All 1 Lord Faulkner of Worcester contributions to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 2020

Read Bill Ministerial Extracts

Thu 10th Sep 2020
Parliamentary Constituencies Bill
Grand Committee

Committee stage:Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Cabinet Office

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts
Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 10th September 2020

(4 years, 2 months ago)

Grand Committee
Read Full debate Parliamentary Constituencies Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 126-III Third marshalled list for Grand Committee - (10 Sep 2020)
Clause 5 should stand part of the Bill and this amendment to increase the size of the other place to 800 should be rejected. I therefore urge my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester Portrait The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, I have received a request from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, to speak after the Minister.

Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I will speak briefly. First, I make a plea to the Minister never to refer to this House as a part-time House. He half-corrected himself but this House often sits longer and later than the House of Commons. We are a full-time House. The only difference is that not all Members are full-time Members of your Lordships’ House; they have other interests and activities. We are a full-time House but not all our Members are full-time.

I want to make a couple of points. The Minister said that reform cannot be piecemeal because it must be considered. Reform can be both considered and piecemeal. Most reforms in British constitutional history have been quite gradual. That does not mean that they have not been considered; they have just taken a step-by-step approach, not the big bang approach. The Minister harked back to ducks and tabby cats; I would liken the House of Lords more to a tabby cat than to a duck.

The night in question, when the Minister and I had many discussions late into the night, went later than either of us wanted to be here in Parliament, but potentially the point the Minister is missing is that, after the conflicts that he referred to, both the 1911 and the 1949 Parliament Acts constrained how the House of Lords works. It is quite clear that we have an advisory role and that the House of Commons has primacy. We do not block legislation, we have no intention of blocking legislation and we have no remit or legitimacy to block legislation, but we have an opportunity and an obligation to advise the House of Commons on the basis of the information that we have.

On the Minister’s point about a Prime Minister needing to be able to appoint lots of Peers to get their legislation through, I am not aware of anything that Boris Johnson would have more difficulty with in the House of Commons than in the House of Lords. Even on the rule of law, I suspect that his colleagues in the House of Commons are not terribly happy with him, but that is not why he has appointed these 36 new Peers. It is nothing at all to do with legislation; it is a Prime Ministerial whim and a numbers game.

I am grateful for the Minister’s comments on the size of the House of Commons being 650 Members. There is something that we can agree entirely on.

--- Later in debate ---
Amendment 13 withdrawn.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester Portrait The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

Before I call the next group, I have had a request for Members in the room to speak up a little, because I think it is hard for Members, particularly those at the far end, to hear what is going on. It is not made easier by the extraneous noise outside. So if people could perhaps speak a little closer to the microphone, it would be appreciated by the noble Lord who I can see at the end of the table.

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 14. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate.

Amendment 14

Moved by
--- Later in debate ---
Lord Faulkner of Worcester Portrait The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

I have received requests to speak after the Minister from the noble Lords, Lord McNicol and Lord Lipsey. I first call the noble Lord, Lord McNicol of West Kilbride.

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride Portrait Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I want to come back to the Minister. The Government seem to put all their weight behind the equality of the number of electors within constituencies, and have said that all the arguments from all the noble Lords who spoke in the debate are irrelevant because we would move away from equal votes of equal weight across the nations.

How does the Minister explain the exemptions that there are already in place for the islands? Yes, they are islands, but in accepting that they are special cases because they are islands, you are accepting the premise that there can be exceptions. I think that, with the arguments made—specifically the point about protecting the future of the union—these exceptions for Wales and Scotland should outweigh this crass, simplistic, mathematical argument.

I just repeat, because it is really important: under our current electoral system, which I support, if we were to make the changes proposed in the Bill and constituencies were of a similar size within quite a small variation, a single vote in Lerwick would still not be the same as a single vote in Luton. With our electoral system, you cannot make that argument.

--- Later in debate ---
I appeal to the Minister to look again at this amendment, and for the Government to consider supporting it on Report. It is not asking for the status quo; it recognises the Government’s desire to move towards greater equalisation. However, it does so in a less harsh way, with a less punitive impact on representation in Wales. If the noble Baroness and her Government want to speak for Wales as a UK Government, in the way that they claim, then they should respect Wales. This amendment, in suggesting a reduction of five, to 35, has legislative precedent. That legislation entrenched that principle while recognising Wales’s special interests, as I have tried to argue. I hope that she will reconsider her response and that the Government will consider supporting it, as it is my intention to bring it back on Report.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester Portrait The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

Meanwhile, does the noble Lord beg leave to withdraw it?

Lord Hain Portrait Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 5 agreed.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester Portrait The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

A little later than we planned, the Committee will now adjourn for 15 minutes.