Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Lord Rennard Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, the Bill is about more than Hillsborough, but we would not be here today but for the unlawful killings at Hillsborough 37 years ago. It must be enacted without further unnecessary delay, but still with significant scrutiny to help make sure that it achieves its aims.

As I said in our Hillsborough debate last November, it is welcome that the legislation will apply beyond public bodies to private bodies and contractors delivering public functions, but I fear that this principle will be undermined if subcontractors are not also included; nor will it be as effective as it should be if we fail to strengthen the whistleblowing protections so that breaches of the duty of candour cannot be buried. This may require the creation of an independent office of the whistleblower and other measures to ensure statutory protection for those who exercise candour and expose wrongdoing, perhaps among colleagues.

I speak as someone from Liverpool who is mindful of how the deaths of the blameless victims and the lies about them affected my city. It took great courage and determination in the face of establishment cover-ups to finally get the truth to be accepted beyond Merseyside and to bring about this Bill, but it should never have required a change in the law to make police and public officials tell the truth. A change of culture is necessary as well as changes in the law.

My fear now is that the Bill’s promise of accountability may be weakened by fragmented codes and inconsistent enforcement. We will achieve much through establishing the duty of candour, the provision supporting participation in inquiries and investigations and the proposed offences. The Bill requires public authorities to promote ethical conduct, and it permits authority-level codes and disciplinary consequences for employees, but there are therefore risks of ineffectiveness if there are different codes with different wordings and different complaint routes. A citizen’s entitlement to honesty, accurate records, a prompt response and correction of errors should not depend upon which authority is involved, which professional regulator happens to have jurisdiction, or whether the people responsible remain in employment when the issues are finally examined.

The criminal provisions properly require criminal proof, but a criminal investigation cannot be the routine response to every serious ethical failure. There needs to be proper investigation of conduct that is too serious for a merely internal response, but which would not properly be addressed by criminal prosecution. That is why the proposal made by Andrew Devine’s family deserves close attention. Andrew survived for more than 32 years with the catastrophic injuries he suffered at Hillsborough, and he was ultimately recognised as the 97th person unlawfully killed. His family’s experiences extended across decades of interaction with public bodies, healthcare regulators and the legal system. The family have therefore asked for there to be one enforceable code of conduct for all public officials, with significant sanctions, including financial penalties, for non-compliance.

The Bill could include a core statutory code so that no public body should be able to fall below a common minimum standard. The core duties should include honesty, candour, proper record keeping, timely disclosure, correction of known error, co-operation with lawful scrutiny, reasons for material decisions and fair treatment of affected people.

An effective system also requires independent enforcement. An authority implicated in institutional failure should not always remain the sole investigator and judge of its own compliance. A proportionate commission, accountable to Parliament, could triage complaints and refer suitable cases to existing regulators or employers. It could independently determine serious, repeated or systematic breaches. Its purpose would not be to punish every mistake: advice, correction, apology, training or warning may be sufficient in many cases. Public censure, a financial penalty or time-limited disqualification should be reserved for serious or persistent misconduct and imposed only through fair procedure.

Accountability should not disappear merely because a person resigns, retires or transfers before a matter is concluded. We should therefore ensure that the Bill creates not simply a series of codes but one intelligible baseline, with credible consequences for breaching it, and a fair, independent system capable of changing conduct before more families of victims have to spend decades fighting to establish the truth.

King’s Speech

Lord Rennard Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rennard (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am mindful of the irony of raising issues of democracy in what is now an entirely appointed Chamber. My expectation when I entered the House in 1999 was that there would soon be elections to this place, and I never thought that it would take 29 years just to complete the removal of the right to sit here of hereditary Peers.

That modest step has taken place only 115 years since it was promised in the preamble to the Parliament Act 1911. That legislation from Asquith’s Liberal Government made reforms to the powers of the House pending it becoming a body

“constituted on a popular instead of a hereditary basis”.

Democracy is not perfect. In 1947, Churchill said that

“democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/11/1947; col. 207.]

So I believe that letting people use ballot papers to choose at least most of us who sit in this place, as opposed to relying on the personal whims of Prime Ministers and party leaders, would strengthen our effectiveness. It would avoid the accusations of cronyism that sully the reputation of the House, reduce the number of scandals concerning party finances, and prevent the prospect of peerages being bestowed, or blocked, as a means of persuading potential appointees to toe a particular line, switch party support, or open a chequebook. Too many appointments have been made here to make people Ministers, who then shortly afterwards give up on that job, or of people who want the title but not the responsibility, and who also rapidly disappear.

It took 27 years to end the temporary gentlemen’s agreement allowing for the holding of by-elections to replace departing hereditary Peers because of determined filibusters by a handful of Members. It was clear that the will of the House on that issue was unfairly blocked. So it was with the assisted dying Bill, where it was made impossible to return the Bill to the Commons for it to be considered further. I am strongly opposed to introducing timetables in this place for government legislation, but I think the time has come for us to be able to agree timetables for Private Members’ Bills.

We also need in this Session to strengthen legislation to safeguard core democratic principles. The latest Representation of the People Bill fails to do that because it does not provide for a cap on the size of donations to a political party except for those from overseas. Extremely wealthy donors can potentially buy a political party, purchase a party leader, and change the outcome of a general election with, for example, the reported £1 million payments to two party leaders to make them agree on an electoral pact.

We need to put a cap on the size of any one donation in any one year. I suggest that the precise limit should be proposed by the Electoral Commission. Donations such as Frank Hester’s to the Conservative Party of £20 million in the previous Parliament, and those of Christopher Harborne, perhaps of up to £30 million, to the various iterations of the Reform Party and its leader, must be banned if our democracy is not for sale.

Hillsborough Law

Lord Rennard Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, in a television documentary about Kenny Dalglish, the man known in my home city as King Kenny reveals how he was contacted by Mr Kelvin MacKenzie, the former editor of the Sun, who was seeking advice on how to end the widespread boycott of his product in Liverpool. He was told firmly that he needed to print a new front page that simply read, “We lied”. Four days after the disaster, the Sun’s front page had been headlined “The Truth”, but it published false and deeply damaging claims and made vile accusations against the victims. It took many decades for the truth to be revealed.

For that, we must thank those who overcame the barriers created by officialdom, as outlined by my former candidate in Liverpool, and my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. We must thank the heroic campaigners and families whose unwavering strength and courage eventually dragged this necessary legislation before Parliament. Their fight to expose institutional defensiveness, lies and deceit over three decades demands our utmost respect.

The Bill seeks to correct a monstrous injustice done to the 97 who died and to avoid similar injustices involving institutional cover-ups. It has taken the 36 years since Hillsborough for us to set about establishing a statutory duty of candour to provide for transparency and frankness on the part of public officials and authorities, with consequential criminal penalties for wilful deception. Calls for such measures were resisted by almost everyone in authority until the 20th anniversary memorial of the disaster took place at Anfield. The speech given by the then Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport was loudly interrupted by booing and cheering, and chants of “Justice for the 96”. That was the number of fans who had died, to be followed later by Andy Devine, who was in a coma from his injuries before he died 32 years after he was crushed. A previously reluctant Government were then persuaded to look again at Hillsborough by setting up the independent panel.

With the legislation that is now proposed, we must also change the culture which allowed the cover-ups, falsehoods and denial of justice over the decades. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, repeated, the warning from Bishop James Jones about the danger posed by the “patronising disposition of unaccountable power”, and this extends well beyond those involved in the Hillsborough deceit. To dismantle that power and ensure the Bill is effective, I believe we need to focus on three critical areas that demand strengthening as the legislation proceeds through Parliament.

First, we must achieve a genuine equality of arms in our justice system. This means correcting the grotesque inequality of families having to scrape together every last penny they can for representation to face what has been described in this debate as an army of well-funded state lawyers.

Secondly, we must ensure robust accountability with no hiding places. It is welcome that the Bill’s intention is to apply the duty of candour to private bodies and contractors delivering public functions, but we must ensure this measure is not weakened and includes all subcontractors. While the Bill includes complex provisions for the security and intelligence services, the principle must remain absolute: the duty to tell the truth must apply to everyone, without carve-outs that risk becoming new cover-ups. We must also ensure that accountability goes right to the top, resting personally with chief officers and executives—not merely the corporate body—to act as a true deterrent against the culture of defensiveness.

Thirdly, effectiveness depends on embedding mechanisms for disclosure and learning. As the noble Lord, Lord Wills, argued persuasively, we need to strengthen whistleblowing protections to help the facts come to light. We need that independent office of the whistleblower to ensure statutory protection for those who exercise candour. These measures would provide critical front-line defences against institutional misconduct.

Finally, the integrity of the Bill requires an accompanying commitment to a national oversight mechanism. Without a body responsible for monitoring and ensuring that recommendations from inquests and inquiries are acted upon, we face the problems described by the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, that hard-won lessons risk being left on a shelf, gathering dust, compounding the original injustices.

Our goal must be to pass a strong law, unwatered down, which guarantees genuine transparency and accountability.

“Hillsborough Law”

Lord Rennard Excerpts

Thursday 24th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not think that this Bill, which has not been published yet, will address that issue. However, I take the point that my noble friend makes. Really, he is raising a far wider concern and if there is anything more that I can say to him, I will write to him, but I think his question goes far wider that the Question itself.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, hundreds of millions of pounds are being spent on public inquiries following deceitful conduct by police officers at Hillsborough and Orgreave and in the spy cops inquiry. Would we not save a lot of money, and help to restore confidence in the police, if officers felt that they might lose some of their pension if they failed to observe a duty of candour and, for example, doctored evidence again?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I take the point that the noble Lord makes, and we will see what the recommendations are. As I have said in answer to earlier questions, it is foreseen that, under the duty of candour, the professionals involved could be subject to criminal and professional consequences with the full might of the law.

“Hillsborough Law”

Lord Rennard Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister is painfully aware that he made a promise and yet that date has slipped. Regarding the specific points made by the noble Lord, the Government have undertaken to look at this very closely and come up with legislation. I also am personally affected by this matter—a friend of my brother died in the disaster—and everyone I know who is involved in this is very seized of the matter and wants to get the answer right as quickly as possible.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, after the lies of the police at Hillsborough, embellished by the infamous front page of the Sun, why would the Government not insist on an enforceable duty of candour? Would that not reduce the costs of many millions of pounds in other inquiries concerning the police where the culture of secrecy and cover-up still persists?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

The Government have said that they want to introduce a duty of candour, with criminal consequences for those who do not live up to that standard. But it is part of a greater whole, which is the reason why the legislation has not come forward as we would have liked and why we are undertaking further talks with the parties I have mentioned.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Rennard Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, the election results on 7 May 2015 felt for many of us like those of 1 May 1997 in reverse. However, what is consistent in our general elections is the lack of consistency between the votes cast and the number of MPs elected. This is not about unfairness to parties but about unfairness to voters, many of whom simply have not had their views properly represented as a result of the election.

Three weeks ago, the Conservative Party won just under 37% of the vote but 51% of the seats. The Labour Party won 30% of the vote and 36% of the seats and my party was reduced to 8% of the vote and only 1.2% of the seats. The lack of fairness and real democratic representation resulting from the recent election can perhaps best be seen in terms of the number of votes required to elect an MP from each party. On 7 May, it took 34,244 voters to elect a Conservative MP, 40,290 voters to elect a Labour MP, but 301,986 voters to elect each Lib Dem MP. The distortions from how people voted were even greater for other parties. It took 1,157,613 voters to elect a single Green MP and 3,881,129 voters to elect a UKIP MP. In contrast, it took only 25,972 voters to elect an SNP MP.

We heard much from the Conservatives in the election campaign about the threat of what they called the “undue influence” of the SNP but that influence now comes about because the electoral system rewarded a party that obtained 50% of the vote in Scotland with 95% of the seats in Scotland. This point was acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, who is not in his place but who noted the problem without pointing to the obvious solution. The distortions produced by first past the post in Scotland will again, in my view, put in jeopardy the future of the United Kingdom.

[Lord McAvoy (Lab)]

Would the noble Lord care to remind us of the result of the referendum on the AV proportional system?

[Lord Rennard]

My Lords, one of the big problems was that noble Lords such as the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, clearly did not understand that AV was not a proportional representation system at all; it was far from proportional representation. If politicians in other parties had had the courage to let voters choose between proportional representation and first past the post, there might well have been a very different outcome. Certainly, it was an option in the Labour Party’s 1997 manifesto, when Tony Blair secured a majority of 179 on the basis of that manifesto having a referendum on proportional representation. That should have happened.

This Government should now realise that achieving a majority in the Commons based on the support of less than 37% of the voters does not give them the right to rule as though the views of the 63% who did not support them are unimportant. We heard earlier from the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, in an excellent maiden speech, about what he called fairness for England, but we heard nothing about fairness for voters. We also heard much from the Conservatives in the last Parliament about what they called “fair constituency boundaries”. The consequence of the successful amendment to the then Electoral Registration and Administration Bill which I tabled in the autumn of 2012, together with the noble Lords, Lord Hart of Chilton, Lord Wigley and Lord Kerr, was to prevent new boundaries that would have given an even greater unfair advantage to the Conservative Party coming into force in the recent election.

However, I doubt that many of the newly elected MPs realise that the legislation passed in 2011 means that they may never be able to fight those same constituencies again. Unless there is another Bill to prevent it, the size of the Commons will be reduced from 650 to 600 in time for the next election. The coming boundary review will be very disruptive because of the very narrow margin of only 5% allowed for any variation in the number of electors from the average set as a target. Some MPs may also be shocked to learn that these reviews will also take place every five years under the existing legislation, so that MPs might never fight the same constituency with the same boundaries on two occasions. Nor will those MPs know the boundaries of the constituencies that they may want to fight until well into the second half of each Parliament. The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in the other place did an excellent job of showing how the boundary reviews could proceed on a much more sensible basis. The new Government’s response has been to abolish the committee.

In some of the first debates in which I participated in this place, I led for the Liberal Democrats on the then Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill in 2000. I warned then about the escalating arms race in party spending. On 3 April 2000, I said:

“In each of the 1974 elections the Conservative Party was calculated to have spent less than £100,000 on its national campaigns. By 1979, with the services for the first time of the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, in charge of advertising, the Conservative Party is estimated to have spent £2 million … By 1983 the sum was £4 million; by 1987 it was £9 million; by 1992 it was £11 million; and by 1997 it was a staggering £28 million”.—[Official Report, 3/4/00; col. 1160.]

The failure of the last Labour Government to heed those warnings about party funding has now resulted in a far greater problem in which our democracy may quite possibly be considered to be “for sale”. The legislation that we approved in 2000 has clearly failed to control the arms race in party funding. In the year before the 2005 general election, the reported donations to the main parties amounted to £44 million. By 2010, the figure was £72 million, and this year it was over £100 million. That is a doubling in 10 years.

The proposal in the gracious Speech to limit trade union members making contributions without their express consent is long overdue. However, it must be part of a package that introduces a sensible cap on all donations, and allows all political parties to campaign without being in hock to the interests of the richest donors. Without that comprehensive package, British democracy may actually be sold off. We have an electoral system that is very far from one based on “fair votes”, and a party funding system which means that campaigns simply cannot be called a fair fight.

It is a cruel irony that the result of the most recent election is that those who have not been properly represented in the Commons will have to have their democratic voice heard here, in a Chamber without democratic mandate. In this House we have a duty to moderate the absolute power that this Government may try to exercise, and to ensure that constitutional legislation in the coming years has the interests of the voters—not any one political party—at its heart.

Elections: Registration

Lord Rennard Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

I would be extremely concerned if that was the outcome. Let us remember that the party opposite, when it was in government, started to raise the issue of individual registration—and even passed legislation—because, for the first time certainly in my lifetime, the integrity of the voting system was starting to be called into question. That is the origin of the exercise that we are undertaking, on which I hope we will have all-party support.

[Lord Rennard]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that it really is necessary to carry out a thorough, door-to-door, face-to-face canvass in order to ensure both the accuracy and the completeness of the electoral register? Does he accept that failure to do so not only threatens the integrity of the democratic process but could also cause problems for people trying to obtain credit? Credit agencies check that people are on the electoral register to ensure that they can have credit, and failure to maintain the register in this way could mean that people are denied credit and businesses are unable to supply goods and services. That would be damaging to the economy and to social mobility.

[Lord McNally]

That is an interesting point. If I may return to the central point of the question, yes, doorstep canvassing plays a vital role in ensuring that registers are complete and accurate. That is why in both 2014 and 2015 door-to-door canvassers will be used by electoral registration officers to ask people to register to vote.

Electoral System: Alternative Vote Referendum

Lord Rennard Excerpts

Wednesday 11th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

My goodness. What is that saying—in victory magnanimity? The decision to engage that company was the decision of Glasgow council. The chief counting officer, Jenny Watson, said:

“We have put in place detailed and comprehensive arrangements for monitoring the performance of Counting Officers and their suppliers, and I have no reason to believe that there is any risk to the integrity of the administration of the postal voting process”.

[Lord Rennard]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that issues such as the supply of envelopes for postal vote mailings should be made on an entirely commercial basis, based on value for money and reliability of service, and that if there were ever any issues of either impropriety in the ballot or failure to deliver, it would be a matter for the Electoral Commission to report which, as he said, will happen shortly?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I can well understand the reason for this Question. It was probably to do with the inquest that went on in the Glasgow Labour Party about the reason that Glasgow Kelvin voted so overwhelmingly yes. As we know, what Kelvin does today, the world does tomorrow. My noble friend’s point is absolutely right.

Elections: Armed Forces

Lord Rennard Excerpts

Monday 4th April 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, we continue to build on the work initiated by the noble Lord. However, as he recognised, there are no simple solutions to the difficulty of servicemen voting in remote areas in battlefield conditions, et cetera, which is why we continue to advise servicemen to use proxy votes where possible as the most efficient way of being able to vote.

[Lord Rennard]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that what we really need is a slightly longer timetable for conducting our elections in this country, one that would allow a slightly greater time for people to register to vote, to apply for a postal vote and for postal votes to be dispatched and received? That would significantly benefit members of our Armed Forces serving overseas and enable them to participate to a greater degree in our elections.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, there is a lot of common sense in what my noble friend says. My honourable friend Mark Harper is considering these issues and the Government will put forward proposals when he has reached conclusions with colleagues. However, as I say, I think there is a lot of sense in allowing more time for elections to be processed.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Rennard Excerpts

Wednesday 9th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

I should like to make it clear to the House that I speak as an individual and support what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said: that the Cross-Benchers are never to be seen as a group. We all vote according to our individual consciences, as we see our position in this place. I live in an area that has had three changes of constituency in the past three elections, and I have not had the slightest problem with that. I also recognise the importance of all these changes being done by the next election in 2015. Consequently, I totally support the Government’s approach that there should be a leeway of 5 per cent each way. However, I support the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I played no part whatever in drafting the amendment, and indeed had not read it until I came into the Chamber this afternoon. If one reads the amendment with care and listens with care to what the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Williamson of Horton, have said about it, it is perfectly obvious that it would give the Boundary Commission leeway in an exceptional, small group of cases. It is not intended to disrupt or change the standard situation, which is the proper way in which to readjust constituencies that are out of kilter.

As someone who has been a judge, I would say that it would be most extraordinary if there was a judicial review of any of these cases. If there was one, it would be very unlikely that the result of that one would encourage further judicial reviews.

[Lord Rennard]

My Lords, I wish to address individual consciences on this matter. I do so having reflected on yesterday’s debate about public inquiries and the role of lawyers and legal challenges in the Boundary Commission process, and having noted that that debate was almost entirely dominated by those from the legal profession. I speak as someone who is very much not a lawyer and who cannot possibly say that he is in any way above the political fray between parties about elections, campaigns and constituencies. However, I am someone who, over more than 30 years, has had extensive experience of fighting and organising elections in many dozens of different constituencies in every part of Great Britain, in general elections and in parliamentary by-elections, as well as extensive involvement in the Boundary Commission processes that have gone into drawing up those constituencies in the past.

I very much appreciate the very sincere efforts of the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Williamson, and other noble Lords, to try to see whether some reasonable consensus or agreement might be reached and to try sincerely to improve aspects of the Bill in reasonable time, so that the Bill is agreed on the timetable that the Government want. However, there is a fundamental problem with the definition that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and his noble friends have drawn up. There is simply no reasonably agreed and commonly accepted definition of the key phrase “a viable constituency”. There is no agreed definition, and to try to agree on it would be a subject of great controversy. Without a definition of a viable constituency, we are simply inviting four different Boundary Commissions to devise their own definitions of the phrase, which I believe would be very controversial. Nor was it clear to me—or I think to anyone else, although I am not a lawyer—what the meaning of the phrase “exceptionally compelling nature” might be. The Boundary Commissions would have a lot of argument about what considerations of an exceptionally compelling nature are.

I can easily see large numbers of lawyers in many courts arguing for a very long time over definitions of a viable constituency and over exceptions, such as geographic ties and local considerations, which in themselves are very vaguely defined, that might be considered to be of an exceptionally compelling nature. Such phraseology will, I am in no doubt, lead to many legal challenges to the Boundary Commission’s processes, which should be determined by independent boundary commissioners using the criteria given to them by Parliament. They should not be determined by lawyers in the courts arguing over these definitions. Too many problems in the past have been caused by legal arguments. A noble friend of mine, when a Member in the other place, came to me for advice on how to handle Boundary Commission processes. I gave him the best of my advice—and, of course, it was free of charge. By the time he had consulted learned counsel on how to make his representations to the Boundary Commission, a bill in excess of £10,000 had been incurred. If we pass an amendment such as this, we will have to go on by defining viable constituencies and exceptional circumstances, and there will be many legal challenges. These issues will be determined by who has access to the funds for which party, which MP, which candidate and in which constituency. That will be a wholly unsatisfactory process.

The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said that he was creating a narrow definition in this amendment. With great respect to the noble Lord, it is absolutely not a narrow definition to try to say what a viable constituency is or what wholly exceptional circumstances are. They are two very widely defined concepts. He also said that he was trying to reassure Ministers who are concerned that the exception might become more general. This amendment will fail, because the exceptions will become very general.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Butler of Brockwell]

My Lords, this amendment allows the Boundary Commission, in very exceptional circumstances, to exercise its discretion within a range of 15 per cent rather than 10 per cent. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, made the point that this would give people who wished for one reason or another to delay the operation of the reforms greater scope to introduce litigation. Of course, even within the 10 per cent provided in the Bill, the Boundary Commission is exercising discretion. It is not clear to me why, in these very exceptional circumstances, there would be more scope for challenging under the 15 per cent variation than under the 10 per cent. If people, for reasons of their own, wish to obstruct this process, is there not exactly the same power to do that under the 10 per cent provision? The advantage of having 15 per cent is that without giving much greater scope—or, indeed, any greater scope—for challenge, the Boundary Commission can reach reasonable recommendations in cases where it is necessary.

[Lord Rennard]

My Lords, my point about the prospects for potential legal challenges is not relevant to the 5 per cent or 10 per cent consideration. It is purely about the existing Boundary Commission criteria as in the five previous general reviews undertaken by the Boundary Commissions.

[Lord Glentoran]

My Lords, I think noble Lords are allowed to speak only once on Report.

[Lord Rennard]

I understood that an intervention on a matter of clarification was allowed. My point is that the criteria of the Boundary Commissions are clearly established and therefore not likely to be subject to future legal challenge. Interestingly, the amendment contains wholly new criteria regarding viable constituencies and considerations of a wholly exceptional nature.

[The Countess of Mar]

The Companion says that noble Lords may make a brief intervention in order to clear up a point. The noble Lord is making a speech.

[Lord Rennard]

My Lords, I think I was briefly clearing up the issue, which I have done.