European Council
Lord Soley Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, that is the point that I was trying to make to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell. I have every sympathy with the view given by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. It is entirely correct that, although we believe that the economy is heading for a state of recovery and long-term growth, many budgets are being cut in Britain, and we are not in the business of seeing them being increased in Europe, where British taxpayers will have to foot the bill. But that is a discussion that will take place, first between the Prime Minister and Mrs Merkel and then, later on, in the Council of Ministers.
As for the noble Lord’s question as to why we are interested in the banking union, self-evidently financial services and financial matters are incredibly important to the United Kingdom—it is one of our key interests—and to the City of London. It is entirely right that we should take note of what is happening in the zone where nearly 40% of our exports go. One of the many reasons why this economy has suffered in recent years is because of the uncertainty in the eurozone, which we believe needed to be resolved—and one way in which to do that is through the banking union.
Lord Soley
I notice with interest the deft footwork on the part of the Leader of the House on answering a question about the budget and the meeting. It should get him a place in the finals of “Strictly Come Dancing”. But in all seriousness, the story on the front page of the Financial Times says very clearly—and it is a very reliable newspaper on this—that Chancellor Merkel is considering cancelling the summit if the British threaten to use their veto and want no increased expenditure at all. Can he tell us—and I am sure the Financial Times, too, and the people of this country—whether that story is correct or incorrect?
House of Lords: Reform
Lord Soley Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, the Government are not convinced of the case for a referendum, even though it was a recommendation of the Joint Committee of both Houses, which reported earlier this year. The noble Baroness will have to be patient until we publish the Bill, which we will do relatively soon.
Lord Soley
My Lords, are the Government satisfied that detailed scrutiny of legislation will continue to be done in this House, regardless of whether it is elected in whole or in part?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, if we had an elected Chamber, I do not see why elected Members should not be able to give legislation exactly the same expert scrutiny as this House currently does. The noble Lord himself was formerly elected and I am sure that many of the skills that he uses now were skills that he learnt in another place.
G8 and NATO Summits
Lord Soley Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
I take no view on what the eurozone should do. I accept that it is at a crossroads and there are two different views as to what could and should happen next. The House should be in no doubt that, whatever path is chosen, the Government are prepared to do whatever is necessary to protect this country and to secure our economy and financial system.
Lord Soley
On the problems in the eurozone, can the Leader of the House tell us what the Prime Minister was really thinking when he said that he would protect Britain’s interest? He went on to do what I can remember no other Prime Minister doing, which was to attack our major allies in Europe by lecturing and hectoring them and using phrases like,
“kicking the can down the road”,
which is more reminiscent of a debate in a university than it is of true statesmanship. Right now we need statesmanship.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I do not follow that at all. There is no sense of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister lecturing those in the eurozone, although he might well be tempted to do so given that the United Kingdom economy, with our independent bank and independent currency, has been better able to weather the storm.
Business of the House
Lord Soley Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, does a good job of righteous indignation on this subject. I assure him that in past years it has been entirely normal to announce the date of the Queen’s Speech about four or five weeks in advance, and we aim to do precisely the same this year.
Lord Soley
I admire the Leader’s ability to put this in perspective. I have to say, it is easier to get things in perspective if you do not have to stand on your head. Is not the reality behind this that actually, as Members on all sides of the House have said, the problem for the House is the quantity and quality of the legislation being brought before it?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I have already answered many questions on this. The quantity is no greater than similar Sessions after a general election, and of course Parliament is trying to improve the quality by putting amendments and occasionally defeating the Government.
Legislative Timetable
Lord Soley Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Soley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have any proposals to review and revise their legislative timetable.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, like every other Government before us, we intend to enact the legislative programme set out in the Queen’s Speech by the end of the Session. We have no plans to review that objective.
Lord Soley
Does the Leader of the House accept that there is concern in all parts of the House, including among his own Back-Benchers, about the amount of ill-drafted legislation being presented, resulting in Bills being withdrawn or changed? The situation has been made increasingly complicated, in ways which we all understand, by deals that have to be done within the coalition, which makes it more difficult to compromise after the event. However, does that not mean that it is vital that the Government go the extra mile to liaise with the other political parties and Cross-Benchers in this House to deliver an outcome that gets us through? Otherwise this House will be sitting on Christmas Eve, and we all know it.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I was not aware of the noble Lord’s concerns. However, he is entirely right that the Government wish to go the extra mile with our own Benches, with coalition partners, Cross-Benchers and, indeed, with members of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition, and that is precisely what we do. That is one reason why we spend so much time on legislation. Noble Lords will remember the 20 days in Committee that we spent on the PVSC Bill earlier this year. I wonder whether they feel that that time was well spent.
Phone Hacking
Lord Soley Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I very much agree with my noble friend that we need to get to the bottom of all that has happened. That is the purpose of the inquiry, part of which will look at the current system of self-regulation under the PCC. In the same way that not every journalist was hacking, not all aspects of the PCC have been badly done. Many people have received help and support from the PCC. However, the issues that we are dealing with are of the highest seriousness. It is therefore right that we should set up this judicial inquiry.
Lord Soley
My Lords, there have been many inquiries into the press over the past 20-odd years. It is important to remember that none of them solved the problems. They were around at the time and are still around now, even though the press was warned then that it was, rather famously, drinking in the last-chance saloon. One of the most important things, whether we have statutory or non-statutory regulation, is that the body that is set up should have very strong investigatory powers. Without them it will end up being largely a conciliation service, not a regulatory body.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, these are all good points. It shows how wide-ranging the inquiry will need to be in looking at the facts, and the failures and successes of past regimes. These are all matters that the inquiry will wish to investigate fully.
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
Lord Soley Excerpts(13 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
I accept what the Leader has said. However, the advice given to us earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, to perhaps take time to reflect on where we are on the Bill and the implications of today’s vote for the remaining amendments, was cogent and very sensible. When the House was adjourned a brief 12 minutes ago, it was agreed that it would be adjourned in order for discussions to take place. I point out to the Chief Whip that that is what was said. No discussions have taken place with the Opposition. I do not complain; I merely point that out as a matter for the record. I am perfectly happy to continue as the noble Lord desires, but I do not think that it is a sensible way forward. It would be far more appropriate for us to take time to reflect. However, the noble Lord is the Leader of the House and it is for him to decide.
Lord Soley
I am not very confident of my knowledge of the procedures when we get into a situation like this. I simply say to the Government—and I recognise that I probably would not be their first choice as a political adviser—that there are aspects of the Bill which we could deal with very effectively and get through; for example, on drugs and alcohol. I am at a loss to understand why the Government do not proceed with that, leaving aside the policing bit for the moment while they decide a policy. The provisions on drugs and alcohol will get a lot of support. The Government could be well advised, politically, to split off the policing aspect so that they can take their time on it, and they would get a very good Bill on drugs and alcohol which I think we would all welcome.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
My Lords, having heard the Leader of the House speaking earlier, I can see no reason why we should not start to debate Clause 2 of the Bill and everything that follows. It is merely Clause 1 that causes the difficulties. I urge the Government Front Bench, whom, I repeat, I broadly support on this Bill, to consider whether we might move to Clause 2 and invite those who wish to move amendments to Clause 1 not to move them at this stage.
House of Lords: Membership
Lord Soley Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Soley Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Soley
I rise not only to support my noble friend with or without the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Norton—I think there is an interesting debate to be had there—but to say above all that I regard this as a very important proposed new clause, which I hope and expect the Government to indicate some degree of willingness to move on. The reality is that, like the figure of 600, this discussion takes us back quite a few years. That discussion, as I have said in previous debates, has been around at least since 2004, when Andrew Tyrie MP wrote about it in his pamphlet, but it goes further back than that. Some noble Lords may have heard the noble Lord, Lord Baker, on the Conservative side, and me saying that we had discussed the reduction in the size of the House of Commons in the 1980s or possibly the early 1990s. We always said—this was said on both sides of the House by people who took this view—that if you reduced the size of the House of Commons, two things had to be at the forefront of our minds. First, it should be by all-party agreement; and, secondly, there must be a reduction in the number of Ministers in the House of Commons.
There were two reasons for that predominantly. One has been well spelled out. I shall not dwell on it in great detail, but it is glaringly obvious that if you keep the same number of Ministers and the payroll vote is exactly the same, you reduce the number of MPs, give greater power and influence to the Executive, and reduce the power and influence of the legislature. That is why this is so important.
I had not thought of the other reason until I heard Professor King of Essex University explain it. He is right that if you reduce what he calls the gene pool from which Ministers are pulled—the Back-Benchers—the gene pool that is available for new Ministers will be reduced. That is important, too. The noble Lord, Lord Norton, talked about the importance of the quality of Ministers. If you do not reduce the number of Ministers but simply reduce the number of Back-Benchers, that will inevitably affect the quality as well as the quantity available to a Prime Minister from which to draw.
As I say, the argument goes back many years. I am frustrated and angry about our current position because we have been crying out for these reforms for some years, but they can be done only in a consensual and thoughtful manner. The Bill leaves bits out, rushes things and tries to do it without all-party agreement, which makes it difficult. Many on the Conservative Front Bench, when in opposition or in government, have said that they recognise the importance of dealing with the number of Ministers. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and others have said, “We must wait for House of Lords reform”, but that is a very dangerous philosophy. Reform of the House of Lords will not be easy, not least because of strong feelings on the government Benches. Even if they think it will be easier than I do, the chances of getting this through at the same time will not necessarily be good. There will be that sort of battle all the time. This is so important that it ought to be linked in a Bill with the reduction in the size of the House of Commons. I do not know anyone either in the House of Commons in the past 20 years or in this House who has not recognised that if you reduce the size of the House of Commons, you ought to reduce the number of Ministers. I do not see how you can argue against that. If you are going to do it you should do it together, and in the same Bill.
Lord Goldsmith
I wonder whether my noble friend with his great experience in the other place can help the House. I have been puzzling about the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, since he made it. I do not understand how changes in this House will increase the ability of Back-Benchers in the other place to hold the Government to account. Can my noble friend tell us whether it has anything at all to do with holding the Government to account in the democratically elected House of Commons?
Lord Soley
My noble and learned friend anticipates me to some extent. He is exactly right. I recognise the political reality that the two parties—the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives—have formed a coalition and have to agree to somehow stitch the Bill together. Of course, things get left out or it is difficult to change it. However, even the Liberal Democrats were arguing—and arguing strongly as I understand it—for a reduction in the number of Ministers, which makes it very hard to understand why it is not in this Bill now. It is not impossible. Instead, it is somehow being left to a change in the House of Lords; you get the feeling that one party or the other in the coalition is hoping that this will not happen or that will not happen and that then maybe they can get another part of the deal, and so on. If the coalition is that unstable, it is not going to last. My advice would be to try and get this in the Bill now or get a very strong commitment from the Government that it will be brought forward in another form before the House of Commons is reduced.
I want to go back to something that has already been said which is also very important. We tend to look at this simply in terms of the number of people on the government Front Bench. My noble friend Lord Howarth made the very important point that you have Front Benches in the other parties. All the other parties have Front-Bench speakers. All of them are thinking to their future to some extent. Inevitably, again, this reduces the power of the legislature to hold the Executive to account.
It will probably alarm some of my friends, but I considered at one stage that there was quite a strong case for having Ministers drawn from outside the House who could be brought into the House and cross-examined and questioned. That would really put the cat among the pigeons—an almost presidential system. You can make a number of interesting innovations with our constitution, although I certainly would not go too far down this road right now. I want to say and emphasise as strongly as I can that to reduce the size of the House of Commons without simultaneously reducing the size of the Government is an invitation to the Government to increase their power at the expense of the legislature. Whatever the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, thinks, there is no guarantee that he will get what he spoke about at a later stage when the House of Lords is changed, as my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith indicated in his intervention.
We have to bite on this bullet. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, recognises the importance of this argument because, when I was talking about where the figure of 600 came from in the previous debates about this, he indicated that we would come to this under this proposed new clause. I am waiting with anticipation for him to say, “Yes, you’re all right, I’ll accept it”. There is no reason why ideally he could not accept the proposed new clause or redraft it in some way, maybe coming back to the House with some variation which we would all look at, and there is absolutely no reason why he should not stand up and say, “I guarantee that we will bring in a reduction in the number of Ministers in the House of Commons before the figure of 600 is imposed on the House of Commons”. That is what this House is waiting to hear. It is what, as other people have said, has been promised all along about reducing the power of the Executive and so on, and it will not be delivered without a very strong commitment that the number of Ministers will be reduced before the figure of 600 is brought into the House of Commons.
I have been saying for some time that the two reasons given by a number of people from the Conservative Party over the years for the reduction to 600 has been, first, saving money and, secondly, the belief that the Labour Party gets too many seats in Parliament and the Conservative Party would get more. This is in a number of speeches, press statements and booklets written by Conservative Members which I quoted the other week. Andrew Tyrie wrote a good document back in 2004 for the Conservative Party—although, as I say, I did not agree with his statistics—saying that the figure should be reduced to either 600 or 550 over a period of five to 10 years. He had the good grace—as did most of the Conservative commentators—to say that this should be done in co-operation with the Labour Party, although the phrase I would prefer to see used is “after all-party agreement”, probably in a Speaker’s Conference. However, Andrew Tyrie also made the point, as have other Members on the Conservative side as well as the Labour side, that any reduction in the size of the House of Commons had to be matched by a reduction in the size of the payroll vote. In our new-found spirit of co-operation, I hope that the Minister—we have not quite got round to the negotiations yet, but I know that he is thinking about it—will indicate very strongly that everybody wants this measure really. To put it off until some hopeful date when the House of Lords is reformed is, frankly, at best the triumph of hope over experience and at worst disruptive and will not achieve the aim that most of us want.
Lord Strathclyde
I am glad to have got that right.
What about the ramifications of all of this? For example, it might seem an odd consequence if we were to reduce the number of Ministers in one House by increasing the number in the other, which is this House. That is the point that my noble friend Lord Tyler made and was right to make. He put it extremely well. In fact, there was an echo of what the noble Lord, Lord Myners, said about his experience in Government. Currently, of course, there are far fewer Ministers in the House of Lords than in the Commons but we ought to think carefully about how the distribution of Ministers might be affected by any changes to the size of the second Chamber or by the introduction of elected Members. That is something which the Government, in conjunction with the Opposition, are putting their mind to at the moment. There is also an argument about the separation of powers but I shall not make a case for that now.
It is possible that arguments might then be made for a smaller ministerial presence in the second Chamber, to allow for more Back-Bench voices. Equally, it is possible that arguments might be made for a greater ministerial presence to help the House to hold the Executive to account. Both arguments can be made—or neither—and we should wait for another opportunity before coming to a firm view on all of this. Ultimately, we want to be governed by the principle that the number of Ministers must be a function of need.
Lord Soley
The Minister has set the alarm bells ringing in my mind with his earlier phrase that we might not need to legislate at all. He then started talking about other options. He must know, from all his long experience, that the longer a Government are in power, the more the Prime Minister and that Government rely on the payroll vote because there are more disaffected people on the Back Benches. If he leaves this, it will not happen; we all know that. We need either to legislate on this or to give a very firm commitment that it is going to happen before the 600 figure is reached.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I would not necessarily compare all Governments with the standard of the previous one. My noble friend has made the case for a reduction in Ministers from the current number. It is most interesting but not one that we find entirely convincing. However, we do find it convincing to reduce the size of the Executive when we get to 600.
We should not forget the purpose of a ministerial presence in Parliament. We need sufficient Ministers to support the essential business of both Houses, to make Statements and answer Questions in both Houses, to introduce Bills and to contribute to debates. In fact, my noble friend Lord Norton made an interesting point when he said that no study has been made of whether there has been an increased workload for Ministers. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Myners, spoke rather well about how unnecessary many of the things that Ministers do actually are. Perhaps there should be a study. I look to my noble friend Lord Norton for that. He will know the kind of people who ought to be able to make that study. I am sure the noble and learned Lord would not wish to rush to legislate until we had at least seen a little evidence from such a report.
There are some entertaining examples in all of this and it is amusing to look at the role of Ministers in each House. But there is a very serious underlying point and that is the fear that the proportion of the Executive will increase as the number of Members of Parliament falls. I understand that there is an impatience in this Committee to know how the Government will address that fact. I am trying to be as helpful as I can but there is a limit to the helpfulness. We have said that we will address this issue and we will, but there is plenty of time to legislate before 2015 if we need to. The Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform told the Constitution Committee, of which my noble friend and the noble and learned Lord are members, that we will bring forward proposals during this Parliament. That is in good time as the reduction in the size of the other place will not yet have taken effect. I hope that is a sufficient reassurance, repeated here, and that it will satisfy the noble and learned Lord enough to feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Soley Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lipsey
To fill the silence for a minute, my noble friend is of course right on his first point that this could lead to a small rise in the number of constituencies—I said half a dozen to a dozen. However, if the Government do not like that, since we are in Committee and these are exploratory proposals, they could remove rule 1 from my amendment and apply the other three rules as the exception. They would then need to change the formula, for reasons which will be evident, but they might have to change that anyway. On my noble friend’s second point, it is inconceivable in view of the guidance given to the Boundary Commission in the Bill on its general rules, that it would consider crossing a national boundary. What he describes is a perfectly fair theoretical possibility and if the Committee wished to nitpick, it could draw the Bill accordingly to prevent that in law. I do not think it would make any practical difference to his very good point.
Lord Soley
Briefly, I support my noble friend on this amendment. I agree entirely that it would be better if the Government chose to go for the 10 per cent rule option, which would take a lot of the sting out of this Bill and reduce the dangers of long-term gerrymandering. One of the things that constantly troubles me about the Bill is that, although we might not like the amount of time it is taking, it is allowing a situation where, after every Parliament, a Government come in and change the rules on boundaries and numbers in the House of Commons in a way that suits their party-political advantage. Down that road lies gerrymandering and I really do not recommend it. They really need to think again but, if they are not going to move on the 10 per cent rule, the proposal being put forward by my noble friend is a good one.
I have a couple of points on this amendment. First, last night I raised the issue of “may” in paragraph 5 of the proposed new schedule in Clause 11 as opposed to “shall” which, as the Committee will know, has a much stronger legal meaning. It would therefore state that,
“the Boundary Commission shall take into account”,
instead of “may”. That was on an amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Kennedy. Unfortunately, the Minister replying at that time was not able to respond because he was rather sadly taken ill, as we know. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, tried to deal with it in passing but if we were to have that in, along with my noble friend’s amendment today, it would give the Boundary Commission not only greater flexibility but the strength to say that there are certain geographical or other factors, as listed in paragraph 5, that would allow it to override the rules in the four points of the allocation method.
I do not want to spend too much time on it, but I draw attention to this; the Committee has heard quite a bit, over the past day or so, of the problem of large, rural areas and the drawing of their boundaries. I really do not want to go into the details of my previous constituency, or others, but at times—and this would have applied to my constituency and to many other inner-city ones too—the Boundary Commission is faced with particularly difficult situations on areas which have suffered as a result of a development there which has divided the community in some way. It might be a major road, a shopping site or whatever. The Boundary Commission needs to have the ability to take that into account. That is why I would prefer the stronger wording in paragraph 5 to allow the Boundary Commission to say, “We regard this as being of such importance that it must override the four points otherwise”.
There are many examples; the geographical ones are probably the best, inasmuch as they deal with both rural and urban areas where the geography changes significantly. For example, the building of the Westway in London divided communities very significantly, which had a big effect on my constituency. Obviously, in rural areas it would be mountains, rivers, estuaries or whatever. That geography example is very important. To put the Boundary Commission into a position where it is, in my noble friend’s words, tied in to such a degree that it cannot be flexible is a big mistake. The same applies to headings (b), (c) and (d) in paragraph 5(1). All of those will come up from time to time and the Boundary Commission will be faced with that decision.
As I indicated yesterday, I would prefer a situation where we change the wording in the proposed new Schedule 2 to read “shall” not “may” and, at the same time, to accept my noble friend’s amendment. The better alternative is to accept the 10 per cent rule but the Government seem thoroughly dug in on that, for many wrong reasons. It is one of the things giving us so much trouble on this Bill, because of its long-term implications for the political structure of our Parliament. The Minister is always very thoughtful on these things. I appreciate why the noble Lord, Lord McNally, could not answer the point about “shall” and “may” last night but perhaps the Minister could bear this in mind when he sums up: my noble friend’s amendment, combined with the use of “shall” instead of “may”, which therefore gives the Boundary Commission greater authority and strength in its decisions, would benefit the Bill. It would be a small step forward and I recommend it to the Government.
Lord Davies of Stamford
My Lords, this is a good moment in the Committee to look quite clearly at the contrast between the provisions in the 1986 Act, which currently apply, and those which the Government are trying to bring forward in this Bill and, against that contrasting background, to evaluate the amendment being put forward by my noble friend Lord Lipsey. The 1986 Act is really pretty clear; it establishes the rule about not crossing county boundaries as an absolute rule. In paragraph 4(1)(a) of Schedule 2 to the 1986 Act, it first says that,
“no county or any part of a county shall be included in a constituency which includes the whole or part of any other county or the whole or part of a London borough”,
and under heading (ii) that,
“no London borough or any part of a London borough shall be included in a constituency which includes the whole or part of any other London borough”.
That is absolute, subject only to the phrase:
“So far as is practicable”,
with regard to rules 1 to 3, which predominate. Those rules are that the number of constituencies should be 613, then that:
“Every constituency shall return a single Member”.
Then there is the rule about the City of London. We have already discussed the City of London and the issue of its single Member does not seem to be controversial in the modern world. In effect, the only real limiting provision on that rule in the 1986 Act is the requirement that the number of constituencies should particularly be 613.
What happened in the 1986 Act was that the recognition of the importance of county boundaries was stated as an absolute rule and the Boundary Commission has to look at it as such. Then at paragraph 6 of that schedule to the 1986 Act, the commission is told that it is given a let-out from an absolute rule. The rule is stated as absolute, subject to the conditions that I mentioned. Then there is this let-out:
“A Boundary Commission may depart from the strict application of rules 4 and 5 if special geographical considerations, including in particular the size, shape and accessibility of a constituency, appear to them to render a departure desirable”.
Our predecessors in 1986 thought that there was an absolute importance in having county boundaries respected and an absolute importance in having a particular number of constituencies, but the county boundary rule could be broken if there was an unreasonable outcome in terms of the size of constituencies. The Government have changed this completely in the Bill, in which the absolute criterion is not a total number—a different number, as it happens—of constituencies, but the 5 per cent rule; that the electoral quota must be observed, or must not vary by more than 5 per cent. That is stated as an absolute rule. Then, in paragraph 5 —we dealt with this yesterday—the Bill says:
“A Boundary Commission may take into account”—
there is no encouragement, let alone compulsion to take into account—
“special geographical considerations … local government boundaries … local ties … inconvenience”.
That is in paragraph 5 of the new Schedule 2 on page 10 of the text before us. That has been the shift that has occurred between 1986 and now, and the real importance is that the Government now think that the criterion of uniformity of number, or near uniformity of number of constituencies, is the only important thing. In fact, the phrase,
“A Boundary Commission may take into account”
is almost dismissive. There is hardly any suggestion that the Boundary Commission needs bother too much about that particular consideration.
My noble friend Lord Lipsey has brought forward a third model, which is that, while the uniformity of numbers point, the 5 per cent rule, remains enormously important, the Boundary Commission may waive that on one condition; that it states that these other considerations are of exceptional importance. That requires a very explicit decision by the Boundary Commission and would be something which the Boundary Commission would have to defend. Presumably it would have to be defended at judicial review—there is not going to be any parliamentary debate on the subject nor, if the Government have their way, any public inquiries.
Nevertheless, if there was some bar before which the boundary commissioners had to defend themselves, they would have to state very clearly how they came to conclude that these consideration were of exceptional importance. It is a very high threshold and any public body would be very cautious of stating that something was of exceptional importance—it is a very major judgment to make and one which potentially exposes them to a great deal of criticism, so they would be quite reluctant to make it. However, if they really felt persuaded that these other considerations were so important that a real scandal and injustice would be created, or real damage done to the fabric of our electoral system if, let us say, some local government or county boundary was not respected, they would, at least, have that let-out.
So it is a very small concession that the Government would be making if they were moved to accept my noble friend’s amendment. In most cases, it must be very much less than likely that the Boundary Commission would want to use this provision. By definition, they cannot say that everything is exceptional; they cannot say that most things are exceptional—if they stated that, they would be contradicting themselves. In practice, therefore, it is only on very rare occasions that they would be able to use this provision.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, this is the first time that I have spoken on the merits of the Bill and I want to be brief. I have two points to make. It is important that there is a degree of flexibility for certain communities. The community that I want to speak about is Newcastle. As a complete outsider to Newcastle, I sat there as a judge on numerous occasions and was the family division liaison judge for the area. There is absolutely no doubt that Newcastle is, among other parts of the country, one of the most obviously tightly knit communities. The river undoubtedly divides Newcastle from Gateshead. I could have replicated the lovely story told by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, although without his accent, because I actually asked where Gateshead was and people were very unkeen to tell me.
Lord Soley
I support Amendment 75ZB on the River Thames. It is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, because she has put her finger on the problem again, just as she did in the debate on the Isle of Wight. If the Government are really concerned to do the equal voting bit, they need to face up to the fact that the way to do that is to go down the road of PR and get rid of the constituency link. I personally would strongly oppose that, but that is the way in which you equalise votes. In doing that, you destroy the constituency link, which has always been the centrepiece of British parliamentary democracy.
I remember being followed around by a Dutch television team in two general elections. Each time they expressed amazement that an MP had to stand on corners and go out into the constituency to campaign for votes in the local area. Their own MPs, because they were on a list system, could talk about general issues and not relate them to constituencies in the same way. It is a major difference. Now that the Government have accepted—although they might reverse it in the House of Commons—the Isle of Wight example, we should recognise that we need, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said, some flexibility in these other areas.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Would my noble friend accept that AV+ is not as strong as a constituency link?
Lord Soley
Absolutely. I am no great expert on voting systems, but my understanding is that certain PR systems inevitably destroy the constituency link. I think that the list system is one of those. It is true that AV+ and one or two others allow for the constituency link to be kept, so it need not be ruled out. However, if you are going down the way of full equalisation of votes—that is, a full PR system—it is hard to maintain the constituency link. The acceptance of the Isle of Wight as an exception is a recognition of the importance of community.
All that my noble friend Lord Harris said about London is true. I have spent an awful lot of my life in London—I spent some time in the Mersey area when, for reasons that were beyond me at age five, I was taken from the bombings in London and moved to Liverpool, where I thought that they were trying to get me the second time round because they had missed the first time—and I agree that the Thames presents an interesting issue. I do not wish to dwell on the issue, but my noble friend Lady Hayter made the important point about the powerful impact of such factors on people’s lives. The south and north of the river are very different.
However, I do not entirely disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, when he says that rivers can unite. I do not know whether this was just an experiment, but there was an interesting attempt in the early 1980s—by, I think, a group of companies connected with the river, including, if I remember rightly, Thames Water—to form a group of riparian MPs comprising those of us whose constituencies fronted on to the water. It was felt that the river’s importance was not truly recognised. I was enthusiastic about that, but I have to tell the noble Lord and others that the attempt failed. That was a great pity. In my case—I was representing Hammersmith at the time—the group ended up dealing with all the house-boat people. I distinctly remember having meetings on house-boats near Cheyne Walk. I do not know whether my noble friend was there at the time, but this would have been in the early 1980s so I guess probably not.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
Would my noble friend accept that we were no trouble at all?
Lord Soley
That is a relief to hear, but I remember that someone else there caused some trouble.
The point is that the river is important, but it divides. You would have had great difficulty organising community activity across the river. If you ran a campaign because someone had led off with an issue—not necessarily on school closures but perhaps on other wider issues—it was really difficult to unite people across the river. Transport was another example. For reasons that I understand are to do with the geography and soil of the south, it is difficult to provide underground systems south of the river. Getting a campaign going on underground links was difficult or almost impossible because—with the exception of one or two links, such as the Victoria line, that cross the river—everyone south of the river wanted to talk about buses either on their side or on the northern side. Where there are real issues about community, the river is an important factor. Given that the Government have moved, or I hope have moved, on the Isle of Wight under pressure from the House, we need to recognise that there are other divisive factors. The further you go down the River Thames towards the mouth of the Thames, the more impossible the issues become, although constituencies quite commonly cross the Thames at the Oxford end.
The community bit is important. We need to give the Boundary Commission much more flexibility—as we have said a thousand times—so if the Government were prepared to move towards 10 per cent, if they were prepared to make any movement at all, that could help significantly. While the Government are not prepared to talk or move, that makes it difficult to ignore individual cases, whether those relate to the Thames, the Tyne, the Mersey or whatever. We then have to address these issues, which seems a rather painful way of making these points.
As I mentioned before, another factor that came out of the research that was done on my constituency casework was that the majority of an MP’s cases—this seems to apply particularly in inner city areas—come from the wards immediately round the centre. The further that you try to go out, the more difficult it is to reach out unless you go to those areas. I know that that happens all the time in rural areas—you have to do it, and I know that you can get round it to some extent with modern technology—but the reality is that that brings home the importance of the community.
Indeed, when I represented Hammersmith for many years, my constituency was virtually the smallest in the UK. I had grand plans to persuade the Boundary Commission to let me link up with the north-west coast of Scotland, so that I could do that in the summer and Hammersmith in the winter, but the Boundary Commission did not buy that. The important thing for me was that, when the size of the constituency was increased and I took over the Ealing-Acton part, there was a significant difference between the outer London borough and the inner London one. The groups in the inner London borough had a different psychology.