Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

I am not going to rise to the temptation that the noble Lord, Lord Myners, casts in front of me. I do not want excessively to go down memory lane, although I want to go down it a bit, because it would demonstrate the point that I am seeking to make. These are not always partisan matters in which, in the course of a local inquiry, one party takes one view and another party takes another, and the MPs divide accordingly. I think of the last inquiry that I was involved in. It was seeking to determine where a particular council housing estate with a lot of problems, should finally fall in the revision of the boundaries in the London Borough of Brent. I put in my submission, which was that it should not come into my constituency. The then right honourable Member for Brent North, the very distinguished Conservative, Sir Rhodes Boyson, put in his submission, based on his having represented that part of the constituency in the past. The then member for Brent East, Ken Livingstone, put in his submission. It was interesting that I, the Member of Parliament for Brent South, and the Member of Parliament for Brent North, took one view, and the Member of Parliament for Brent East took another. It was Conservative and Labour on the one hand and the Member of Parliament for Brent East on the other. He arrived at his representations to the inquiry without any reference to me, and I arrived at my conclusions without any reference to Sir Rhodes Boyson. However, the two of us took a particular view of the needs of that constituency in an area that we both knew very well, because at the time both of us had done a lot of work in that ward. The Member of Parliament for Brent East had not done as much work in that ward, but he was absolutely determined that the ward should not pass into his constituency. That is the sort of representation that Members on all sides of this House will know and understand, because it reflects the business of local democracy, and meeting local needs and concerns. I wonder if noble Lords on the other side of the House—I talk not just of Conservative Members but also of Liberal Democrat Members in the coalition—believe in their hearts that losing that link is a price worth paying for such political gain as they may arrive at in the short term. I suspect that some of them do not. One of our functions in the course of our debate on these issues must be to tease out those Members on the other side, and the issues that relate to them, so that they can come clean about how they feel and there is no longer this omerta on their side, where they fear to speak out for whatever reason and are encouraged to be absent so we do not hear the other side. Before resuming my place, I draw to the attention of noble Lords an issue that has come up today and that I hope might persuade Members opposite to pause and think a little. In today's Evening Standard, there appears the headline: "““London tops league table of cities open to foreigners””." It goes on to point out what many of us who represents London seats know well: "““London is the world's most ‘open’ city because of its welcoming attitude to foreigners and liberal immigration policies, according to a new league table””." The article continues: "““The capital beat New York, Los Angeles, Dusseldorf and Toronto in an assessment by the British Council of cities’ ability to attract and benefit from international populations. Among the 54 factors considered””—" in arriving at this league table— "““were ease of firms to hire foreign labour, entry into the relevant country, the rights given to migrants and their ability to bring in family members … Announcing its findings today, the British Council … insisted that London's current ‘open’ nature was of significant benefit to the capital””." The article goes on to quote people—including the Conservative Mayor, Boris Johnson—who express concern that anything should occur that would interfere in any way with this welcoming approach to migration. It quotes London First and university chiefs and then refers to someone else who is objective and independent; namely, Professor Mike Hardy, the head of partnerships at the British Council, who states: "““Openness is a real advantage for cities if they are pursuing plans to be internationally connected and play international roles””." The article goes on to look at some factors that influence openness. This bears directly on the amendment that we are considering. While some factors influencing openness are beyond the direct control of cities, many are well within the control or immediate influence of city governments, and the city's identity and character. In the course of this debate, not just in relation to London but to a number of other cities in our country, we have heard reference to identity and character as forming an important part of the basis on which constituency boundaries might be drawn up. They include housing, culture and, importantly, the kind of local democracy it practises and the forms of participation that it encourages. For those of us who are London Members, and those who are Members in large metropolitan cities, the reality is that a large proportion of the population are foreigners who have no eligibility to vote but who are a welcome part of our communities. Quite rightly at this time, they draw on the services of Members of Parliament and elected representatives. There will not be a single former Member of the other place in the Chamber this evening who does not know that in constituency surgeries, one is as likely to see somebody who is not eligible to vote—not just by virtue of appearance or otherwise on the electoral roll, but simply because they are not citizens or Commonwealth subjects—as somebody who is. However, quite rightly, those people find in a Member of Parliament in their constituency surgery someone who is welcoming, someone who has time for them and someone who deals with their specific problems. That contributes to making London the open city that it is, it contributes to making London top of this league table and it causes other great cities in our country to be magnets for bright, skilled, energetic people from all over the world who will, from time to time, have to call on the services of their local Member of Parliament. In the course of our deliberations on the Bill, we will address this issue in a number of amendments. I have proposed one that states that we should look at the census rather than simply the electoral roll when we come to determine constituency sizes and boundaries. This is not by any means a view that has not in the past been given the care, reflection and consideration that is it due in circumstances that were not charged with the sort of arbitrary numerical approach that is now being adopted by the parties opposite. Most recently, a report to the Committee on Standards in Public Life, The Electoral Commission and the Redistribution of Seats, was submitted by David Butler and Iain McLean. What they do, usefully, is to look at the arguments—the pros and cons—for viewing the census as the basis for redistribution in the future. They make the point—rightly, Members of the Committee may think—that the census should in principle provide a most accurate count of the UK resident population. They go on to indicate where the move from electorate to population as the basis for drawing up constituency boundaries would be hotly controversial. The authors refer to the situation in Northern Ireland, where they believe there would be considerable controversy if we were to make that move. Nevertheless, they say that this is something that ought to be out there—that the census, with all its limitations, will potentially have a role to play. The tragedy of the approach being taken by Members opposite is that we will not have the opportunity to have that debate. That cannot be right, and I ask, even at this late stage and late hour, that, in responding, the Minister goes beyond the negative and the narrow partisan and party-political point-scoring that I fear has, from time to time, characterised the response of some Members opposite. I ask that he goes to the merit of the arguments because, if you do that, you find that there is something to which we need to give serious consideration—maintaining this country’s position in the global democratic league tables. That is what we all seek to do on this side of the Committee and that is why I commend my noble friend’s amendment.