Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Bach Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lipsey]

This amendment follows on from one that I moved in Committee. In that one, I favoured seven years, which was the time given in the original amendment in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer. However, I am a sinner who repenteth and have changed my mind, now believing that 10 years is the right period. I am trying to prevent perpetual revolution in constituencies, allowing MPs to be MPs and not—as they would be should the system under the Bill survive the 2013-15 experience, which it might well not—turning them into carpetbaggers, devoting their lives to finding new seats instead of doing what they and every Member of that House would want them to do, which is to serve their constituencies and our country.

The advantage of 10 years over any other period is that it would accord with the five-yearly elections proposed in the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill. I think that it provides the right balance between updating population changes and so on—which we all want because we want greater equality in constituencies—and providing a measure of stability for the Members of another place that will enable them to do their jobs properly without keeping half an eye on their next move. I beg to move.

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, I will speak to the one amendment in this group that has now been moved but, first, I apologise to the House. Having studied the lead amendment in this group, which is in our name, we find that it is defective. Perhaps that is partly a symptom of the absolutely ridiculous haste with which we are being asked by the Government to table amendments for Report. The noble Lord says from a sedentary position that there is no excuse at all—he says that when the gap between Report and Committee is cut from a fortnight to in effect one sitting day. Mistakes were bound to occur. We own up to having got one amendment wrong, which is why we have not moved it. However, the matters that we hoped to raise are effectively covered by my noble friend’s amendment, to which I shall speak briefly.

There is a balance to be struck on the timing of the boundary review process. The more frequent the boundary reviews, the more up to date the electoral registers on which they are based. In the light of our previous amendment and concern about the accuracy and quality of the registers, we do not judge eight or 10 years to be an advisable interval between reviews. On the other hand, frequent boundary reviews lead to more frequent disruption of the UK electoral map, especially if such reviews take place on the basis of the narrow parity law contained in this Bill. Such disruption has been confirmed in evidence to the bodies that have often been mentioned during our proceedings—the Constitution Committee of this House and the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of another place. A serious issue arises from regular and widespread disruption—one can ask any Member of Parliament about that—and that is the disconnect that it might cause between Members of Parliament and the electors they represent, many of whom will find that their constituency will change at each review in each Parliament if the Government’s proposals are implemented. Therefore, we are grateful to my noble friend for moving his amendment.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for moving his amendment. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for not moving his amendment, as he had spotted that it was defective. It raises remarkably similar issues, so he will get a remarkably similar answer—or he would have done if he had been able to move it.

On the question of the disconnect for Members of Parliament. I do know whether this has been said before—if it has not, it should have been—but this is not being done for the convenience of Members of Parliament; it is being done to equalise the electorate across the whole country and to try to create a fairer system. Once we have the 600 seats in place with equalisation of the electorate, I do not believe that minor changes every Parliament will be an insurmountable burden.

The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, requires the Boundary Commission to report every 10 years after October 2013 instead of every five, as laid out in the Bill. The Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 requires reports from the Boundary Commissions every eight to 12 years. The intention of the Bill is to increase their frequency, ensuring that boundaries are more up to date than at present. There is a cost implication to holding more frequent reviews, but this is offset by the estimated £12.2 million in annual savings made by the reduction from 650 to 600 MPs.

Many noble Lords have rightly spoken in Committee and on Report about the important issue of the accuracy and completeness of the electoral register. That work is incredibly valuable in enabling people to participate in the democratic process, but it will not be reflected in their constituency boundaries if reviews are insufficiently frequent. That is why we advocate reviews every five years. I know that noble Lords opposite might feel that we have not gone far enough on the accuracy or completeness of the electoral register, but I hope that they will accept the logic of having reviews every five years. The Government’s view is that reviews can be completed once a Parliament, giving sufficient time for the commissioners to do their work and for parties and electors to familiarise themselves with new boundaries before the next general election. If that is the case, I see no reason why we should make do with more out-of-date electoral data. We should have reviews during each Parliament so that boundaries remain refreshed; and more frequent reviews will limit the degree of upheaval each time.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, was trying to be helpful and constructive, but I hope that he sees the force of the argument of having regular reviews every five years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bach]

I have some brief comments. I congratulate my noble friend on her amendment. The House knows that when she speaks, she does so with a great amount of experience and expertise in this field, and the House should take note of what she has said.

I shall concentrate on the phrase that she uses in paragraph 1 of her amendment:

“The number of constituencies in the United Kingdom shall not be substantially more than 600”.

The Front Bench, as the House will know already, thinks that a number nearer 650 is to be preferred. If we put that one side for a moment, the way that my noble friend phrases that is taken—I hope she will forgive me for saying so; in fact I am sure that she will not have to forgive me for saying so, because it is obvious—from Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, an Act passed by a Conservative Government and one that they should be proud of. Schedule 2, relating to the rules, says:

“The number of constituencies in Great Britain shall not be substantially greater or less than 613”.

When you add the number for Northern Ireland, the total is around 630. The crucial point is that it does not say, “it shall be 600” or “it shall be 650”. Subtly, and, I would say, in a pretty obvious British tradition, that Act is very cautious in its wording. I therefore congratulate my noble friend on the way she has phrased her amendment. The Government propose a blunt 600. It would not matter what the number was in one sense—a blunt 500, a blunt 700. But the fact that the Government through Parliament are trying to put forward an exact number still seems to me constitutionally offensive.

Even after all the days that we have debated this Bill, the Boundary Commission for England’s Fifth Periodical Report has not been quoted from. Let me change that briefly. At the very end of the report, on page 485, paragraph 6.25, it says:

“We do not consider it right”—

this is the Boundary Commission speaking—

“for us arbitrarily to set a fixed target number of constituencies and adhere rigidly to that number”.

That is the phrase it uses. It is almost as though it is a given that you would not expect an exact number to be put down in legislation. What is depressing about this Bill—one of the many things that are perhaps depressing about Part 2 of this Bill—is that, however hard we have tried and others from other parts of the House have tried, that exact number of 600 stands. That is a real shame. It marks a change in the constitution of this country. I much prefer the way in which my noble friend has phrased her amendment.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McDonagh, for her amendment. In a number of ways it brings together issues that have been debated both in Committee and this evening and, I suspect, will be debated in future groups of amendments.

On the rules of the Boundary Commission and the number of seats, as the noble Baroness indicated, her amendment has a number of parts to it. First, it would set a target of 600 seats, not to be substantially exceeded. Secondly, it would introduce a fixed electoral quota of 72,000 voters and a tolerance of 7.5 per cent on either side. Finally, it would require the Boundary Commission to draw up recommendations for boundaries that do not cross historic county boundaries or English local government wards, and cross London borough boundaries only where absolutely necessary and where sympathetic to local ties and natural boundaries. The Government have on each of these issues already made their view clear in the debates that we have already had on this Bill. I am sure that there will be other opportunities to revisit them before the Bill leaves your Lordships’ House.

I start with the noble Baroness’s suggestion that there should be a target of 600 seats. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, referred to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, in which the figure of 613 seats was set using similar wording.

[Lord Bach]

Plus Northern Ireland.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

Indeed. The figure is 613 for Great Britain, which, with Northern Ireland, takes it to 630. We are agreed on that. That, in many respects, just underlines the problem. Even with that wording, if you subtract the 18 Northern Ireland seats from the current 650, you get 632, so we are already some 19 seats up. Noble Lords might recall that when the 1986 legislation was passed, it also had the provision that there had to be at least 71 or 72 seats in Scotland, which is now down to 59, so we can perhaps add another 12 to that. Not only are we 19 up, we have a further 12, so we would have drifted upwards by some 31 from the target figure.

The noble Lord, Lord Bach, quoted the fifth report. I do not dispute that no one else has, but I do think that somewhere along the line there have been some quotations from it before, although that is neither here nor there. While he indicated that in the view of the Boundary Commission it was not right for it to set a fixed target or adhere to a fixed number, I rather think that, given the rules under which it operates in the 1986 legislation, that is probably a proper way for it to go about its business. The whole point is that Parliament is setting a figure of 600. It is not the Boundary Commission but Parliament that will set a fixed number.

The Government’s position has been made clear; there needs to be a legislative cap on the number of seats to control the ratchet effect of the current legislation, under which the number of seats has increased at every review—with the exception of the post-devolution review—since 1950. It is likely that the target would be missed under the noble Baroness’s amendment even at the first review, since the 2009 electorate divided into constituencies at an average of 72,000 would fill 631 constituencies. Indeed, she said that we would be invited to address the issue of constituencies of around 100,000, but that is wildly out of kilter with anything that is being proposed here. That is not what Parliament is being asked to address. We are looking at a quota of approximately 76,000, with a variation of 5 per cent on either side—a band of 7,600.

Setting out the size of the electoral quota in the Bill poses some problems for the way in which the noble Baroness’s amendment is framed. However, the way in which the Bill is written allows for changes in the number of registered voters while maintaining a smaller House of Commons. A specified quota, such as that proposed in this amendment, would mean that the number of seats will rise as the number of registered electors rises, making it yet more unlikely that the commissions will ever meet the target of 600 seats.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I hear my noble friend and, although I do not have an exact figure, a significant number of county boundaries within England are crossed by constituencies. I am not quite sure whether those counties would be defined as historic.

[Lord Bach]

Which other examples does the noble and learned Lord have in mind? He is quite right to mention Oldham and Saddleworth. Our point is that if this Bill is passed as it stands, there will be many more Oldham and Saddleworths. Those of us who visited that lovely part of the world a few weeks ago will know that it is a constituency of many parts that are absolutely different from each other. Do the Government really want boundaries with no links at all—never mind historic links—that are just jammed together for political convenience? The Government should want to avoid that, rather than encourage it. I ask again—does the noble and learned Lord have other examples?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I do not have the figures immediately to hand, although before I finish I might be able to provide the number of county boundaries that are crossed by constituencies. I accept that the number of constituencies that cross county boundaries is different. From my recollection of our previous debates on this issue, a number of county boundaries are crossed by constituencies. I hope that by the time I conclude my remarks I can advise the House as to the exact number of county boundaries that are crossed. I am sure that in each case it is thought the counties are properly historic.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Bach]

21A: Clause 11, page 10, line 8, at end insert—
“( ) In England the Boundary Commission should where practicable have regard to the boundaries of counties and London boroughs and in any case no constituency shall include the whole or part of more than two counties or London boroughs.”

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, other noble Lords have also tabled amendments in this group. They would insert a number of additional factors for Boundary Commissions to take into account when drawing up constituencies for the four parts of the United Kingdom. In particular, they would insist that regard should be had to the boundaries of English counties and London boroughs. It would also place greater emphasis on the importance of electoral wards in the boundary-drawing process.

At present, the new rules for drawing constituency boundaries proposed in the Bill are dominated by the overriding requirement for every constituency, with very few exceptions, to fall within the margins of 5 per cent either side of a new UK-wide electoral quota. Although in rule 5 of Schedule 2 under Clause 11 a number of further factors are listed which the Boundary Commissions may also take into account when drawing constituencies, these additional factors are of course subordinate to the numerical prerequisite.

Independent electoral experts and the heads of the four Boundary Commissions have all made it clear on the record that, in order to meet the proposed numerical targets, individual wards will almost certainly need to be divided. The four heads of the Boundary Commissions told the Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee:

“The changes to the total number of constituencies, and the tighter limits on the number of electors in each constituency, will result in a complete redrawing of constituency boundaries ... The electoral parity target may require the Commissions to work with electorate data below ward level in many cases”.

That statement is utterly at odds with the words of the right honourable gentleman the Deputy Prime Minister, who told your Lordships’ Constitution Committee that,

“we must be able to use wards as the continued building blocks of constituency boundaries”.

Splitting wards in many cases will, as the Boundary Commissioners warn, result in major changes to the established pattern of political representation, and that is true of England in particular. The secretaries of the four commissions went on to tell the Select Committee:

“The electoral parity target will result in many constituencies crossing local authority boundaries. Early modelling suggests that in Scotland between 15 and 20 constituencies (of 50), and in Wales between 23 and 28 constituencies (of 30), would cross a local authority boundary ... the application of the electoral parity target is likely to result in many communities feeling that they are being divided between constituencies”.

The fracturing of wards and the crossing of county and local government boundaries would create administrative confusions that would feed into a sense of social dislocation. It would create particular problems for political parties at a structural level, especially in the case of the Conservative Party and my own party, the Labour Party, which are both organised on a constituency and ward basis. Significantly, Professor Ron Johnston, whom the Government are always praying in aid, told the Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee that one academic study had shown that,

“when a ward was split a lot of the ward activists drifted away. They had lost their rationale to represent this place, this place no longer existed, it was in two parts and political activity declined”.

That will mean, of course, very great organisational challenges for local parties, especially with the much more frequent and disruptive boundary reviews that the Bill envisages. Our amendments would provide more solidity to the boundary review process, better balance to the process for drawing constituencies and a greater understanding about the potentially damaging knock-on effect of the rigidly mathematical framework on which the Government are currently fixated.

I hope that the Government can respond favourably to these amendments and, in particular, I hope that they are able to accept Amendment 21C, which would insert into rule 5 of Schedule 2 in Clause 11 the following statement:

“Wards shall be the building blocks for parliamentary constituencies”.

That is word for word what the Deputy Prime Minister said to your Lordships’ Constitution Committee. I wonder whether the Minister is able to concede an amendment to the Opposition that merely requires the Government to agree with what the Deputy Prime Minister said. I beg to move.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 27A, 27C and 27D. I want to pay tribute to my noble friends on the Front Bench because this responds directly to a request made in Committee by my noble friend Lord Rennard and me that we should have some very simple, practical rules in the Bill to deal with the issue to which the noble Lord, Lord Bach, has just referred. These amendments together seem to us fully to meet our concerns. I think that they are practical and sensible, but they recognise that in certain parts of the United Kingdom it will be very difficult to be precise; for example, in a big city like Birmingham where the wards are very big indeed—I believe that they run to hundreds of thousands of people. In those circumstances, obviously you cannot have a hard-and-fast rule. However, Amendments 27A, 27C and 27D meet fully the requirements of a realistic appreciation that wards will indeed be the building blocks of constituency size; but we have to have some flexibility to meet the particular concerns and needs of different parts of the United Kingdom. I am very grateful to my noble friends.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and I thank them for the amendments they have tabled. We have focused on the important issue of boundaries, particularly ward boundaries. I especially thank my noble friend Lord Tyler and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, for acknowledging that, in response to representations they made earlier, the Government have brought forward amendments that reflect the importance of using wards in the Boundary Commission’s deliberations and determinations.

The Government have listened, and I hope that our amendments will satisfy the House. They reflect the variations in local government geography in the four constituent nations of the United Kingdom. We have taken the local government boundaries that we know each Boundary Commission considers when drawing up the constituencies and the amendment puts them on the face of the Bill. The Boundary Commissions will have the discretion to consider ward boundaries along with the other local government boundaries referred to in the debate.

The noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, and the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, mentioned the position of the unitary authorities. In the other place, the Government listened to the matter raised by the honourable Member for Slough regarding the unique position of the unitary authorities in Berkshire, which are districts. The Government listened and made an amendment to ensure that their boundaries were included. They will still be covered by our amendment which refers to all council areas in England, whether unitary or two tier, and for that reason we believe that there is no need for the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, although I accept the rationale behind them. The government amendment already allows the Boundary Commission to consider unitary authorities.

Amendment 21A would prevent constituencies including the whole or part of more than two counties or London boroughs. I note that the honourable Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale, Mr David Mundell, represents a constituency which contains parts of three council areas, including my own native parts in Dumfriesshire. It shows that Members of Parliament can perform this task. Indeed, at the last general election Mr Mundell was returned with an increased majority, which, given that he is the only Conservative MP in Scotland, was no small achievement. The administrative convenience of MPs should not be set above other factors to be considered by the Boundary Commissions.

The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, would prevent wards being split except in exceptional circumstances. The difficulty with exceptional circumstances is that in some of the largest wards of around 20,000 electors, there could well be perfectly valid arguments that it might better reflect the community characteristics for them to be divided between two different constituencies. In an earlier debate the noble Baroness, Lady McDonagh, recognised that wards are already split by parliamentary constituency boundaries in Scotland, where, because of the single transferable vote system of local elections, wards are by their very nature considerably greater.

We believe that the best approach is to give discretion to the Boundary Commissions. We should not forget that the secretary to the Boundary Commission for England said in evidence to the Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in September of last year:

“We have done some modelling earlier in the year … and it appears possible to allocate the correct number of constituencies using wards. However, it may be necessary to use a geography below ward level”.

So we expect wards to continue to be used as the building blocks of constituencies in England.

I am sympathetic to the intentions of opposition Amendment 21C. However, the Government favour placing a discretion on the commissions in the form of our amendment. I hope we agree that it is helpful for the commissions to be able to have regard to the boundaries of wards and other local government boundaries, and it is for that reason that we have placed them in the Bill. I urge the noble Lord, Lord Bach, to withdraw his amendment and the other noble Lords not to move theirs. I will move Amendments 27A, 27C and 27D in good time.

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate, not least to the Minister for his comments. At the start of my speech I did not thank the Government for the move that they have made on this issue, which I now acknowledge from the Front Bench. Our problem is that they have not moved far enough. My amendment and the amendment of my noble friend Lord Davies of Stamford seem to be stronger, tougher and more likely to mean that wards would not be divided in the changes to come. However, we have had a full discussion on this issue today and the Government have at least moved some way in this field. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 21A withdrawn.

Moved by

[Lord Bach]

21B: Clause 11, page 10, leave out lines 12 to 19.

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, rule 4 is designed to place a limit on the territorial extent of a constituency. That rule is deemed necessary because, if the principle of the equality of representation was continued to its logical end, we would see at least one gigantic parliamentary constituency in the highlands of Scotland. This is because the scarcity of population in that part of the United Kingdom means that a constituency would have to cover an enormous area if it was going to attain the proposed electoral quota of approximately 75,800 electors.

The electoral parity rule, born out of rules 2 and 5(3) in the Government’s scheme, is clear that every seat in Britain, save for the two Scottish island seats—and now, by the will of your Lordships’ House, the Isle of Wight—would have to have an electorate of between 95 per cent and 105 per cent of that UK average electorate. This would mean between about 73,000 and 80,000 voters. Rule 4 overrides that requirement. It states on the one hand that no constituency may exceed 13,000 square kilometres in size and, on the other, that a constituency may be exempted from the rule requiring it to meet the electoral quota in the event that it has a land area of over 12,000 square metres.

The first question that stems from rule 4 is: what was the basis for these numbers? So far as we know, there has never been a statutory limit on the size of a constituency, still less on electorates, and an exemption from that limit based on territorial extent, so where did these numbers come from? Rule 4 can conceivably apply in only one part of the United Kingdom—namely, the Scottish highlands—but why should the geography of that area be the only geography to qualify for special recognition in the construction of parliamentary constituencies? We understand why it might be sensible to put a limit on how large a constituency should be allowed to grow territorially in pursuit of the electoral quota, but would it not be sensible to place other protections on potentially undesirable geographical entities that could be produced as a consequence of the electoral parity rule? If the Minister tries to explain the rule by referring to the accessibility of a constituency, which I suspect he might be tempted to do—for example, the ability of the MP to travel round his or her constituency—why is Argyll and Bute, with 13 islands, or St Ives, which incorporates the Isles of Scilly, not also included as exceptions to the parity rule? If he uses the accessibility argument, I should like an answer to that question.

It might be possible to prioritise either the geographical size of constituencies or the number of electors in a constituency, but the Government should not attempt to do both, so why were these figures of 13,000 square kilometres and 12,000 square kilometres chosen? The Government obviously had a particular area in mind, but we would like to hear from the Minister what led the Government to come to that view. I beg to move.

[Lord McNally]

I will not refer to the accessibility argument. Amendment 21B seeks to remove the provision for an exemption for geographically extremely large constituencies provided for by rule 4 in the Bill. As the Government said when the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, raised this issue in Committee, this exemption exists to ensure that constituencies are not created that would be impracticably large, damaging the valuable link between constituent and MP. The noble Lord asked why these numbers have been included in the Bill. We have set a limit roughly the size of the largest existing UK constituency, as the Boundary Commission for Scotland felt able to recommend a constituency of this size at the previous review, and that independent judgment seemed to us to be the best basis for a provision of this kind. The range of 12,000 to 13,000 square kilometres is simply to avoid the Boundary Commission having to draw a line resulting in a constituency at exactly 13,000 square kilometres, which might involve a very unnatural boundary.

As the noble Lord rightly says, the provision is almost uniquely applicable to the Scottish highlands. The consequences of this amendment would not, of course, be fully known until the Boundary Commission had made its report. However, it is inevitable that constituencies in sparsely populated parts of Scotland would be enlarged if rule 4 were removed. The provision at rule 4 would not preserve the boundaries of any particular existing constituency, nor was it ever intended to. Like all the Government's proposals, it is designed to allow sensible reform without departing too far from the existing experience. Some noble Lords claim that the Government are inflexible and yet support the removal of one of the provisions of the Bill designed to allow flexibility to take account of particular local circumstances. They may do so in support of an alternative scheme to deal with the highlands, although that would not be the effect of the amendment. Whatever the merits of alternative schemes, the amendment before us would simply delete sensible and practical flexibility for the Boundary Commission. On that basis, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw it.

[Lord Bach]

I shall withdraw the amendment; I thank the Minister for his reply. However, it seems a remarkable feature of the Bill that it picks out one constituency or part of the United Kingdom in this way. The figures referred to are those given in the Bill. I understand that the Government are unlikely to give way on this issue, and I do not think that it would be sensible to divide the House on it, so I seek leave to withdraw it.

Amendment 21B withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Bach]

21J: Clause 11, page 10, line 28, after “ties” insert “, including wards,”

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, this is a very simple amendment which we feel the Government should be able to accept without any fuss. It makes a minor textual change that does no more than include in the Bill a statement of fact made by the government Front Bench. It proposes that the reference to “local ties” in rule 5 of Clause 11 should also include a reference to local wards. There should not be much argument about this because in Committee the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, told your Lordships that,

“wards are in many cases already the building blocks of constituencies. They are the level that can often reflect local community ties”.—[Official Report, 24/1/11; col. 743.]

Today, he has gone further and the Government have moved an amendment, which has been passed, that will strengthen that to some extent. Therefore, the case for adding the expression set out in my Amendment 21J is sensible, clear and unarguable. I hope that the Minister will accept it. I beg to move.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, as I understand it, what the noble Lord intends is for rule 5, on factors which the Boundary Commission may take into account, to read:

“A Boundary Commission may take into account, if and to such an extent as they think fit … any local ties, including wards, that would be broken by changes in constituencies”.

The reason for our not wishing to accept the amendment is, as has already been indicated—we have already had a good debate on wards—that “wards” will be inserted in the Bill by Amendments 27A, 27C and 27D when they are passed. As the noble Lord knows, wards will in that way be imported into the Bill, so the position would in many respects be duplicated by his amendment. I do not think that there is any dispute between us as to the importance of wards, but I believe that the amendments which the Government will move when we reach the appropriate part of the Marshalled List will address the point that the noble Lord makes.

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for the speed with which he found the passage. Oh, did he not? I take back those thanks at once but thank him for his response.

He is being too cautious here. This is such a small amendment and it fits in exactly with what he told the House about how important the Government now feel that wards are in the whole structure of the new process. I will of course withdraw the amendment but ask him, please, to go back and consider whether adding those words in that part of the Bill would really not be an improvement. There is no adverse reason why that should not happen. I ask him, before Third Reading, to go back and consider that but for now I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. I am grateful to the House for its indulgence.

Amendment 21J withdrawn.