Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Certainly, there is an element of that. It is a real problem, especially when we are looking at the size of constituencies. I took, in the end, to not checking whether someone was on the electoral roll. If someone needs help and you represent their area, you should seek to help that person. However, there is an issue about the number of people who, for various reasons, do not register as electors. They are still entitled to representation. I do not know of any MP who would turn somebody away because they were not on the electoral roll. They would still undertake that work. At the same time that Members of the other place are undertaking this increased workload, they see their resources to do that work reduced. Under the new regime of IPSA, had I remained a Member of Parliament, I would have lost half of or one member of staff. I would have had to move my office to smaller accommodation. I can assure you it was not salubrious in the first place. Members have also lost the communications allowance for communicating with constituents. There are fewer resources and more work. That makes it harder for MPs to fulfil that scrutiny role, which is very important. If we are looking to change, by increasing or reducing, the number of Members of the other place, we need to look at their powers and responsibility. When I was first elected, I used to describe my work as a Member of the other place as being in thirds. A third of a Member of Parliament’s work was constituency casework from the individual people who came for help, support and advice. Another third was the work of an advocate for the constituency if resources or support for industry, local charities, youth work and so on were needed. The third role, which was informed by the other two, was that of scrutiny and work in Committee, on legislation and on Select Committees. Towards the end of my time, I felt that it was getting harder to maintain that final third, which is crucial. MPs are there to be legislators, not caseworkers. However, it was getting harder to maintain because of the volume of work where people needed the help that it was an MP’s duty to provide. To reduce the number of Members of Parliament under those circumstances does not make sense at all. If we were to reduce the size of the House of Commons, it would have an impact on this House. Your Lordships’ role of scrutiny becomes all the more important if Members of the other place are finding it harder to fulfil their duties and obligations on scrutiny. I recall a number of occasions when Members of Parliament whom I held in the highest regard told me that they were not able to take part in a debate or go on a committee because they had their casework to do. That is not to criticise the individual MPs because their responsibilities were to their constituencies, but it is a sad indictment that Members of the other place who want to involve themselves in scrutiny feel so much under pressure from individuals’ problems and issues in their constituency that they are unable to do so. One of my worries is that it is harder for Members of Parliament who have the most demanding constituencies—I think it is agreed across all parties that the issues and problems presented in some constituencies are more demanding and time-consuming than in others—to take on a scrutiny role. It is also harder for them to take on a ministerial or Select Committee role. Would we find ourselves in a position where only the Members of the other place who have the lightest casework loads and the less problematic constituencies would be able to serve as Ministers or take on important roles in Select Committees? That worries me because it is not the primary function of a Member of Parliament. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, causes me some concern around the issue of the powers of the House of Lords. He is right that we are interdependent; I do not think that we can look at the relationship between the two Houses without taking into account the powers and memberships involved. We should not make proposals on size without considering responsibilities, and that goes for changes to or reform of either place. Membership is dependent on function. My noble friend—I use that word advisedly but it may not last for long—almost lost me in the debate on his suggestion that there should be 15-year terms and that your Lordships’ House should be elected in thirds. That would be an abuse and misuse of what could loosely be called democracy but is not democracy at all. As my response to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, pointed out, democracy is about two things: first, it is about the powers that a body or an individual has; secondly, it is about accountability and how they use those powers. That is absolutely fundamental. I feel very strongly that if we were to have a 15-year term in which someone never sought re-election, there would be no accountability; they would never be accountable to anyone. To me that is a sop to elections and democracy which insults the term. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, made a point, with which I have some sympathy, about the relative sizes of the two Chambers. I bring him back to the point about whether it is the size or the powers that matter. I still think the powers and responsibilities of the House should come before size. It is not about numbers but what the powers and responsibilities of each Chamber should be. Whether it is the other place or your Lordships’ House, what are the powers and responsibilities? How do we achieve the right balance within the relationship between the two Houses and what is the number that best achieves it? At the moment we have picked a number out of thin air. Six hundred Members is a nice round number, as we have heard, but accepting it does a disservice to your Lordships’ House and to the other place and undermines some of the excellent work that has been undertaken. To reduce the number would further undermine the role of MPs in exercising any scrutiny role they may wish to have.