My Lords, the amendment responds to the indication given on Report by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, that an accommodation could be achieved on the treatment of the City of London. Noble Lords who followed the exchanges on the City of London, in Committee and on Report, will know that the point at issue is the inclusion of the whole of the City of London in one parliamentary constituency. This requirement of current legislation is noticeably absent from the Bill. My earlier amendment sought to deal with the issue by requiring the whole City to be included in one constituency so far as practicable. A qualification was included to avoid an absolute obligation that might have collided with the allocation method enshrined in the Bill. I also related the requirement to the City being seen as a ““special authority”” to emphasise its individuality. The noble and learned Lord the Minister acknowledged that individuality in his response on Report, and I am wholly content not to include that reference in the amendment which I have now tabled in agreement with the Minister.
I shall briefly explain the effect of the amendment. It adds a reference to the City of London as a whole into the interpretation of ““local government boundaries”” in rule 11 of Schedule 2, which is inserted by Clause 11 of the Bill. That, in turn, makes the City of London as an entity a factor for the Boundary Commission to take into account in any future review. Unlike a number of amendments with which your Lordships’ House has been concerned, this is about keeping a small area with particular attributes but few parliamentary electors together in what will inevitably be a much larger single parliamentary constituency. That is why reference in the amendment to the City of London as a whole but not to its sub-divisions, such as wards, is so relevant.
One point not covered in the amendment is the inclusion of a reference to the City of London in the name of the parliamentary constituency. Although I appreciate that the question is ultimately a matter for the Boundary Commission, it is, I think, in order for me to invite the Minister to express a view on the appropriateness of such a reference in any future constituency which includes the City.
Finally, it would be remiss of me not to record my gratitude to all the Members of your Lordships’ House across the Chamber who have actively supported this case. In particular, I thank my noble friend Lord Jenkin, who has supported me throughout, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, who earlier tabled her own amendment, and finally my noble friend Lord Newby, who also added his name to my original amendment. I beg to move.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 14 February 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
725 c522-3 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 14:56:18 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_715713
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_715713
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_715713