Scotland: Referendum

Debate between Lord Tyler and Lord McNally

Wednesday 10th October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jopling]

My Lords—

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

I think that we will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, first.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, can my noble and learned friend at least reassure your Lordships’ House that if the franchise is extended to 16 and 17 year-old Scottish citizens for the referendum that is now under consideration, it would also be ridiculous not to extend it to English, Welsh and Northern Irish 16 and 17 year-olds for any following referendum on the European Union?

House of Lords: Reform

Debate between Lord Tyler and Lord McNally

Thursday 21st June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords—

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

I think that we will hear from my noble friend Lord Tyler—and noble Lords should have a look at the third Question that we are coming to.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, returning to the original Question, can my noble friend assure the House that when an estimate is prepared in the light of the Government’s Bill in a few weeks’ time, we will have a true comparison of the future likely costs of not reforming the House along the lines of the Government’s Bill?

House of Lords: Reform

Debate between Lord Tyler and Lord McNally

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, less than 24 hours after the publication of a carefully considered report, it would be impudent of me to start pronouncing on some of these issues. As to the opinions of the noble Lord and the noble and learned Lord on the 1911 Act, the strength and the powers of the 1911 and 1949 Parliament Acts were recently tested in court.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House whether the Government have made an assessment of the risks of not proceeding with legislation for the reform of this House? For example, does he appreciate that if each incoming Prime Minister wished to rebalance the party representation in this House, we would soon exceed 1,000 Members? Does he also recognise that the public at the moment are more in favour of abolition of your Lordships’ House—by a very considerable margin—than retaining the all-appointed element?

Political Party Funding

Debate between Lord Tyler and Lord McNally

Thursday 15th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they will respond to the report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life on party funding.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

My Lords, the Government are grateful to the committee for its report and will consider its recommendations before providing a formal response. The Deputy Prime Minister set out the Government’s proposed approach to party funding reform in his Written Ministerial Statement of 23 November.

[Lord Tyler]

Can my noble friend give us an assurance that unlike under the previous Administration, the most reluctant and recalcitrant participants in this process will not be allowed to delay everything, and will not be given a complete veto on progress? In particular, may I suggest that we should start with immediate action to stop the arms race in expenditure, both at the constituency level—targeting constituencies as well as national constituencies—and before, as well as during, campaigns? This could achieve some cross-party agreement, and of course would be very popular with the long-suffering public.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I welcome those suggestions from my noble friend, which I will pass on to the Deputy Prime Minister. In his Statement that I referred to, he said:

“The Government believe that the case cannot be made for greater state funding of political parties at a time when budgets are being squeezed and economic recovery remains the highest priority. But there is a case for looking carefully at whether existing levels of support could be used more effectively”.—[Official Report, Commons, 23/11/11; col. 25WS.]

I would have thought that some of the suggestions that my noble friend made could be brought into that general consultation with all political parties.

House of Lords: Reform

Debate between Lord Tyler and Lord McNally

Monday 3rd October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, my noble friend will recall that two Joint Committees looked at these issues with great care in the previous Parliament. I served on both of them. The Government of the day then accepted the advice of those committees. Would my noble friend like to speculate on why the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, raises this issue now, rather than exerting his influence in that Government?

[Lord McNally]

No, I prefer to look forward on this matter. We have given the noble Lord, Lord Richard, a task. If the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, wants to write to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, with any doubts or concerns he has about war powers, particularly after the Government have made their statement, so be it. Of course, it is legitimate to address one of the regular Questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, on Lords reform, but I hope that the House will debate the war powers issue with due seriousness when the Government come through with proposals. There are a lot of examples around the world of parliaments that have taken war powers which have made it virtually impossible for those countries to deploy forces. At the other end of the scale, we have the example of Iraq, when Parliament felt that it had not been fully consulted. The Government are looking at this very carefully and seriously and will bring forward proposals in due course.

House of Lords: Reform

Debate between Lord Tyler and Lord McNally

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords—

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

My Lords, I think that seniority gives it to my noble friend Lord Tyler.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, among the representations he has been examining, has my noble friend seen the report published on Monday entitled The End of the Peer Show?, in which Mr Hilary Benn has committed the Labour Party to a continuing campaign based on its manifesto commitment for a wholly elected House of Lords? Is my noble friend aware of any successful parliamentary candidate who arrived in the other place committed to voting against his party’s manifesto?

Local Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2011

Debate between Lord Tyler and Lord McNally

Wednesday 16th March 2011 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

My Lords, the regulations concern the use of emblems on ballot papers by candidates at local authority mayoral elections in England and Wales. Their purpose is to make the changes necessary to address an oversight that has arisen in the drafting of the existing regulations governing the conduct of local mayoral elections.

The changes being considered today will enable a candidate who is standing on behalf of two or more registered political parties at such an election to request that the ballot paper should feature, alongside the candidate’s particulars, an emblem registered by one of those political parties. I understand that a number of local mayoral elections are scheduled to take place in England in May 2011—I think that the number is five. The regulations will ensure that the issue is addressed ahead of those elections.

Under Section 29 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, a political party registered with the Electoral Commission may register with the commission up to three emblems for use on ballot papers by candidates standing for the party at elections. Electoral law is clear that a candidate standing on behalf of a single party may request that an emblem registered by that party appear on the ballot paper against the candidate’s particulars.

However, at the May 2010 general election, it came to light that amendments to the parliamentary election rules set out in Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 made by the Electoral Administration Act 2006 had had the unintended effect of preventing candidates standing on behalf of two or more registered political parties at UK parliamentary elections using on the ballot paper a party emblem registered by one of those parties.

This has affected jointly nominated candidates who have wanted a party emblem on their ballot paper, most notably those wishing to stand for the Labour Party and the Co-operative Party, and the Ulster Unionist Party and the Northern Ireland branch of the Conservative Party, where candidates have stood under the description, “Ulster Conservatives and Unionists – New Force”. I should perhaps pre-empt any comments from the other side by saying that, as far as I know, these are the only two examples of political parties planning joint candidatures in the future.

These provisions have been replicated in the rules governing the conduct of various other elections. These include the rules for the conduct of local mayoral elections in England and Wales as set out in the Local Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (England and Wales) Regulations 2007. Schedule 1 to those regulations contains the rules for a stand-alone local mayoral election and Schedule 3 sets out the rules where a local mayoral election is combined with another poll. As a result, there is now an inconsistency in the use of registered emblems on ballot papers at local mayoral elections by candidates standing on behalf of a single party and those standing on behalf of more than one party. The draft regulations we are considering today address this inconsistency, which has resulted from an oversight in the 2007 regulations. As I have explained, these regulations are being made to address the issue ahead of the local mayoral elections scheduled for the 5 May. It might be helpful if I briefly explain the changes made by the regulations.

The issue arises in the context of the 2007 regulations. Rule 18(4) in Schedules 1 and 3—about candidates using an emblem on the ballot paper—makes reference only to Rule 7(1), which concerns the nomination paper for a candidate standing for a single party. To address the situation, Regulation 2 of the draft regulations before us inserts new Rule 18(4A) in Schedules 1 and 3. It refers to Rule 7(3), concerning the nomination paper for a candidate standing for more than one party. Further, Regulation 2 amends Rule 18(5) in each schedule so that it refers to paragraphs (4) and (4A) of Rule 18. The effect of these changes is that it will be possible for a candidate who is authorised to stand on behalf of more than one party at a local authority mayoral election in England and Wales to use an emblem registered with the Electoral Commission by one of those political parties, if they wish to do so.

The draft regulations allow such a candidate to use one emblem only on the ballot paper, which must be an emblem registered with the Electoral Commission by one of the parties for which they are standing. Our approach maintains the current policy that candidates nominated by a political party may have only one emblem featured against their details on the ballot paper. A candidate’s request to use an emblem must be made in writing to the returning officer before the deadline for the delivery of nomination papers, which is noon on the 19th day before the day of the election. For the local mayoral elections on 5 May, this is noon on Monday, 4 April.

The Electoral Commission and the Association of Electoral Administrators highlighted this issue in their reports on the May 2010 election. The political parties have also raised this issue with us. There is a broad consensus that the issue should be addressed at an early opportunity and in time for the elections scheduled to take place in May of this year. I can confirm that the Electoral Commission was formally consulted on these regulations and has indicated that it is content with the changes being made to the 2007 regulations. The same issue was replicated in the separate rules governing the conduct of other elections. We are addressing the issue in the relevant legislation for the other elections scheduled for 5 May. It will require primary legislation to address the issue for a UK parliamentary election, and we will look for an opportunity to do this in advance of the next general election.

These regulations make a sensible and appropriate change to put right an oversight in the drafting of the existing rules governing the conduct of local authority mayoral elections to allow the use of emblems on ballot papers by candidates nominated by two or more parties at those elections. In that spirit, I commend them to the Committee.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I hope not to detain the Grand Committee for more than a few minutes. Before I come to specifics of the regulations that my noble friend introduced, would he comment on the report I read today? It said that Ministers and departments are under strict instruction, under the deregulation initiative or in/out process, that every time a new directive or regulation is introduced, one should also be abolished or repealed. If that is the case, I hope that we will, in future, get a brief description of what will be repealed to enable the new regulation to be introduced. Obviously, this is a very helpful and entirely desirable improvement to the situation, and I commend my noble friend for introducing it—in a totally non-partisan spirit, because I anticipate that the main advantage will be to the opposition party. I hope that the noble Baroness will acknowledge that on this occasion at least there is no ignoble partisan initiative or motive behind this, because clearly the primary benefit will be for Labour and Co-operative candidates. I know that there is a long tradition of them working together, and I hope that this will be accepted as an extremely helpful and consistent implementation of a principle that has been accepted in other parts of the electoral law.

I have three specific questions. As I understand it, it will now be possible for candidates standing for more than one party to have exactly the same opportunities for the use of an emblem on the ballot paper as those who are standing for a single party. However, it is a standing policy of all Governments that there should always be one emblem. The idea of combined emblems will provide a very interesting design objective in some circumstances. Whether the red rose is sometimes painted green—or there may be other opportunities for amalgamation—it will be a challenge to all designers. But there is also a problem of definition. I imagine that bringing together two emblems in a way that apparently creates a combined emblem will not be entirely easy to distinguish from two emblems separately put on the ballot paper. That is something that all Ministers in all Governments have rightly sought to resist as, once you open to door to that, you could have multi-emblems attempting to get on the ballot paper and more space being required—or else they would be too small to be legible. Is my noble friend entirely satisfied that the regulation will prevent what would otherwise look like two emblems being rather loosely combined? That may seem a small design problem, but it could turn out to cause difficulties.

Secondly, and relating to that, we are approaching the noon deadline on Monday 4 April at considerable speed. The consultation on this issue took place immediately after the 2010 election, both with the Electoral Commission—and I have declared an interest as having a minor role on an informal advisory group for the commission—and more widely. It is unfortunate that the elections for mayors in Bedford, Middlesbrough, Mansfield, Torbay and Leicester, where they must now already be starting their campaigns, have not been briefly and appropriately informed of the change. I have no idea whether there are candidates in any of those five locations who intend to stand on behalf of more than one party, but we are near the deadline and I hope that some attempt has been made to inform people in those areas, the political parties and those responsible for electoral administration, that this proposal was coming forward.

Thirdly, in his introduction, my noble friend referred to the fact that in due course primary legislation would be required for UK parliamentary elections. Can he tell the Grand Committee whether this is yet another candidate for the so-called “Christmas tree Bill”? That is rather an unfortunate description; it might be more properly described as the “Odds and Sods Constitutional Reform Bill”, because I know that a number of different proposals are likely to be contained in it. If it is, how soon may we expect to see that Bill? To adopt more parliamentary language, perhaps it could be called a portmanteau Bill. Either way, it is obviously important that the parties are given due notice that proposals will be brought forward as soon as time is available to deal with the bigger issue of the 2015 general election. As my noble friend has said, it is extremely important that we have total consistency so that the political parties, candidates and agents, as well as those responsible for electoral administration, have clear guidance that there will be a consistent approach right across the board.

Very briefly, since we are dealing with mayoral elections, I hope that my noble friend will be able to confirm that some of the issues arising over how executive mayors have been introduced into this country over the past 10 years are being reviewed in preparation for the Localism Bill, which is already under consideration in the other place. There are important problems that arise from that legislation, not least the fact that financial decisions are incredibly controversial when they are made by an elected mayor, because he or she can introduce a budget when two thirds of a council votes against it. There is also the issue of special responsibility allowances, which give the elected mayor huge patronage opportunities.

Obviously, this afternoon is not the opportunity to discuss these issues. However, I hope my noble friend will acknowledge that we cannot completely detach the issue of mayoral elections from wider concerns about the way in which the system is working, after a long period where it has caused some controversy in different parts of the country. When we come to the Localism Bill shortly, I hope that we will be able to address these.

I think my noble friend and his colleagues in the coalition Government have introduced some very sensible and, some might say, rather latter-day improvements to the system. They are correcting an inconsistency, a discrepancy that unfortunately managed to find its way into the previous basis for the identification of candidates on the ballot paper. I very much support and welcome the order before us.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Tyler and Lord McNally

Wednesday 12th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

This side of the House has treated serious amendments seriously, but I invite any future historian to read Hansard and then they can make their judgment.

[Lord Tyler]

I wonder if my noble friend might note that amnesia, rather than paranoia, seems to be the prevailing atmosphere. Only a few months ago, those over on the other side were pushing the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill through this House, with no pre-legislative scrutiny for huge chunks of it, trying to do so at great speed before the general election. Amnesia, not paranoia.

Standards in Public Life

Debate between Lord Tyler and Lord McNally

Thursday 2nd December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will publish any evidence submitted to the Committee on Standards in Public Life on party political finance.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

My Lords, the Government welcome the review of the Committee on Standards in Public Life into party funding. My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister discussed the issue with the committee at its annual open meeting in September, but the Government have not submitted any evidence to the committee. I understand that the major political parties have done so.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I am sure that Members on all sides will be anxious that progress on this issue is made as quickly as possible, not least because there was a strong degree of consensus across the parties in the previous Parliament on donation caps and regulations on campaign spending between elections. However, that progress did not complete the process because, as the general election approached, it became clear that it was very difficult for the parties to make firm decisions. Can we be clear that the Government will be pressing the committee—and thereafter, whenever decisions are taken by Parliament—to try to deal with the issue of the 55 months before a general election, and that it will not be left to the very end of this Parliament as, at the bitter end, it is very difficult to reach agreement?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister has made it clear that he gives high priority to party funding in what he has described as the second wave of constitutional reform that we are planning. Therefore, it has high priority. People in all political parties with experience of this matter have given me the same advice—that is, to deal with this matter early in a Parliament. That is what we intend to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

Of course it includes the trades unions. Again, when we look back at the Hayden Phillips discussions, the Labour Party has a historic link with the trade unions. We must approach this in a way whereby all parties enter into this recognising our respective histories, and understanding the need to get a settlement which will be seen as fair. If we go for a settlement that looks like it is aimed at hurting one or other of the parties, it will be difficult to get a settlement. The Committee on Standards in Public Life is carrying out a study on this. I hope that it will report by early spring and, when it does, it will enable us to get our ducks in a row to make a proper and comprehensive system which will get big money in politics out of our system for good and all.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I am very grateful for my noble friend’s statement, but does he recognise that this House has a particular interest in terms of its reputation, because in the past there has been a perceived connection between large donors and membership of this House?

[Lord McNally]

Well, we all read the newspapers, so I cannot deny that. But as I said before, there is a real opportunity when the Committee for Standards in Public Life brings forward its report. Let us all—all the political parties—grab the opportunity that that offers with a real sense of urgency and a determination to succeed.

House of Lords: Reform

Debate between Lord Tyler and Lord McNally

Wednesday 1st December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

I had better not look behind me then. There is a dilemma which this House has partially created for itself. For as long as I have been involved in these matters, there has been an assumption that incoming Governments will freshen their Benches, partly for reasons of needing to man the government Benches. That is exactly what the Labour Party did, with Mr Blair creating more than 300 Peers during his term of office. The attempts to reform this House over the past 10 years have failed and we are left with a problem of a House that is too large. That is why I hope that the Benches opposite, when they get the opportunity in January, will enthusiastically embrace the reform programme which the Government will put forward.

[Lord Tyler]

Does my noble friend agree that the best way to make progress would be if the Labour Party, instead of bringing in ex-MPs who are refuseniks on reform of your Lordships' House, stuck to its manifesto commitments, made not just at the last election but at many other elections, to reform this House comprehensively?

[Lord McNally]

My noble friend makes some valid points, but I think that it is unfair to say that the ex-MPs who come in are against Lords reform. It usually takes them two or three weeks before they become enthusiastic supporters of the House. I see in his place the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, who has taken to the ermine like a duck to water.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Tyler and Lord McNally

Tuesday 16th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

Well, noble Lords can put their amendments down and I will debate them too. I know which way we are going on that issue, and we know which way the House of Commons is going.

[Lord Tyler]

This is a helpful one. My noble friend, in opposing any thresholds, will have the support of the Constitution Committee of this House. He will not have to rely simply on the votes at the other end of the building.

[Lord McNally]

As so often in my career, my noble friend comes over the hill like the seventh cavalry.

I turn again to the British Academy report. We heard a lot about local inquiries. It is interesting that the British Academy report says that these,

“would not significantly impair the consultation process”.

The Bill proposes a two-stage process, with 12 weeks, instead of the current four, in which the public may make representation to the commission, and another 12 weeks for the commission to revise its recommendations.

I will deal quickly with a point made by my noble friend Lord Phillips about expenses. There will be reimbursement of all reasonable expenses. We are committed to ensuring a high level of participation but we are unlikely to change the £600,000 basis for the two campaigns. On the two campaigns, several noble Lords will remember the yes/no campaign for the EU referendum. Whatever else may be said about that, the system of two groupings to fight the campaign worked. I have absolute confidence that it will work again. Therefore, I look forward to the Committee stage. I say to my noble friends behind me that I have seen redistributions and psephological calculations but I do not know who will win this referendum. I have heard people say that we are bound to lose it. I am willing to trust the people. I am willing to see this in place and then take our case to the people.

Public Expenditure: Members of Parliament

Debate between Lord Tyler and Lord McNally

Tuesday 26th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I am rather hurt by the assertion that I did not answer the Question. The noble Lord has confirmed what my noble friend said in another place; that the cost for 50 MPs would be about £12 million. That is half the Question answered; that is five out of 10—a lot better than I used to do in some exams. On the second half of the Question, where the noble Lord is giving numbers for a reformed House of Lords and calculating on his own bases, we will have to wait for the Bill. He and I will then make calculations and be able to assess the cost. I am not in a position to answer both halves of the Question at this moment.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, does my noble friend recall that the previous Administration published a White Paper that had a section on costs for the House of Lords? The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, was a distinguished member of that Administration. Does my noble friend also recall that that Administration then had no economies to suggest for the House of Commons, and does he agree that the coalition is at least making a bid to find a reasonable equation?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I must say that the quality of the questions coming from the Liberal Democrat Benches today is extremely high. I am grateful for that question. I had forgotten that the previous Labour Government had done some costings; when I leave the Chamber, I will go and look at those costings and send them on to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. That gives me an opportunity to say that the White Paper was partly the work of Mr Jack Straw, who, sadly, has moved from the Joint Committee because he has returned to the Back Benches. The quality of the Bill that is produced for this House in due course will owe much to the work done by Mr Straw, including his calculations on costs.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Tyler and Lord McNally

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I have no objection to the noble Lord mentioning Mr Mark Harper, whose profile seems to be increasing by the hour. In fact, he sent me a message about his triumph only last night from the other place where the Bill cleared various hurdles with very comfortable majorities. It is only a week or so since the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, was telling me that this House would not have proper time to debate the Bill. Let us see. The Bill seems to be making good progress in the other place and when it comes here, as always, the Government will listen carefully to the views of this House.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the significant change to which this Question relates can be relevant only in terms of Part 1 of the Bill, which, as my noble friend has already said, made considerable progress in the other place yesterday? In those circumstances, will he take this opportunity to assure the House that if there is an importation of Commons filibustering tactics on the Bill this would not be encouraged?

Elections: Fraud

Debate between Lord Tyler and Lord McNally

Tuesday 5th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

I am sure that my noble friend will read those remarks. As far as I understand it, specific complaints have been made in a range of constituencies and are being investigated. However, I ask the House for pause on this. Research after the general election showed that 30 per cent of people thought that there were some elements of fraud in our electoral system. I do not believe that that is true, but it is a worrying factor that over the past few years, for the first time in my life, the integrity of our electoral system has been called into question. All major political parties have a duty to look at themselves and to make sure that fraud of any kind does not seep into our system. I emphasise that those who commit electoral fraud will be prosecuted and will face severe penalties.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the Government are actively considering two important safeguards to prevent the increase in electoral fraud, as perceived: first, an increase in the proportion of postal votes that are verified—I believe that at the moment it is only one-fifth—and, secondly, an acceleration in the change to individual registration, to which my noble friend referred, so that it can take place before 2015? Neither was a change with which the previous Government decided to proceed.

[Lord McNally]

The short answer is yes, we are so doing. However, I do not want to score party points on this. I remember asking questions from the opposition Benches before the election about the loss of confidence, particularly in postal voting. We need to follow through some of the reforms that are now in chain and to look to our own houses in terms of how we expect our members to behave. We need to be willing to push forward the process by which people respect our electoral system.

Political Parties: Funding

Debate between Lord Tyler and Lord McNally

Thursday 1st July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what proposals they have to reform party funding and to limit donations to political parties.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

My Lords, my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister indicated during the debate on the Address that the Government will pursue an agreement on limiting donations and reforming party funding to remove big money from politics. The approach to party funding is being worked up as part of the overall programme of reforms and an announcement will be made in due course.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for repeating what the Deputy Prime Minister said. I wonder whether my noble friend recalls a question that was posed in this Chamber:

“Is it not time for all parties to return to Sir Hayden Phillips’s report on party funding and put in place a tight cap, some firm regulations and an Electoral Commission with teeth to enforce them?”—[Official Report, 5/12/07; col. 1700.]

The questioner was my noble friend. Can he now tell us what the timetable is? Is it not important that progress should be made as quickly as possible in the early part of this Parliament, rather than leaving it to the bitter end?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I sometimes think that all old copies of Hansard should be pulped on change of Government. Nevertheless, I stand by the thrust of that question. For the good of all parties and politics, we should move quickly to see whether we can get all-party agreement on this. It is good that the Deputy Prime Minister has taken responsibility and has indicated that he will make progress on this issue a high priority at a very early stage in this Parliament.

Parliamentary Constituencies: Boundaries

Debate between Lord Tyler and Lord McNally

Tuesday 15th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

No, that would be an absurd objective, but we have to come to a realisation that when a Government are elected on 36 per cent of the vote but are given a healthy 60-seat majority in the House of Commons, the electoral system has got out of kilter. I might also mention that when 23 per cent of the electorate return only 57 MPs, there are signs that perhaps that system is in need of examination. Of course, when the Boundary Commission comes to look at this, the kind of historical and geographical issues to which the noble Lord referred will be taken into account. I am actually quite surprised at the scepticism from some parts of the House. There is nothing up the sleeve; this is a rational approach to a distorted system.

[Lord Tyler]

As my noble friend has indicated, this is part of the general objective of trying to make sure that there is equal value for every citizen’s vote, as is the electoral reform to introduce a fairer voting system. Can he reassure us that the Government intend to make sure that this exercise and electoral reform proceed in tandem, and that the programme or timetable to which he refers will indicate an outcome and complete the process before the next general election?

[Lord McNally]

That is our intention.

House of Lords Reform: Committee Membership

Debate between Lord Tyler and Lord McNally

Tuesday 8th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

In the mean time, Labour Party representatives will be on this committee furthering what they presented to the British people at the last general election.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, does my noble friend recall that after the White Paper of 2008, the previous Government promised to bring forward for pre-legislative scrutiny precisely the Bill to which he is now referring, but never did so? In order to meet the concerns expressed on all sides of the House, I suggest that the sooner we get a draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny before a Joint Committee, as set out by my noble friend, the better. To accelerate that process, I would draw my noble friend’s attention—modestly—to the fact that the Second Chamber of Parliament Bill was introduced in the other House five years ago by Mr Kenneth Clarke, Mr Robin Cook, Mr Tony Wright, Sir George Young and myself.

[Lord McNally]

The building blocks for this Bill are all around us. The work has been done in many committees; I have served on three over the past 10 years. But this committee is going to do a real job of work that will allow the proper work of Parliament on its proposals.