result achieved in this biased way as legitimate? In my view, it would not, although it might rely on a verdict of Parliament after a referendum as a legitimate verdict in the circumstances.

My third point is that the threshold distorts debate. What we want in this referendum is both sides putting their strongest possible case in front of the electorate either for the proposed change or against it—whichever they want. But this case gives the no campaign an incentive to put two different arguments: “Vote no if you must vote, but we’ll get just as many votes if you just don’t bother to turn out”. It is the sit-and-watch-telly no campaign. That does not seem to be a very good idea. The experience of Italy—I will not go into it in great detail—where abstentions are not a vote does not reflect well on this practice. Nor indeed does the consequences of the introduction of the threshold in the first Scottish referendum on devolution, which led to the issue being completely unresolved in fact until the 1997 referendum finally settled it. The referendum did not have the effect that everybody wanted it to have of settling the devolution process.

Finally, my noble friend Lord Grocott has just described one absurd result where two people vote for and one against. I accept that that is an absurd result. But it is no more absurd than the result that would stem—I am sure he was not intending this—from the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, where 32 per cent vote yes, 1 per cent vote no, and yet the referendum automatically, and without further debate in Parliament, falls. That would be at least as absurd a result as the one my noble friend Lord Grocott predicates.

I have rattled through an argument that deserves more probing and profundity, because the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, came out with a perfectly viable solution to these competing considerations. I was, therefore, very glad to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, was not going to press his views to a vote. However, I think that the House should briefly be exposed to the case against these thresholds as well as the case for them, if only to reinforce itself in its wisdom.

At one stage I thought about abstaining on my noble friend Lord Rooker’s amendment because of my dislike of thresholds, which for once in my entire time in the House of Lords would have affected the result. It is a good thing I did not, so phew. The House of Lords might consider the argument that I have briefly developed and decide that, in view of it, we made a wise decision earlier this afternoon, albeit narrowly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, we have had another interesting debate on, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, indicated, the difference between the amendments we are discussing here and those which were debated earlier. I only wish that the strength of the argument deployed by the noble Lord against thresholds had been sufficient to persuade everyone to abstention, even if I was unable to do that, but that did not happen.

The manuscript amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, which would mean that 25 per cent of the electorate would have to vote yes is a reflection of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, which seeks that 33 per cent of the electorate should vote yes. We then have a straightforward 50 per cent eligibility to vote proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, which the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, spoke to, regarding the individual constituent parts of the United Kingdom. I acknowledge also that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, did not speak to the amendment in her name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan.

I think the arguments against thresholds were put very eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, and are a cogent argument as to why the threshold-against turnout, particularly although not exclusively, does not necessarily lead to fairness compared with a straight situation where people are invited to vote and the majority wins. But the proposals that relate to a threshold that the yes vote has to reach are particularly pernicious. Earlier the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, referred to the 40 per cent threshold that was imposed on the Scotland and Wales referendums in 1979. The Welsh referendum did not arise because there was a very strong no vote, but although 64 per cent of the electorate turned out in Scotland and a majority voted in favour of devolution, it was not implemented for another 20 years. It did not settle the question. It left, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said earlier, a bad taste. Of all thresholds, it does not satisfy the electorate and particularly those who campaign and those who would seek a yes vote.

The amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, spoke to on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, would seek a requirement of a majority vote in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, rather than a simple majority of all votes taken together. This is a UK-wide referendum on what the electoral system should be to elect the House of Commons in the United Kingdom Parliament. I believe it transcends particular localities or regions. The pros and cons of the system will be debated and considered by people regardless of where they live.

In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, uttered words of caution against this kind of amendment. He said that,

“to seek to set one nation within that kingdom against another kingdom is neither desirable nor wise”. [Official Report, 20/12/10; col. 827.]

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, rejected this type of amendment because,

“we should do everything to promote coherence in the United Kingdom. That means that, where we are voting on a national voting system, implementation of any referendum should be guided by what the national vote is”.—[Official Report, 20/12/10; cols. 843-4.]

If we were to find, for the sake of argument, that the rest of the United Kingdom—Wales, Northern Ireland and England—had substantially voted in favour of a change yet Scotland had a narrow majority against, it would be unacceptable that that one country with a narrow majority against should effectively exercise a veto over all other parts of the United Kingdom.

Noble Lords who have spoken to their amendments have indicated that they are not going to press them given the vote that was taken earlier. On that basis, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 11 withdrawn.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Tuesday 1st February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I completely support the spirit of this group of amendments. If all goes well—I nearly said “according to plan” but that would be giving a hostage to fortune—and the Bill gets through in time for the referendum to be held in May, there will be no time to lose. I think that every Member of the House concurs with the spirit that, if we are to have a referendum, we should ensure that it works as well as it possibly can and that as many as possible of our fellow countrymen and women take part in it.

I agree wholly with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, which would remove the discretion by simply obliging the Electoral Commission to provide information about each of the two voting systems. If the Government accept Amendment 108 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, the first provision in Amendment 110ZZA, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, would be superfluous.

On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Newton—he cast a fly in my direction, at which I leap—micro legislation is indeed food for lawyers and I am all agin it. However, I consider that the more dangerous provision in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, in terms of “lawyerisation”, is its second provision, which would require that the leaflet,

“summarise the main arguments for and against first-pass-the-post and the alternative vote”.

There is much more room for lawyers to haggle over that before Her Majesty’s courts than there is over the “impartial and unbiased” provision. However, I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, should sleep on his amendment, given that its only essential provision—that is, the distribution to all households—should be taken care of by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. If the Electoral Commission is required to provide information about each of the two systems, surely that means delivery of information to every house. If there is any doubt about that, a change can be brought forward at the next stage.

I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Soley, because I did exactly as he did and had the same rather ghostly result. I tried three Electoral Commission numbers, which were all disconnected. However, I was informed a week ago by the commission that it is not disconnected and that it will definitely produce a leaflet that will be delivered to every household, so perhaps we can sleep soundly on that.

The plain English idea must be a good suggestion. Describing these two systems in the best and most limpid form that John Bull can understand on a bad night is essential. That amendment would be a step in the right direction.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, before getting to the substantive remarks that I wanted to make, as we have heard two interesting speeches I wonder whether it might be in order for the Leader of the House, on behalf of the House itself, formally to draw to the attention of the Electoral Commission the fact that noble Lords on both sides of the House appear to have had considerable difficulty getting in touch with the Electoral Commission by telephone. That is obviously a rather disturbing situation, particularly when everybody agrees that the Electoral Commission must play the key role in keeping the public informed as we move forward towards this referendum—if, indeed, we do. Although it would be nice to think that the staff of the Electoral Commission spent their free time reading Hansard of either House, that may be a rather hopeful assumption to make.

[Lord Soley]

The Electoral Commission staff do read Hansard. Indeed, I suspect that they watch some of the debate live, so perhaps I will soon get a text—I hope so.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I hope that, by whatever means, the Electoral Commission will address the issue raised by these two incidents, which hardly look as if they are purely coincidence. If noble Lords cannot get an answer from the Electoral Commission, what are the chances of an ordinary member of the public doing so? I suspect that that is a matter of concern not just to me but to the whole House.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

My Lords, it may be helpful if I deal with this issue because I understand that the Electoral Commission has just moved offices. That is why the old phone number does not work. The new phone numbers should be available in the normal way and we can make them available. If anybody wants them, they can call my office and we can get them to them. I am assured that the Electoral Commission takes great care and notice of what happens here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I hope that I did not give the impression that I had concluded my remarks. Of course I shall give way in a moment to the noble Lord, Lord Low, with great pleasure but I suspect he wishes to speak to his amendment and perhaps the right time to do that will be when I have concluded my remarks, which will not be very lengthy.

Just before I leave the issue of the Electoral Commission, I have to respond to the Leader of the House. Those of us with a background in the private sector know that when you move offices and no longer answer your telephone you go out of business very quickly, and I do not think that that is a very satisfactory excuse coming from a public sector body either.

I very much support both my noble friends Lord Rooker and Lord Lipsey in the amendments they put forward and the initiatives they have taken, although I have a number of reservations about the wording of one amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, which I shall come to in a moment. I think they must have had the same reaction as I did when I read the Bill. There is a rather marked antithesis, and a slightly disturbing one, between paragraph 9(1) of Schedule 1:

“The Electoral Commission must take whatever steps they think appropriate to promote public awareness about the referendum and how to vote in it”,

and paragraph 9(2), which then states:

“The Electoral Commission may take whatever steps they think appropriate to provide, for persons entitled to vote in the referendum, information about each of the two voting systems referred to in the referendum question”.

Particularly coming straight after “must”, “may” reads very weakly—it seems almost a sort of casual afterthought—and I do not think that is good enough. If we are to have a referendum in this country on quite a complex new constitutional issue, it is absolutely essential that members of the public have the opportunity to understand what it is all about. I therefore think it very reasonable that we should say “must” in paragraph 9(2) which, of course, is the effect of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Rooker.

I very much agree with my noble friend Lord Lipsey that it is right to produce a pamphlet on the subject. As one of his own amendments states, the information effort should include the publication of a pamphlet and does not exclude other things. I hope that the Electoral Commission will have a budget which can indeed be used, as the noble Lord, Lord Martin, has suggested, for television coverage of the issue as well, or even possibly local radio, as he suggested. That is highly desirable.

I have to say, however, that my breath was slightly taken away by the phrase in the third sentence of my noble friend Lord Lipsey’s Amendment 110ZZA:

“The leaflet shall be impartial and unbiased”.

I found myself reading that two or three times and thinking carefully whether a leaflet could be “impartial and unbiased”—indeed, whether any opinion of this kind could be “impartial and unbiased”. Of course, as a practical issue, we regularly expect certain people and certain functions to be impartial and unbiased—judges and juries would be an obvious example. However, they are being impartial and unbiased in relation to the establishment of a fact: whether so-and-so killed the victim or whether so-and-so stole the goods is a matter of fact. Here, we are asking for the production of an impartial and unbiased opinion—

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

Is it not a fact also that, when a jury comes to its determination, it has had the points for and the points against put not by some impartial body but by counsel for the prosecution before counsel for the defence? Therefore, maybe the two sides of this argument should set out the case themselves.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I do not know whether I should be grateful for my noble friend’s intervention or not. I totally agree with him on the one hand, but on the other he has just taken away the point I was about to make myself. I was hoping I was going to be the first in the debate to raise those particular solutions. However, he is perfectly right and I think, before the House accepts the words that would actually go in the Bill, it needs to think very carefully about putting a responsibility on any human being or set of human beings to produce an opinion on something which is impartial and unbiased.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grocott]

I wonder if my noble friend would make a judgment if I offered him what I consider to be an impartial, unbiased and factual statement about the alternative vote system, namely that the system offered in this referendum is used by just three countries in the world and one of them is trying to get rid of it. That seems to me to be a statement of fact: is that something that he would recommend for a leaflet?

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

Indeed, as a statement of fact—I return to my philosophical discussion—that would be unexceptionable and unchallengeable. Of course, the way that a fact is stated immediately opens the author of the document to the charge that he or she has been selective and could equally well have set out the facts in an equally amusing or effective way that brought fire to bear on the other side of the question. My noble friend summarises brilliantly exactly the problems that will be encountered by anybody, however honest a man or woman he or she is, who sets out to produce something that will be characterised by the law of the land—by statute—as impartial and unbiased. That is probably asking something that no human being can do. None of us could produce an opinion that was genuinely unbiased and impartial. It is philosophically impossible and practically impossible in any political argument.

Therefore, while I totally agree with what my noble friend Lord Lipsey says, Parliament needs to place an obligation on the Electoral Commission to ensure that the public are properly informed about the choice that they must make, and about the characteristics of the two electoral systems. It is absolutely crucial that the Electoral Commission itself does not in any way risk its own credibility and integrity by putting its name to such a document. The suggestion that the Electoral Commission should distribute documents by the two campaigns would be a much better one as a result.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Davies. I did not mean to interrupt him. I thought that he had got to the end of his remarks. Indeed, I am extremely grateful that he continued because I thought that, before he moved to the outer reaches of philosophy, he made a very strong point when he referred to the sharp antithesis between “must” and “may” in the clause. I thought that that point lent considerable additional weight to Amendment 108, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. I got a bit more worried as the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, continued because I was getting a message from my BrailleNote here that the battery was about to run out. I think there is just enough left for me to say that I rise briefly in support of this group of amendments. Amendment 109 is in my name and is substantially to the same effect as Amendment 108, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. Both require the Electoral Commission to provide information about each of the voting systems referred to in the referendum question. In conjunction with Amendment 110, which we discussed last night, these amendments place on the Electoral Commission a duty to take steps to ensure that disabled voters are able to access information and support to facilitate their understanding and participation in voting and elections.

I also welcome Amendment 110ZZA, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. All I would say is that steps need to be taken to ensure that the leaflet referred to in the amendment is made accessible to people who have difficulty in reading print. For example, the leaflet would need to advertise on it—in at least 14-point type, I would hope—the availability of other formats such as large print, Braille and audio, and a number to call to request these formats. Furthermore, alternative formats would have to be available at the same time as the print version, otherwise people who cannot read print would be put at a disadvantage compared to those who are able to read the printed leaflet.

On Amendment 110ZZB, the requirement to seek the advice of the Plain English Campaign on information materials, although it might strike a blow at the legal profession, seems a sensible suggestion considering the complexity of explaining the rival voting systems and it could certainly help in making the material accessible to people with learning disabilities, who may have need of an EasyRead version. Therefore I support all the amendments in this group.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords, I follow the noble Lord, Lord Low, who has been a great champion of those with disabilities in the House. He shows some of the reasons for this House in the way in which he is able to contribute. I should like to say briefly how much I agree with what my noble friend Lord Davies has said. We have had many allusions in the debate, often in the small reaches of the morning, but I do not think that Hegel and—was it Nietzsche?

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

It was Heidegger.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

I do not think that Hegel and Heidegger have been alluded to so far. However, following that philosophic allusion, I wonder whether one might follow the Marxist dialectic and have a thesis, an antithesis and a synthesis. If there were two umbrella organisations, we would have to give thought as to who would compose these arguments on both sides of the divide; and this assumes that there are people who are acceptable and that there are relevant umbrella organisations. This will probably be the case, even though there may be differences within those umbrella organisations. If there are such organisations, it may be that they would have to submit, in draft, their proposals to the Electoral Commission, which could ensure that they are broadly acceptable.

Let me come first to the synthesis and then I shall give way to my noble friend. The Electoral Commission itself, having looked at the thesis and the antithesis, in the normal direct way, can then come forward with its synthesis of those areas which it thinks are of importance for the voter and which have not been touched on by the protagonists.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. My concept was that the individual elector would provide his or her own synthesis from the materials provided by the two campaigns. I totally agree with my noble friend, from a practical standpoint, that my suggestion will not work unless there are two clear campaigns run by some accepted umbrella organisation. It would, of course, be for the Electoral Commission to satisfy itself that those two campaigns were generally national umbrella organisations, accepted by all the groups within each particular side of the campaign. That worked in 1975, as my noble friend, who was also alive at the time, will recall, but it would not work if there were just a whole lot of different groups and multifarious and multifaceted voices of various kinds on both sides. That would be a very untidy and very difficult campaign. I hope that the rather more clear-cut choice, which the public were offered in 1975 on another important constitutional issue, could be replicated. It would be for the Electoral Commission to decide that point.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My noble friend’s thesis assumes that there are people who are prepared to be in an umbrella organisation for the alternative vote. The problem is that no one actually favours the alternative vote.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

Mr Clegg?

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

In God-like isolation, he may well. I suspect that even Mr Clegg, if it is before three o'clock in the afternoon, may well reach the view that he prefers other systems. There is a variety of systems and it is clear that the alternative vote is a totally orphan system. Certainly, the Conservative Party does not favour it. On the whole, it prefers the first past the post system. At the time of the last election, the Labour Party did, but clearly the public—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pannick]

I respectfully take the noble Lord’s point. I therefore assume that in the proper exercise of the discretion rightly given to it by paragraph 9 (2), the Electoral Commission will be preparing material which it may decide is appropriate to send to members of the public. But that is a matter for the commission.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

As the point has already been made, there is no reference to summarising anything in this paragraph. It says:

“The Electoral Commission may take whatever steps they think appropriate to provide information”.

I hope the noble Lord agrees with me that that could equally well cover my proposal of arranging for the distribution of material produced by, for example, the organisations running the two campaigns. It is very important that we make it clear that there is that possibility there. That is encompassed within the existing text. The suggestion of summarising something, or producing pamphlets, is an additional issue that we are raising today in the course of debating these amendments.

[Lord Pannick]

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, and that is why I am perfectly content with the existing wording which gives a free discretion to the Electoral Commission to take such steps as it thinks appropriate in all the circumstances as they transpire. We are making heavy weather of this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, that is an immensely good suggestion and of course that will be a decision for the Electoral Commission.

It is not clear from the current legislative framework under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000—specifically Section 13—whether the commission has the power to publish information about the voting systems for public awareness purposes in this particular referendum. Therefore the Government considered it best to make the position absolutely clear and accordingly, we tabled an amendment to insert paragraph 9(2) into Schedule 1 in Committee in the other place, which was passed and is now reflected in the Bill.

We do not see that it is necessary, or desirable, to mandate that the commission must issue information, as amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Low, aim to do. Rather, it is the commission’s prerogative. The commission has indicated that it would like this power and that it clearly intends to exercise it but we do not think that the Bill should go further than that and oblige it to do so. Moreover, it is simply unnecessary to legally obligate the commission in this respect. The commission has already publicly indicated its intention to produce this information, and has published the draft text that will form the basis of public information leaflets on its website. I am glad that some noble Lords have seen it. It is important that those who take a real interest in these matters should look at it and send their comments to the Electoral Commission regarding this information before the leaflets are published.

The same point, concerning the appropriateness of imposing a legal mandate on the commission in this area, also applies to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. These would obligate the commission to provide a leaflet summarising the meaning of the question, together with the main arguments for and against first past the post and alternative vote. The amendments also specify that the leaflet must be impartial and unbiased, and distributed to every household in the UK, so far as possible.

The commission is clear that the leaflets will contain factual information; that this information will be impartial and unbiased—it would go against the commission's regulations to promote one particular outcome or be anything other than unbiased—and that it will go to every household in the UK. For this reason we do not think it appropriate that the information includes arguments for and against each voting system. The information will be factual, whereas the pros and cons are subjective. These arguments will naturally be for the campaigns. It is hard to see how the commission could be expected reasonably to summarise all of the arguments for and against in a way that is commonly accepted to be impartial and unbiased. This is an inherently partial subject, and the more the commission is drawn in to trying to describe the pros and cons, the more open it would become to allegations of partiality. It is important that the commission is neutral. Therefore, the arguments for and against should be left to the campaigns.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

The Leader of the House is making exactly the point that I made, namely that it would be quite wrong and inappropriate for the commission to try to summarise the arguments for and against. Will he deal with the proposal that I made, with some support from my colleagues, that if there are two coherent campaigns, one on each side, the two organisations concerned should be invited to produce a leaflet that would be sent free to every household with the information pack from the Electoral Commission, as happened in 1975?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right, and therefore he and I are in agreement on this. As far as concerns the two campaigns, their material will not be part of the same leaflet pack. The campaigns, too, will get a free post, so that every voter will be left in no doubt about the information. Of course, we expect the media to play a full part in the campaign in the run-up to the referendum.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Monday 31st January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

One of the most interesting facts that I have learnt today is just how many noble Lords opposite read the blog of my noble friend Lord Rennard. He should be immensely pleased and impressed that he has elicited such a reaction from noble Lords. I hope that at some stage he will commercialise it in an appropriate manner.

The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, asked questions about the Scottish association of returning officers. I will certainly look into the questions that he has raised. Earlier in Committee we discussed this and the information we had at that time was that there would be no problem in Scotland. It will be interesting to see whether that has changed.

The view of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, was that people are not prepared. Interestingly, he said a number of things in support of the amendment. The amendment provides a three-month delay, as though they would not be prepared now but they would be prepared if there were a three-month delay. I am not sure that is right. I think people have a perception about AV and I am not sure that there will be an enormous difference between the 10-week limit that we have at the moment and three months. The Government see no compelling reason to fix the length of the period for this referendum to a minimum of three months.

It is worth reminding noble Lords opposite that the previous Government worked to swift timetables in organising the 1998 devolution referendums. This referendum was announced as far back as June or July. The Bill was introduced in July in the House of Commons. Of course, as has been recognised, I do not know when the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, tabled the amendment but it would mean that a target date of 5 February would have to be set, and that is later this week. If that target were not met, the provision would need to be given retrospective effect so that the referendum period could still begin three months from the date of the poll; for example, on a date before the Bill receives Royal Assent, and neither is desirable or necessary.

Practical arrangements by the Electoral Commission have been well under way for months, ensuring that the referendum can take place on 5 May under the current referendum period timeframe. The Electoral Commission expanded on that in its briefing on 7 December and said:

“We have been working with local Counting Officers and Returning Officers to prepare plans on the basis of a referendum on 5 May 2011, alongside the other polls planned for that day, and in our most recent assessment we said that sufficient progress has been made for us to be confident they will be well run. Similarly, those intending to campaign at the referendum will have been developing their plans for the date specified in the Bill as introduced”.

So a good deal of work has already been done by the registration officers and those who wish to run the campaigns have been working on their material. For those reasons we do not think that there is a need to extend the referendum period, as everything points to those involved being well prepared.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

Can the noble Lord remind the House of the rules governing the ability of the Electoral Commission or any other agency to spend public money on planning implementation of a Bill which has not yet passed through Parliament?

[Lord Strathclyde]

I think the bodies that will need to spend money as a result of the Bill can do so once Second Reading has taken place in the first House. I will check that for the noble Lord but, under these circumstances, I do not think that there is any problem with the Electoral Commission spending money. For those reasons, we think the campaigns are well prepared. A lot of organisation has continued and I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Monday 24th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, there was talk earlier this afternoon and last week about filibustering. I cannot believe it and defy any noble Lord to suggest in good faith that anything that has been said this afternoon—even one sentence—could possibly be regarded as filibustering. We have had six contributions in less than three quarters of an hour, which is surely a very reasonable pace. I have certainly listened to every detail that has been put forward sincerely and from direct experience.

I suppose that it is possible to despise this whole subject of how people organise themselves at local level, canvass and campaign and how political parties are structured, their relationship with local government, constituency organisations and so forth. It is possible to say, “That is the grass roots and I am only interested in the high policy issues”. There may be one or two rather haughty people in this House who take that line. That is terribly unfortunate because if you despise the grass roots of politics you are despising the whole way in which our democracy works. Without those grass roots, we would not have a thriving political democracy.

It is extraordinary that there have been no contributions from the Benches opposite on these important issues. I can hardly believe that no one on the other side of the House has any views whatever on this subject. I can hardly believe that they all despise such discussions in the way that I have indicated might be the case. I hope not, although one or two people perhaps do. I find it very difficult indeed to believe that noble Lords opposite would not stand up and defend the Government and oppose the amendments if they thought that the amendments were unreasonable. No doubt they are hoping that the Minister will bring some rabbit out of a hat at the end of the debate in the form of an argument against these reasonable amendments, but none of them seems to have come up with any objections whatever. That has been the pattern of the debates, so there is a strong sense that those who have been tabling the amendments have been winning the argument and that those who have opposed them when voting have done so on the basis of no arguments at all, or have at least been unwilling to put any forward.

[Viscount Eccles]

My Lords—

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I shall give way to the noble Viscount, as I am delighted that I may have provoked him to rise to his feet.

[Viscount Eccles]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. He would help me if he could tell me how his remarks relate to the rules that applied in the general election last year. The fifth report of the Boundary Commission for England was sent to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, and I do not believe that he had many grumbles about it at that time. I shall read out two rules. Paragraph 6.19 states:

“Rule 4 requires the boundaries of county and London boroughs to be respected as far as practicable. As explained in Chapter 2, we have crossed these boundaries to a greater extent than before, using the discretion afforded by Rule 5 to avoid excessive disparities in the electorates”.

Rule 5 is characterised in paragraph 6.20 as follows:

“Rule 5 requires electoral parity as far as is practicable”.

It also says:

“Paragraph 6.5 of this chapter sets out how we have overall brought constituency electorates closer to the electoral quota”.

The party opposite when it was in government accepted this review and fought the previous election on those rules. Therefore, my great problem is that I cannot see why it does not describe to us how it sees these rules being changed by the Bill in a material way. I completely concede that there are some material changes. The first one is that, although the fifth review suggested that there should be 613 Members of Parliament, we have now reached a rather higher number, and the Bill proposes 600. I also concede that at that time the discretion to the Boundary Commissions meant that they departed from plus or minus five to a greater extent than is proposed in this Bill. As far as I can see, those are the only major differences.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I shall answer the noble Viscount right away. As he says, it has always been the tradition and habit of the Boundary Commission to endeavour to respect county boundaries. Indeed, that is in its explicit rules. As far as I know, it has always respected ward boundaries. I have never heard of a case of wards being split. Perhaps they have but, if so, it has been extraordinarily rare. We all know that this Bill will place the Boundary Commission under very great constraints which, in practical terms, will force it to breach those important rules: the two constraints being the limitation of MPs to 600 and, particularly, the 5 per cent rule. We have had other opportunities in these debates to discuss those two rules, which have an immediate effect on the extent to which it will be possible to respect county boundaries, local government boundaries or, indeed, ward boundaries. Therefore, I strongly support my noble friends who are trying explicitly in these amendments to protect those things and to make certain that we do not cross county boundaries except in the most exceptional circumstances. Above all—I say “above all” as this is a matter of the greatest importance to me—we do not in any way want to break up wards and divide them between parliamentary constituencies. Therefore, there is now a need for explicit rules, and the purpose of these amendments is to introduce them.

[Viscount Eccles]

As I read these amendments, the noble Lord is not correct when he says that there are to be exceptions. There are to be no exceptions if these amendments are accepted.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

Indeed, and that is necessary in the circumstances. I do not hold to every word of these amendments, as I shall explain in a second if the noble Viscount will give me an opportunity to do so. However, their main thrust seems absolutely right, as, indeed—I do not want to anticipate the next debate—are the amendments that have been put forward by my noble friends on the Front Bench, which I hope that we will get to in the next section. In fact, the first thing I want to say on the detail of the amendments, with great respect to my noble friends Lord Snape, Lord Kennedy and Lady McDonagh, is that I wonder whether the first amendment relating to county councils achieves, technically, what they want it to achieve. The amendment states:

“Each constituency shall be wholly within a single county boundary”.

As I read that text, it means that counties that are too small to constitute a normal sized constituency would have to be a constituency on their own. I think of Rutland. That would be a very peculiar result to emerge from the amendment. That is why I fear that I cannot support that amendment in its present form if it came to the vote. However, I may have misunderstood it and the problem I have may be dealt with adequately in another context. If that is the case, I shall either give way to my noble friends on that matter now or look forward to hearing an explanation subsequently in the debate, but that aside, I am totally in favour of the spirit of that amendment for two reasons. The first concerns a matter I have already dealt with in another context in these debates, so I will not dwell on it, and that is the all-important issue of the extent to which the individual elector identifies with the constituency in which he or she finds himself or herself. Counties are enormously important. We have already heard about the great sensitivity which would arise if constituencies were spread across the traditional historic Lancashire/Yorkshire divide.

I assure the Committee that if there were any suggestion of taking bits of Lincolnshire and putting them into a constituency with parts of Nottinghamshire, Cambridgeshire or Leicestershire, there would be the most appalling outcry. I do not doubt for a moment that that would lead to some people not bothering to vote in either county council elections or parliamentary elections as a protest. That would go in the exact opposite direction from the one in which we wish to go.

Speaking from my considerable experience as a former constituency Member of Parliament, I want to make a very practical case. It is very important so far as possible to have an exclusive, or at least a limited, relationship with local authorities as it is only in that way, when one has a large agenda, a lot of give and take and when one sees the same people in different contexts, that one can effectively do business together, and where there is an atmosphere of confidence and trust, which there needs to be between a Member of Parliament and a local authority, irrespective of political party. That is enormously important. It is important to avoid the conflict of interest which could otherwise prevent local authorities, which may necessarily have a rather bureaucratic mentality, contacting a Member at all. If there are two, three, four or, God knows, more MPs with bits of a particular local authority, county, district council or whatever it is, they might well feel that they cannot possibly talk to one of those MPs without saying exactly the same thing in exactly the same circumstances, taking exactly the same amount of time, with all the others, so they would not bother to do it at all, and so the co-operation, discussion and mutual understanding would not occur. There are real practical arguments of this kind in favour of trying, wherever possible, to keep county councils within county boundaries. We are, of course, preaching to the converted with the Boundary Commission. The noble Viscount made that point. The last thing the Boundary Commission wants to do is to split counties or to incorporate in constituencies parts of different counties. That is something it has managed to avoid doing in general. However, we need to strengthen its hand to prevent it being pushed in that direction.

Even more important than counties are wards. They really are the grass roots at which politics is conducted and are the way in which individuals are brought into our political system and take an interest in civic affairs through meeting with their friends and neighbours locally to discuss common problems. It is incredibly important that a ward and a ward committee in a political party has a relationship with one Member of Parliament. Immense synergies flow from that because when you go out campaigning you want to be in a position to talk about local and national issues. All Members of Parliament have to talk about local and national issues and all their supporters ought to be in a position to do that. It is no use campaigning for a council seat when if somebody raises a national problem you say, “Actually this is not the constituency of the Member that I support and so I cannot talk about this national issue”. That is a hopeless system. It is very important that Members of Parliament know their county and district councillors, that county and district councillors know their Members of Parliament, that they tackle a common set of problems, work together, understand local issues and as far as possible have the same views on local issues. That may not always be the case but at least they feel that they have the same responsibilities which are coterminous. It is only in that way that the whole political system we have has a degree of coherence and therefore of credibility, and has in the minds of the electorate a degree of functionality and purpose. All these things would be very badly damaged by breaking up wards between different constituencies. That is the point on which I feel most strongly.

[Lord Rennard]

My Lords, at the conclusion of today’s business, no doubt in the small hours of tomorrow morning, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, will say exactly the same thing as he did at the beginning of his speech: namely, that we have not witnessed any filibustering. If so, by the time we get to the end of today’s proceedings we will have made great progress on this Bill, with proper and legitimate scrutiny.

It seems to me that the legitimate area of scrutiny in the amendments is about how far there are guidelines for the Boundary Commission to follow or how far we have prescriptive rules which it must follow. I see the merits of the case for either strict rules or for guidelines, but there are strong and reasonable arguments about what level of discretion the Boundary Commission should have as it endeavours to equalise the size of the electorates for different constituencies. I see that as a reasonable argument to have.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He is making a useful contribution and he is absolutely right: there is a choice for us in this House this afternoon about going down the guidelines route or the firm-rules route. If we went down the guidelines route, which has attractions, would the noble Lord be in favour of giving the Boundary Commission some hierarchy of guidelines so that, for example, when the issue of community feeling or of ward boundaries conflicted with the numerical targets which are being imposed—the 5 per cent rule, for example—it would give the former priority and not the latter?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

As my noble friend Lord Rennard said, there is no limit to the number of special cases. If we move without any other limitation to a 20 per cent band rather than a 10 per cent band, we are moving away from the basic principle of equal value. Broadly speaking, we have followed the provisions of the 1986 Act with regard to local authority boundaries, and while we are keen to avoid being too prescriptive on this issue, there may be some merit in placing a discretionary consideration of wards in the Bill. We certainly want to consider further the elements of these amendments that concern the use of wards. Other amendments have been tabled with regard to wards by the noble Lords, Lord Lipsey and Lord Foulkes, and my noble friends Lord Rennard and Lord Tyler. We want to consider, therefore, the use of wards and to bring back a fully considered response on that on Report since it is an important point. On that basis, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

Before the noble Lord sits down, will he recognise that there will be considerable pleasure in many parts of the House at what he has just said about the recognition of the importance of wards? On a first reading of this Bill, it looked rather strange that other criteria were mentioned in Clause 11(5), such as local authority boundaries and European constituencies, but there was no explicit mention of wards. What he has just said about considering making a specific mention will go a long way to reassuring a lot of people who are concerned with this point.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am grateful for those reassuring remarks from the noble Lord. Not only do wards provide possibilities as building blocks, but their very nature means that local ties are cemented through them.

--- Later in debate ---

The other elements of our amendment would provide a clearer requirement that administrative units and boundaries in the four parts of the United Kingdom, in particular the ward boundaries in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, should be respected and given proper account when parliamentary constituencies are being created. I very much hope that the Government will treat these amendments in the spirit in which they are addressed—namely, recognising the need for greater numerical equality but, equally, trying to build on the importance of communities and to ensure that political activism and focus is on the things that really matter to the people that politicians are supposed to serve.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I congratulate my noble and learned friend. His amendment has achieved a very elegant solution to the problem that we were concerned with under the last amendment, and it is a very important step forward. If this amendment were passed, would he agree that we would still need to look very carefully at the 5 per cent rule and replace it with the 10 per cent rule? If that were not done, the Boundary Commission could not have regard to the criteria that my noble and learned friend rightly wants it to have regard to, because it would conflict with the very narrow 5 per cent rule?

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I agree with the last point from my noble friend Lord Davies of Stamford. Increasing the figure to 10 per cent would make it much easier as a matter of practicality to do what the amendment would do, and the independent research that has been done by bodies such as Democratic Audit also suggests that that 10 per cent flexibility does not lead to unacceptable differences between constituencies that might be said to favour one party over another. We can achieve the purpose that the coalition sought to achieve and preserve communities in a way that most contributes to effective political activity.

I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, who will be replying to this because he is completely alone on the Front Bench out of the team dealing with this, takes the amendment in the spirit in which it is offered and gives us a favourable response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

I understand the point made by the noble Baroness, and it is yet another point that has been done to death. The suggestions that community is all, regardless of other circumstances, which has been implicit in quite a lot of what has been said, and that somehow this is death and disaster compared with the situation at present, are complete and absolute poppycock.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I have the highest regard for the noble Lord, Lord Newton, and I listened, as I always do, with great interest. However, I was not sure what central point he was trying to make. Was he saying that basically we should not worry about any of these things—to hell with local government boundaries, local loyalties and identities, and let us just have a computer divide the country into blocks of a certain identical number and spew out whatever the result is, irrespective of those things? Is that what he was saying?

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

That was not what I said. I indicated specifically that the flexibility in the Bill, and the possibly greater flexibility that has been the subject of one discussion, would allow those factors to be taken into account. Of course, they are not to be dismissed but equally, with a reasonably fair voting system, they are not the be-all and end-all.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

In that case the noble Lord is saying what I totally believe, which is that the present system is not all bad; it could be a great deal worse; and flexibility is of the essence in the role of the Boundary Commission. If those are the three principles that he was setting forth I could not have put it better myself. That is exactly what I think is the view of the majority of people in all corners of this House.

The Government have come in for a great deal of criticism over the past 90 hours, or whatever it is. I do not think we should have too much sympathy for them because they brought it on their head by going ahead with this Bill without pre-legislative scrutiny, as my noble friend Lady Hughes has just said. There was no attempt to consult local people at any stage. It is not an excuse to say that they had a deadline of 5 May and needed to make rapid progress because it was an arbitrary decision of the coalition to put the two Bills together. We have been over that several times. The Government have been subject to a lot of criticism but I do not feel sorry for them. However, I shall not add to that now. I want to be much more positive and move on.

The public would expect us in the Committee stage of such a Bill to do two things.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

I thank my noble friend for giving way. I was just looking at my notes because we had an earlier intervention on Maldon. The noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, referred to Maldon. He is talking to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, at the moment but he might wish to take note of this. Maldon has a very interesting history. It was referred to by Lewis Baston in his brief, which my noble friend will have received. However, the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, did not tell us that the boundaries were changed in 1955 to 1974, in 1974 to 1983, in 1983 to 1997, in 1997 to 2010 and in 2010 to 2015. The evidence from Maldon is that the people of Maldon are confused about what constituency they belong in because of all the changes over the past 40 years to the boundaries of the constituency in which they have been placed. It is rather strange that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, failed to refer to that when he commented on his own constituency.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, has heard and taken note of those remarks. I say to my noble friend with the greatest friendliness that I do not intend to try to turn myself into an expert on the electoral history of Maldon. I come back to the point that I was making, which is that I think the public in general rightly expect us in a Committee on a Bill of this kind to do two things. One is to explore to the full the details in the Bill to open up every possible angle of vision to ensure that we look through the consequences. It is very important in any Committee on any Bill to try to identify the possible unintended consequence or consequences of it.

On the whole, this House has done a job in that regard of which we can be proud. What disgraceful negligence it would have been on the part of this House if we had not discussed Wales at all, which my noble friend Lord Touhig has just mentioned, given that the other House has apparently failed to do so. Anyone who has read that wonderful classic of Welsh literature, How Green Was My Valley, knows that the mountains create a real cultural and social barrier between the different Welsh valleys. There has been no opportunity to explore Wales, or Manchester for that matter. I have heard more about the electoral districts and history of Scotland than I have ever done in my life. Of course, I am very tempted to talk about the beautiful town of Stamford and say what a tragedy and monstrosity it would be if it were divided up and part of it were taken away and put into Leicestershire or somewhere else, but I will not go down that route despite the blandishments of my noble friend Lord Graham, a man whom the whole House holds in the very greatest regard. I simply say that we are doing that part of our job properly, well and thoroughly, and it is quite right that we are doing so.

The second task which the public as a whole would expect of us is to make some progress, or at least to attempt to make some progress, towards consensus, because the public always think that we should try to get consensus on constitutional matters. The public are right about that, and I think that most of us, in our heart of hearts, all feel that we should try to get consensus. There has not been much of an effort to get consensus for a long time, but such an effort has been made this afternoon, and that is very important. The Bill does not deal with wards at all, but the Minister has said that he will take that on board and come back to the Committee with something on wards. That is a very positive statement. I take it in good faith, as we all do, and I do not think that we need say anything more about wards this afternoon, and I shall not do so.

Views have been expressed on both sides of the House, including by the noble Lords, Lord Rennard and Lord Newton, that counties are important. We can all argue about how important they are in particular contexts, but it is clear that they are important. Paragraph 5 to Schedule 2 says simply that the Boundary Commission “may” take account of counties. However, that is just permissive; it implies that you can do so if you really want to. It does not accommodate the counties. We debated earlier the preceding group of amendments, some of which would have forced the Boundary Commission to take account of counties. My noble and learned friend proposes a very reasonable middle road in Amendment 71A: namely, that the Boundary Commission “should, where practicable” do so. In other words, there is flexibility but no insistence. If the Boundary Commission feels that other more important considerations ought to override the sanctity of county boundaries, so be it. That is real progress and a sensible way forward. I hope that it may be the basis of consensus on this important matter of counties.

I think that there is also consensus on a third and very important point, which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, from the coalition Benches: namely, that you cannot achieve these things and give the Boundary Commission any flexibility in practice unless we look again at the 5 per cent limitation. Otherwise, anything that we tell the Boundary Commission will be completely negated by the 5 per cent rule. What you cannot and must not do—I do not think that any of us would want to do this—is to give the Boundary Commission a contradictory brief and put it in a situation whereby it cannot solve the problem that it is being set. That would be quite wrong. If there is to be flexibility to enable the Boundary Commission to take account of county boundaries or other local factors which it considers to be important, it is clearly necessary to look again at the 5 per cent rule. I think that consensus has emerged in the course of our proceedings on that very important matter.

Fourthly, and finally, I sense there is a growing feeling that something needs to be done about my next point, not necessarily by continuing with the present status quo but not necessarily, either, by having what is in the Bill, which is nothing at all. We need to ensure that we do not just say, “Leave this matter in this House and never again is there to be any open discussion of the principles of our electoral boundaries”. That would be a very unnatural situation. Therefore, we need to preserve something like the public inquiry system. My noble friend Lady Hughes explained how that had made a big difference in Manchester in a recent case to which she drew our attention, and I know of other cases in which that has happened.

I think I mentioned that I, with some supporters, gave evidence to a Boundary Commission. We did not win our point but there was a general sense of satisfaction that we had been able to air it and that the arguments had been properly, duly, publicly and transparently weighed. We do not need the existing form of public inquiry. My noble friend Lord Rooker set out how he thinks that the whole process could be more rapidly conducted. I was very interested in his suggestion in that regard, which seems a promising avenue of discussion under the heading of future amendments on the Marshalled List. However, some sort of public and open appeals process is absolutely essential if we are not to put ourselves in a situation whereby the great and the good, if we can describe ourselves in that way—perhaps we are the great and the bad—take an irrevocable decision and then hand over to a bureaucracy the right for ever after to take decisions behind closed doors and subsequently announce to the grateful public what their electoral boundaries will be without it ever having to explain itself in public in any kind of open forum.

We have made considerable progress on those four principles this afternoon. The prospect may be emerging through the mist of a structure that could command the consensus that we all regard as very desirable for a Bill of this kind.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, does my noble friend, like me, remember successive Governments and successive political parties trying to undermine the sense of place of Rutland, and failing?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

The factual answer to that factual question is yes, of course I recall that. No one in my constituency over the age of about 40 will have forgotten that. Nevertheless, that issue was resolved happily for all concerned in the context of public inquiries and establishes a very good precedent for them as a way of maintaining, or when necessary restoring, public confidence in the system.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The amendment would restrict the Boundary Commission in drawing up new constituency boundaries by a series of provisions specifying that constituency boundaries may not cross certain local authority or European constituency boundaries. I noted that, when moving his amendment, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, reiterated that he and his colleagues recognised the need for greater equality but seek to put that restriction on to the Boundary Commission in its recommendations.

The Bill provides for the Boundary Commission to take into account local government boundaries, as well as local ties, although that has not been acknowledged in some contributions. As we have said on more than one occasion, that is subject to the principle of equality. We believe that the details of how it does that should be a matter for the Boundary Commission. Just to clarify, a government amendment to the definition of local government boundaries was made in the other place. I re-emphasise that it means that the Boundary Commissions may take unitary authority boundaries into account.

It has been made clear in several contributions, not least that of my noble friend Lord Newton of Braintree but also that of the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, that even under the existing arrangements the Boundary Commission has not exactly achieved what in some people's view might be perfection. The noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, talked about Hamilton being split into two. Even before the current split, there was a previous split between Hamilton North and Bellshill and Hamilton South. An important point, which was made by my noble friend Lord Newton and alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, is that local government is not the sole challenge that Members of Parliament have to deal with. There are health boards, primary healthcare trusts and police divisions. It would be a nightmare, if not an impossibility, to try to ensure that the Member of Parliament had to deal with only one each of police, health and local authorities.

As we mentioned in debates on previous groups, we have sought generally to follow the 1986 Act provisions on local authority boundaries. We want the Boundary Commissions to have flexibility to take account of specific circumstances, but we also recognise that there is some merit in placing discretionary consideration in the hands of the Boundary Commission, including with regard to wards, about which I will say more in a moment.

In its fifth general report, the Boundary Commission for England noted that,

“some wards on the outskirts of towns contained very different communities. For instance, there were occasions where the majority of the electorate of the ward were urban dwellers residing in a very small area of the ward on the edge of a town. However, the small remainder of the ward’s electorate was made up of those living in rural communities some distance from the town”.

That is why we believe there is a reasonable case in certain circumstances for the Boundary Commission to have discretion to split them and why there should not be a prohibition, which would be the effect of at least four of the provisions of the composite amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord.

I repeat that we seek—and this is enshrined in the Bill—to ensure one value for one vote, not to draw up constituencies to suit the administrative convenience of Members of Parliament. I cannot accept that, as the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, proposed, it is somehow impossible for a Member of Parliament to discharge his or her functions if his or her constituency includes more than one local authority. My noble friend Lord Newton of Braintree made that abundantly clear.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Thursday 20th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, I have listened to this debate with great interest. I listened with great sympathy to the paean of praise for Telford by my noble friend Lord Grocott. I happen to know Telford because, when I was Defence Procurement Minister, among the agencies for which I was responsible were the Defence Support Group and the Defence Storage and Distribution Agency. I visited them in Telford on more than one occasion. I watched them doing superb work repairing vehicles that had been repatriated from Afghanistan after having been extremely seriously damaged by improvised explosive devices. I was immensely moved—that is the only word that I can use—not only by the skill but by the extraordinary dedication of the people who were working on that job. They knew how enormously important it was for the military and they were proud to do the job, which they did with absolute perfection and dedication. If any group of men and women in this country deserves special electoral recognition, I should find it hard to deny it to the people of Telford.

Apart from that consideration, I had no idea that anybody was thinking of making a special concession to Telford. Neither was I aware of the attractions of the Scottish islands off the coast of Argyll. Having heard the idyllic descriptions of them from several quarters of the House this evening, I shall certainly make it a priority to visit that part of the country.

With the leave of the House, I will revert to the City of London and speak in support of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, who spoke with the historical erudition that the House will associate with him. I also support the equivalent amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Hayter, which would have a similar, although slightly more forceful, effect. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, made a case for the historic privileges of the City and for the City of London’s right to continue to be recognised as a constituency, or as part of a constituency with that name included in it, as has been the case since Parliament existed.

I follow my noble friends Lady Hayter and Lord Myners in making a more pragmatic case. I am in no way detracting from the historical case, but I think that there is an important practical reason for continuing to ensure that one individual—one man or woman—can be described as the Member for the City of London. So that I do not get into trouble, I had better declare an interest, although it is not really a current interest. Before I entered politics, I was engaged full-time in the City of London, latterly as a director of a merchant bank. I was a colleague of the noble Earl, Lord Home, with whom I shared an office at one time. I saw him in his place a moment ago, although he has now left the Chamber. Even after I had been elected to Parliament as a Back-Bencher, I continued my role in the City and subsequently, before entering the Government, I was on the council of Lloyd’s of London, which is one of the biggest insurance and reinsurance groups in the world. However, I have no current financial interest in the City of London. I am a liveryman of the Goldsmiths’ Company, which is one of the ancient City companies, but I do not know whether that in any way constitutes a material interest.

Having said that, I recognise that it is difficult to say anything favourable about the City at the present time. Bankers and politicians are the two most unacceptable groups of humanity at the moment in this country and, indeed, elsewhere and we just have to accept that for the time being. As I have said in the House, there is no doubt that in commercial banking, which is just one area of activity that takes place in the City, serious professional mistakes were made. An awful lot of the criticism and, indeed, vituperation has, I am afraid, been all too well deserved.

Nevertheless, the City of London is much more than commercial banking or investment banking, which is my field. The City of London involves stockbroking, securities trading, fund management, international fund management—an enormously important field of activity, as my noble friend Lord Myners said—commodities trading, insurance and reinsurance, both the company market and the Lloyd's market, and shipping. The Baltic Exchange is the world's greatest centre of trading in ship charters. I do not have the figures in my head, but we all know that the City generates an enormous proportion of gross domestic product. Some people may say that it is disproportionately great, which may be true in the sense that it would be nice to have a more balanced economy, but the solution to that is not to run down the great asset and generator of wealth that we have, it is to nurture it and ensure that we are in no way inhibiting the development of other sectors of economic activity.

The City is an enormous national asset. It is the envy of Europe that we should have achieved here in London, in this time zone, far and away the greatest financial market in the world. It is a great source of employment. The latest figure which I have, which may be out of date but it sticks in my mind, is that half a million people work in the City every day. The vast majority of them come into the City. We have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, that only about 4,000 or 5,000 people live in the City and some of them do not work there, so it is an enormous generator of wealth and employment.

I think that the House is familiar with the importance of the City to the national economy and will therefore bear with me when I say that it would be an enormous mistake to deprive the City of a representative in Parliament who is explicitly that, who is the Member of Parliament for the Cities of London and Westminster, or whatever the name might happen to be. It clearly needs to be for the City and somewhere else, and Westminster seems to fit it very well, but it must be a single Member of Parliament for the City. If the City was divided between two, three or four constituencies—the neighbouring constituencies at present—that responsibility would not fall on any one man or woman. We would not have a clearly defined interlocutor for government who could say truthfully that he or she represented the City; we would not have one person to whom the City could appeal.

Before I give way to my noble friend Lord Myners, perhaps I may say that he was an enormously distinguished Minister for the City. We need a Minister for the City and it would be nice if we could again have such an able and effective Minister as my noble friend, but the Minister for the City, by definition, is not a representative of the City; he is a member of the Government constrained by collective responsibility. There may be occasions when the Government want to do something that the City does not want, or the City wants to make representations to the Government to do something else. In those situations, it is necessary that the City has a genuine representative in Parliament in the form of a man or woman who has in his or her title the phrase “Member for the City of London”.

[Lord Myners]

I am grateful to my noble friend for his correct anticipation of my point. It is disappointing that we no longer have a City Minister. We no longer have in government a Minister who is seen to have specific responsibility for the City. Instead, the responsibility is divided between Mr Mark Hoban in the other place and the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, in your Lordships' House. It is clear that there is a dispute between the two of them as to who speaks on behalf of the City; they fight for the juicier parts of the responsibility and eschew the more burdensome ones. The need to have a powerful voice for the City should be reflected in the constituency structure. Also, I urge the Government to designate one Minister as the City Minister. That has gone unnoticed, unnoted and uncommented on at a time when the City needs representation and a direct dialogue between the Government and the City.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I am so glad that I gave my noble friend the opportunity to make that point, a very important point indeed. It is an extraordinary piece of neglect on the part of the Government that they have decided not to give that explicit responsibility to a single Minister. He will acknowledge—I think he did in his intervention—that quite separately from that, it is equally important that the City has some individual to go to who actually sits in the House of Commons and has constituency responsibilities, including the City. That cannot possibly be an effective role if it is divided up. We all know that a responsibility divided is a responsibility that gets neglected. It is impossible for an individual, if he or she were just to represent one corner of the City, to go to the Government or—a point very well made by my noble friend Lady Hayter—to go to the European Commission or anybody else and say, “I am speaking on behalf of the City”. It is equally important that people in the City—it may be the different trade associations or individual firms—are able to go to someone in Parliament who understands the City, who, as a matter of professional integrity, has made sure that he or she is well briefed, even if they do not have a financial background, on the major issues in the City, whose door is open and can understand representations on City-related subjects and can take them up. That is a great strength in Parliament; that is a great strength for this absolutely key economic sector in our economy. That is an asset which would be destroyed if we do not retain the City as a specifically demarcated parliamentary responsibility. So I very much support the two amendments that have been moved tonight, and I hope the Government will take these points on board and accept those amendments, or at least give us some assurance that whatever comes out of this Bill will not enable any future Boundary Commission simply to allow the City to disappear as a parliamentary responsibility.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

I rise briefly to supplement the remarks of my noble friends Lord Martin and Lord Foulkes in relation to Amendments 80 and 81 in respect of the city of Edinburgh and the area of Argyll and Bute. I speak on both from a personal viewpoint: I should declare an interest, albeit a rather removed one, in respect of Argyll and Bute. My great-grandmother came from there in the 1880s as an impoverished Gaelic speaker with no English. It is quite moving to read her Poor Law application, of which I have a copy, which she signed with just a single X—one of many thousands of islanders forced from the Highlands and Islands of Scotland by the appalling Highland clearances. An example of that is that the island of Islay, from which my great-grandmother came, once had a population of 15,000; that was in the 1830s. It is now 3,500: it dropped dramatically throughout the latter years of the 19th century, with many people going to Canada, the USA and Australia.

My wife and I regularly keep in touch with developments in our extended family through the various websites of Islay people. I think it would be wrong to say that Argyll and Bute is only about Islay—of course, that is a small part and the part I know best. But the Gaelic tradition of Islay and other islands, as well as the Western Isles, is an important consideration when it comes to parliamentary representation. Islay itself was one of the earliest islands settled. It was the home of the Lord of the Isles; it has the Gaelic Islay Columba Centre, part of the University of the Highlands and Islands, specialising in Gaelic. It is important that that is recognised in terms of its representation. Argyll and Bute itself, as a constituency of about 67,000 people, would fall short of the arbitrarily chosen figure of 75,000, give or take. As my noble friend Lord Martin said, with about 2,700 square miles, it is a massive area to be covered, and that has to be given consideration in terms not only of the coastline, which was referred to, but also of the very specific interests that have to be looked after. There are special islands allowances given by the Scottish Government to reflect that.

My noble friend Lady Liddell of Coatdyke mentioned the fact that, in terms of travelling to and from those islands, it is rarely a simple matter. Some of them, including Islay, you can fly to, but mainly you have to go there by ferry. It is very difficult to get there and back in a day; if a parliamentary representative went to one island but wanted to go to more than one, they would not be able to get back to their base on the same day. In many cases, if you go to an island on one day by ferry, you cannot get off that island for a couple of days until a ferry is going on somewhere else.

It is important to recognise that fact, and to lump Argyll and Bute together with some other part of the mainland would be unfortunate. I have to recognise—it would be unfair not to do so—that Helensburgh is part of the Argyll and Bute council area. That only came into effect some five years ago, but by and large, it is a collection of islands needing specific representation. With an electorate of 67,000, it is more than capable of qualifying for that. I hope that that will be borne in mind.

Finally, I would like to say a few words about Edinburgh. I should also declare an interest as a constituent in Edinburgh North and Leith, admirably represented—as my noble friend Lord Foulkes said—by Mr Mark Lazarowicz. The decline in the number of Edinburgh constituencies from seven to six and now to five has been against trends. We know that the most recent reduction was a reflection of the establishment of the Scottish Parliament. That has some validity on its own, but it means that the city, at a time when its population is growing, has seen a reduction in its constituencies. As things stand, if the 75,000 quota were strictly adhered to, it could well lead to Edinburgh being, in effect, farmed out to bits of Lothian—East, West and Midlothian—to make up the required figure. That is why, as my noble friend Lord Foulkes said, the 10 per cent figure would be far more valuable and would help Edinburgh maintain those five constituencies.

Although I live in the area which is part of Leith, I will not tread, either literally or figuratively, on the territory of my noble friend Lord O’Neill, who knows these matters much better than I do. As an incomer, however, I say that the people of Leith have their own pride and that must be respected. Equally, the people of Edinburgh as a city have their own pride. The historic significance of Edinburgh, not only as the capital city of Scotland but also as a major tourist attraction for all sorts of reasons at all times of the year, has to be given some consideration and not treated by the blunt instrument approach, which could well see the number of constituencies reduced from five. I very much hope that will be taken into account by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, when he responds to this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I rather suspect that the noble Lord was not listening as attentively as he would normally do, because I said that those constituencies had been excepted because they were dispersed island groups which could not readily be combined with the mainland. By definition, Argyll and Bute is already a set of islands which has been readily combined with the mainland and which over many decades has been represented by very distinguished, hard working Members of Parliament—I think back to Michael Noble and my late noble friend Lady Michie of Gallanach. It is now represented my colleague and honourable friend Mr Alan Reid. The two preserved constituencies are not readily combined with the mainland. If they were to be so combined, they would be part of constituencies whose surface area would be larger than the largest constituency. Let us remember, when we talk about surface area, we are not talking about areas of sea as well, which would not be counted into surface area. The most recent judgment of the Boundary Commission was that the maximum size of a constituency should be what was manageable for constituents and MPs. That is why we brought forward the other rule, rule 4, which sets a physical, geographical size limit, just by sheer reference to manageability. It perhaps cannot stand as a legal principle, but trying to make sure that you do not go beyond a certain extreme of manageability is surely in the interests both of the Member, of whichever party, and the electors, who have to make contact with their Member of Parliament.

I think that it was being implied by the noble and learned Lord that there is some political motivation behind the proposal. As I have said, it is obvious from the extreme geographical position of the two constituencies why they have been exempted. Although Orkney and Shetland has been represented by a Liberal or a Liberal Democrat for the past 61 years, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will acknowledge that, until 1997, the Western Isles had a Labour Member of Parliament—indeed, until 1970, when the late Donald Stewart won the Western Isles, it had been represented by the Labour Party from the 1930s. I am sure that his colleagues in the Labour Party in the Western Isles have no intention of giving up their aspirations for that seat. Our approach is in no way partisan; it is a recognition of geography.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

Is the Minister telling us that, in the coalition’s discussions which gave birth to this Bill, the Liberal Democrats—leader or otherwise—did not insist on these two exemptions in Scotland?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I did not do a deal with anyone with regard to this. I have just paid tribute to the party opposite which recognised the importance of Orkney and Shetland by giving them separate seats in the Scottish Parliament and preserving the Orkney and Shetland Westminster seat. I hope that noble Lords will think that it is not unreasonable that, given the similar circumstances of the Western Isles, they should be included.

There were some important contributions in this debate about the City of London. The amendment was spoken to by my noble friends Lord Brooke and Lord Jenkin, the noble Lords, Lord Myners and Lord Davies of Stamford, and, very persuasively, by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town. I think the important role that the City of London has in the history of this nation is well recognised across the Committee, as is the important financial contribution that the City makes.

As I have indicated, the primary concern of the Bill is to create more equal-sized constituencies, and that is best achieved by keeping exceptions to the minimum. As a result, the Government do not believe that the City of London should appear as an exception. While it is not for me to say what the Boundary Commission for England will do, I hope it might reassure noble Lords to know that the 25 wards in the City of London have fewer than 7,000 electors, which is smaller than some individual wards elsewhere in the country. I therefore suspect that it is unlikely that the City will be split between two constituencies. This is a very obvious case where the rules, particularly rule 5 about where special local ties would be broken by changes in constituencies, would be highly relevant in addressing the Boundary Commission.

The question was raised with regard to the historic nature of the City. The position, as I understand it, is that while Magna Carta protects certain privileges of the City of London, paragraph 628 of volume 12(1) of Halsbury’s Laws of England lists customs of the City that have been certified by the Recorder and recognised by the courts, but does not include anything on Parliament or constituencies. However, there is considerable history here and I would want to do better justice to this issue. I hope that I shall be able to write to the noble Baroness who raised this matter, addressing the point that she made concerning the history of the City as a parliamentary constituency, and I shall seek to do so before Report. As for the name of the constituency, again, that should be a matter for the Boundary Commission. However, I have no doubt that those who feel strongly about any proposal from the commission that affects the City of London will be able to make representations to it. I certainly recognise the importance of the name of the City of London, and we believe that this strikes the best balance between respecting the history of the nation’s communities, including the City of London, and providing equal weight to the votes of those who live in all our communities.

I turn to the question of Edinburgh—

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords—

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

No, I think that we have heard quite a bit on this matter. I turn now to the other capital city, Edinburgh, which was referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Foulkes and Lord Watson of Invergowrie, and indeed, with due deference to his native home, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, declared his interest as a supporter of Heart of Midlothian Football Club—perhaps he just took it that it is a well known fact. If the additional five constituencies all contained in the Edinburgh council area were to be excepted, which would be the consequence of the amendment, from the 5 per cent above or below the rule, they would be projected to diverge on average from the electoral quota by just over 12,300 electors—that is, just over 16 per cent. Again, I do not think that that ties in with the concept of fairness and equal votes, as we believe that constituencies should be broadly of equal size.

I do not believe that there are the geographical challenges that we find in the two constituencies that have been preserved. I know Edinburgh reasonably well and I do not think that there are geographical challenges there that would make it particularly difficult for MPs to see their constituents or for constituents to see their MPs. Nor, indeed, is this a case in which there is an issue of sparsity of population. The noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, mentioned that, for the Boundary Commission, the Edinburgh East constituency had sometimes included and sometimes excluded Musselburgh, which I believe lies administratively in the county of East Lothian. Therefore, Edinburgh has expanded its boundaries in the past for parliamentary purposes.

Ultimately, it will be for the independent Boundary Commission to take account of all the factors. I say this only because I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, said that in every circumstance he would want Edinburgh to have five seats. If Edinburgh, in order to thrive and flourish, as we would all wish to see, merited six seats, I am not sure why in statute we should restrict the number to five. There is a problem in going down that road. However, I have no doubt that the Boundary Commission will be able to secure equality of votes between constituencies within the 5 per cent margin and that Edinburgh’s standing as Scotland’s capital city will in no way be impaired.

I turn to the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn, and supported by others, including the noble Lord, Lord Watson, on Argyll and Bute. As I have already indicated, Argyll and Bute already combines islands and the mainland, which I think distinguishes it from the two that are reserved and which, as I have already indicated, we do not believe could incorporate part of the mainland very readily. Argyll and Bute is already very close to the range that will be required under the Bill. Although I recognise noble Lords’ concern about large areas, I have already referred to the fact that there are rules in the Bill that would ensure that the size did not become unmanageable. It is not just at 13,000 but at between 12,000 and 13,000 square kilometres that there is a sliding scale.

The noble Lord, Lord Watson, mentioned Helensburgh, which is currently part of the Argyll and Bute constituency. I believe that in parliamentary terms it is a recent addition, although in local government terms it has been part of the Argyll and Bute council area for some time. Helensburgh, of course, is historically part of the ancient county of Dunbartonshire, so its boundaries have already changed and it is now familiar as part of Argyll and Bute. I was a sufficiently political anorak in my youth that I can remember when Argyll and Bute did not have Bute and that Bute was part of a north Ayrshire and Bute constituency, so Bute has migrated backwards and forwards. In areas such as these, there has been no fixed boundary. Therefore, given the safeguards to prevent its size becoming too great, and the fact that the islands are already incorporated in the mainland, it would not qualify for a preserved constituency in the same way as the Western Isles and Orkney and Shetland do.

As to the island area of Telford being surrounded by the rest of Shropshire—

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

As everybody will know, I have spoken in the debate on the first half of this Bill only against the Government and, indeed, have voted against the Government. This is a time when I intend to support the Government—or I hope that I am supporting the Minister. If he makes an exception over the Isle of Wight, the argument about communities will be rerun about every conceivable constituency around the country. It is extremely dangerous to start making exceptions. The effect of this Bill is going to be that a number of constituencies that have been a coherent whole will be broken up, but that is the result of the Bill. Once you start on exceptions, why should it end with the Isle of Wight?

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

Is the noble Lord in favour of the two exceptions that the Government have already made?

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

No, I am not in favour of them either. I agree that they have breached the principle, but I suppose that there is a greater argument for an enormous land mass with a very small electorate in Scotland being represented by one person.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

Will the Minister consider, as part of the further consideration and in the course of discussions with his honourable friend, the very real danger that if the Government make two concessions in the Bill in respect of Scottish islands and give no consideration to the case for making an exception for an English island—the only substantial English island—a very unfortunate impression will be created in England that English electoral sensibilities of this kind are being dismissed very lightly?