Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Amendment of Schedule 1) Order 2012

Debate between Lord Grocott and Lord McNally

Tuesday 8th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

The noble and learned Baroness suggests that the Government, as if in some game of poker, have to produce another offer in response to a fatal Motion. A fatal Motion is what it says—it is fatal. As I have pointed out, there was the example of the casino Bill in the previous Parliament. One of the reasons why successive Oppositions have thought long and hard about using fatal Motions is that they have implications about where and when the arguments and discussions about a Bill come to an end and how that relates to the relationship between the two Houses. Such Motions can be very toxic. I warned the House and the noble Lord, Lord Bach, of that, but he pressed ahead. A fatal Motion was passed and it has been fatal.

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords, the Minister’s whole approach in answering questions today gives the House a great deal of explanation for why he sometimes finds it difficult to get Motions, including fatal Motions, through. He clearly misunderstands the procedure, which is as follows. Yes, an order can be defeated by a fatal Motion, but a Minister given to conciliatory thinking—something that apparently does not appeal to him—should then go to the opponents of the order and suggest to them various possibilities for ways in which an order could be put before the House and might then pass. Such negotiations may or may not be successful, but the Minister at least owes it to the House to tell us precisely what efforts he has made to ensure that an amended Motion can be put to the House that might command its support.

[Lord McNally]

I am making no efforts to make such a proposal. The fatal Motion is fatal—that is the end. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, has gone around this track, but in a parliamentary process there must come a point when a Bill becomes an Act and a law is passed. If the Opposition’s plan, and it would be interesting to know this, is to use fatal Motions on a regular basis to try to keep alive issues that have been decided by both Houses through proper Bill procedures, then we are going into new territory. I am sorry but the House heard my warning and ignored it, and the Bill is now an Act.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Grocott and Lord McNally

Thursday 16th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I think that the term “secret” is rather emotive. As I understand it, the Chairman of Committees, who is a paragon of open government, held a meeting and the minutes will be published in the usual way.

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords, perhaps I can raise an issue with the Deputy Leader. I have put down a Written Question on this but this is the first opportunity I have had to put an Oral Question to him about the Business of the House.

For a fortnight, we shall be in the rather bizarre situation of having our bicameral Houses of Parliament effectively sitting as a unicameral system as there are separate recess dates for the Commons and the Lords. I find that inexplicable, partly on the grounds that we are at the stage of business when a lot of ping-pong takes place, which is inevitably delayed because of this, and partly because there are occasions when we cannot get Royal Assent to Bills because the two Houses are not sitting. There is also a cost involved and a lot of inconvenience to people who have not been able to arrange the normal cross-party and cross-House meetings during this period. Can the Deputy Leader give us an explanation for what, on the face of it, seems to me to be a rather bizarre decision to have made?

[Lord McNally]

The noble Lord is right that it is usually good to synchronise the dates. However, I am informed that they were announced last October and that there were no objections in either House. As the noble Lord put down a Written Question, I am sure that a considered Written Answer from a higher grade than mine will give him the explanation.

Political Party Funding

Debate between Lord Grocott and Lord McNally

Thursday 15th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, even this report recommends that nothing that it suggests should come in before 2015, but the Deputy Prime Minister has indicated that all political parties are welcome to have broad discussions with him, and these matters could form part of those discussions.

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords, I feel a little light-headed because I think I may agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. Obviously, to make elections fairer it is not just a question of where competing candidates and parties raise their money from, it is also how much they spend. This has long been acknowledged at the level of constituency party campaigning. Surely, whatever else we may disagree on, none of us would want elections to take the form, in terms of expenditure, that is the case in the United States, where the most obscene levels of expenditure are required even to begin to get off the ground. Can the Government focus their attention on looking at the ways in which total expenditure can be minimised, particularly at a national level? At least we could make some progress on that, even if the other side of the equation is more difficult.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, not only do I feel light-headed, I think I am going to swoon away: I think I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. Yes, I fully agree with him. As the Deputy Prime Minister has rightly said, this is obviously not the time to try the fundamental reforms that this report, and indeed the Hayden Phillips report before it, recommended. However, there is an opportunity to engage in discussions to see if we can do things within current frameworks to address some of the issues he raised. That would be a very fruitful use of time in this Parliament.

Legislation

Debate between Lord Grocott and Lord McNally

Thursday 10th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords—

[Lord McNally]

I think that it is the turn of the Cross Benches—the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar.

House of Lords: Reform

Debate between Lord Grocott and Lord McNally

Monday 3rd October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grocott]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend that a reformed House of Lords would, like the House of Commons, vote on any future deployment of troops in conflicts overseas.

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

My Lords, since the 2003 Iraq conflict there has been a convention to debate military intervention in the House of Commons. This Government have been clear that we will abide by that convention. The Government are currently exploring options for formalising the convention, including the future role of the House of Lords in such matters.

[Lord Grocott]

With respect, my Lords, this question goes to the heart of the issues of the powers of a revised House of Lords and the relationship between the two Houses. I put these simple questions to the Minister: if Members of the Commons were allowed to vote on matters of war and peace and senators in the newly elected senate were not, how on earth would that be explained and justified? If, on the other hand, the Commons and the Lords could both vote on matters of war and peace, what on earth would happen if one voted for war and the other for peace? I put it to the Minister that if the resources of the Deputy Prime Minister cannot even come up with an attempt to answer these fundamental questions about a reformed second Chamber, they should tear up the draft Bill and go back to the drawing board.

[Lord McNally]

The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, continues his search for the silver bullet that is going to shoot down Lords reform. The fact is that we are approaching the matter of war powers rather more seriously. Of course there is the matter of the power of the House of Commons, and we are considering carefully how such legislation would be couched. When the reformed House of Lords comes into being, as has been made clear by the Cunningham committee, the conventions between the two Houses will be up for re-examination but the conventions of the two Houses will still be in place. The Government have made it quite clear that it will be the House of Lords—sorry, the House of Commons, that will have the—[Laughter.] War powers are a rather serious matter. If the noble Lord would address it as such, instead of as one of his regular “catch them” questions, we could well debate it.

House of Lords: Reform

Debate between Lord Grocott and Lord McNally

Wednesday 22nd June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

You will get your full two hours if you carry on like this. [Laughter.]

[Lord Grocott]

I knew that in the first five minutes of his speech the Minister would be Mr Nice. He has now turned inevitably to the Mr Nasty phase. He needs to explain to the House that if the new, elected second Chamber were to have essentially the same powers and functions as the present one, as his own White Paper and draft Bill say, how on earth could this Chamber veto absolutely crucial matters that would be determined by the primary House?

[Lord McNally]

I never said that this Chamber should have a right of veto; I said it had a right to say no. There is a difference. Usually in this House somebody is allowed to develop an argument, and I will cover the whole question that was raised. I am not trying to be nasty to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. I am very affectionate towards him. There were a number of thoughts that passed through during the speeches. I liked the phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, of a House of grandparents appointed through patronage. I think that is one to reflect on. I liked another one by the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, who said,

“we must avoid what de Tocqueville called a ‘perpetual utterance of self-applause’”.—[Official Report, 21/6/11; col. 1194.]

We did not entirely manage that over the last two days.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

All three parties had it in. I have to say that that is a kind of car salesman’s excuse. Let me make it clear that I am not anticipating changing many minds during this speech. However, I am also very well aware—more than this House seems to be aware—that this is not a perfect reflection of opinion in the country. That should be the warning to this House.

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords—

[Lord McNally]

No, not again, Brucie.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Grocott and Lord McNally

Wednesday 9th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords, I would be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord McNally, would respond on just one point of fact. As we know, one of the major justifications that the Government have offered for the reduction in the number of MPs is—to quote either the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister—to reduce the costs of democracy. Can the noble Lord confirm to us that among the issues reviewed in five years’ time, according to this amendment, will be an assessment of the savings to the Exchequer from the reduction in the number of Members of the House of Commons, and whether that assessment will weigh those savings against the costs of increasing the size of the House of Lords?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I am grateful for the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson. I have noticed as this debate has gone on over the days that the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, have got increasingly strident. However, I am happy to be thought of as one of the old contemptibles in this respect. I think that we are moving closer to what has been the objective all along, as the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, recognised—the urgency of giving the electorate the opportunity of opting for fair votes in fairly drawn constituencies. That has been the thrust of the Bill throughout. That is why we resist these amendments.

As for the question from the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, yes, I fully imagine that a cost-benefit analysis will be included in any post-legislative review—as the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, termed it—that is undertaken. By that time we will also have the full benefit of the reform of this House which my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister will propose in the draft Bill that he will shortly bring forward.

Constitutional Reform: Referendums

Debate between Lord Grocott and Lord McNally

Monday 24th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grocott]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what criteria are used to determine whether or not a constitutional change should be submitted to a referendum.

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

My Lords, the Government believe that Parliament should judge which issues are the subject of a national referendum.

[Lord Grocott]

So there is no question of the Government adopting any principles towards it, then. I cannot understand the Government’s position on this because they do appear to have a position. How can it be right to have a referendum on the major constitutional issue of changing the voting system for the House of Commons but wrong to hold a referendum on the major constitutional issue of changing an appointed House of Lords into an elected House of Lords?

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Grocott and Lord McNally

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

What makes this an absolutely Alice in Wonderland debate is that, when the noble Lord, Lord Maxton, reads Hansard, he will see that that is just what I said. I thank him for his support.

The commitment to represent everybody in the constituency does not necessarily mean, as has been made clear a number of times, that we should look to population rather than registration for basing the electorate. The electoral register has been the basis for boundary reviews since the 1940s. Current constituencies in the other place are drawn up on the basis of electorate, not population. It was made clear earlier this evening that there are reasons and principles for this practice and approach. The principle behind the Government’s proposal is to ensure that one elector means one vote of equal weight, wherever that vote is cast in the United Kingdom. In order for this to be the case, constituencies must have a broadly equal number of electors. Simply to substitute population for electors would exacerbate the present inequalities in the weight of vote because there would be variations in the number of individuals in an area who are not entitled to vote. The best way to achieve fair and equal votes and to address concerns about underregistration is to have an equal number of registered electors while ensuring that the register is as accurate as possible.

A further argument has been put that the constituency boundaries should be drawn on the basis of population rather than the register of electors because a Member of Parliament is elected to represent all his constituents and a significant part of an MP’s work can be on behalf of those who are not registered to vote. That argument has been made several times. However—this point has been made several times, but I shall say it again loudly—no Member of Parliament has a free ride. MPs have different kinds of pressures and different areas of responsibility, so it would be invidious to start deciding that constituency X rather than constituency Y had more problems. Most MPs will give a full description of the kind of problems that their particular constituency brings. That is why the Government believe that it is the right of electors to have a vote that is of equal weight between, as well as within, constituencies throughout the United Kingdom.

There have been ideas that we could use population. The difficulty is, as the Office for National Statistics has pointed out, that there are limitations with population estimates. Although I have heard in previous debates the suggestion that we could use the census, the data from the forthcoming census will not be available until far too late for the Boundary Commission to complete the task of reviewing the boundaries by 2015, which would mean that, up to the 2020 general election, the pattern of representation in the House of Commons would reflect the electoral register as it was in the year 2000. I cannot believe that we should do such a disservice to every elector in that way.

Nor, as I noted in the earlier debate on a similar amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, can we accept the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, that the total population of a constituency could not exceed a number that is 130 per cent of the electoral quota. I recognise the intention behind that amendment, but the data are not available that could make that work in practice. The Boundary Commission would need population data at a very low level of geography in order to ensure that the tests in the amendment were met. Those data are not available. It would be far better to use the electoral register, as has always been the case for boundary reviews, and concentrate our efforts on improving the registration rates. The census may provide valuable information that can support that work. The provisions in this Bill for a review once a Parliament, rather than once every eight to 12 years, will mean that the work will be reflected in a review very much sooner than would be the case under the existing provisions.

I note what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, who made a valid point. I know that boundary reviews cause problems in terms of sitting MPs, but this proposal is for the benefit of the electors. Amendment 74C proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, would allow the Boundary Commission to take into account likely rapid changes in population when making recommendations for boundary changes. Amendment 78A, which has not been moved by my noble friend Lord Maples, would require the commissions to take into account projected increases in the electorate.

My concern is that, however calculations were made on the projected electorate, there would, by definition, be an element of interpretation that would be subject to repeated challenge. Furthermore, the amendments would abolish the fixed figure and replace it with a moving target. I am concerned that interested parties would be likely to use this for arguing for a more advantageous calculation method for the projections. In order to maintain the high levels of trust in our system, we must base boundary reviews on the availability of actual data.

That said, I hope that we can reassure noble Lords on this issue. The Fifth Periodical Report of the Boundary Commission for England notes that the commission takes into account projected electorate changes where it believes that the projection is likely to become a reality. We are confident that the Bill does nothing to stop the commissions continuing that practice, and we would expect them to apply this practice where they judge that the specific circumstances warrant it. I would advocate continuing to rely on the professional and expert judgment of the commissions.

We agree that constituencies should be as up to date as reasonably possible in order that boundaries reflect where electors live and in order that votes have equal weight. The answer to this is the Bill's provision for redistributions to take place every five years.

At this point, in the tradition that has been established in the last hour in this House, I would offer the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, a meeting on this, but I think that his diary is probably already full. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Grocott]

I am baffled by the Minister’s response. He is saying that the Boundary Commission can take account of factors that are not mentioned under factors (a), (b), (c) or (d) that are listed in Rule 5 of new Schedule 2. All I am saying is that if the Boundary Commission can take account of factors that are not listed—obviously, my amendment would add to those four factors—what on earth is the point of specifying the factors that are listed? My amendment would not impose a compulsion on the Boundary Commission; it would simply list a possible consideration that may allow for specific local circumstances. I simply did not understand his answer. I am also a bit upset because he did not suggest a meeting. Perhaps he will write to me.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Grocott and Lord McNally

Wednesday 12th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords, I seek some figures from the Minister, although he has indicated that he will not give any and has adhered to that stance so far when responding to amendments. Time and again before the election the parties that are now in government said that the reason for reducing the number of MPs was to reduce the costs of democracy. I was never able to work out how that would happen, principally because I knew the cost of a normal Boundary Commission review from Questions that I had posed to my noble friend Lord Bach when he was a Minister long before this was ever an issue. From memory, I was told that it was around £13 million. When pressed on the matter, Nick Clegg has said that the saving to the Exchequer of reducing the number of MPs by 50 would be about £12 million. As I knew that there would have to be an advanced Boundary Commission, it was obvious to me that the cost of the Boundary Commission alone would be more initially than the savings gained from that reduction in the number of MPs, so there are no savings in the costs of democracy.

What I did not realise in those early stages was quite how frequently Boundary Commission reviews would be required under the legislation. We now know, should the Bill become an Act, that because the Minister rejected our various proposals to extend the period between boundary redistributions, those redistributions would be roughly twice as frequent as they are now. They now occur between every eight and 12 years; if the Bill is enacted, they will happen every five years.

Unless my basic maths is completely wrong, the savings to the Exchequer from the reduction in the number of MPs will be £12 million, while the cost of a Boundary Commission review will, I assume, remain at about £13 million, but reviews will occur twice as frequently. I am even being generous to the Government in that respect, because if all these reviews are to be accelerated, they will presumably be costly. More commissioners will be needed to do things quickly.

It is therefore not unreasonable—although I fear that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, appears to indicate that he thinks it is an unreasonable request—for us to know the cost of the Boundary Commission reviews, given that they will occur twice as frequently. Given that the Government’s principal justification has been to reduce the cost of democracy, we ought to bear in mind that the cost of the referendum will be about £90 million.

We know well enough that all areas of public expenditure are being very closely scrutinised as to whether they are necessary, and it is reasonable to ask these questions. If I do not get a response now, I shall have to table a Parliamentary Question on the subject. If the noble Lord cannot provide the figures now, perhaps he would be kind enough to tell the Committee in due course what they are. What are the costs of the Boundary Commission? How much more will they be when the reviews are twice as frequent as they are at present? Can he confirm in passing—I am sure that it is easy for him to do—whether cost of the referendum will be £90 million? If those figures are anything like what I estimate, and I do not have the noble Lord’s resources, can I at least appeal to him and his colleagues on the Front Bench never again to say, as a justification for this legislation, that he is “reducing the cost of democracy”?

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

My Lords, the weakness in this amendment is the first five words:

“For the avoidance of doubt”.

There is no doubt. The 1986 Act and this Bill already make provisions for the payment of the commission’s expenses, including any additional resources necessary to complete the review referred to in this clause. In evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, the secretary of the English commission, which of course will have the most sizeable task to complete, told the committee that the commission has been working closely on the question of funding, in discussion with its sponsoring departments. Those departments are the Cabinet Office for England and Wales, the Scotland Office for Scotland, and Northern Ireland Office for Northern Ireland.

In addition, the secretary of the commission confirmed that he was confident that sufficient resources would be available to complete the review. It is the Government’s view that this is the best approach—a dialogue between each of the commissions and their sponsoring departments to ensure that their funding is appropriate. We have no doubt that the review will be conducted with a careful regard—I repeat, a careful regard—to public money. That matter, of course, can be examined at a later stage. However, there is no doubt that the commissions will have the resources that they need to complete the review, and the 1986 Act and this Bill already make provisions for that. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Grocott and Lord McNally

Wednesday 15th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grocott]

The two amendments relate to an extremely important part of this Bill. The Government were obviously quite right to have a clause in the Bill that, as far as broadcasting is concerned, deals with fairness in a referendum. However, I am glad that we do not have a written constitution. I would be very concerned if someone tried to hand over the way in which we run our country from a constitutional point of view to the lawyers.

I can see that the issue of referendums and how we conduct them is important. I will certainly not go down memory lane, apart from remembering the debates about setting up the first referendum, on the Common Market, in 1975. There were long debates in Parliament about lots of these kinds of issues—about how to make sure that it was fair. I am absolutely certain that we did not get it right on that occasion; we certainly did not get it right from my point of view because I voted no. There is no doubt that each time these things are discussed, we refine and improve the rules relating to referendums.

I do not know what speaking notes the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has, but I hope that he recognises the significance of this, not least—and perhaps in particular—because, if there is any logic whatsoever in the constitutional changes that are proposed by this Government and if there is a referendum on the voting system in the House of Commons, there must surely be a referendum on any proposal to scrap the House of Lords, whichever way one considers the arguments, although the Committee will be relieved to know that I do not have the slightest intention of going into those arguments now. Presumably, if we get this clause right, when another Bill comes down the track that provides for a referendum on an even bigger part of our constitution, we will have rules about fairness that all of us can agree to. We are heading in a direction, whether we like it or not, where constitutional changes will be referred to referendums. I hope that the Government will look at these amendments sympathetically.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for bringing forward this amendment. I agree entirely with the last point that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, made that the pattern of using referendums since the 1970s has been to learn, modify and improve. That will probably go on.

The noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, gave a very good example of an injunction being brought against an election broadcast. I am always fascinated by the difference between English and Scottish law. When I ask, “What is the difference?”, the answer that I get in the Ministry of Justice is often, “They do it much better in Scotland”. That is just a passing observation. I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, still does not trust the Liberals. I really thought that we were beginning to bond. I will have to do more work on my charm offensive.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, was quite right: this clause was brought in as a specific amendment suggested by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee to address the guidelines for broadcasters. There is a principle to consider. Would it be right for party election broadcasts for the local and devolved Assembly elections, which will take place on 5 May, to refer to the referendum and/or make any comment on different voting systems? There is an argument that, as a final strap line, a broadcast could say, “Use both your votes on Thursday”, or whatever. We recognise that there is an issue to be discussed. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said, the Electoral Commission has made some comments on this as well.

I am advised that there are defects in Amendment 39AA that would bring in ambiguity. We could perhaps test that. On the second amendment, I suggest again that the noble and learned Lord does not press it and that we have further discussions to see whether it can be improved and clarified. Before the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, breaks open the champagne, I should add that my speaking notes contain lines that I have not heard since “Beyond the Fringe”. They say: “What I am saying does not mean that I agree with his amendment, but nor should it be assumed that I disagree with the amendment”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grocott]

I am sorry, but the Minister is proposing a referendum which will change the constitution. That is what the referendum is about and, as his leader reminded us, it is the most important constitutional change since 1832. I hope that the noble Lord does not think that the questions being asked—it is the first that I have asked—are trivial or “hobgoblins”, or some other phrase. He has constantly repeated the mantra: “Fair votes in fair constituencies”. I do not like tripping down that road by using that language, but I might as well. How about ensuring that it is a fair referendum? That is what these questions are all about, and it would be simply too late to consider them “after we have changed the constitution”. That may be the result of the referendum, although I fervently hope not, and it would be too late to say, “Sorry we got the expenditure rules wrong; we will put them right next time”. If the noble Lord cannot see that the issue needs to be addressed now, before the referendum, I suspect that not just those of us on both sides who have been asking questions, but a lot of noble Lords who have not felt it necessary to contribute to this debate may feel that a straightforward answer is required.

[Lord McNally]

The straightforward answer is that the question will be never ending. We will always be looking at how these things are regulated. We will always be looking at whether the rules can be tightened, improved or made more transparent. The question is whether you can conduct a referendum on a fair and transparent basis under the terms of the legislation proposed in the Bill. It is the opinion of this House and it was certainly the opinion of the other place that we could do that. The questions raised on the opposite side may be reasonable, including the question on the funding of political parties, which again will be an ongoing matter. That is why the Committee on Standards in Public Life is looking at that very issue, and this party and this coalition Government will legislate on the funding of political parties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

More than one person has commented that the Opposition spent overlong on certain parts of the Bill and then used that as an excuse for not dealing with other parts of the Bill. Just as I have argued with colleagues who have got a little tetchy about the Opposition’s tactics, I know full well that, as one of my old text books used to say, the principal weapon of an Opposition is delay. I do not object to that, but neither do I fail to recognise it when I see it.

[Lord Grocott]

This is a Bill of 300 pages—and I do not apologise for repeating this—which plans to change the constitution of our country. I hope the noble Lord is not arguing that to spend five days—I am speaking from memory now, but I am pretty certain that I am right—on the Committee stage in the House of Commons and two days on Report is an inordinate or generous amount of time. I hope he is not suggesting in any way, shape or form, that the time that we have spent in this House on the scrutiny of crucial groups of amendments is any more than they properly deserve. If he does think that, I would appeal to him to let us know which group of amendments should not have been discussed or were addressing anything other than very serious matters about our constitution. He gives the impression that he is very irritated—perhaps I am wrong, perhaps we are over-sensitive on this side—at every criticism of the Bill, and at any suggestion for any amendment. If that is the way he responds, I suggest he talks to his noble friend Lord Strathclyde, who has the capacity most of the time, at the other end of the scale, for making us think that what we are saying is important—what he privately thinks I do not have the faintest idea but I will give him the credit for giving that appearance—and at the same time being amused, not being tetchy and not being irritable. We could have moved on a great deal more quickly with this amendment. The noble Lord has wasted time.

While I am on my feet, the next amendments after mine are six government amendments. I hope that the noble Lord will not do anything other than a proper courtesy to the House in explaining these amendments in proper detail. I absolutely assure him that neither I nor any of my colleagues, and I suspect any on his side of the House, will accuse him of time-wasting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

That is a merry thought, but no. We will resist this amendment and we urge the noble Lord to withdraw it.

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords, any neutral observer would say that this is a simple and straightforward proposition that the results of a referendum about parliamentary constituencies should be counted and declared on the basis of parliamentary constituencies. It is not rocket science and it is not complicated. It is common sense, and I think the Minister knows as much. What has been established in this debate—I had not realised how clearly it would be established—is what a complete dog’s breakfast the list of counting districts is in the Bill. I will not go through the list again, but it is pretty random. It is a case of: wherever you can find a returning officer, let us have an election counted and declared. It is of no significance, no interest and no consistency that I can see.

I remind the Minister that we do not hold referenda or make decisions in this House on the basis of convenience for the Electoral Commission. The Electoral Commission’s report is essentially saying “It is not a convenient way of doing it”, which was the nub of the argument that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, presented to us—that it was much more convenient to hold elections on the basis of these various randomly selected electoral areas as determined in the Bill. I believe that my noble friend Lord Howarth made the point that it is treating a national referendum on changing the constitution as being a secondary event on the day—“Oh, we’re counting borough elections, so we might as well count the referendum within the same electoral areas”. If I may say so, all the arguments on any kind of coherent principle have been on one side, and the arguments for convenience have been on the other. Indeed, he admitted it was for convenience and I do not think I am misrepresenting him.

[Lord McNally]

It is for the convenience of the electorate.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Grocott and Lord McNally

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grocott]

I always tremble a little when I follow my noble friend Lord Snape, who was also my Whip during the 1970s. I shall follow the habit of a lifetime and agree with him on this matter. I was delighted that my noble friend Lord Foulkes was able to penetrate the weak thicket of my arguments and deduce that, on balance and weighing all things up, I am totally in favour of first past the post. I am pleased to be on exactly the same side of the argument in respect to this amendment as my noble friend Lord Rooker. That may surprise noble Lords given that, although we agree on most things, over the years we have not agreed on electoral reform. His argument about the need for this to be an indicative referendum was absolutely convincing.

Surely we can all agree that this is a very unusual amendment. I want to deal briefly—I hope this is the last time that I have to do so—with the argument put forward by the Lib Dems that somehow the Labour Party in opposition must be bound by every dot and comma of the manifesto on which it has just lost the election. The concept of a referendum on AV has already been road tested. The Conservatives and the Lib Dems opposed it before the election and are now bringing it in, presumably claiming that they have a mandate to do so. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord McNally, can tell us whether he thinks that there is a mandate to do that. I hate to keep repeating the fact that the one party that would have had a mandate lost the election. I do not like losing elections, even though I have lost an awful lot of them over the years. Therefore, we can put that issue to bed, but if anyone raises it again I give whoever does so, particularly the Lib Dems, a severe warning that I shall look through all their election manifestos covering the elections they have lost, which now covers a period of about 100 years, check on all the commitments that they made and start reading them out. If people are awake at the end of it full marks to them, but can we please put that argument behind us because it does not hold water?

This is, indeed, a very unusual referendum. Whatever we think of the merits of it, I think we can acknowledge that it is unusual. As a lifelong member of the Labour Party, I find myself agreeing in key respects with both the Conservative Prime Minister and the Liberal Democrat Deputy Prime Minister. I agree with the Prime Minister’s opposition to AV, and whenever the referendum takes place—I hope that will not be for a while—I shall be voting the same way as him. However, I must say in passing that it must be the first time ever that a Government have called a referendum which they hope to lose. That is a constitutional first, if nothing else. I agree very strongly with the right honourable Nick Clegg’s description of the measure as a miserable little compromise, as my noble friend said. However, to put it mildly, that is not a strong basis on which to hold a referendum. In addition, the Government are committed to holding it on the same day as local elections, which means that it will be a legislative referendum. That is essentially what it is; it is not an indicative referendum but one which legislates. We know that there are massive differences in turnout in different parts of the country. That is not a good basis for any decision, but is a particularly bad one when we are effectively asking the electorate to legislate. As I have already said, for different reasons the two key members of the Government are not wholeheartedly committed to the referendum, so for that reason, if none other, it should be no more than an indicative referendum.

I conclude by asking the noble Lord, Lord McNally, a question which will need to be asked sooner or later as it is very important to the nature and integrity—if that is not too pompous a word—of the debate that is taking place. I cannot claim that I have read by any means all the various reports on this matter, but there seem to be very strong indications emanating from the Lib Dem negotiating team in the coalition building programme. This is a serious question and I hope that the noble Lord will give it a serious answer. The members of the team were very keen indeed for either the Labour Party or the Conservative Party to bring forward legislation to impose the alternative vote system on the British people—neither party having campaigned for it—and that it should be imposed without a referendum. Either that is a fact or it is not—I do not know as I was not part of either negotiating team and would not have expected to be. However, we need to know the answer to that question before we can proceed any further with this passionate commitment.

[Lord McNally]

Rather like the previous Government, I think we shall leave to the memoirs what was or was not said during negotiations. However, what is on the record is the coalition agreement, which is the basis of this Bill. Not for the first time, and certainly not for the last, the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is dragging through this House an enormous red herring.

[Lord Grocott]

I had expected the noble Lord to tell me that I was a constitutional Conservative, or some other such epithet. I think that on the previous occasion he described me as a Neanderthal; now I am dragging red herrings. I asked a fairly simple question—but I think that the House feels that it is an important one—regarding the integrity of the passionate commitment to a legislative referendum which, as I understand it, his party was opposed to in the coalition agreement.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Grocott and Lord McNally

Tuesday 16th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

It has not even started yet and already we have had over 40 interventions. So any complaints about thoroughness go awry.

Time is running on and so let me deal quickly with some of the points that have been raised. On timing and speed—an issue referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Davies, and a number of other contributors—as anyone who has studied our history will know, there has always been a battle and a discussion in terms of constitutional change between consensus and leadership. On balance, people who believe in constitutional reform and fight for it have at least as much success as the consensus builders.

Whether it is on Lords reform or voting reform, the same arguments are trotted out: “Well, this is a shock. We’ve never had time to deal with this. This should really go to a Royal Commission or through some further stage”. As has been pointed out, AV was first offered by the Labour Government in 1931, some 80 years ago, so it is hardly a shocking introduction.

I say to those who talk about consensus that I was on the Cook-Maclennan committee that looked at constitutional reform before 1997. From that report emerged a Labour Government commitment to a referendum on voting reform. That, we believed; that, we followed through. But it was quietly buried by the Labour Government, sitting on their 180-plus majority. I say to those who advise consensus that there are some of us who can remember other things.

As a coalition, we have put together a Bill which has been given very thorough examination, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, rather grudgingly accepted. Eight days on the Floor of the House of Commons, as noble Lords—particularly those with experience—will know, is a pretty good run. It will be given a similar run here.

The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, expressed shock and horror at the Government’s objective, but it is no secret that the Government want the boundary review completed before the next general election. There is nothing unusual about a Government wanting to see their programme implemented. Faster and more frequent reviews are more accurate and fair. I have listened carefully to descriptions of experiences of the Boundary Commission’s work. It is barmy to have general elections on the basis of boundary reviews that, by the time they come to be tested, are nine years out of date. It has been said before, and it bears repetition, that the boundaries that were used in England at the last general election were based on electoral register data that were almost 10 years out of date.

Let us look at speed. Several noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Wills, have pointed out that it is now less than six months until the proposed referendum date and questioned whether it will be possible for the poll to be run effectively to those timescales. I believe that it is, not least because we tabled all the legislation, including the detailed rules for combining the referendum with the elections for the devolved legislatures, more than six months before the date of the poll. We have been working with the Electoral Commission and administrators to draft the Bill. The commission has confirmed that it is “broadly satisfied” with the discussion and scrutiny that the Bill has received. The noble Lord, Lord Wills, said that not a single opposition or Back-Bench amendment was accepted by the Government. That is not true. The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in the other place proposed amendments in Committee which prevented modifications to the boundary commissions’ recommendations without the consent of the relevant commission and determined how the media should be regulated for the referendum. The Electoral Commission suggested a different wording for the question. The Government listened carefully to all the arguments in the other place and, when convinced, brought forward their own amendments.

The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, talked about the lack of constitutional overview, claiming that that Government had failed to take an overview of the constitutional reform structure. That is simply not true. The Government have made a number of proposals for constitutional reform in the first Session. Indeed, Members in the other place are today debating the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, but there is no compelling argument that needs to be all contained in one piece of legislation. We need to go back to Cook-Maclennan—

[Lord Grocott]

The argument is not about whether it should all be contained in one piece of legislation. It is about whether there is any consistency between the three or four separate constitutional Bills. Can the noble Lord answer one specific point? Why does he think that it is right to have a referendum on the voting system in the House of Commons, but no referendum whatever on the abolition in its current form of the House of Lords?

[Lord McNally]

Well, I seek not to see the distant sea. We have not seen the legislation on the House of Lords yet.

[Lord Grocott]

Just tell us whether there will be a referendum.

[Lord McNally]

I seek not to see the distant sea. This is absurd. This is going on all night. You are afraid to discuss the central pillars of the Bill and every few minutes you pick up something else. Now we are off running on Lords reform. You will get the Bill on Lords reform, as we promised, in the new year, and we will have the opportunity to discuss that matter.

[Lord Grocott]

I know that the noble Lord comes from Blackpool, but could he move away from the music hall act and try and answer the questions? Could he answer the specific question, which is why on the narrow issue of Commons voting he thinks there should be a referendum? Clearly, there should, but he will not answer me the very straight, simple question whether he agrees that there should be a referendum on any move to abolish the Lords in its present form.

[Lord McNally]

We will have the debate on the future of the Lords in due time. Whether I come from Blackpool or not, I would prefer to debate this Bill, whose central issues the Labour Party is obviously petrified to debate, or we would not have had the collection of red herrings that are being paraded around this Chamber.

Public Expenditure: Members of Parliament

Debate between Lord Grocott and Lord McNally

Tuesday 26th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grocott]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what would be the net cost implications for public expenditure of reducing the number of MPs to 600 and introducing 300 directly elected Members into the House of Lords.

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

My Lords, it is difficult to attribute the exact savings from having 50 fewer MPs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

Our best estimate is £12.2 million annually, subject to decisions made by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. Estimates on Lords costs will be given when the House of Lords reform Bill is published.

[Lord Grocott]

I am at least grateful to the Minister for enabling me to win my bet, which was that he would not answer the Question. I suggest that he looks at it like this. Will he confirm that on 5 July, his leader, the Deputy Prime Minister, said that the savings from reducing the number of MPs by 50 would be £12 million a year? Introducing 300 directly elected Members of the House of Lords, who of course would have much bigger constituencies, must therefore be at least six times that, at £72 million. Maybe the Minister’s departmental computer could confirm that that would mean a net cost of £60 million. At a time when the Government are looking for any possible cuts in public expenditure that they can find, and given that none of these reforms have any support among anyone out in the real world, why does the Minister not do the common-sense thing, save the money and scrap the lot?

[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.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Grocott and Lord McNally

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

First, I welcome the noble, right honourable, learned and everything else Lord back to the Front Bench. It is said that they never come back, but there he is. A lot of scaremongering and false arguments are being put forward. Various bodies are suddenly elevated in their opinion. The Electoral Commission has said that it is possible to successfully deliver these different polls on 5 May. I suggest that, instead of trying to imply that the process is somehow flawed, we should watch its steady progress where we will deliver a very thorough examination at this end. I am sure that we will have an excellent Second Reading debate and a good Committee stage, and the Bill will be all the better for the deliberations of the House of Lords.

[Lord Grocott]

Does the Minister remember the numerous occasions when he was sitting down there on which he complained about Bills being rushed through the House of Commons without proper scrutiny and subject to draconian timetabling rules? This Bill currently going through the House of Commons was described, I should remind him, by the Leader of his own party as being part of the most significant parliamentary reform since the Reform Act 1832. It is being rushed through in four weeks. Has the transformation in the Minister’s personality between when he was sitting here and now that he is sitting there reached a position whereby he thinks that four weeks in the House of Commons to consider a major constitutional Bill that has had no pre-legislative scrutiny is sufficient?

[Lord McNally]

We all go through transformations. Here is a Question put down by the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, two of the most—let me put this at its most polite—efficient government business managers in either House. If anyone doubts that, there are probably Members on that Bench who have the scars that show the persuasive talents of both noble Lords. The fact is that all oppositions complain that Bills are being railroaded and stampeded—

Elections: Voting Systems

Debate between Lord Grocott and Lord McNally

Tuesday 5th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grocott]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are the different electoral systems currently operating in the United Kingdom; and which additional ones they plan to introduce.

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

My Lords, five electoral systems are currently used—the full list has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The Government propose a referendum next year on the system for electing Members of Parliament. We will also make proposals for elections to this House on the basis of proportional representation and we intend to introduce direct elections for police and crime commissioners in England and Wales.

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords, whatever side you are on regarding questions of electoral reform, to have five systems already in operation and to be planning three more surely means that there are far too many electoral systems for one country. We have now had the experience of a number of electoral systems. The main characteristics of all the new ones that have been brought in, particularly the European one, have been low voter turnout, greater confusion and a huge increase in the number of spoilt ballot papers. Is it not high time that we acknowledged that the characteristics of the system that we are familiar with—the straightforward, understandable, tried and tested system that the public know—mean that it is the best one to continue with: that is, first past the post?

[Lord McNally]

I am well aware of the noble Lord’s views on first past the post, but he will be equally aware that many people consider the system to be deeply flawed. Most of the systems referred to were introduced by the previous Administration on the basis of horses for courses, taking into account what was most suitable for Scotland, for London and for Europe. I am sure that this debate will go on, not least when my right honourable friend Nick Clegg brings forward his proposals for due consideration in this House.

Elections: Costs

Debate between Lord Grocott and Lord McNally

Thursday 15th July 2010 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, the costs of running the referendum will be similar to the costs of a general election. The costs of the boundary review will depend on the task set for the Boundary Commission in the legislation.

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords, at least the noble Lord does not surprise: he did not answer the Question, which I have to say is becoming a habit from his department. We need to know the figures; I think that we are entitled to know them and it should be possible for the Government to give them to us. This is particularly surprising because last week, as he will remember—indeed, he repeated the Statement—the Deputy Prime Minister was proudly telling the House that there would be savings associated with some of these constitutional reforms: £12 million from reducing the number of MPs and £17 million from holding the referendum on the same day as other elections. How can he be precise about the savings but not have the remotest idea of the costs? It is becoming increasingly clear that this series of constitutional experiments is of interest only to people in this House and not of remote interest—certainly paying for them is not—to the vast majority of people out there in the real world.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I fully appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is a small “c” conservative on constitutional reform. The coalition is committed to this programme. When I say “similar to the costs of a general election”, the previous general election cost £82 million. When I say that we will have to look at the precise proposals for the Boundary Commission, the last Boundary Commission review cost just under £14 million. I point out that legislation will be brought forward very shortly and, at that time and thereafter, the House will have ample time to explore these matters, including the costs.

House of Lords: Reform

Debate between Lord Grocott and Lord McNally

Monday 5th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

Those matters can be fully scrutinised by the pre-legislative scrutiny committee when it sees the draft Bill. I emphasise that this committee is working on a draft Bill, which will be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, when there will be a lot of opportunities to look at both the impact and the cost.

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords, as I previously understood it—the Minister has made it much clearer to me now—the agenda and the minutes of the committee could not be made public because the committee was a Cabinet committee. The noble Lord has now told us that it is definitely not a Cabinet committee. Given that this Government have trumpeted their commitment to transparency and openness, on which the Deputy Prime Minister has been in the lead, why on earth cannot the agenda and the minutes be published? If the noble Lord tells me that they cannot be, what offence would be committed if, for example, I were to ask my noble friend the shadow Leader of the House to let me have a copy of them?

[Lord McNally]

I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition would honour what has been set out by the committee. This is a drafting committee and we are working with due speed to produce a draft, which will then give the opportunity for the real work that Lords reform requires. I think that the House is getting overexcited about this. We are receiving advice and written submissions and we are working hard to be able to give the House what I have described before as a bone for it to chew on. I think that that is the best way forward for Lords reform.

Political Parties: Funding

Debate between Lord Grocott and Lord McNally

Thursday 1st July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

I will certainly give it my consideration and I will report it to the Deputy Prime Minister. I think that I had better stop there.

[Lord Grocott]

Is it not worth noting one of the lessons from the history of funding and politics? At the end of the 19th century, very strict limits were introduced on the amount that could be spent in individual constituencies, for very good reasons. Does it not strike the Minister that to concentrate on how much is being spent is more important than examining precisely where the money comes from? We need to look, at a national level, at the ludicrous amounts of money that are spent in general elections; we do not want to get anywhere near American levels. Any review should concentrate on putting much more severe, strictly applied limits on expenditure.

Parliament: MP Numbers and Constituency Review

Debate between Lord Grocott and Lord McNally

Thursday 24th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

That is a fair point. The integrity of the Boundary Commissions and the way in which they go about their work have never been in doubt, thank goodness. Because this is constitutional legislation, it will be taken on the Floor of the House in the other place and we will have in this place experts such as the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, my noble friend and others who have great experience and will put their input into the deliberations as this legislation goes through.

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords, two weeks ago, when I asked a similar Question, the Minister was good enough to acknowledge that the Answer provided by his civil servants was wholly inadequate. He was also rather disappointed that the answer with which he attempted to improve the efforts of his civil servants was not that good either. Now that he has had a fortnight to think about how long he estimates the Boundary Commission will take bearing in mind that the last review took six years, and now that the finest brains of the civil servants in his department have been focused on this for the past couple of weeks, can he give any improvement on the wholly inadequate Answer that he gave me last time?

[Lord McNally]

I very much regret that the noble Lord has raised that. I was severely reprimanded by the department and it was a couple of days before any of the civil servants talked to me. As I said in answering this question, Ministers are taking advice on the detailed proposals and will bring forward legislation and a timetable as soon as possible.

Parliamentary Constituencies: Boundaries

Debate between Lord Grocott and Lord McNally

Tuesday 15th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grocott]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the estimated time required for a full review of parliamentary constituency boundaries.

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

My Lords, the Government have announced that legislation will be introduced to provide for the creation of fewer and more equal-sized constituencies. Further details will be announced in due course, and we will of course seek to frame the legislation in a way that ensures that the boundary commissions can complete their task in a timely, fair and thorough way.

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords, that was an Answer to a question but not to the one that I asked. The Question was what the Government’s estimate is of how long it will take to undertake a full review of parliamentary constituencies—a simple and straightforward question, I would have thought. Is the Minister aware that the previous review took six years and eight months? That was quite proper; it gave local people the opportunity to appeal and for full local inquiries, part of the localism that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, rightly referred to as being a crucial part of this Government’s objectives. I appeal to him to ensure that there is no short-circuiting of local democracy and no denial of local people’s rights to appeal. If there is any short-circuiting of the appeals procedure in the established parliamentary Boundary Commission, then if this is the new politics, I for one prefer the old.

Prisoners: Voting

Debate between Lord Grocott and Lord McNally

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

I agree, my Lords, but when the court makes rulings and then makes new ones, it is up to the Executive to consider them carefully and consider the implications before they come to a decision. That is what we are doing, and I have already said that we will update the council of our view—not in seven years’ time, but in September.

[Lord Grocott]

There is clearly difficulty here, particularly between the two parties to the coalition. In an effort to be helpful to the Government, I therefore suggest that they do for this issue what they have done already for so many other aspects of the coalition agreement document—set up a commission.

[Lord McNally]

Even for a former Chief Whip, that attitude is shameless. As has already been pointed out from the noble Lord’s own Benches, that lot sat on this decision for seven years. We have to face a new decision made on 8 April, and we have said that we will bring our conclusions to a September meeting of the council. I think that that is pretty good going.

Queen's Speech

Debate between Lord Grocott and Lord McNally

Thursday 27th May 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

The power of the Whips never ceases to amaze me.

[Lord Grocott]

If noble Lords are disappointed at not having that intervention, may I suggest this one? Will the noble Lord explain how announcing in May 2010 that the next election will be in May 2015 strengthens Parliament?

[Lord McNally]

We have had many debates about fixed-term Parliaments, and this is the first example. The noble Lord may recall the dithering and doubts caused by the recent Prime Minister and the harm that that did to good governance, and that many colleagues, including those on his Benches, have for a long time argued the benefits of fixed-term Parliaments. I would have thought that as he is a reformer he would welcome it, but I must move on. The legislation will provide for the possibility that a dissolution of Parliament may be needed outside the five-year timetable. Our proposal is that it should happen if more than 55 per cent of the other place votes for it. Parliament would still be able to dismiss a Government, but the Government would not be able to dismiss Parliament.