Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this debate, and I was hoping that the noble Lord, Lord Snape, would address some of the questions that I had from the previous debate. I hope he will be able to come back. It seems to me, after listening to the debate on this issue—and we also had it on Second Reading—that there are two things missing, both in the Government’s position and in the amendments that we debated earlier. The first is a justification for the number that has been given, be it 600, 630 or 640, and the other is a justification for the Government setting the number. I find myself in agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell of Coatdyke, who spoke earlier in that I am reluctant to accept from my noble friends as well as from the Government why the Government should be the body that sets the number of Members of Parliament. If the Minister is able to address that in his response, I would be extremely grateful. I know that the Government are exasperated with this debate on the number of Members of Parliament, but it would be very easy for them to end the debate and clear it up. It seems to me that, today and at Second Reading, the response has been inadequate. At Second Reading, the Leader of the House said that 600 was the figure because it was a ““nice round number””. Tonight we have heard the noble Lord, Lord McNally, explain that it is a ““common sense figure””. When we are looking at the quality and level of representation for the elected House, I do not think it is adequate to talk about a nice round number or a number that makes sense. There has to be a proper analysis and rationale behind that. Some of the comments that have been made fail to understand why there is so much concern about plucking a number out of thin air. I would like to hear from my noble friend Lord Snape whether there is a rationale behind 640, or has it been proposed simply because it is not 600? The Merits Committee also raised this particular issue with a lot of justification, and I think it would do the House no harm to take note of what it said: "““We conclude that the Government have not calculated the proposed reduction in the size of the House of Commons on any basis of any considered amendment of the role and functions of MPs””." That seems quite an indictment of the Government’s position and further emphasises how poor an answer it is simply to say ““a nice round number””. We have to look at the role and functions of Members of Parliament—what the public expect of them and what your Lordships’ House expects of them, and the relationship between the two Houses. Lines drawn on a map in order to create a constituency can significantly impact on a Member of Parliament’s workload. It is not just about numbers: it affects the lives of constituents. Prior to my election to the other place in 1997, the constituency boundaries in my constituency were redrawn. For the 2010 election, the constituency boundaries were redrawn again, which may explain why I am in your Lordships’ House and not in the other place. Those lines had a real impact, particularly in 1997, because the seat that was known as Basildon then lost part of Basildon and took in part of Thurrock. Those members of the public who lived in Thurrock took great exception to being in a constituency where even the name did not recognise their existence. In terms of workload, as the Member of Parliament—unlike the previous Member of Parliament for that constituency—I did not go and see one police force or one local authority. To represent my constituents on issues that concerned them in meetings, I had to visit three local authorities, two police forces and two health authorities. Everything was doubled or tripled. The boundary lines are therefore very important, not only to the workload of constituency MPs but to how members of the public perceive their MP’s loyalty and commitment to that constituency. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, probably made this point better than I will, but the workload of a Member of Parliament varies enormously. It can depend on the type of constituency, which depends on levels of deprivation and, in some cases, the level of articulacy of members of that constituency. I recall speaking with a Conservative MP from a leafy suburb who stopped me when I was collecting my post in the Members’ post room. My postbag was significantly heavier than his. He said, ““Do you have much post?””. I simply picked up the sack that I was carrying. He said, ““I only get a couple of letters a day that I need to answer””. He then asked me, ““Do you hold surgeries in your constituency?””. I said, ““Of course I do””. He said, ““Does anybody attend? I sit in the village hall and nobody is there””. Yet in my constituency, which geographically was considerably smaller than his, the workload was significantly greater. I mention that not to show how some MPs are hard-working and more precious than others, but because the quality of representation to a constituent is vitally important. Constituency boundaries are also important in terms of the work of the House of Commons and scrutinising the Executive. In my time as a Member of Parliament—I was a Back-Bencher, a government Whip, PPS to the Prime Minister and a government Minister—I found my role as a constituency MP informed by my work as a Minister. Issues brought to the attention of Members of Parliament by constituents are important in looking at policy and looking at the impact of government policies. That link is vital. If constituencies are going to be made bigger at a time when MPs have fewer resources and less money—less money for staff, offices and communications with constituents, since the last election—and we increase the size of constituencies after we have reduced the resources, it becomes harder for those MPs to fulfil their duties to their constituents in the way that they want. They will not let that work slip. The relationship between MPs and their constituents is a precious one and is valued enormously. But that then has an impact on the work that they do in the other place in terms of scrutinising legislation and serving on Select Committees. I can count a number of cases where Members of Parliament said to me, ““I will not be in for Questions today or the Statement because I have to finish my case work. I have calls to make to my constituents””. That has a huge impact on the operation of the other place. We should never think that one part of a Member of Parliament's work is more important than any other. It is of equal value to represent constituents in the other place. There is also the impact on the Executive if there are fewer MPs. Professor Anthony King raised the issue in an article in the Observer last year. His concern was that if there were fewer MPs, Ministers would be selected from a smaller gene pool. However, there is another significant point that I do not think has been raised so far. If the number of MPs is reduced, the Executive will be proportionately larger and will have greater power than at present. That is not satisfactory. In these amendments and government proposals, if we are talking about reducing the number of MPs from the current level, we should also be talking about reducing the size of the Executive. For a number of reasons, the Government’s proposals have huge implications and are flawed. I would like to hear from my noble friend Lord Snape why any reduction in the number of MPs is appropriate. How can we justify Parliament setting the number of Members of Parliament? Where did the figure of 640 come from? What is the rationale behind it?