Elections Bill

Lord Lipsey Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Wednesday 23rd March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lipsey (Lab)]

My Lords, I put my name to this stand part debate. When I was in journalism, people used to say of me, “He may be no good, but at least he is quick.” I will try to follow that precept this afternoon.

The first thing I wanted to say will cheer the Minister. Like him, I do not think much of single transferable votes—I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours on that. The immense defect of STV compared to its obvious alternative—the alternative vote, which is an exhaustive ballot—is that it does not produce a candidate who commands a majority of the electorate. AV infallibly does, which is why we so sensibly use it for the election of hereditary Peers. It seems very basic that, for mayors in particular, and perhaps police commissioners too, we want somebody who commands a majority of the electorate, and that STV does not do.

The second thing I want to say is about haste. More than 20 years ago, on the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform chaired by the late Lord Jenkins, we were as quick as we possibly could be. People who have served under Lord Jenkins as chair know he was not a man who permitted excess words or allowed discussions to meander. Even so, it took us about 12 months to come to a conclusion. It may or may not have been right, but it took us 12 months to get there. The complexities are enormous. At that time, I could have distinguished between three varieties of Sainte-Laguë system for the distribution of majorities, but now I can hardly remember the words, and I certainly cannot remember what those were. But these are immensely complicated matters of immense importance, and they can affect the results of elections, which are the expression of our democracy. To do this by introducing an unheralded amendment in Committee in the other place is, to use a word much used by my old boss Tony Crosland, frivolous.

The third thing is that different places need different electoral systems. It does not follow that because first past the post may be felt by some to be right for the House of Commons it is right for every election. It clearly is not. Parliament legislated for different systems in Scotland and Wales—the AMS system. A whole set of desiderata attached to electoral systems apply differently in different elections, and this is a very poor reason for having first past the post.

It is particularly poor because the winner can have a very tiny share of the vote, not much more than 20%; I can cheer the Government up for a moment by citing one such perverse result in an East Anglia PCC election in 2012. The winner on the first ballot was one John Prescott, known to many in this House. John Prescott’s lead—he had just over 20% of the first ballot votes—was soon got rid of, and his votes transferred, to elect Matthew Grove. Where is Matthew Grove now?

We cannot openly countenance a system where candidates with 20% of the vote rule over our big cities and order our police. I use the word again: this is a frivolous approach to constitutional reform in general and to electoral reform in particular. This House should have nothing to do with it.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, my name is on some amendments in this group. As Members of the Committee will know, I am extremely disturbed by this Bill as a whole and by the way it has been introduced. Of all its provisions, I think Clause 11 is the least justifiable, introduced as it was after a Written Statement by a middle-range Minister last September after the Bill had already begun its Committee stage in the House of Commons, and pushed through for clearly partisan reasons.

On Monday, the Minister was asking us to look at the practice on voter ID in other countries as a justification for what the Government propose. I am sure he recognises that in the Irish and Danish constitutions, any change in the voting system is a constitutional amendment and therefore has to go through exceptional procedures. That is also true in a number of other countries. In this respect, of course, he will probably say that we should pay no attention to other countries. I deeply respect that, privately, the Minister knows this clause is impossible to defend, and I recognise that he nevertheless has to stand up for it as best he can in the circumstances that this was a Conservative pledge in 2017 and someone up there has not forgotten that.

Yesterday, I read a very good article in the Political Quarterly of 2019 entitled “The UK Politics of Overseas Voting” by Susan Collard; I will return to it when we get on to overseas voting. One of the things that struck me about the introduction was that it talked about the package of measures that might have been agreed among the parties in 2016-17 about voting reform. It was discussed among the parties in the Commons that we could have moved towards automatic voter registration to reduce the number of people not on the register—by and large, the young and the marginal. We could have had a major effort at citizen engagement to encourage people to go to the polls. We could also have included votes at 16, which would almost definitely have helped the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, the Greens and others. In that context, overseas voting and the extension of overseas voting would have been part of the same package. That could have been negotiated as part of a—

Elections Bill

Lord Lipsey Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Thursday 10th March 2022 Lords Chamber

There are some faint echoes of that today. Mrs Thatcher knew the importance and value to Britain of our soft power and our reputation for robust multiparty democracy, fought on a level playing field with a referee who did not take instructions from whichever club happened to be top of the league when the match was played. Mrs Thatcher knew the value of and invested in democracy. Perhaps in a small way, the responses of those same eastern European nations to the current Ukraine disaster show that it was money well invested. I ask the Minister not to throw all that away. Give some comfort to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and adopt her amendments as a small first step to undoing the harm proposed in the Bill. He needs to take these two dangerous clauses out of the Bill, and my noble friends and I will energetically make that case in the debates that follow.

[Lord Lipsey (Lab)]

My Lords, when the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, came into the Chamber, I do not think that she was expecting to have to move any amendments, and when I came into the Chamber, I certainly was not expecting to speak on any of them. But in a few sentences I would like to inject a broader perspective.

At the moment, we see a conflict between democracy and totalitarianism in Ukraine such as we have not experienced since the end of the Cold War. Democracy must win. But at this very perilous moment, the Government are introducing measures to shackle the independent Electoral Commission and put in its place the will of government Ministers. The Minister may say that they have no intention of doing anything naughty, but I would not trust him on that and, even if I did, I certainly would not trust every subsequent Government to go the same way. This is a disgraceful proposal. It undermines the democratic case that we are making to the world, and I hope that the Committee will have none of it.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, this is the most extraordinary debate that I have ever taken part in, with the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, first disowning the amendment in her name on the supplementary list of amendments and then moving it formally but not explaining what we are debating. I hope that the noble Baroness remains to withdraw her amendment at the end. Otherwise, we may be in a little trouble.

I was unable to take part at Second Reading on this Bill because I was not in the country, but I have of course read Hansard on that debate and I hope to take part in the remaining stages. I will not range as widely as the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, because I hope to say more about Clause 14 generally when we get to the stand part debate, where I think it would be most appropriate. But I will say a couple of things about the two amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, because neither of them is necessary.

Amendment 4A states that the Electoral Commission only needs to comply with the strategic and policy statement if it conforms with its own objectives. The amendment is unnecessary because the only requirement in new Section 4B in Clause 14 is for the commission to “have regard to” the statement. Nothing compels the commission to do anything specific as a result of the statement being published, and nothing in Clause 14 changes the requirement for the Electoral Commission not to do anything which conflicts with its statutory duties. In short, its regulatory independence is already protected by Clause 14.

I was somewhat mystified by Amendment A1 which removes the role and responsibilities from the strategic and policy statement. These strategic and policy statements merely set out what the Government’s priorities are and what the Government see as the role and responsibilities in relation to those priorities. It does not override the commission’s independence but gives guidance as to the Government’s priorities and of course those priorities will be approved by Parliament. Public bodies do not exist in a vacuum; they exist in a political context. The strategic and policy statements just give that context—nothing more, nothing less. Clause 14 does not impact on the independence of the Electoral Commission.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

No, I said that what was before the House was not a clause stand part debate. I will address the amendment before the House. The proposal to excise Clauses 14 and 15 comes later today, in the sixth group, in your Lordships’ House. The noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, actually said—

[Lord Lipsey (Lab)]

My Lords, I am doing my best, on the basis of only 20 years’ experience in this House, to follow the Minister. Is he saying that he is going to try to improve a clause in Committee, when later we are going to have an opportunity to choose whether to reject the clause as a whole? Of course, we must do both. I hope that it is rejected eventually but in the meantime, the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, goes some way to mitigating its worst features.

[Lord True (Con)]

No, I am not saying that in the slightest. I will address the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, because that is the proper thing to do in Committee. All I respectfully submit to your Lordships is that, if there is a clause stand part amendment—the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, made a clause stand part speech because, as he explained, he is not going to be here later—then the appropriate place for it is probably within that debate. The noble Lord—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I have one question of clarification to ask my noble friend. During his introduction, he referred to the change of structure of government and therefore the change of structure of committees in the other place, and their responsibilities for dealing with electoral matters. Given that the Government have a habit of restructuring virtually everything virtually every year, whichever party is in power, can I seek clarification that these amendments are future-proofed—in other words, that we are not writing into the Bill the name of a committee that may not exist in one or two or three years’ time?

[Lord Lipsey (Lab)]

My Lords, I will briefly make a point about these proceedings. As I understood it, when we debated the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, the Minister said, “We should not have these general arguments; we should be focusing on the specific amendments.” In a corner, as he was, I can see that that was the best sort of argument available to him. Now we have nearly 100 amendments which change the law of this nation, and how much time did the Minister devote to each of them? It was six seconds. This is not a detailed examination of a Bill; it is a Minister who thinks that whatever he happens to want—I am sure that most of these amendments are completely acceptable—should go through without proper debate, consideration and deliberation by this House.

I say that both as a protest and as something that I hope the House will carry forward in its future deliberations on the Bill. It cannot be done at the kind of speed whereby 100 amendments are considered in one grouping. It will not be done, and we will stop it being done.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly to this amendment. I seem to have used my time allocation earlier—I apologise to the Minister for wasting his time. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, and my noble friend just pointed out—the Minister probably cannot hear me with my mask on, so I am sorry about that as well—it is six seconds per amendment against 13 per amendment on my part. I apologise for that.

I will pick up on a couple of things. The Minister expressed regret that Scotland and Wales had opted out of the application of Clause 14 in those two nations. He will understand that I think they have shown the utmost common sense in doing so, and I do not think it is a cause for regret at all. I certainly support what my noble friend Lady Humphreys had to say about that.

I will bring the Minister back to the fig leaf of consultation in new Section 4A in Clause 14. I said before that of the five bodies, four were completely hostile and one other was captured by the Cabinet. There is now a proposal here which means that one of those—PACAC—is captured by the Select Committee for the Department of Levelling Up Housing and Communities, and that Secretary of State will be making the strategy statement: that is something else that has got worse as a consequence of that.

I put back into play the point I made before, that if Scotland and Wales are not going to be part of new Section 4A and if PACAC is going to be neutered and transformed, it might be time to add the CSPL as one of those bodies which should be statutorily consulted as the creator and, up till now, the recommender of progress and developments on that Electoral Commission body. I would have thought that some voice for local government in that consultation should be statutory there, of course only for England, because Scotland and Wales have sensibly opted out.

We shall not oppose these amendments but we believe that the direction of travel on this suggests even more reasons for reforming the application of Clause 14 when we get to that debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I have not had advice from the Box on this, and that is always a dangerous place for a Minister to be. However, I try to read carefully what I put before your Lordships’ House, and I think it is provided in proposed new section 4C(8) that,

“If the functions of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee at the passing of this Act with respect to electoral matters … become functions of a different committee of the House of Commons, the reference … to that Committee is to be read as a reference to the committee which for the time being has those functions”.


Maybe I am parsing that wrongly. If I am, I will apologise to my noble friend and to the Committee and come back with a better explanation—but sometimes a Minister just has to try his best at the Dispatch Box. Does the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, want to intervene?

[Lord Lipsey (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sorry to come back to something the Minister said just before the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, but I think the record will show that the Minister said that, when we have passed such amendments as we do, we send them back to the other place for it to determine. I do not think that is the procedure. I thought they came back here, and then we decided whether we accepted them or not. Will the Minister please set the record straight on the procedure?

[Lord True (Con)]

I think I did set the record straight on the procedure. According to the principle of amity—I have great amity and respect for the noble Lord—I was not going to pick up the fact that he took me to task for saying that someone had spoken for a long time. I did not say that; I said it was an interesting coincidence that a prepared speech was ready at very short notice. I did say to the Committee—I reiterate this, and the noble Lord can give me a few strictures if he sees my departing back—that I would sit through every hour that your Lordships require of me on this Bill.

As for the procedural point that the noble Lord asked me about, if a change is made in this House, it is an amendment to the legislation. If it goes in, it will be a Lords amendment to a Bill that has been sent up here, so it will go back to the other place as a House of Lords amendment. If the other place does not like it, theoretically it can reject it, as it can reject any of your Lordships’ amendments. That is the procedural position, and that is what I meant when I said that the other place would be able to determine matters. The noble Lord shakes his head; perhaps he will tell me what he disagrees with.

[Lord Lipsey (Lab)]

I do not want to take up the Committee’s time on this. Perhaps we could have an exchange of letters.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

May I take up the point that the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, raised earlier? We are now about to agree—or otherwise—more than 100 amendments, after 42 minutes’ debate. Those amendments are vital in Scotland and Wales, as well as in England, and will determine the future of a whole range of aspects of the electoral structure. This is not giving the matter proper consideration. Perhaps in an unguarded moment, the Minister said that he was prepared to spend all the hours necessary to consider such matters, and we need to consider this in more detail on Report. How can we do that, and look at all the aspects relating to elections in Scotland and Wales as well as in England, without just passing them through in well under an hour?

Elections Bill

Lord Lipsey Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 23rd February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lipsey (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Moore, if he did not know it before, will now have the feeling that this is a slightly peculiar House. We have had a wonderful debate this afternoon with magnificent points made. I have to say I have found most of them critical of the Bill, but nobody has quite dared to call a spade a spade. This is a partisan measure; the great majority of it is partisan and designed to improve this Government’s electoral chances. This Bill out-trumps Trump.

I will give two or three examples—they have all been referred to but not everybody has said them yet. First, voter ID: there is no evidence of any problems arising with the current system. But we now have the evidence of the respectable Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which shows that 1.7 million, mostly low-income, voters will be disenfranchised as a result. Are those natural Labour voters, Lib Dems or Greens, who will be disqualified? Yes. Are they Tory voters? No. One big gain for the Conservative Party.

Take the 15-year limit for overseas voters being able to vote in the UK. This, in the words of the leading constitutional expert Professor Robert Blackburn of KCL, flouts two important principles of the British electoral system: that the basis of the parliamentary system is the representation of constituencies and that the basis of the right to vote is one of residency in a constituency. Let these fundamental principles go hang, for the Government have a more fundamental principle. All those Tory voters sipping their gins and tonics on the Costas should be allowed to go on voting as long as they can, even when they have lost all association with their home country. We know what will happen; anyone who has been in this House knows that we will again start getting letters from these people saying they are pensioners being unfairly kept down because they have not got votes. This is another partisan measure.

Dropped in at the last minute was the substitution of first past the post for the supplementary vote for mayors and police commissioners. Is that really a considered response to the relative weights of electoral systems—something which, as a member of the Jenkins committee, I have spent only too much time thinking about? Of course not. It goes like this: the latest Redfield and Wilton opinion poll gives the Tories 33% of the vote. It gives Labour 39%, with the Lib Dems on 11% and the Greens on 7%. Under first past the post the Tories are doing pretty well—they will soon catch up with Labour and take the lead. But if most of those Lib Dems and Greens have a second preference for Labour—I think that is highly probable—it would be Tories 33%, Labour 57%. They cannot have that, and SV must go. Then there is the end of the independence of the Electoral Commission. If you may be losing the match, there is nothing like shackling the referee.

We really need an election Bill at this time. Most powerfully, we have the unimplemented proposals of the Law Commission for major changes designed to clean up our electoral system. We are not going to get that Bill before the next election because we have got this instead. It demeans those who have brought it forward.

I conclude with one short constitutional point. We are all taught when we come to this place—I was taught it by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack—that as a non-elected House we always give way to the elected House. In general, I would go along with that. But what if the lower House, put up to it by an unusually partisan Government, agrees reforms to elections designed not to make them more democratic but to create a partisan bias in favour of them? Should that rule still apply? In the next Parliament, after an election held under those deeply biased rules, does it apply then? Have I still got to allow everything a House elected under a bent system submits?

I do not answer that question yet because I deeply hope that, in Committee, the Bill will be greatly improved and the particularly offensive proposals it contains, such as those on the Electoral Commission, will be removed. However, if the Government go on pretending that they are doing this to improve our electoral system when they are actually doing it to improve their electoral chances, your Lordships have a right—indeed, a duty—to stand up and be counted.

Health and Social Care Levy Bill

Lord Lipsey Excerpts

2nd reading & Order of Commitment discharged & 3rd reading
Monday 11th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lipsey (Lab)]

My Lords, if we did not have a national insurance contribution system, no one would even think of inventing it. This debate has been a succession of hammer blows to the structure of national insurance, which is not paid on unearned income such as rent, is paid at a higher rate by the poor than by the rich, and is not paid by the elderly, who in this case will be the main beneficiaries. It is a nonsense tax, which makes it odd that even this Government should choose it as their preferred way of funding increased spending on health and social care.

This afternoon, I will not go into the social care elements. The cap introduced by the Government is nonsense, but we will debate that on Thursday. I will focus merely on this choice of method. Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies—the Johnson who never lies—has said:

“Funding social care just from national insurance would be very inequitable. It would be a continuation of a long-term policy of hitting those of working age while protecting pensioners”.


The Government know this and go to unbelievable lengths in their attempts to deny the clear facts. Boris Johnson said:

“The top 20% of households by income will pay 40 times what the poorest 20% pay”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/9/21; col. 296.]


Yes, but that is because the poorest 20% pay virtually nothing because they do not earn the basic minimum for this.

Then there is the Treasury’s document, published with this, called Illustrative Analysis of the Impact of “Building Back Better: Our Plan for Health and Social Care” on Households. In general, I am that rare creature: a supporter of the Treasury—much more so than the ex-Permanent Secretary has shown your Lordships that he is this afternoon. But let me put it as mildly as I can: this document will not go down in the history of the Treasury as one of its finest bits of work. It puts together two completely unrelated bits of government spending—the bit on health and the bit on social care—and calls them “a package”. Of course, money spent on the NHS is reasonably progressive, because a great deal of it goes to poorer people, but money spent subsidising social care mostly goes to the better off. The cap will almost entirely benefit the better off, since half the population are paid for by the state anyway. It will not do to put these two things together.

Anyway, until we get this White Paper—if we ever do get it—we do not know what the Government are actually proposing. This is not just a matter of making a few broad statements that sound good on the telly interview. There is a great deal of detail on all this, and we do not know anything about that detail. There are some pretty weird assumptions in that Treasury paper. If you look down at the footnotes—the sort of thing that only I am geekish enough to do—you will see that the benefit calculation is done without including residential care. What is this whole business about? It is about people in residential care who run out of money, and yet that is excluded from the Government’s analysis. You could not make it up.

I referred favourably to Mr Johnson earlier on. It would be a favourable contribution to public debate if the IFS was to produce a more detailed and objective expert analysis which is not shaped by the instructions of Ministers to deny what clearly is the truth.

Finally, I want to say something about the Government’s procedure on this Bill. It is now more than 20 years—who would believe it—since the Royal Commission on Long-Term Care of the Elderly reported. I signed a minority report. It is a decade since the Dilnot report, which was legislated for by the Government, although the legislation was never brought into effect. Apart from those reports, there has been a non-stop flow of learned and wise contributions on the subject—well, some of them were wise.

Nearly two years ago, Boris said that it was a done deal:

“We will fix the crisis in social care once and for all with a clear plan we have prepared”—


tick, tock, tick, tock. After that, we got the September announcement. We might have expected further consultation and discussion to fill the many gaps in it. Indeed, we expected to have a White Paper, but very curiously we do not have a White Paper: we have this Bill before this House’s powerless presence. We are voting for a levy to pay a lot for something, but we really do not know in any detail whatever what it is paying for.

The Government’s excuse—I am amazed that even these Ministers dare utter it—is that it is to give time for employers to prepare for it. What about the 18 months that have passed since their plan was already fully baked, as Johnson told us on the steps of Downing Street? What about those months in the summer when, day after day, there were leaks in the newspapers about the alleged position of various Ministers on the details of this plan? Time did not matter then but, now, when they want to get this legislation through without either House of Parliament having a chance to look at it properly, time has been cut short for political reasons.

Legislating in a day should be done only in circumstances of extreme urgency. To do it for a tax that will not even bite until 2022 and for a policy that will not even be fully in being until 2024 is a travesty of democracy. Legislate first, policy later—it is Alice in Wonderland.

Government: Leadership Training

Lord Lipsey Excerpts

Thursday 16th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lipsey (Lab)]

My Lords, I think that, like the noble Lord, Lord Norton, every Member of this House would be in favour of better training for Ministers, though I must say it would be a bit of a challenge to train Gavin Williamson. I have been involved in one or two attempts, and it is not always easy to get Ministers or people who expect to be Ministers to accept training. Tony Blair was very superstitious about it, because he thought that if he allowed his shadow Ministers, as they then were, to be trained, that would somehow put a jinx on the election and the gods would take their revenge on him. There are of course also some politicians —I certainly do not say many, but there are some—who think that they are omnicompetent without any training at all.

There are some difficult issues in training; it is not altogether straightforward. I want to draw attention to just one which is part of my experience—and, as it happens, of that of the Minister who is responding today. The appointment and use of special advisers is quite contentious. Some of the contention has revolved around appointments, most famously when the Government lost a very competent Chancellor because Dominic Cummings insisted that he, Cummings, should control the special advisers. What the role of special advisers should be relative to other advisers to Ministers is also contentious. I can say with complete confidence that there is no comparison between the job I was brought in to do for Tony Crosland in 1974 as a special adviser and the jobs that special advisers do today. They are much more powerful, and in Cummings’s sad case, he was for a brief period the second-most powerful person in the land.

Good special advisers still work with civil servants, but when you are training Ministers what doctrine are you to teach as to the role of special advisers? Who decides what is to be taught? It really is not easy, though I am sure there are ways forward.

I hope I am not being too frivolous in saying that there is one essential difference between training civil servants and training Ministers. Civil servants can be incentivised to do the right thing by training—the noble Lord, Lord Maude, has just told us some of the things he did to try to do it: they get promoted better and they get performance bonuses and so on. However, much of this does not apply to Ministers. They are paid by grade rather than performance; there is no scope for awarding them for good performance by giving them more cash. As for incentives for civil servants, number one in most Ministers’ lists is not making sure that the public get maximum value for money out of some big spending programme. Most Ministers want to rise, and the incentive on them is to do what helps them to rise: perform well in the House of Commons or the House of Lords, appeal to powerful factions in their parliamentary parties by saying what they think will please them, look good on TV, and, above all—we saw an example of that yesterday—please the Prime Minister. I do not want to be too pompous about all this—this is what Ministers do; it is part of politics, and I do not expect it just to go away—but we must remember that these are not incentives that lead to better government.

EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement

Lord Lipsey Excerpts

Friday 8th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lipsey (Lab) [V]]

Classical music has been doing its bit for the unity of Europe for many centuries before the EU was even thought of. Think of the immigrant composer, Handel; the great itinerant performer, Liszt; the great conductor, Rattle; and the great orchestras. Europe does not have a common language but in music it has a common theme which, however, is expressed in different accents in different countries. Classical music is European.

The Government’s Brexit deal, as it stands, jeopardises all that. There is no Erasmus to support European musicians in our great music conservatoires. There are obstacles to touring, as British musicians become “third-country nationals” needing to comply with the rules of each member state when they try to tour; musical instrument certificates for £100-plus are only available through certain ports; and lorries are restricted to three internal movements—how does that work with a great orchestral tour? I could go on.

To be fair, during the Covid crisis the Government have been very alert to the cultural sector and its financial needs. They said they were going to do the same for music in the Brexit negotiations; many Ministers are on embarrassing record saying so. They have totally failed. What are they doing about it? Surprise, surprise, they are blaming the EU, as the noble Lord, Lord True, did again today. Pathetic.

If music had had half the attention paid to it as was paid to fish, an industry a quarter of its size, we would not be in this hole. We must not let today’s diminuendo for music be the end of our great European symphony.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Lord Lipsey Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 8th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pidding (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I spoke at Second Reading but not in Committee, but I have been following the Bill’s progress with great interest. It is fundamental to our democracy. I want to express my concern about this grouping and to speak against Amendments 2 and 3 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, Lord Rennard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town.

The fundamental reason for boundary reviews is to ensure that constituencies of equal size are maintained. To do this, we need the data to be reviewed on a regular basis, balancing this with the need to avoid constant disruption. In a fast-moving world of significant changes in our demographics, which can be through housebuilding or geographical migration, including changes to people’s work patterns and locations, it seems that the Government’s proposal in the Bill to conduct boundary reviews on a cycle of eight years is fair and reasonable. If, as the amendments propose, boundary reviews are held only every 10 years, there will be an even greater risk than there is now that constituency boundaries will become out of date and unequal between the reviews.

Prior to 2011, when general reviews took place every eight to 12 years, it was a very unsatisfactory system where interim reviews would take place to consider whether particular constituencies should be updated between the general boundary reviews to take account of local government changes and shifts in population in particular areas. Those interim reviews were disruptive. They were made at the discretion of the Boundary Commission and they made it difficult for MPs to develop stable and effective constituency relationships with communities. A balance of eight years should avoid the need to hold interim reviews, which has to be a good thing.

It is right that all parliamentary constituencies should be of equal size and that everyone’s vote carries equal weight. It is a balance between regular reviews and minimal upheaval while ensuring that constituency boundaries accurately represent significant demographic shifts in a fast-moving world. Eight-year reviews strike the right balance.

[Lord Lipsey (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I support the amendment and I want to focus on one particular point. The Minister, in replying to the debate in Committee, put great weight on the support that he alleged his proposals had received from interested parties. I shall quote him:

“Prior to the Bill’s introduction we engaged with all the parliamentary parties and with the electoral administrator representatives, and an eight-year cycle was the one that was supported.”—[Official Report, 8/9/20; col. GC 171.]


I had hoped for rather more than that, so I put down a PQ. I did not get a lot more in response; I will come back to that in a moment. It said:

“Ahead of the Bill’s introduction, the Government engaged with parliamentary parties, and electoral administrator representatives, and there was general acceptance of an 8-year cycle.”


In Committee, the Minister said the eight-year cycle was “supported”, but in reply to the PQ he said it was accepted. Those are very different things. Being supportive is, “What a jolly good idea, Minister. How wise you are.” Being accepting is, “Well, Minister, if that is really what you want, I suppose that we will have to go along with it.” That comes perilously close to misleading the House.

I would be inclined to forgive the Minister for that if, when he winds up the debate, he is able to give a clear and concise summary of exactly what the consultation consisted of, who was consulted and exactly what their replies were. If he cannot do that in winding up—I understand that he might be a bit short of time—I would be grateful if he would give a commitment to write to all noble Lords involved in this debate setting out at greater length and in more detail what the consultation was. In doing so, he will make us a great deal more confident that this is not a product of ministerial whim and the justification for it thought up only after the event.

[The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con)]

My Lord, I believe that it is sensible to have more frequent boundary reviews than those being proposed in the amendment. Prior to Covid, this country was enjoying very substantial employment figures and people were relocating around the country to where the jobs were to be found. However, the pandemic has changed absolutely everything. The jobs market is dreadful and getting worse, and when we eventually arrive at a new normal, I suggest that it will bear little resemblance to what we knew pre-Covid. Jobs will be extremely difficult to come by, and to find employment people will have to translocate in pursuit of work. This will inevitably change the shape and size of many constituencies and demographics in general. That is one reason that I believe it is vital that boundaries are reviewed on a more frequent basis than that being proposed in this amendment. That is why I shall support the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

Meanwhile, I will go back to where I started and remind noble Lords that the electoral quota is a starting point. The differential from that quota at the beginning of a review means that any variation from the quota at the beginning can lead to very wide variations towards the end of the review period. The current rules are a sensible compromise for a practical fit between geography, community and constituency representation in Parliament. We should be very careful about departing from that principle.

[Lord Lipsey (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I am not going to go back over all the arguments about 7.5%, 5%, 10% and so on; they have been wonderfully rehearsed by noble Lords who are much more knowledgeable than I am. I want to take this opportunity to make a general point about the process in relation to parliamentary constituencies.

We go to great trouble, as noble Lords said earlier this afternoon, to protect the effectiveness and neutrality of the Boundary Commission. It seems to me to be in complete contradiction to that to allow the Government of the day, effectively, to decide matters that are greatly going to affect the electoral geography, such as the number of years—as we debated yesterday—for which a Boundary Commission report should apply or, in this case, the degree of variety that should be permitted in their size.

Across the Atlantic, we have a dire warning of what happens when you let politicians decide for themselves on the rules that will determine whether they are elected. The danger of appearing to be partisan when doing it our way seems to me great, and more effort should have been made by the Government and, I am sure, by others to achieve a consensus reform of parliamentary boundaries—we all agree there should be one—rather than one that can be accused of being partisan and that is, in any case, not being addressed with the seriousness that should apply.

I speak as someone who worked for the late Jim Callaghan, who was for a long time an esteemed Member of this House, as well as, briefly, an esteemed Prime Minister. In 1969, Jim Callaghan got his own party to vote down a set of recommendations from the Boundary Commissions for purely partisan reasons. Lord Callaghan, being of a different mould from many of the politicians who lead us today, had the decency in later years to admit that he had made a mistake and that he deeply regretted his actions. We are making a mistake in accepting a Bill so close to the one that was presented. It would have been very much better if there had been a process of negotiation and compromise, rather than an edict brought by a political majority. It will represent a further erosion of the esteem in which our Government and our Houses of Parliament are held.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I cannot understand why the Government continue to insist on this reduction in the variation of size between constituencies. The original justification was the Conservatives’ complaint that the width of variation created a structural imbalance in favour of Labour. Others have pointed out that this arose from differences in levels of electoral registration, in turnout and in the size of majorities. The last three elections showed that this allegedly structural bias had disappeared. It must be inertia at Conservative Party headquarters that explains why the Government are persisting with it.

As the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said earlier, in our unwritten constitution the House of Commons is supposed to a body that represents communities throughout the United Kingdom, not just an electoral college that votes for the Prime Minister. The first-past-the-post voting system rests upon the principle that there is a close relationship between each MP and his or her constituency, which means that each MP, and each voter, needs to grasp which constituency they are in and its relatively natural boundaries. Throw that out—as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, suggested that we have begun to do—and, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, argued, you have made the case for proportional representation instead. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, said that this widening of variation would be “unfair to the voter”. Let us have a wider discussion about what a fair voting system would be, if he wishes. This is nothing to with overall fairness for the voter.

This Government are chipping away, bit by bit, at many of the assumptions and conventions which constitute our constitution. Last December’s Conservative manifesto pledged to establish a commission

“to look at the broader aspects of our constitution”

before the end of this year, which is now less than three months away. Since then, we have heard nothing about this, nor does there appear to have been any consultations with other parties about the membership and working of such a commission. I do not see how a constitutional commission could possibly gain legitimacy if it emerged only from the Government, without any wider process of consultation or consent. Can the Minister tell us if the manifesto pledge has now been dropped, delayed for the indefinite future or is about to be sprung on us without prior consultation?

In the UK’s constitutional tradition, each MP represents a place, a recognisable community. To reduce the variation among constituency sizes to the narrow band which the Government propose weakens that link between MP and local community. Honest and traditional Conservatives, those who still remember and revere Edmund Burke, Benjamin Disraeli and Harold Macmillan, should join others in this House in supporting the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Lipsey]

17: Clause 7, page 5, line 22, at end insert—
“(d) a constituency named Brecon and Radnorshire with identical boundaries to those of the existing Brecon and Radnorshire constituency”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment creates an additional protected constituency to make this seat geographically manageable.

[Lord Lipsey (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, we have had a long, hard afternoon and tummies are rumbling, so I genuinely will not detain the House for long. An absolutely overwhelming case was made in Committee for this amendment exempting Brecon and Radnorshire from the 5% leeway allowed, but it has not got anywhere. The noble Lord, Lord True, was gracious enough to find time to discuss it with me one on one, though he did not give me any hope. I am sad to say that Ministers in the other place were not so prepared to have a meeting with Fay Jones, the Conservative MP for the seat, and I regret that.

Anyway, one has to know when one’s goose is cooked, so I accept that this will not happen, though the people of Brecon and Radnorshire will resent the way the Government have been pursuing what they will regard as their war on Wales.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

My Lords, my apologies—I was momentarily distracted. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, had come to the end of his speech. He had certainly stopped speaking. Did I not hear him?

[Lord Lipsey (Lab) [V]]

I have stopped. No word issues from my mouth.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

I wonder if the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, could repeat what he just said. I am afraid I was unable to hear him.

[Lord Lipsey (Lab) [V]]

No words are issuing from my mouth. I have finished; I have stopped; I am ended.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

Could the noble Lord confirm whether he intends to move his amendment?

[Lord Lipsey (Lab) [V]]

I intend to withdraw it after the Minister’s reply.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

My Lords, I think—I think—I was right the first time and the amendment has been proposed.

--- Later in debate ---

For these reasons and those I addressed in relation to Cornwall—an equally loved part of our United Kingdom —the Government will resist the amendment, and I hope that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw it.

[Lord Lipsey (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I think that the friends of Brecon and Radnorshire should have a good party when coronavirus has departed and we are no longer bound by the rule of six. For all his courtesy, however, I am afraid I will not be able to invite the Minister. All that needs to be said on this subject has been said, and I therefore beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 17 withdrawn.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Lord Lipsey Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 15th September 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, thank you for letting me speak. As a signatory to the amendment, I should explain a little why I decided to support it. I have lived in Wales for many decades and provided healthcare to some of these communities. The geography is unique and different to the cultural mix in cities in either England or Scotland—I have done exactly the same as a GP in inner-city Glasgow.

Wales currently has 40 constituencies for its 2.3 million registered electorate. Yes, the size of the constituencies is smaller on average or on median size than other nations in the UK, but Scotland’s smallest constituency has half the number of electors of the smallest in Wales. The current boundaries in Wales allow co-terminosity, which helps co-ordination between the Senedd and Westminster. I will return to that relationship between Wales and Westminster in a moment.

To look at this and try to understand it, I spent some time with an Excel spreadsheet to look at the consequences of a rigid numerical approach. A cull of Welsh MPs to provide only 29 would be a 28% reduction in representation from Wales under the 2018 proposals. While maintaining 650 MPs, a leeway allowing a 5% margin on electoral numbers would still lost Wales nine seats—a 23% reduction in MPs. Are the Government determined to alienate their support for the union and fuel separatist nationalism? It certainly looks like that from all their behaviour at the moment. Funnily enough, as far as I can see, England would see only a rise in numbers under the Bill’s proposals.

A 15% lower margin on electorate numbers—I say lower because it is not about raising the 15%—although again hitting Wales hard, would decrease representation from Wales by 5%, or two MPs. However, it would also allow the complexity of the geography and demography to be accounted for. For an MP in Wales to represent an area with difficulties of travelling across large areas where, as we have heard, the sheep really do outnumber the population, it can take over two hours in some parts and around four hours in those same places in the winter. The South Wales valleys are indeed quite distinct zones, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, pointed out, and travelling from one to another requires driving north across the Heads of the Valleys road and down, or south to the M4 and up the valley. While it is reasonable to expect the MPs to do that, the constituents cannot. Many do not have their own car, have care responsibilities and cannot just access a remote MP surgery in an adjacent valley, nor do they identify with that position in an adjacent valley either. Poverty and an elderly population—9.5% is over 75—means that few have IT access to Zoom or Teams, and so on, although I accept that after Covid, that might have improved. However, on all other measures, they will effectively be relatively disenfranchised in relation to UK government.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has already pointed out the political message that this is giving. The political message a massive cull of Welsh MPs gives is that Westminster is not concerned about Wales. I wonder whether one solution to meet the Minister’s concern about a 30% range of variance overall would be simply to delete the upward tolerance and allow only a downward tolerance. Without that, this amendment will fuel a narrative that Westminster really would like to see Wales cut off, cut out, and effectively ignored.

[Lord Lipsey (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a pretty odd grouping, is it not? You have one amendment on the links between constituencies, one on Devon and Cornwall, and one on Wales. It would have been even worse if I had not insisted on degrouping my amendment on Brecon and Radnor, for which the Committee will pay a price when I introduce it in a few minutes’ time. The grouping is so wide and disparate that I do not have a great deal to add, so I will not.

First, I totally agree with the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Foulkes about local ties, which seem wholly to have been ignored by the Government in drafting the Bill, and which I will come back to in the Brecon and Radnor context.

Secondly, I totally agree with my noble friend Lord Hain about the underrepresentation of Wales—the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and a few other noble Lords came in behind him. I will say only that even the 15% variant would not deal with the Brecon and Radnor problem; it deals with certain problems but not with that.

Finally, on the epoch-shaking issue of Devon and Cornwall, I am in no doubt about the passions that this stirs in that part of the country, but I know nothing about it or those passions, and therefore I will remain silent.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I hesitate to intervene on Welsh and Scottish matters, in particular on the complications of the geography of Wales, beyond saying that of course all the regions of this country have large and disparate constituencies. One of my strongest memories of the early days of the coalition Government was of standing in William Hague’s office in the Foreign Office, discussing with him where exactly it was as you moved from Richmond up Swaledale that you lost mobile phone coverage, and seeing the horrified expression on the face of his private secretary as he realised that the Secretary of State would be unattainable in large areas of his extremely large and remote constituency. Yorkshire also has large constituencies.

On the question of the union as a whole, I will say only that we should all be very worried about its future. I have close relatives who live and work in Edinburgh, and each time I talk to them, I get increasingly concerned about the future of the union. The image they have of a competent Government, who also value international ties, as opposed to the incompetent and English nationalist Government in London, gives me no guarantee that if there were another independence referendum, they would not vote to support independence. We also know the games that are being played over the future of Northern Ireland. I leave it for the Minister to reflect that we have a Government who are playing fast and loose with the union even as the Prime Minister insists that he is doing his utmost to defend it, and we need to be extremely cautious about that.

I most want to focus on Amendment 18, which talks about the importance of retaining local ties. I remind the Minister that the Conservative manifesto last December made no reference to a 5% variation as the limit, but said:

“We will continue to support the First Past the Post system … as it allows voters to kick out politicians who don’t deliver, both locally and nationally.”


That is the way one can defend the first past the post system—it is about having a recognisable community which each MP represents and in which the voters are aware of the link between the constituency and the MP. When I first started out in politics, I remember many Conservative MPs who would say, “I represent all the voters in my constituency, not just the ones who voted for me”. That was the old approach to this. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, has already said that the important thing is whether you can identify with the constituency you live in. I remember in the 2010 election standing in the middle of the marketplace in Huddersfield, canvassing for the Liberal Democrats, and every other voter who came up to me on market day said, “I live in so and so—can you tell me which constituency I am in?” We are only half way towards the problem that most voters do not know what constituency they live in. If we move boundaries more and more frequently, and more and more without reference to the idea of local community, we are moving away from the principle of the first past the post system.

I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord True, knows Edmund Burke off by heart, and his references to the importance of localism—of the “little platoons” in which people live. We are in danger of losing that connection. As we lose it, we weaken the connection between the voter and their elected representatives, and we therefore weaken trust in democracy as the idea of politics becomes one of a distant game in Westminster not connected with the voter on the ground.

I fear that the devolution White Paper, when it is published next month, may make that worse. We already have in cities such as Leeds and Bradford local wards which are 12,000 to 15,000 voters per ward. That means of course that in Leeds there are only four wards per constituency, which is one of the reasons why the question of dividing wards up as you adjust the numbers for the Leeds constituency comes up so frequently. Many of these wards used to be entire urban district councils. The gap between the most local elected representative and the voter has already been severely damaged, and I fear that next month’s devolution White Paper will have little to do with devolution but much more to do with weakening local government further. I appeal to the Minister, whose distinguished record in local government I am well aware of, and as someone who cares about local government, to bear in mind how important it is to restore trust in democracy among our voters by recognising that democracy starts at the local level and requires a link between voters, their local community and democracy as such through their elected representatives.

Given that, Amendment 18 is important. We should not lose sight of this. We do not wish to follow the United States down the road where each district is redrawn after almost every election according to partisan forms. Under a Conservative Government we follow American politics far too often in far too many ways. We need politics to regain its sense of the local, the national and the regional. That is why I strongly support this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Lipsey (Lab)]

21: Clause 7, page 5, line 22, at end insert—
“(d) a constituency named Brecon and Radnorshire with identical boundaries to those of the existing Brecon and Radnorshire constituency”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment creates an additional protected constituency to make this seat geographically manageable.

[Lord Lipsey (Lab)]

My Lords, Brecon and Radnorshire, let me count the ways I love thee. It was quite a tie to come up to the House to be able to present my case for the constituency in person this afternoon when I saw the weather forecast suggesting 24 degrees today. I believe strongly that it should remain a single constituency, but perhaps more importantly, I have sought the views of the present Member, Fay Jones, as to whether it should be a single seat. All the views of existing Members of Parliament on their constituencies and boundaries have to be taken with a pinch of salt. As an invariable rule, they want no changes in the boundaries unless they think it is going to bring in a lot of extra votes for them, in which case they may well favour changes, but Fay Jones has established herself as a well-liked local representative of the people.

She writes as follows: “Brecon and Radnorshire is an outstanding constituency but it is not without its challenges”—you can say that again. “It stretches from Ystradgynlais”—did I get that right, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter?—“in the south-west corner of the constituency 60 miles north of Swansea to Knighton in the north-east, 10 miles west of Ludlow”. Towns include, “Brecon, Crickhowell, Talgarth, Builth Wells, Llandrindod Wells, Presteigne, Knighton, Rhayader, and Ystradgynlais itself—a huge variety and more than 3,000 kilometres, which is bigger than Luxembourg. I frequently have a 63-mile drive to get from one meeting to the next, taking well over an hour and a half to drive between meetings. Considering the additional challenge of sub-standard broadband and mobile signal, it is still essential to travel to face-to-face meetings as much as possible. Covering such a large rural area takes a huge amount of time and energy and, while I hope I am still young enough to do the role justice, an even bigger constituency may reduce the quality and frequency of the service offered by the Member of Parliament.” I endorse all that.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

We have had no requests to speak after the Minister so I call on the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey.

[Lord Lipsey (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and particularly those who have spoken twice. I will make one point. The Minister expressed her support for the existing exceptional constituencies and said that Ynys Môn was of sufficient size. Not only is it a quarter of the size of Brecon and Radnorshire in geographical area, it has 51,925 electors as opposed to Brecon and Radnorshire’s 55,490. If Ynys Môn is of sufficient size, so is Brecon and Radnorshire.

This may have been an oversight by the Minister, but I did say that I and the Conservative MP for Brecon and Radnorshire would like to have a further conversation before Report. It would be extremely kind if the Minister were able to give an assurance that that request will be seriously and positively considered. Subject to that, I wish to withdraw my amendment.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

Does the Minister wish to come back on that point?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. I will talk to the department and I am sure that we can work something out.

[Lord Lipsey (Lab)]

Thank you.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

Excellent.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Lord Lipsey Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 10th September 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

I want to speak specifically about Amendment 14. I am glad to see it on the Marshalled List, because it raises some important and specific issues about the situation in Wales, introduced very ably by the noble Lord, Lord Hain.

The reference to the 1944 Act in this amendment reminds us that Wales has always been accepted as a special case. In terms of population, its smaller rural constituency sizes have been accepted as a practical necessity. The formula that the Government propose would see 32 Welsh constituencies, which is clearly inadequate. Some would argue, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has, that, now that Wales has devolution, it no longer requires this protection.

My answer is that the Senedd still has unrealistically low numbers of Members—only 60. That is quite out of kilter with Northern Ireland, for example, which has a smaller population and 90 Members of its Assembly. As it has gained more powers, the Senedd has a greater rather than a lesser problem; it is now within the Senedd’s own power to increase its size, and it has been Welsh Liberal Democrat policy for many years that there should be greater powers for the Senedd and at least 80 Members. If that were to be the situation, we would not oppose a reduction in the number of Welsh MPs. I considered tabling my own amendment on this, but I could not find a way to cast it that would be acceptable because, as I said, it is the Senedd that decides its membership, and I very much hope that it goes on and approves an increase in membership very soon.

The news yesterday and today in Wales is dominated by the UK Government’s internal market Bill, but in Wales there is an additional concern about it because the Government intend to recentralise some powers that were previously devolved. MPs from Wales will therefore apparently be busier than they are now, so it seems a strange time to cut the numbers so drastically.

I looked at the predicted numbers across all the nations of the UK; the totals give a stark picture of 10 more MPs for England and eight fewer MPs for Wales. It sometimes seems that this Government neglect no issue in their attempts to alienate the devolved nations. I warn them not to take Wales for granted. My noble friend Lady Humphreys has pointed out the increasing support for independence. Yesterday’s resignation by David Melding, the Conservative shadow Counsel General in Wales, makes the point that this is not just a nationalist flurry. David Melding is an ex-Deputy Presiding Officer for the Senedd and one of the leading Conservatives in Wales.

When we argue for the special factors in Wales, it is geography which usually dominates the debate. There is an old joke: if Wales was ironed flat it would be as big as England. The mountains are our glory, but they are also powerful barriers, and there are so many of them. In the north there is Snowdonia, in the middle, the Brecon Beacons, and in the south, dividing the valleys. I live in Cardiff, and have to cross Caerphilly Mountain, or go a very long way around the bottom of it, to get to the next local authority. Combining valleys in one constituency means combining totally different communities, served by different local authorities and services. It already takes two or more hours to drive from one end of Brecon and Radnorshire to the other, so combining it with another constituency is clearly ridiculous, as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said. All this makes a powerful case for the importance of the Electoral Commissions continuing to take into account local community ties and identities, as they always have.

The truth is that no single system is appropriate for every type of area across the UK, from the Cities of London and Westminster to Orkney and Shetland. In Wales, we have a specific additional factor that must be considered: the Welsh language. It is by far the most developed and flourishing UK minority language. I was proud to be the very first Minister for the Welsh language, and I initiated a strong programme to support and encourage its use. It was all community-based. The language’s areas of strength are geographically based in the west and north of Wales, although nowadays even areas of Cardiff are recognised as Welsh-speaking areas. It would be a mistake to fragment those Welsh-speaking communities by dividing them into different constituencies.

I realise that a number of other parts of the UK might claim a similar distinctiveness. My noble friend Lord Tyler’s Amendment 20 makes a similar point about Cornwall. The following group of amendments that will be considered this afternoon, to which I will not speak, relates to the different percentages that might be used as the permitted variants, and includes Liberal Democrat Amendment 16. These are all ways of attacking the problem that the current 5% variance is too tight to avoid constant reorganisations of constituency boundaries. I hope that when these variations are discussed, this can happen alongside consideration of the importance of local community ties and characteristics.

The proposal for 32 Welsh constituencies is clearly a product of an inflexible approach and an attempt to standardise the fundamentally different parts of this United Kingdom. The 35 seats suggested in Amendment 14 is one way to tackle the issues. Liberal Democrat Amendment 16 is another. It is a different approach, and I hope that they would achieve similar outcomes; they both have similar intention, and I urge the Government to accept one of the proposed compromises.

[Lord Lipsey (Lab)]

My Lords, I was thrilled when in introducing this debate my noble friend Lord Hain thanked my noble friend Lord Grocott for participating as an Englishman but did not thank me. That was quite right, because I have been for 25 years now living half my life in Wales. I am only a little behind my noble friend Lord Hain, who started in Neath in 1991, so I speak now—officially anointed by my noble friend—as a Welshman. I am not going to speak about Wales—there has been a wonderful hwyl about the geographic specialities and peculiarities of my adopted country; no doubt I could persist in that. I am afraid that I am going to speak about crude politics.

We are constantly told that this is a Conservative and Unionist Government, who want to save and protect the union. We are all of us familiar with the threat to the union from Scottish independence, but I am afraid that I detect—I hope that I am wrong, but I do not think I am—a growing threat in Wales. Polls have been referred to. At the beginning of the year, only 19% of Welsh voters were in favour of an independent Wales; that reached 25% in June and 32% in August, when polled by YouGov. That is sharp increase in sentiment in favour of an independent Wales.

We also have elections coming up for the Senedd next year. Not all people in Wales have the great enthusiasm I have for the current Administration in Cardiff, but what are those who do not want to vote Labour supposed to do? The Lib Dems are past their peak down our way. The Welsh are not naturally Conservatives. Brexit or one of those lot? I doubt it. Quite apart from increasing sentiment for independence, there will be a strong temptation to turn to Plaid.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The five protected constituencies are islands, as the noble Lord has already said, and I think an island is different. The islands need to be of a certain size in order to merit this, but I think that is correct.

I have mentioned the fact that it is for the Boundary Commissions to listen to these arguments about the specifics of constituencies, and that is not just for constituencies in Wales and Scotland; I am sure, as we have heard already today, that similar issues may arise in certain parts of England. Each constituency is unique; every single MP in this country will say that they have a special constituency with unique features which needs unique ways of dealing with these issues.

So, I am sorry, but I do not agree. I think that islands are different, and that is why we have further brought the Isle of Anglesey into this. Any local issues of geography and community should be brought up with the Boundary Commissions when they do their reviews.

[Lord Lipsey (Lab)]

I will just, if I may, correct the Minister on a minor point. She listed among the Scottish Members present my noble friend Lord Grocott. As he was born in Watford, educated at Leicester and Manchester and represented English seats, including The Wrekin, I wonder if she might withdraw that little error.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am sorry; I am very happy to withdraw that. He was supporting the cause of Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tyler (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I wish particularly to speak in support of Amendment 16 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Rennard. Inevitably, I need also to refer to some of the others in this group which offer slightly different solutions to the fundamental problem with this Bill that we all agree is so apparent. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, will break the habit of a lifetime and support a Liberal Democrat proposal, because I think that it would absolutely and precisely meet the circumstances to which he has just referred.

All those who have been carefully examining the psephology on which this Bill is predicated will have been hugely indebted to the independent and non-partisan academic analysis by the late Professor Ron Johnston and his colleagues. This was the core of the evidence presented to the Commons Public Bill Committee. In brief, it proved conclusively that the proposed very limited 5% permitted variance in almost all constituencies, except of course for the five exempted ones, was not an essential requirement in the context of the Government’s anxiety to improve the equality of vote value that they repeatedly claim to be their objective in this legislation. My noble friend Lord Rennard will give further details of that analysis.

Meanwhile, there is common ground across your Lordships’ Committee that the insistence on the 5% variance straitjacket, imposed on the four Boundary Commissions, will result in the following problems: first, more changes with 650 constituencies than were proposed with the previously proposed 600 constituencies; secondly, more regular changes for more constituencies and more reviews; thirdly, more consequent knock-on changes even to adjoining constituencies that are themselves within the prescribed limits; fourthly, more disruption of historic and naturally cohesive communities; and, fifthly, more disconnection between MPs, councillors and the public, at more regular intervals, than is either necessary or desirable. It is disruption which is going to be the name of the game if we let the 5% stand.

We were told during the coalition that these latter reasons were basically those that motivated the then Conservative Leader of our House to recommend to the Prime Minister that the variance be 10%. I mentioned on Tuesday that some 20 of those who contributed to the Second Reading debate, from all parts of the House, expressed concern about the 5% limit at present in the Bill. We can, perhaps, take it as read that there is a strong argument for more flexibility. The question in this debate is how we should adjust the figure.

Our Amendment 16 recommends a normal 8% variance but permits each of the Boundary Commissions to explore the validity of 10% where exceptional circumstances demand it, in each of the nations of the UK. That would be very relevant to the concerns expressed about local problems to be addressed in the previous debate. This might include avoiding crossing major administrative boundaries—for example, in English counties and unitary authorities—or greater problems of rurality and limited transport links, or other special factors. Paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 2 to the 1986 Act makes detailed references to which we can refer and to which our amendment refers. My noble friend Lord Rennard will pay special attention to some of those.

I recall that in my then North Cornwall constituency, before boundaries were redrawn, to drive from one advice surgery at one end to the next one at the other end could take 90 minutes in winter but up to 150 minutes at the height of the summer holiday season. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, might note that that involved getting around an estuary. Let us compare that with some inner-city constituencies where a similar electorate can be conveniently served by a short cycle ride or even an energetic jogger.

As has been emphasised by all participants at all stages of the Bill, our prime concern should be for the effect on the individual residents, groups and communities in a distinct area rather than their political representatives or local political parties. That is why we prefer our formulation in Amendment 16 to those in Amendment 15 or Amendment 17. The former seems to us too restrictive and not to recognise the special local circumstances to which I have referred. Some areas will certainly require more variation than 7.5%. I think that is widely acknowledged across the Committee. The latter provides so much variation universally that it fails to accept the significance of a smaller number of potential constituencies with unusual requirements. However, the common cause we all recognise is that the unacceptable level and regularity of disruption, implicit in this current 5% straitjacket, must be avoided. Between now and Report we may be able to achieve a consensus on the optimum solution.

Finally, I suspect that the author of Amendment 19 has not had the advantage of educating himself by reference to the exhaustive independent academic analysis to which I referred earlier. The rest of us hope that the Minister will accept the strength of the case for greater flexibility that so many of your Lordships are advancing. I hope that he is listening.

[Lord Lipsey (Lab)]

My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord True, had only just entered the House, in 2010, when we did the 2011 Bill late into the night, night after night. I do not know how that relates to his extreme reluctance to draw any time limit to business tonight or determination to get to the Government’s target. We may well make it anyway, but it would be very disappointing if we were left short of time to have these important arguments. Indeed, it would only prolong Report in a way that none of us would really want to see.

I will focus, because I do not want to speak for any longer than I have to, on the central logic that underlies the Government’s proposal of 5% in this Bill, which, as the Minister said earlier—I thank him giving me the text—is that each vote must have the same value. The Government realise that they cannot achieve that just through boundary changes. The only way for each vote to have equal value would be to have PR on a national scale, and then each vote would have equal value indeed. I suspect that there is no majority even in this Committee that would favour that approach; most of us would like to see a preservation of the constituency-based system, for very good reasons. Therefore, we do not want to see complete equality of votes.

The more you look at this proposition of the equal vote, the less it stands up. First, the Bill does not pretend to provide equality of votes; within the 5% each way margin, it provides equalities of electorates, which are very different things, because turnouts are very different in different seats. The Government are not even potentially achieving the objective that they have set themselves of equality of votes. Equality of electorates is no doubt a useful surrogate, and you could imagine a system—I could design one, given a few months—in which the Boundary Commission was told to project the likely turnout in each seat, and do that within 5% each way. I do not think that that would prove a very comprehensible system, although it would certainly be a sensible and logical one if you really wanted to equalise votes. But the Government do not really want to equalise votes—they just say they do. They just want to equalise electorates, and there it can.

The second problem with this argument about equalising votes is that only some votes count. Only votes in marginal seats count; all the rest of the seats are in large piles. The occupants of safe seats build up huge majorities, and they make no difference whatever to the national result—nor, when people go and cast those votes, have they any reason to think that it is even remotely possible that their act of civic discipline will change the result of the general election one iota. This is not a sensible goal when most votes do not count under the system that the Government provide.

Thirdly, if you start to look at results and not just high theory, we actually have a gross inequality in votes. Each Conservative Member at the last general election had the support on average of 38,300 voters. For each Labour MP there were 50,800 votes. But to get a Liberal Democrat in required 336,000 votes nationwide, so there is a factor of 10 in the efficiency of vote use against the Liberal Democrats. Interestingly, with all this talk about Scottish and Welsh representation, it may be said that the present system greatly favours Plaid and the SNP. The SNP needed only 26,000 votes per seat, and Plaid only 36,000—less, even, than the Conservatives, so they were favoured by it. But it is a grossly unequal system. There may be good reasons for that, but it is not an equal system. It takes the wind out of the argument that this is somehow a Bill about inequality.

Let us get away from electoral theory and go into the practice of the matter. What you are trying to do with boundaries is to weigh up various important factors and reach some kind of balance. There is no religious solution or mathematical formula that does it for you; you are trying to get to a reasonable solution. Yes, reasonable equality of votes is one factor that should be taken into account. We do not want to go back to Old Sarum, with its two voters choosing a single Member. There has to be reasonable equality between the sizes, but there are many other extraordinarily important factors that have to be weighed.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Lord Lipsey Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 8th September 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

We have had some excellent contributions. I want to make a simple point: the ties of community should be given equal weight to arithmetic. To strengthen those ties, there should be a longer period between each distribution.

[Lord Lipsey (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I want to refute the calumny that I am participating in this debate only to go down in parliamentary history as one who was present at the first-ever hybrid Grand Committee of the House of Lords. It is not true. Indeed, it goes contrary to my strongest principles because, as a noble Lord said earlier, this Bill should be on the Floor of the House; it is constitutional, but it goes beyond its constitutionality.

We should consider the scale of the change in the Bill, the degree of disruption that it will cause if it is put into effect in full, the ruined lives down the other end of the Corridor—going from 600 to 650 helps, but it does not help as much as not having a 5% variant—the disruption it will cause and the loss of confidence among the population because they will not know who their Member will be next time round. This is really large-scale stuff—and that is without getting into the issue, which I do not intend to cover this afternoon, of whether this is in fact a gerrymander. No doubt we will have a chance to discuss that later in Committee and on Report. So I am not participating just to be in a hybrid Committee. I wish we were not in a hybrid Committee but on the Floor.

The second calumny is that I am intervening on this amendment only because the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and I are such comrades, if I may use that word in the House of Lords. We are great veterans of the 2011 attempt to persuade the Government of the points, or most of the points, that I have just made. That attempt narrowly failed, due to a piece of stubbornness on David Cameron’s point of view. It is a great pity that those measures went through—they had to be ditched anyway—but it gives us a chance to have a second, more sensible, go. Unfortunately, I do not think that the Government have succeeded in doing that.

As I say, my noble friend Lord Foulkes is a comrade. He knows that we disagree on electoral reform. The idea that electoral reform would necessarily destroy the relationship between MPs and their constituents is nonsense. It was shown to be nonsense by something that nobody round this table other than me will remember: the Jenkins report on the electoral system. I remember it quite well because I was on the commission. Those noble Lords who remember that will remember that it had most constituencies represented by a single Member, as now. There were some additional Members to deal with discrepancies in the amount of support that each party needed to elect somebody, but they were on a county basis; they were not asked to represent the whole country at large or any of the things that go with other proportional systems, so there is no necessary link between electoral reform and whether you go ahead with this sort of system. It should be debated on its own complicated merits. I suppose I had better come to the amendment about now.

At the moment we have the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, which implies that elections take place every five years. It makes sense to me that you should have a fixed gap between a boundary review and an election—they should come in that order. If you had 10 years under the present system, that is what would happen. It would come at the same distance before an election each time. Eight years tells you nothing. It means that sometimes you will have a boundary review immediately after a general election, so you will fight the next election on completely outdated boundaries. The time after that will be just before an election, so no would-be Member of Parliament will have time to get to know his electorate. It is a complete absurdity. It is so absurd that I can think of only one argument that the Minister could use to defend it, which would be to say, “We committed in our manifesto to get rid of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act”—and I recognise that that is the case.

However, do not be surprised if the Prime Minister and his party do not in the end show the enthusiasm that they have shown so far for the proposition that they go back to the old system where the Prime Minister calls the election every time. I should say, first of all, that the record of Prime Ministers calling elections when they have that discretion is bloody awful. I go back to Jim Callaghan, who I was then privileged to be an adviser to, funking autumn 1978 and going for 1979 and therefore making Mrs Thatcher possible. I understand why he made the decision, but I think he was wrong—and I think he thought he was wrong. More recently, Theresa May, befuddled by the opinion polls and having adopted a policy for social care that was bound to lead to at least a 10-point drop in the Tories’ reckoning, went for an election that was the end of her.

Even more recently, not the Prime Minister but the leader of the Labour Party, in the face of irrefutable evidence that his party would be massacred if it went to the country under his leadership, nevertheless decided that his party should vote for an early election, thus handing Boris Johnson the easiest victory in electoral history. My experience of politicians is that they do not much like choosing election dates anyway. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act, for all its defects, seems to be basically right, so if we keep that, we will keep five-year Parliaments and one review for each 10-year stretch.

That would also avoid unnecessary disruption. Every time constituencies change, as ex-Members of the Commons have told us so eloquently this afternoon, there is considerable disruption. There is a tremendous problem that may do for these plans in the end. It is perfectly true, and if Ministers were honest they would admit it, that on the whole this change is probably slightly biased in favour of the Conservative Party. But that is one thing. It is another thing when the Back-Benchers are going to see the Chief Whip every week and saying, “We can’t have an election, look at what’s been done to my constituency. We only held it last time because I had so many supporters in Borrowstown and now they’ve been moved off to that fat, useless Tory Member for Bugglestown.” That is why they did not do this last time. It was not a matter of principle or because they saw that they were wrong, or even because of what the Lib Dems might have done about it. It was because it was rightly causing bedlam on the Conservative Back Benches.

This may seem to those who advise the Prime Minister like a bumper wheeze for getting a few extra Conservative seats. I promise that, before the next election, they will be eating their words and the Prime Minister will be saying, “Who the hell got me into this? Haven’t we got anything better to do than deal with Back-Benchers who feel that they’re going to lose their seats and it’s our fault?” There is no worse accusation to be made against a Government than that they are knifing their own party in the back.

[Lord Lennie (Lab)]

My Lords, I have enjoyed the speeches so far in this debate. I come here as a former chair of the political parties parliamentary panel of the Electoral Commission. We had something to do with elections and it is our fault that MPs had those reviews and the consequences of them. It seemed to me that the most important thing to the MPs whom I and other parties dealt with at the same time were the lines on the map: “Where will my majority be most or least affected?” So the co-operation between parties was immense in many respects in drawing up the constituencies, because it was a question of trading these voters for those voters and so on, to protect each other’s majorities and therefore the relationship.