Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Tyler and Lord Morris of Aberavon

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

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)]

I have little to add. We have had a very interesting debate. I was particularly impressed by what the research of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, revealed and the huge effort to establish what had happened in the past. It is important to ensure fairness and ensure that it is seen. We are talking of the needs of constituents and not primarily of MPs; I say that as somebody who served for 41 years to represent my constituency, which was torn apart after 23 years with numbers made up by pinching them from a neighbouring constituency. There is a fundamental problem: the association of constituents with a Member of Parliament. They want to know who it is; they want some degree of stability. That is why the constituent is vital. There is very little else I can add. I shall not take up the time of the Committee.

[Lord Tyler (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I very much agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, has just said. It is remarkable that the majority of those participating in this debate are former MPs with extensive and distinguished constituency representation behind them. That comes through in the way in which they have approached this issue.

Even more significant, perhaps, is the experience of the former Ministers. If they are sceptical about what exactly will happen behind the scenes if there is the sort of delay that could happen and has happened in the past, we should take that very seriously. As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem said, “reasonably practicable” is a subjective judgment and could therefore be challenged at judicial review. The fact that these former Ministers are sceptical, perhaps even slightly cynical, about what could happen behind the scenes is extremely significant.

The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, whom I have known for a number of years, has had extraordinary ministerial experience; he must be one of the longest-serving Ministers in the whole of our Parliament. I venture to suggest that he probably has had more experience at close hand of ministerial or even Civil Service foot-dragging than anybody who was giving him advice in the meeting to which he referred. I therefore take far more seriously what he says about the potential dangers of unlimited delay than those who sought to persuade him against his proposed amendment.

When the noble Lord spoke at Second Reading, I thought that there was a general mood on all sides of the House, not least because of that experience, that he was on to something extremely important and that this provision was one of the few serious weaknesses in terms of potential ministerial and partisan interference. I therefore take what he says today very seriously indeed.

There is only one way in which I perhaps take a slightly different view. Despite the fact that the Minister at Second Reading was reading his brief religiously—and loyally to those who brief him in the Cabinet Office—I thought that his body language was rather more sympathetic to the points being made by the noble Lord, Lord Young, and the rest of us. Therefore, I am more hopeful and optimistic that the Government’s eventual conclusion will be that they cannot possibly combine automaticity with sticking to this bit of no automaticity in terms of the speed with which Ministers have to bring the order to the House.

I also believe that there is a strong argument, which the noble Lord, Lord Young, enunciated and has been repeated elsewhere, about what exactly would happen if there is a long delay. What exactly would people do in whatever department would think about these matters? What would they be up to? After all, if the Bill goes through in its current form, all they would be looking at are the firm, strong recommendations of the four Boundary Commissions. How could they spend months on that? Incidentally, that is my only concern about the difference between the six weeks recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and the 12 or so weeks recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Young, and others. I am not sure what Ministers might do in those second six weeks. There may be a strong argument for sticking firmly to the shorter period if, as has been suggested by people with a great deal more experience than me, there really is not that much to do.

I strongly recommend the well-briefed academic evidence given by the late Professor Ron Johnston—we are still missing him from this debate and these discussions—and his fellow academics. He pointed out just how simple in practice the process becomes at that stage; that was endorsed by the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, with his expertise and experience.

There is a simple solution to the problem of potential mistakes in the modification arrangements. Again, I take very seriously the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, from the DPRR, on which I used to serve under his excellent chairmanship. Again, we are looking at an area where the Executive cannot be expected to take a long period to consider recommendations from the Boundary Commissions that will be so firm, detailed and complete.

There is an open-and-shut case for a firm limit on the period during which a delay could be permitted at the hands of bureaucrats or Ministers. In the words that have already echoed around the Grand Committee today, automaticity must lead to one or other of these sets of amendments. I hope that the Government will accept them.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between Lord Tyler and Lord Morris of Aberavon

Tuesday 21st January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Morris of Aberavon]

I am most grateful to the Minister for his help. I shall not press Amendment 26.

[Lord Tyler]

If I may return to Amendment 9, my noble and learned friend made the very fair comment that this is a judgment call. It is not just my judgment with which he has a problem; it is the judgment of the Electoral Commission. I shall read again what it said, as I do not think my noble and learned friend covered this point. It said previously that if a registration threshold is identical to a limit, there is a problem. It said that,

“this approach would cause significant workability problems, since in practice campaigners will either remain below the registration threshold or will be in breach of a spending limit. We therefore do not support this amendment”.

That is precisely where the Government’s amendments have left us.

As I also said, I am not wedded to the figure of £5,000. If it were necessary, we could go up to £8,000. The key point is that there must be a gap between the registration threshold and the limit. That is not my advice but the advice of the Electoral Commission. That is its judgment call. Therefore, I must invite my noble and learned friend to think carefully before this element of the Bill is considered by our colleagues in the other place tomorrow—as it will be, since there will be government amendments that they will be addressing—as to whether there is not some way that we can deal with this very serious problem. On the basis that I still regard this as an important judgment call—one on which I think my noble friends and I differ, the Electoral Commission being on my side—I am happy for the time being to withdraw this amendment.