Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Wales Office

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Shutt of Greetland Excerpts
Tuesday 8th February 2011

(13 years, 10 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Shutt of Greetland Portrait Lord Shutt of Greetland
- Hansard - -

My Lords, I think an intervention is required. The Report rules are such that Members are entitled to speak once to an amendment. There is a problem when a speech is an intervention or an intervention is a speech. However, it would be helpful if people were a bit sparing with their interventions. People ought to realise that they have one turn.

Lord Martin of Springburn Portrait Lord Martin of Springburn
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, if the rule is that my intervention denies me the right to speak, I will sit down. It was a very brief intervention and it was for information. I understand the agitation of the Liberal Democrat Whip, but the Liberal Democrats were no slouches in speaking, so I wonder whether I might make a brief speech. If the noble Lord is saying that I cannot do it—

Lord Shutt of Greetland Portrait Lord Shutt of Greetland
- Hansard - -

The noble Lord may go on.

Lord Martin of Springburn Portrait Lord Martin of Springburn
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I thank the noble Lord; I am obliged. I intervened on cross-examination but it was not my interest to worry about cross-examination by solicitors or QCs in an inquiry. Like the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, I have been to three inquiries, but they were in the city of Glasgow. They were very fair indeed. People from all walks of life turned up to put their case. Sometimes people would go along and say that they represented several community organisations. No lawyer present would have known how to test the case that was being put—that they belonged to those community organisations—but someone who lived in the community would. It was lay people who sometimes brought out in cross-examination that perhaps they were not, and could not claim that they were, truly representative of the community councils or residents’ associations as they claimed to be. Those lay people had local knowledge.

It is easy to talk about splitting up wards and putting one ward into another. However, often the argument for moving a ward from one constituency into another is based on where the local facilities, such as transport and schools, are. That is often why church leaders turn up where the local churches are based. Therefore, in the course of cross-examination, lay people can paint a picture of the true local situation for the examiner. I would be just a bit worried about discretion. People should be able to cross-examine as of right.