That analysis also must be correct. It is not something that any Government, of whatever political complexion, should muck around with easily. Sometimes during these debates, it has not been clear that the Government have really understood why it is that we are arguing from this side that this is a precious system and one that should be kept unless there are absolutely outstanding reasons why it should be changed. We do not think that there are such outstanding reasons.
The quotation I read from the existing rules, which suggested 613 seats for Great Britain, plus the 17-odd seats for Northern Ireland, comes to the 630 seats for the United Kingdom, which is what my noble friend Lady McDonagh is proposing in her amendment. Our view is—and we argued this in our amendment earlier today—that it is best not to set a complete amount. If it is wrong for the Government to set a fixed amount, it is also wrong for amendments to do so. But, as a probing amendment, it asks what the Government intend to do; we asked at Second Reading, and will continue to ask, why 600? This debate is one that gives the opportunity for the Minister to tell us, finally, why it is that 600 was reached and why they will not be more flexible in their attitude to this issue.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Bach
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 17 January 2011.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
724 c179-80 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 14:18:28 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_701478
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_701478
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_701478