Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Well, my Lords, this has been an interesting debate, particularly so at the end. I shall deal first with the substance of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark. The Bill as currently drafted states that the number of constituencies in the United Kingdom shall be 600. The amendment seeks to delete 600 and put in 650. Much of the debate over my noble friend’s amendment has revolved around three issues. What is the reason for the Government to have chosen the figure of 600 as the size of the Commons? Secondly, if the number of seats is reduced from 650 to 600, does that improve the governance of this country? Thirdly, is there legitimacy in what is being proposed? I turn first to what is the basis for the change being proposed. A number of reasons have been given by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. They amount to the following suggestion: that a judgment has to be made and it cannot be done on the basis of science. It is a legitimate judgment that will improve the governance of this country. How the figure was selected is not suggested. After the Leader of the House made his appearance in this House on the issue, he went to the studios of Sky News where he was asked the following questions by a man called Mr Martin Stanford. He was asked whether having 600 constituencies rather than 650 was a politically neutral move. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, responded: "““Very much so, and for many people it isn’t enough. The House of Commons has gone through a terrible period over the last couple of years. It is time to make amends and restore trust in politics. Part of that is to say that there should be fewer politicians around at the moment, particularly in the House of Commons, so a reduction of 50””." Mr Stanford said: "““Why stop at 50, then? Let’s have 200 fewer or let’s have 300 MPs””." The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, answered: "““There are people who argue in favour of a considerable reduction, but I think reducing it by 50 is in accordance with what most people would want their MPs to do. It doesn’t require them to do that much extra work, but it is still a substantial reduction. It saves money and it creates a fairer system across the United Kingdom””." So it appears that the reason given was rather as the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, said, not a reason that had been given in this House hitherto—namely, that people want fewer politicians around at the moment, particularly in the House of Commons, and a reduction of 50 is what people want. It is very hard to believe that that is the only reason, but it seems extraordinarily unlikely that simply reducing the House of Commons by 50 is going to restore trust in the House of Commons. It seems, with the greatest of respect, an unlikely scenario and, until yesterday afternoon or evening in the Sky studio, it was not suggested to this House. I move on to the second question: does it improve governance? Again, that depends upon what we expect our Members of Parliament to do in relation to their constituency work and their work at the centre of government here at Westminster. Again, I do not think there is any dispute: no work has been done in relation to that to work out what work should be done. The third question is: does it increase legitimacy in relation to the state of politics in this country and/or the House of Commons? It may be what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was trying to convey in the short answer he gave to the debate before going to the TV studio to give another answer. It seems to me that, first, some basis of choice has to be advanced, and none has been advanced and that, secondly, it has to appear to be disinterested. The flip reason given in the television studio, coupled with no intellectual argument and no independent justification, makes it very hard to convince people that it is a disinterested change from 650 to 600. That is made worse by the fact that the figures given by the two parties that now make up the collation were 585 and 500 respectively. It is difficult in those circumstances to understand why it was not possible to agree something between the two figures rather than something above it. Finally, is there party advantage involved in relation to this? Independent studies have been done which suggest that more opposition seats will be lost than any other. That increases the suspicion in relation to it, which is made all the worse by the fact that the explanation given in television studios is different from the explanation given in this Chamber. I shall deal with points that were made by the noble Lord, Lord Low. His strictures are absolutely correct. We as politicians in this House should try to reach agreement. We stated at the beginning of this Sitting, which started 15 and a half hours ago at quarter past three, that we were prepared to consult and negotiate on process and substance, and we heard nothing until the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said, ““Oh! We’re willing to negotiate””. Let us negotiate about it now, not across this Chamber. We have been willing to agree the dates that you want. Let us be grown up now and let us negotiate a way through this because the noble Lord, Lord Low, is right: this requires leadership on both our parts. We are willing to negotiate, and I am happy to negotiate with the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition Chief Whip because that is what we need to do. My noble friend Lord Kinnock made a very impressive speech, saying that this is the House of negotiation. It is, and if self-regulating is to survive, it is important we reach an agreement. I support the intervention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, 100 per cent. Speaking entirely for myself, I cannot think of any other reason that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, would have mentioned it, except for us to say to us, ““Watch out or it might happen to you””.