Future of Seaside Towns

Lord Shutt of Greetland Excerpts

Monday 1st July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shutt of Greetland (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of this committee and pay tribute to its chairman, the other members and the clerks and advisers who have assisted us. It has been a united group and this is no minority report. There is also unity in debate today. I want to be the ninth person to mention Blackpool this evening but I have, as a declaration of interest, to let your Lordships know that I am a director of the Cober Hill guest house in Cloughton, Scarborough—this is just to balance the other side of the Pennines, along with the other two Yorkshire speakers.

The report was published on 4 April and happily, for once, we got a government response before the end of June. It is also interesting that we have another response, in that the industrial strategy’s tourism sector deal has been published. As part of what I say, I shall pull from that as well as from the government response.

We had the tremendous good fortune to make our various visits, and to see success and sadness. This report is evidence-based, and issues of concern were tourism, the public realm, the wider economy beyond tourism, ports, transport, the digital economy, education in schools, further and higher education, housing, health, coastal erosion and flooding, and the end of the line, not just for the railway—if it exists—but for other factors.

I will endeavour to summarise what other noble Lords have said a little. We had a splendid introduction by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. The noble Lord, Lord Smith, had the idea of seaside zones. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, built on the introduction and referred to coastal erosion. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, as a Peer was concerned about piers, as well as education. The noble Lord, Lord Best, gave a detailed account of why our recommendations on housing should be supported. The noble Lord, Lord Knight, talked of his family story, quality of life and education. The noble Lord, Lord Beith, referred to the coast in his former constituency of Berwick-upon-Tweed, and the whole business of local government and its expenditure. The noble Baroness, Lady Wyld, spoke about Blackpool and Fleetwood, the doctor we met in Fleetwood who was doing such good work, and empowerment and education.

The noble Lord, Lord Pendry, spoke of his time in east Kent. Interestingly, he mentioned the idea of a Cabinet post for tourism. Tourism and the seaside are clearly linked, so it makes one wonder. So much of what has been said today has been about coastal towns and the seaside specifically, yet the Government response has been, “It’s just another part of everything else we do”. The noble Lord, Lord Mawson, spoke about nous—I am rather in favour of that—and getting away from the Westminster bubble.

The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, now a Deputy Speaker, spoke from his other place about railways and commended the part that I, happily, put into the report. I was particularly interested in his story about the Whitby lines. I can also say that the former Liberal candidate for Scarborough and Whitby, Richard Rowntree, who fought the seat twice in the 1960s, was firm in his support for those railways. That we now have one of the most successful heritage railways, the North Yorkshire Moors Railway, is down to what Richard Rowntree got up to after standing down as Liberal candidate for Scarborough and Whitby.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, also spoke about Whitby and his involvement there, the role of NGOs and, again, concern about local government and a place-based approach. The noble Lord, Lord Lennie, told us about Big Local and referred to Whitley Bay. I recall going on a school trip to Whitley Bay as a teenager, so it is interesting to learn what is happening there now. I remember sailing down the Tyne, and then getting on a double-decker bus to Whitley Bay, where we had fish and chips. The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, spoke of the strong challenge we set, referred to her work in Newhaven, and ports and transport, including the humble bus. The noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, spoke about short-termism and referred a lot to her work in Blackpool. She gave a vivid reflection of what she had seen in Blackpool and heard about in a building there, HMO deprivation and the Government taking life slowly with the court premises that may be moved in the centre of Blackpool.

The government response, regrettably, is selective. Rather than saying that they agree or do not agree with these proposals, it is more a musing on what our report said. The response does not say that the Government highly agree with this and disagree with that. There is no real clarity. There is one point of clarity, which has been referred to a couple of times. The committee referred to the cross-Whitehall official-level meeting, which the Government said they agree with, but that is no wonder given that this was a full toss given to us by the government Minister, who had gleaned that this cross-departmental working was closed down four years ago. No wonder the Government now come back saying that they will reinstate it. How splendid, after a four-year gap, that the different sections of government are now willing to talk to one another. That is progress.

Almost concurrent with the government response, we have seen the tourism sector deal published. It consists of more musing, including several items suggesting that the private sector is busy at work in the council towns. One item worth mentioning is that a bedroom count has been made showing that 130,000 extra bedrooms are now planned to be built in the next five years, 75% of them outside London. This is expected to provide for a 23% increase in visitors by 2025. This is very useful information.

I said that the government response was selective. Recommendation 54, on page 25 of the report, says:

“It is vital for the future prosperity of smaller seaside resorts that they have the opportunity to benefit from national tourism campaigns, and from nationally provided research and support, to help to develop their tourism products”.


There is no response to that.

Our committee got a pretty poor response from our witnesses representing VisitBritain, and no wonder we got no response from the Government. Happily, we can now look at some of the other figures from the tourism sector deal report. Page 47 of the report says that 35% of Brits—that is how we are all described—holiday at an English seaside destination, according to 2017 figures. That is 35% of the population, not 35% of holidaymakers. However, only 10% of overseas or inbound visitors reach the coast, yet a third of inbound visitors include a visit to a park. What is VisitBritain doing to increase the dismal 10% of overseas visitors who visit the seaside? Can it be persuaded to tell overseas visitors that there is more to the UK than London and Stratford? The hoteliers, whom we have heard about, need some tourism signposting to fill the 75% of the beds that will now be built outside London.

I regard the Government’s response to our report as complacent. The committee report suggests action on several fronts, yet the response is musing. As for the tourism sector deal, there is little new. Tourism deals get a mention. There is a competition, but no word of the prizes, which are to be awarded in March 2020. Mark this however: competitors for the tourism deal are advised that any bid should,

“not require substantial transport infrastructure investment to facilitate”.

Yet we highlighted transport infrastructure as a significant concern in both our evidence-taking and our report.

I have one final thought, particularly now that the Benches opposite have filled up a little. Another competition is going on as we speak: that between Hunt and Johnson. Bearing in mind the promises made by the pair of them daily of extra government resources, should not some noble Lords opposite invite them to the seaside towns or perhaps give Mrs May a late prime ministerial walk on the pier before the farewell expenditure programme is laid?

Stormont House Agreement

Lord Shutt of Greetland Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson]

Perhaps I may first make clear to noble Lords that the additional funding is not £2 billion a year. It is £2 billion over a number of years in excess of five years. It is not £2 billion of additional money; it is £650 million of additional money over that period. The money beyond that is spending power associated with additional flexibilities granted for the Executive’s budget. The noble Lord asked about the efficiency of the public sector. The reforms that have taken place within the Civil Service and in the public sector generally in the rest of England, Scotland and Wales have not taken place to the same extent in Northern Ireland. Therefore, it is suffering from severe financial pressures. Those reforms need to take place. It is a condition of the additional funding that the Northern Ireland Executive embark on those reforms and we expect them to do that imminently.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Kilclooney (CB)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

There is time. I suggest we hear from the Liberal Democrat Benches and then the Cross Benches before we come back to the Labour Benches.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

I welcome the Statement. I trust we are moving forward and that deadline diplomacy has worked. As ever, it is sad that we have to consider so much about the past. In the 75 paragraphs in the Stormont House agreement, 40 refer to flags, parades and the past. I note that the agreement establishes six new bodies; namely, a commission on flags et cetera, an oral history archive, a mental trauma service, a historical investigations unit, an independent commission on information retrieval, and an implementation and reconciliation group. It would be splendid if these bodies took matters forward, but of course they do not come for free. The document suggests that £150 million will be available over five years to help with these new bodies. What will the total cost of the new bodies be?

In particular, I welcome paragraph 69 under the heading “Outstanding Commitments”, which makes it seem just an afterthought. It talks about,

“initiatives to facilitate and encourage shared and integrated education and housing”,

and matters such as social inclusion. If we are really to see integrated services in Northern Ireland, what cost savings does the Minister believe there will be? It will be interesting to note, on looking further into the past, the contrast between the costs that we may well have to expend and what can be achieved in the future if we are to see some real integration.

[Baroness Randerson]

The noble Lord refers to the issues related to the past. As was made clear in the Statement, issues associated with the past in Northern Ireland are really the biggest factor that has eluded previous agreements. If this set of bodies proposed here are established and are able to work effectively, clearly considerable progress will have been made. Noble Lords will have noted that there are measures built into this to monitor progress; significant effort is being made to make sure that progress is monitored on a regular basis.

The overall cost of establishing those bodies is not of course precisely known. The £150 million in the agreement is the UK Government’s contribution to that cost but, since those bodies touch upon devolved issues, it is entirely reasonable and totally expected that the Northern Ireland Executive will contribute to their cost. Present arrangements are not necessarily working very well and cost money—so this is not entirely new money.

The noble Lord referred to the costs of division. He knows from his considerable experience that various estimates of the costs of the divided society in Northern Ireland have been made. They are variable, but they all show significant cost to that society every year.

Northern Ireland: On-the-runs

Lord Shutt of Greetland Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shutt of Greetland (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness has given two sets of Answers to Written Questions recently and made clear that the inquiry to be conducted by Lady Justice Hallett has no power of compulsion. Why is that? Why is Lady Justice Hallett constrained and not holding an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005?

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, it is an administrative review and will not be conducted according to the 2005 Act. This Government have always been clear that we have reservations about the use of public inquiries to deal with the past. There is an issue about the length of time that many of them take and there is in this case a clear public interest in early publication of the report.

Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

Lord Shutt of Greetland Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2014 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

4(rev): Before Clause 21, insert the following new Clause—
“Civic forum
(1) The Northern Ireland Act 1998 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 55 insert—
“55A Civic forum: establishment
The First Minister and Deputy First Minister shall consult with the civil and voluntary sector within Northern Ireland in order to bring forward proposals to the Northern Ireland Assembly to give effect to a working and effective Civic forum.”(3) In section 56 (civic forum), after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) A motion for approval under subsection (2) shall be made no later than 1 April 2015.””

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, I see that this amendment has been reprinted on another sheet of paper and described as Amendment 4(rev). I have looked at the amendment on the main document and I see that “Civil” has become “Civic” I am rather in favour of a civic forum being civil as well. However, I turn to the substance.

The business of having a civic forum was set out in paragraph 34 of strand 1 of the Belfast agreement. Earlier today we heard the Minister say that the principles of the Belfast agreement are fundamental. The Civic Forum was then enshrined in Section 56 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The problem is that, in terms of that Act, it is almost an aspiration, or something that may happen between now and infinity.

A Civic Forum was established in October 2000 but it was suspended, alongside the Northern Ireland Assembly, in 2002. That is now 12 years ago and the Civic Forum is still not functioning. We must realise why it was put there in the first place. When the Belfast agreement came to pass, there were tremendous numbers of people in civic and civil society in Northern Ireland egging on that there was an agreement and they wanted to be part of it. There is a sense that we are all in this together, but there are those who cannot bring themselves to be part of political parties. We know what has happened throughout our kingdom with membership of political parties. There are plenty of people who are interested in the political process and civicness but cannot bring themselves to be associated with political parties. An opportunity arises, under the Belfast agreement, for such people and those in non-governmental bodies, quangos and everything else to be involved in this forum. It will bring people together. We hear about there being a “shared future”—a splendid phrase—in Northern Ireland. The establishment of the Civic Forum will hold the political parties to making certain it is a shared future and not a shared-out future.

In 2013 the Northern Ireland Assembly passed two resolutions that the Civic Forum should be reconstituted. The amendment in my name is gentle but firm. It is gentle because it suggests there is time—up to 12 months—to re-form the Civic Forum and that there is further consultation. This is not putting it into legislation with a heavy hand. I hope we can, by legislation, make certain that the Civic Forum happens and is effective and that the principles of the Belfast agreement are fundamental. I beg to move.

[Lord Alderdice]

My Lords, I commend my noble friend Lord Shutt of Greetland and support his amendment. We have been discussing a number of amendments which go way beyond what was agreed by the Northern Ireland parties and the two Governments in the Good Friday agreement. There is some space for debate and discussion on those issues, but at least one of the parties which supported the agreement had the mantra that it has to be in the agreement; the Belfast agreement has to be fully implemented. Here, in one hugely significant element, the Belfast agreement is not being implemented.

One might ask why, if there was sufficient enthusiasm to get it into the agreement, it fell into disarray so quickly. One could look at the forum itself and whether it performed to its maximum; one could, perhaps, say the same thing about the Assembly. However, there was a dynamic there which may not be familiar to the House. During the long period of direct rule, the Government here at Westminster—the Secretary of State and members of the Northern Ireland Office—wanted to find some way to relate with the Northern Ireland community. There was great difficulty in relating with elected representatives who were, in any case, elected either to the other place or to local authorities because there was not an Assembly. It was very common to invite people from NGOs and civil society generally to drinks at Stormont and Hillsborough, and to discuss with people who were running sometimes very commendable NGOs what would be a good way of spending money locally, how things should be organised and who might be appointed to bodies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, I thank the three noble Lords who have spoken, and the Minister. I understand that it is always possible to put up an argument against something. Costs have been raised. There are plenty of costs in Northern Ireland that I could have a go at before getting at the costs of a body such as the Civic Forum. The reduction in numbers of those who are going to be involved in local government is another reason why setting up the forum would be right.

[Lord Lexden]

Am I right in my understanding that members of the Civic Forum were unpaid and, if that was the case, that its re-creation would add little, if anything, to public spending?

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

I believe it was the case that they were unpaid. There was, obviously, a bureaucracy and there is no doubt that that was the cost of the Civic Forum. My noble friend is right to make that important point. If they were unpaid, I often wonder whether there was any point trying to get a group of people together at 10 am on a Wednesday if all those people were in work. They would be far better meeting at 10 am on a Saturday. I do not know what the position would have been on that but, if you have a body such as this, it is important that it should meet when it is convenient for such people to meet.

The Minister agreed that it is important that this has been aired; I am delighted that it has been. However, it beggars belief that a report produced in 2007 has not seen the light of day in 2014. The years from 1939 to 1945 are fewer than that but think of all that happened in that period. I cannot understand how it can be the case that no one said, “We have managed to put this report through the duplicator and get the reports done, so that they can be distributed to people who are interested”. However, there is more to do and, for the moment, I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 4 withdrawn.

Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

Lord Shutt of Greetland Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shutt of Greetland (LD)]

My Lords, I have to follow that slot. I thank my noble friend Lady Randerson for explaining the Bill to us. For me, the starting point in considering the Bill is, indeed, the Belfast agreement of 1998, which was of course endorsed by 69% of those who voted in that May 1998 referendum. It is perhaps right that we are considering this 15 years on. We are looking at the revision of two Acts of Parliament —the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the much earlier Act, the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975.

I support much of the miscellany that is before us in connection with the transparency of donations and loans to political parties, the ending of the dual mandate and the new method of appointing a Justice Minister. But I would like to highlight one or two areas of reservation. I am concerned about the size of the Assembly. The Bill suggests that this could change, and we have heard noble Lords speak about reducing the number of Members in a constituency from six to five.

I looked at the results of the most recent Assembly election. Of course, in looking at results one is not to know exactly how people would behave if there were only five elected rather than six. However, after studying that election, it is my view that the losers would not be the DUP or Sinn Fein but other Members of the Assembly, and there would be fewer people from minority causes serving in the Assembly. That would result in a loss of plurality, which is embedded in the Belfast agreement as to how Northern Ireland should go forward. Indeed, if we were to reduce the number from six to four, it would be even worse. If there were to be reductions under the present system, I would sooner reduce the number of constituencies from 18 to 12 and stick with the six Members.

One also has to take into account the fact that there will be a reduction in the number of those who serve in local government—it seems that the legislation is there for 2015. The folks in Northern Ireland would be well advised to think through what that will mean in terms of the number of public representatives who are available to serve the people there. I caution against that and wonder whether that clause ought to be supported in the Bill.

The Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 has not been referred to by anyone else but I would like to refer to it. It is interesting that it sets out those who are disqualified. Of course, those who are disqualified are justice officers, and there are 17 different sorts of justice officer specified; there are also civil servants, Armed Forces, police, national criminal intelligence people, the National Crime Squad, any member of a legislature of any place outside the Commonwealth, and other offices in Parts 2 and 3 of Schedule 1.

There are 105 offices listed in Part 2 and 136 in Part 3. For example, if you happened to be a member of the Football Licensing Authority, which is in Part 2, you are not able to stand for the Northern Ireland Assembly. If you are chairman of the Plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal, you are not able to stand for the Northern Ireland Assembly. Northern Ireland is quite a small place and if you think of those who are serving on these 241 bodies, you are reducing the gene pool from which candidates can come. I think that needs looking at.

If this issue is not looked at in itself, it can be looked at in another way. The Minister will be aware that there was a little local difficulty in Wales a couple of years ago in terms of people standing for the Welsh Assembly and the problems that were caused. There could well be a situation where on nomination day you could stand down from the office of profit, and if you are not elected you resume after polling day. Of course, the specific reason that I am able to speak on this is that the Civil Service Commissioner for Northern Ireland is to be so listed, so there are 242 rather than 241 appointments that exclude people from standing.

As I said, it is important to look back at the Belfast agreement. Strand One of that agreement sets out:

“A consultative Civic Forum will be established. It will comprise representatives of the business, trade union and voluntary sectors, and such other sectors as agreed by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister”.

Furthermore, Clause 56 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 sets out:

“The First Minister and the deputy First Minister acting jointly shall make arrangements for obtaining from the Forum its views on social, economic and cultural matters … ‘the Forum’ means the consultative Civic Forum established in pursuance of paragraph 34 of Strand One”.

Where is the forum today? It is not there. I do not know whether legislation will help, but again this is about plurality—about everybody being in this together for Northern Ireland. We should look again at that Belfast agreement. That is the test that we have as we take this Bill into Committee. Is there anything else that needs adding to the miscellany that is before us? Of course, I welcome the Bill, but I wonder whether there are some changes that we should be making.

Northern Ireland

Lord Shutt of Greetland Excerpts

Tuesday 16th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend for repeating this Statement. I am happy to endorse her condemnation of shameful violence and to express sympathy. But can we also do some encouraging? There is still one gap from the Belfast agreement which was toyed with for a period and then put aside. That is the engagement of a civic forum, so that there can be genuine discussion with so many people about the shared future that Northern Ireland needs.

I have one further point and a question. It is one thing having these anniversaries and annual events—we worry about what is going to happen on the 12th—but we are moving to a period when we are going to be celebrating centenaries. These centenaries will be coming up very shortly. They are opportunities to celebrate, but some might see them as opportunities to be violent. Will my noble friend confirm that there are real plans and thought-through initiatives with this Government and the Government of Ireland and the devolved Assembly, to see that when the centenaries are celebrated, they really are celebrated and do not provide a further opportunity for violence?

[Baroness Randerson]

I thank the noble Lord for his questions. In relation to his comments about a civic forum, the situation in Northern Ireland is such that this process is worth reconsidering. In view of the recent A Shared Future document, issued by the Executive, and the recent Cardiff conference, which addressed issues of concern from the past and dealt with facing the decade of anniversaries and centenaries to which the noble Lord referred, this is an interesting concept which I am sure will be raised again and again. It would obviously help to engage a wider spectrum of the community in dealing with these problems. I have used his name already, but Richard Haass has, of course, the issue of the anniversaries that are coming up within his remit of reviewing of the past and how it should be dealt with. It will undoubtedly be something which is of interest to him in his work.

Scotland Bill

Lord Shutt of Greetland Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

The Minister had said something very important: this Bill is a matter of clear constitutional significance, not just to Scotland but to the whole of the United Kingdom. Does he not think that it is a disgrace that we are starting to discuss the Bill at 5.35 pm, and that we are only going to have half a day for the Bill, when in 1998 the Scotland Bill had two days at Second Reading? Is that not outrageous, and are the Government Whips not culpable in relation to that?

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, when the business was laid and agreed by the usual channels—I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, is here, and will be able to confirm that it was—it was not of course known how many speakers there would be. There are, I think, three dozen speakers on the Scotland Bill today. We did not know that when the business was agreed, but it was agreed. It is the normal way of things that when there is divisible business, that business comes first. Again, that was agreed by the usual channels for the convenience of the House. We have just seen this afternoon how convenient it is for the House, because in the two earlier Divisions just short of 400 Members went through the Lobbies. Clearly, it would not have been convenient for those Members to stay here until late this evening.

Three dozen people have put their names down to speak. It is not unusual for a Second Reading to go beyond the normal 10 pm deadline, and, as I say, it has been agreed by the usual channels. I think we would be better to get on with it, as otherwise it will get later still.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Soley]

My Lords, I, too, support what has been said. I have a strong view about this, because I regard it as an important issue for the United Kingdom. It is very important that we do all that we can to preserve the union. I think that, if we deal with Bills like this in this way—at this moment as far as I can see we are likely to go on beyond midnight—it cannot be desirable for the House. I have to say to the government business managers that it is not good business management to end up in this situation. They have brought people back for two extra weeks as well as bringing the House back a week early, and yet we will still be dealing with this probably after midnight.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

I hear what the noble Lord says, but there are a lot of people here anxious to speak. There are in fact three dozen such people. Some have come from Scotland—perhaps on the train or the aeroplane—specifically to speak. Therefore, it would be inconvenient if we did not continue. Everything we do in this place is important. I do not think that we should be looking at this in pecking-order terms. We do know that it is convention—just as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said about voting convention—that we first have what is perceived as divisible business. The usual channels agreed this; it may have been some time ago, but it was agreed, and so I think we should proceed.

[The Earl of Shrewsbury]

My Lords, forgive me for intervening, but would it not be much more sensible, for a Bill of this constitutional importance, to deal with half of it today, and half on Friday? Then we can all do it properly.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Shutt of Greetland Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Martin of Springburn]

My Lords—

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, I think an intervention is required. The Report rules are such that Members are entitled to speak once to an amendment. There is a problem when a speech is an intervention or an intervention is a speech. However, it would be helpful if people were a bit sparing with their interventions. People ought to realise that they have one turn.

[Lord Martin of Springburn]

My Lords, if the rule is that my intervention denies me the right to speak, I will sit down. It was a very brief intervention and it was for information. I understand the agitation of the Liberal Democrat Whip, but the Liberal Democrats were no slouches in speaking, so I wonder whether I might make a brief speech. If the noble Lord is saying that I cannot do it—

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

The noble Lord may go on.

[Lord Martin of Springburn]

I thank the noble Lord; I am obliged. I intervened on cross-examination but it was not my interest to worry about cross-examination by solicitors or QCs in an inquiry. Like the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, I have been to three inquiries, but they were in the city of Glasgow. They were very fair indeed. People from all walks of life turned up to put their case. Sometimes people would go along and say that they represented several community organisations. No lawyer present would have known how to test the case that was being put—that they belonged to those community organisations—but someone who lived in the community would. It was lay people who sometimes brought out in cross-examination that perhaps they were not, and could not claim that they were, truly representative of the community councils or residents’ associations as they claimed to be. Those lay people had local knowledge.

It is easy to talk about splitting up wards and putting one ward into another. However, often the argument for moving a ward from one constituency into another is based on where the local facilities, such as transport and schools, are. That is often why church leaders turn up where the local churches are based. Therefore, in the course of cross-examination, lay people can paint a picture of the true local situation for the examiner. I would be just a bit worried about discretion. People should be able to cross-examine as of right.