(HANSARD) HOUSE OF LORDS · BOUND VOLUMES OF DEBATES are issued periodically during the session....

Vol. 724No. 99

Monday24 January 2011

P A R L I A M E N T A R Y D E B A T E S

(HANSARD)

HOUSE OF LORDSOFFICIAL REPORT

O R D E R O F BU S I N E S S

Introductions: Lord Dannatt, Lord Wigley, Lord Collins of Highbury.Questions

Constitutional Reform: ReferendumsCrime: MurderBill of RightsBangladesh: Rapid Action Battalion

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies BillCommittee (12th day)

Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2010Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions) Amendments Order 2010

Motions to AnnulHousing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2010Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions) Amendments Order 2010

Motion to ResolveParliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Committee (12th day) (Continued)City of London (Various Powers) Bill [HL]

First ReadingTransport for London Bill [HL]

First Reading

Grand CommitteeEnergy Bill [HL]

Committee (3rd Day)

Written StatementWritten AnswersFor column numbers see back page

£3·50

Lords wishing to be supplied with these Daily Reports shouldgive notice to this effect to the Printed Paper Office.

The bound volumes also will be sent to those Peers who similarlynotify their wish to receive them.

No proofs of Daily Reports are provided. Corrections for thebound volume which Lords wish to suggest to the report oftheir speeches should be clearly indicated in a copy of theDaily Report, which, with the column numbers concernedshown on the front cover, should be sent to the Editor ofDebates, House of Lords, within 14 days of the date of theDaily Report.

This issue of the Official Report is also available on the Internet atwww.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/index/110124.html

PRICES AND SUBSCRIPTION RATES

DAILY PARTSSingle copies:

Commons, £5; Lords £3·50Annual subscriptions:

Commons, £865; Lords £525

WEEKLY HANSARDSingle copies:

Commons, £12; Lords £6Annual subscriptions:

Commons, £440; Lords £255Index:Annual subscriptions:

Commons, £125; Lords, £65.

LORDS VOLUME INDEX obtainable on standing order only.Details available on request.

BOUND VOLUMES OF DEBATES are issued periodically during thesession.Single copies:

Commons, £105; Lords, £40.Standing orders will be accepted.

THE INDEX to each Bound Volume of House of Commons Debates is publishedseparately at £9·00 and can be supplied to standing order.

WEEKLY INFORMATION BULLETIN, compiled by the House of Commons,gives details of past and forthcoming business, the work of Committees andgeneral information on legislation, etc.Single copies: £1·50.Annual subscription: £53·50.

All prices are inclusive of postage.

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Lords 2011,this publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence,

available online through the Office of Public Sector Information website atwww.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/

House of LordsMonday, 24 January 2011.

2.15 pm

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Hereford.

Introduction: Lord Dannatt

2.23 pm

General Sir Francis Richard Dannatt, GCB, CBE, MC,having been created Baron Dannatt, of Keswick in theCounty of Norfolk, was introduced and took the oath,supported by Lord Bramall and Lord Bilimoria, andsigned an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Introduction: Lord Wigley

2.29 pm

The right honourable Dafydd Wynne Wigley, havingbeen created Baron Wigley, of Caernarfon in the Countyof Gwynedd, was introduced and took the oath, supportedby Lord Elis-Thomas and Lord Faulkner of Worcester,and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code ofConduct.

Introduction: Lord Collins of Highbury

2.35 pm

Raymond Edward Harry Collins, Esquire, having beencreated Baron Collins of Highbury, of Highbury in theLondon Borough of Islington, was introduced and madethe solemn affirmation, supported by Baroness Prosserand Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, and signed anundertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Constitutional Reform: ReferendumsQuestion

2.40 pm

Asked By Lord Grocott

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what criteriaare used to determine whether or not a constitutionalchange should be submitted to a referendum.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (LordMcNally): My Lords, the Government believe thatParliament should judge which issues are the subjectof a national referendum.

Lord Grocott: So there is no question of theGovernment adopting any principles towards it, then.I cannot understand the Government’s position onthis because they do appear to have a position. Howcan it be right to have a referendum on the majorconstitutional issue of changing the voting system forthe House of Commons but wrong to hold a referendumon the major constitutional issue of changing anappointed House of Lords into an elected House ofLords?

Lord McNally: My Lords, on the basis of principle,I rely on my distinguished predecessor, the noble Lord,Lord Wills, who, when challenged with a similar question,said this:

“Inevitably, however carefully you define this … you do notactually escape the question of judgment … It is inevitably goingto be a subjective test”.

On the question of the forthcoming legislation on theHouse of Lords, I ask the noble Lord to be a littlepatient. The Government’s proposals will be put beforethe House.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, do theGovernment consider that constitutional changes whichare relatively readily reversed or modified by Act ofParliament are less obviously in need of the backing ofa public referendum than matters which fall into afixed and almost irreversible constitutional norm?

Lord McNally: My Lords, as I say, it is a subjectivejudgment, but that would seem to be one possibledividing line when looking at these matters. It would,in each case, be a matter for the Parliament of the day.

Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, if aconstitutional change is to be submitted to a referendumas the price for holding two parties together in acoalition, is that not a poor reason and a worryingprecedent?

Lord McNally: It certainly would be if that wereever to happen in the future.

Lord Campbell-Savours: Does the noble Lord acceptthat a referendum on the voting system for the Houseof Commons is a constitutional issue?

Lord McNally: My Lords, that is a matter of judgment.I do not know whether this is a trick question. As towhether, if there is a change in the voting system, ourconstitution will reflect that, that is a matter of theobvious.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Why is it right to have areferendum on the voting system, about which theBritish people appear to be somewhat indifferent, andnot right to have a referendum, which was promised tothe British people by the Prime Minister who gave acast-iron guarantee and about which the leader of theLiberal Democrats walked out of the House of Commonswhen that referendum was not granted; it was in theLiberal Democrat manifesto—in other words, thereferendum on whether we want to stay in the EuropeanUnion or leave it? How can it be right to have the firstwithout the second?

Lord McNally: It is a very interesting question.When the Constitution Committee looked at this matter,one of its recommendations was that, if ever we cameto the point of a proposal to leave the EU, it would bea matter for a referendum. What happened with theLisbon treaty, as with all other treaties since the referendumwhich endorsed our membership, is that it went throughthe parliamentary process.

671 672[24 JANUARY 2011]Introductions Constitutional Reform: Referendums

Lord Soley: Is not the main judgment here one ofhow we deal with constitutional measures? Is it nottime for both Houses to look at how we get agreementas far as possible? When we get agreement, we tend toget better constitutional change, but it takes time.With European legislation in this area coming up, thenoble Lord might find that it is not Parliament but thecourts which decide whether a referendum shouldhave been called. It is rather more complicated than hethinks.

Lord McNally: No, my Lords. I am thinking onthis matter and have been talking with the nobleLord, Lord Wills, about his own experience. He hastold me that he was considering forming some kind ofgroup of wisdom that could look at these issues. Weare still in contact on that. Whether it should be doneas a parliamentary exercise or government exercise, orgiven to a suitable think tank, I am not sure, but I donot deny that what the noble Lord has said is goodthinking.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: If the Minister cannotgive an assurance that we will have a referendum,can he give an assurance that the Parliament Actswill not be used if the House of Lords does not agreewith any legislation on reform that comes from theCommons?

Lord McNally: No, I cannot give such guarantees.The Parliament Acts are there for the judgment of thegovernment of the day. As I have said previously,whether there should a referendum to consult isa matter for the judgment of the Parliament of theday.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: Does not the constitutionalprocess to which my noble friend referred requirepre-legislative scrutiny of a constitutional Bill, notonly of the Bill currently before the House but anyBill?

Lord McNally: I think that all parties agree thatpre-legislative scrutiny is a good idea—certainly, Ihave been supportive of it—but, as we have said, it isnot always possible when a radical and reformingGovernment hit the ground running.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, canthe Minister give a logical, rational explanation werethe situation to arise where there would be a referendumin the country on the system of voting for the Commonsbut not one on the system of voting for the House ofLords?

Lord McNally: There are so many hypotheses inthat question that it would be as well if noble Lordsshowed a little more patience and waited for theproposals on the House of Lords that the Governmentwill bring shortly bring forward. Without pre-emptingmy noble friend, I know that the Minister answeringthe next Question is eager to get on to that.

Crime: MurderQuestion

2.49 pm

Asked by Lord Lloyd of Berwick

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether theyplan to reconsider their decision, announced in theMinistry of Justice Green Paper Breaking the Cycle:Effective Punishment, Rehabilitation and the Sentencingof Offenders, not to abolish the mandatory lifesentence for murder.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (LordMcNally): My Lords, the Government have no plansto abolish the mandatory life sentence for murder.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: I thank the noble Lord forthat Answer. Is he aware of recent research that showsthat the public are not in favour of a life sentence inevery case of murder, as is so often thought, especiallynot in cases where the conviction has been of a mercykilling? Seventy-nine per cent of those consulted inface-to-face interviews last May said that they thoughtthat nine years or less would be sufficient in suchcases, which corresponds almost exactly with a recentdecision in the Court of Appeal that reduced theminimum term from nine years to five years. Againstthat background, why do the Government continue tothink that a life sentence is necessary in every case ofmurder? Why not leave it to the judge to decide on thefacts of the particular case? Why not at least consultthe public on this in the consultation exercise that iscurrently taking place?

Lord McNally: My Lords, the noble and learnedLord is referring to the Nuffield Foundation reportPublic Opinion and Sentencing for Murder. I know thatbecause he was generous enough to send me the report,which, in my reading, shows that there is a good dealof public confusion about the law of murder. Perhapsthere is a need for greater education and explanation.The blunt fact is that the Government consideredthese and other proposals in the recent, or not sorecent, Law Commission report on the matter. However,they came to the conclusion that the time was notright to take forward such a substantial reform of ourcriminal law.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: The noble Lord hasreferred to public confusion about the law of murder.Does he accept that a thoroughgoing review and reformof the law of murder, including the abolition of thecompulsory, mandatory life sentence, would be a jewelin the crown of the coalition Government if it couldbe achieved in the next five years?

Lord McNally: I hear what my noble friend saysand I am sure that many in the Government willconcur with that assessment. Proposals to act nowwere given consideration, but we came to the conclusionthat the time was not right to take forward such asubstantial reform of our criminal law.

673 674[LORDS]Constitutional Reform: Referendums Crime: Murder

Lord Borrie: My Lords, was the statement that theMinister made today approved by the right honourableKenneth Clarke, who said, in the same week as thepublication of the Green Paper indicating the viewthat the Minister has just given, that he did not thinkthat mandatory life sentences were suitable except inthe most serious cases and that they were quiteinappropriate for mercy killings by a husband or wifeof the other?

Lord McNally: My Lords, over the past few monthswhen these matters have been discussed, a number ofviews have been given—I have given some views myself—but the fact is that the collective view of the Governmentis that the time is not right to take forward such asubstantial reform of our criminal law.

Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords—

Lord Hamilton of Epsom: My Lords—

Noble Lords: Cross Bench!

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, there isconsiderable time. I am aware that the noble Lord,Lord Walton of Detchant, has been magnanimous ingiving way twice. Perhaps we can hear him first andthen from my noble friend.

Lord Walton of Detchant: Is the Minister aware thatthe House of Lords Select Committee on MedicalEthics, which I was privileged to chair, reported in1993 that in its opinion the mandatory life sentencefor murder should be abolished to allow flexibility insentencing? The Home Office reported to that committee23 cases in which a positive act by a family memberhad resulted in the death of a loved one suffering fromterminal cancer. In every case, a charge of murder wasconsidered. However, because the conviction of theindividual would have given rise to a mandatory lifesentence, the charge in all but one case was amendedto attempted murder, as it was recognised that no jurywould be likely to convict. Was that not therefore acase in which the law was being manipulated?

Lord McNally: My Lords, I do not try to misleadthe House in any way in acknowledging that some ofthese issues have been before successive Governmentsfor a very long time. On some of the issues, such aswhen the plea is on grounds of a mercy killing or arelated defence, successive Governments have takenthe view that this is a matter for Parliament ratherthan the Government of the day. Within their broaddecision not to attempt a major reform of the law atthe moment, the Government are trying to look at theguidance so that it may be simplified and to trust thejudgment of judges in these matters.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom: Can my noble friend tellus how many convicted murderers who have beengiven life sentences have actually died in prison? Surelythe reality of a mandatory life sentence is that it doesnot actually amount to that at the end of the day.

Lord McNally: My Lords, I do not have that specificfigure to hand, but I shall write to the noble Lord onit. The point that he makes is perhaps the one thatcauses the public confusion—that a life sentence doesnot mean inevitably that the person convicted is goingto die in prison, although sometimes they do.

Bill of RightsQuestion

2.57 pm

Asked By Lord Wills

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether thecommission to investigate the creation of a BritishBill of Rights will consider the option of repealingthe Human Rights Act 1998.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (LordMcNally): My Lords, the commission will investigatethe idea of a UK Bill of Rights that incorporates andbuilds on all our obligations under the EuropeanConvention on Human Rights. We will make a statementto Parliament on the precise terms of reference of thecommission in due course.

Lord Wills: My Lords, the very careful words thatthe noble Lord, Lord McNally, has just used appear toopen the door to repealing the Human Rights Act. Iwonder whether he recalls what he told this House on7 October last year, when he said that,“if at the end of this Government’s term there was no HumanRights Act, there would be no Tom McNally”.—[Official Report,7/10/10; col. 217.]

Can the Minister clarify the situation for the Houseand say whether he still agrees with me that theHuman Rights Act provides essential protections forthe rights and liberties of the individual in this countryand does so by enhancing the protections alreadyavailable under the European Convention on HumanRights? Will he stick to his commitment to resign ifthe Government move to repeal the Human RightsAct?

Lord McNally: My Lords, when I was studyingpolitics at university, I remember a chapter in the bookabout the man who forgot Goschen. That was LordRandolph Churchill, who threatened to resign so manytimes that in the end the Prime Minister of the dayaccepted the invitation and replaced him with ViscountGoschen. I am well aware that we have a ViscountGoschen in this House. I think that you can threatento resign too many times in a political career.

I do not think of the decision to go ahead with acommission on the working of the Human Rights Actas any dark plot to repeal it. Again, I have called thenoble Lord in aid so often today, but he knows thatwhen he was in office, he took a similar look at theeffectiveness of the Human Rights Act. That is whatwe will do. In all I do, I shall ask the question asked bythe late and lamented Lord Bingham, “Which particularhuman right do you intend to repeal?”

675 676[24 JANUARY 2011]Crime: Murder Bill of Rights

Lord Faulks: The Minister said on another occasion—Ithink at the Liberal Democrat Party conference—thathe was anxious that the Act should be “better understoodand appreciated”. Does he envisage, along with othersteps that might be taken, giving a gentle reminder tocourts and tribunals of the provisions of Section 2,which requires them to “consider” Strasbourgjurisprudence, as opposed to slavishly following iteven if the decision is contrary to common sense?

Lord McNally: Most certainly, my Lords. One thingthat I have been looking at is whether it is possible togive some guidance in the exercise we are undertakingwhich will point our courts to such a sensible review ofhuman rights cases. Nothing does more damage tohuman rights than court judgments that call on humanrights, not always accurately, as the justification foraction which the general public think is absurd.

Baroness Whitaker: Nevertheless, does the nobleLord agree that the Human Rights Act has done muchto underline the dignity of ordinary people throughthe courts when they have restored the right of elderlypeople to life-saving treatment in hospitals and theright of brothers and sisters not to be separated if theygo into care homes, along with many other suchdecisions?

Lord McNally: My Lords, I could not agree morebecause, importantly, whereas we get the odd publicitythat seems to suggest that the Human Rights Act isthere for the benefit of villains, the understanding thatwe need to get through to people is that it is ourhuman rights which the Act protects. Just to add towhat I was saying to my noble friend, one reason why Iam an enthusiast for celebrating Magna Carta in fouryears’ time is that I want people to understand thathuman rights are part of our DNA as a country—something that Lord Bingham often emphasised. I amin talks with my honourable friend Sarah Teatherabout how human rights can be better included inteaching in schools.

Lord Dubs: In an earlier answer the Minister referredto a UK Bill of Rights. I wonder whether he wouldcare to say something about the position of NorthernIreland, where for a long time there has been a requestthat there should be a Northern Ireland Bill of Rightsto reflect decisions made in the Good Friday andother agreements.

Lord McNally: The noble Lord is quite right. Thereis a commitment but, having looked at this matter, wefeel that the Good Friday agreement commitmentshould be honoured separately and not as part of thisexercise.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: In his first Answer, thenoble Lord referred to building on the EuropeanConvention on Human Rights. Will he assure us thatif there is to be a replacement of the European conventionby a British human rights Act, it will contain all thoseprovisions and additional provisions as we see necessaryfor the circumstances in this country?

Lord McNally: The coalition agreement made itclear that this exercise would be a matter of buildingon the European Convention on Human Rights. Thatremains our intention.

Lord Bach: The Minister is well known and widelyrespected for his support for the Human Rights Act.Does he agree that the introduction of that Act by theprevious Labour Government, supported by his party,represented a huge step forward for the liberty andfreedom of the British people?

Lord McNally: My Lords, I most certainly do but,as has been said, the previous Government were takinga long, hard look at that legislation—and quite sensibly,because the Act is sometimes misrepresented andmisreported. Anyone who believes in it, as I do, wouldalso recognise that it does not have the national buy-inwhich I would like to see for a Human Rights Act. Ourexercise will educate people and give them a greaterunderstanding about what I referred to otherwise. It isnot a Human Rights Act for villains. It is our HumanRights Act and the more we understand that, thebetter it will be.

Bangladesh: Rapid Action BattalionQuestion

3.05 pm

Asked By Lord Judd

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what partthey are playing in the training of the Rapid ActionBattalion in Bangladesh.

The Minister of State, Foreign and CommonwealthOffice (Lord Howell of Guildford): The United KingdomGovernment have been providing basic human rightsand ethical policing skills training to the Rapid ActionBattalion in Bangladesh since 2008. We consider itimportant that the Bangladeshi Government have thecapability to maintain effective law and order, so as toprotect the safety and human rights of the Bangladeshipublic and to minimise the extent to whichcounterterrorism threats emanate from Bangladesh tothe United Kingdom. The aim of our work is tofurther improve the Rapid Action Battalion’s standardsin accordance with our own values and legalresponsibilities.

Lord Judd: I thank the noble Lord for that replyand for his very positive leadership on this issue.Does he not agree that great commendation is due tothe British armed services for much of the trainingthat they do across the world in very difficultcircumstances? Does he not also agree that great painsmust therefore be taken to avoid directly or indirectlybecoming associated with organisations conductingthemselves in a way that not only negates everythingthat we believe to be worth defending in our societybut plays into the hands of militant extremists byprovoking resentment? Does the noble Lord furtheragree that, within Bangladesh, there is widespreadpopular dismay and contempt for the behaviour ofthat battalion?

677 678[LORDS]Bill of Rights Bangladesh: Rapid Action Battalion

Lord Howell of Guildford: The noble Lord is absolutelyright to refer to those concerns, which Her Majesty’sGovernment certainly share. We have remained engagedthrough this programme, which is generally part ofour counterterrorism programme, in order to seek toraise the standards and improve the human rightsskills of that particular body. It has been uphill work;we are anxious to do more. We are in constant contactwith the Bangladeshi authorities, through the BritishHigh Commission, and it is exactly the sort of matterwhich my right honourable friend the Prime Ministerwill raise when he receives the Prime Minister ofBangladesh, Sheikh Hasina, who is coming to visitnext month. These matters will be discussed there andthe noble Lord is quite right to raise them.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, according to the Bangladeshihuman rights organisation Odhikar, 127 people wereextra-judicially killed in 2010, more than half of themby RAB. Has the Foreign Secretary sought the adviceof the FCO’s recently appointed human rights advisorygroup on whether it is appropriate for us to offertraining to a paramilitary force that is alleged to havemurdered so many suspects and to have operated atorture centre where British suspects were tortured togain information? Will the Government ask the Guardianto make all the available material on RAB available toSir Peter Gibson for his inquiry into the alleged Britishknowledge of improper treatment of prisoners abroad?

Lord Howell of Guildford: I am sure that all necessaryinformation will be provided for that inquiry. Thesematters have been discussed, and they continue to bediscussed and reviewed most carefully. It is obviouslya matter of difficult judgment in how to ensure thatour engagement and, indeed, support for the RapidAction Battalion leads to an improvement in the situationthat we have confronted, which my noble friendmentioned. The answer to his question is: yes, we areconcerned and, yes, all those concerned with thepromotion of human rights in the Foreign andCommonwealth Office are focused on how we canimprove this programme and the effectiveness of trainingin the handling of human rights. That must go forward.

Parliamentary Voting System andConstituencies Bill

Committee (12th Day)

3.10 pm

MotionMoved by Lord McNally

That the House do now resolve itself intoCommittee.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (LordStrathclyde): My Lords, as we begin another weekalmost entirely dedicated to the Parliamentary VotingSystem and Constituencies Bill, I shall update theHouse on its progress. I do so very much in the spiritof Leader of the whole House in order to inform theHouse.

The House is a self-regulating Chamber. Most nobleLords see that as fundamental to the way in which thisHouse works. Over the centuries we have devised waysof working based on freedom and flexibility of debate.These freedoms underpin the reputation of the Houseas a place of responsible and serious scrutiny and allof us value these freedoms. Part of our way of workingis through the usual channels. One of their key functionsis to arrange business in the Chamber so that theHouse makes best use of the time available to scrutiniselegislation and hold a Government to account. Asmany noble Lords are aware, the usual channels routinelydiscuss an overall timescale for each Bill and come toan agreed estimate of the likely number of days requiredto complete Committee. The usual channels sometimesget this estimate wrong, but they operate in a way thatensures that there is flexibility if a little more, or evenless, time is required.

On this Bill, the usual channels have been unable toagree an estimate of the length of time required forCommittee. This is unprecedented and worrying. Evenon some of the more controversial Bills that thisHouse has considered in the past 50 years, the usualchannels have agreed the approximate amount of timeto allow the House to exercise its scrutiny functionfully and effectively. An agreement through the usualchannels provides a framework that allows bothgovernment and opposition to conduct their businessefficiently while not infringing upon the House’s rightto regulate itself. Such agreements are the cornerstoneof the work that we do here.

The Opposition asked for more time for greaterscrutiny on this Bill. The Bill has received more time,but it is not good for this House, or for the legislativeprocess across Parliament as a whole, to assign aninfinite amount of time to the passage of a particularBill. Other Bills need to pass through this House, andthere is other business that many noble Lords wish toconsider. Let me set out a few facts about the positionthat we find ourselves in today.

Today will be the 12th day in Committee on theBill. The other place took five full days on the Floor tocomplete Committee. The Clerks have not been able tofind another example of a Bill that has taken morethan 11 days in Committee on the Floor in recentyears. We have now spent nearly 80 hours in Committeeon the Bill. The other place completed Committee in25 hours. On day one in Committee, we started with47 groups of amendments for debate. Those groupswere agreed by all those who had tabled amendments,yet we start day 12 with a further 54 groups ofamendments remaining.

I have spent some considerable time in recent weeksconsidering how, if the usual channels cannot functionin the normal way, the House could exercise its corefunction as a self-regulating Chamber. It is not aquestion that I have ever had to consider before. I havediscussed this with others, but we have not yet found aclear answer. If we are unable to make reasonableprogress towards completing Committee proceedings,I believe that it will be right to take soundings from allquarters of the House, including from the Opposition,as to the best way forward. Clearly, any solution needsto be acceptable to the House.

679 680[24 JANUARY 2011]Bangladesh: Rapid Action Battalion Parliamentary Voting System

[LORD STRATHCLYDE]There is now a real risk of the Bill not becoming

law in time for the people to have their say in areferendum on 5 May. I do not believe that that is whatthe House intends and it will raise questions about ourability to revise if we do not present the Bill in time.The Government wish to listen to what the House hasto say. Concessions were made during proceedings inthe other place. We are considering, as we always do inCommittee, further concessions to put to this House.The Government have already lost two divisions, withevery possibility of losing more. We are open to changesto the Bill, but not to changes that would underminethe fundamental purpose of the Bill agreed at SecondReading, which I believe have majority support bothin this House and across Parliament as a whole.

3.15 pmAlongside this, we must, together, find a way for the

House to complete consideration of the Bill in atimely manner. I very much hope that it will be throughthe usual channels that a resolution will be found, butultimately, if the usual channels are unable to act soonto resolve this impasse, I may have to come to theHouse and ask for its advice on how best to proceed. Ifinish by noting that at some point we may need toreview how all our conventions work, rooted as theyare in the principle of self-regulation, and, indeed,whether we need new conventions, as some have suggested.It is something that I would wish all parties, as well asthe Cross Benchers, to play their part in.

I know that noble Lords understand the seriousnessof the position in which the House finds itself on theBill, but I am equally sure that there is a desire acrossthe House to find a sensible and constructive wayforward.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am gratefulto the Leader of the House for his statement. Wewelcome the Government’s constructive approach, asset out in the statement. We on this side have repeatedlymade it clear that we are ready and willing to talk. Webelieve that that is the right way forward. We believethat that approach is what this House wants to see andthat it is right for the Bill and right for this House. Wewish to preserve the self-regulating nature of yourLordships’ House.

In his wise intervention last week when we lastconsidered the Bill, the noble and learned Lord, LordMackay of Clashfern, made clear his support fornegotiations because, as he put it,“it has always been the way to work”.

Looking for,“a spirit of real co-operation”,—[Official Report, 19/01/2011;col. 405.]

he hoped that we would have some concessions fromHer Majesty’s Government and that we will respondconstructively. I very much agree with that view andwith the view from the Cross Benches, which wasexpressed so well by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neillof Bengarve, and the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston,who said:

“I urge that the Government and the Opposition redoubletheir efforts to reach a compromise so that the debate can proceedin a timely fashion and we are able to conclude the Committee

stage of the Bill in a timely fashion with the necessary compromiseson both sides having been achieved”.—[Official Report, 19/01/2011;col. 401.]

We on these Benches very much agree with theseviews. In that spirit, I can report to the House that Iand others met Ministers last week on these mattersand put proposals to the Government, although so farthis has not borne fruit. There have been furthercontacts over the weekend and we have sought to doall we can to promote further discussions, so we areprofoundly grateful for the statement that the Leaderof the House has given today. We are, as the nobleLeader says and as the House is aware, at an impasse.The Government’s right to get their business done inreasonable time has to be balanced with the Opposition’sright, and indeed responsibility, to give reasonablescrutiny to any Bill but particularly to an importantBill of considerable Parliamentary and constitutionalsignificance.

The House has faced such an impasse before on anumber of occasions and has met and resolved it bythe House giving leadership. That is both what weneed to do now and what I hope we will do now. TheLeader of the House had three principal points in hisstatement and our response to them is as follows. Wewill continue to involve ourselves constructively in anydiscussions. We will consider constructively any of theGovernment’s proposals, as indicated in the statementtoday by the Leader of the House. We will participateconstructively in any wider discussions beyond the Billcurrently in front of us about the conventions of theHouse.

The statement from the Leader of the House indicatesthat the will for discussions is now there. We welcomethat, although it will of course be for the discussionsthemselves to show whether that will translates itselfin practice into specifics. Concrete progress is requiredon the issues of concern in the Bill. With concreteprogress, I am confident that we can resolve the impassebefore us, but that will involve give and take. In themean time, we will continue to maintain the level ofscrutiny that we have been applying to the Bill, withmany amendments in front of us yet and considerablescrutiny still to be carried out in this Committee.

This House had a tough and difficult time lastweek. We debated the Bill long into the night. I do notknow whether the House faces a tough and difficulttime this week as well. However long we sit, we on thisside stand ready for constructive and positive discussions.We welcome the fact that the Government are indicatingtheir readiness to take the same constructive andpositive approach.

Baroness D’Souza: My Lords, I speak on behalf ofthe Cross-Benchers. It will come as no surprisethat there is deep concern among us about thebreakdown in the conventions and procedures of thisHouse. I thank the Leader, the noble Lord, LordStrathclyde, for his words today, but would like tomuse a little further on the possible consequences forthis Chamber.

Scrutiny is our job, but I doubt that a reasonableperson would conclude that the speeches in the darkhours of the night last week, and maybe even againtonight, represent scrutiny or sensible revision. We are

681 682[LORDS]Parliamentary Voting System Parliamentary Voting System

therefore forced to believe that it is the Opposition’sintention to delay the Bill beyond the date on which itwould be possible to have a referendum: 5 May.

Many Cross-Benchers, of course, hear the justifiableworries that the Opposition have expressed about thelack of scrutiny of certain parts of the Bill, and I amsure that we acknowledge the difficult combination oftwo contentious issues for reasons of political expediency.We recognise that the date of 5 May was always, to saythe least, an unhelpful goal. I think everyone wouldalso agree that there is some legitimate question aboutwhether the Salisbury/Addison convention really shouldapply to this Bill.

Despite all this, I hope that I am expressing theviews of the majority of Cross-Benchers in saying thatthe tactics that the Opposition are using to delay theBill fly in the face of the conventions that have governedthis House for perhaps the past six decades, that thesetactics undoubtedly bring this House into disrepute,that any success of such tactics may well encouragetheir further future use, and that these factors puttogether may even mark the beginning of the dissolutionof this House. I say this with some reluctance—evento me, it sounds somewhat dramatic—but I believe itto be true. Why would the public, let alone the otherplace, choose to support a Chamber that is seen to bedeeply unserious in undertaking the role of revisionand scrutiny? We are at a dangerous crossroads.

As everyone knows, the Cross-Benchers are fastidiouslyindependent and non party political. What I say isabsolutely not anti-Opposition; indeed, as has beensaid and was shown by Cross-Benchers in this Houselast week, we very often support the Opposition intheir valuable amendments. No, our collective concern—for once, perhaps we are acting as a group—is that theself-regulation and fundamental tasks of this Houseare sufficiently valuable to be preserved. We thereforeboth understand the need for and urge that there besignificant compromises on both sides of this Houseso that we may proceed with dignity and resolve.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, what thenoble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, has just said is ofextreme importance. She has summed up very wellwhat is at stake in an issue that has far greater repercussionsthan the source of the differences between the twosides of the House. We do indeed put at risk the wholereputation of the House of Lords as a place of intelligentand thoughtful discussion, where from time to timeessentially bipartisan considerations give way to thegreater needs of the constitutional issues that affectthe United Kingdom and its people.

In that context, observing this as someone who hasnot taken detailed part in the debate, it seems clear tome that there is some room to move on both sides. Isuggest that one of the issues that might be moved onis that of giving slightly more discretion to the BoundaryCommission on constituencies with a naturalcommunity. The House’s choice on the issue of the Isleof Wight showed how strongly it shares that view, andit is only sensible to do that within the narrowestconceivable limits, which basically means equal-sizedconstituencies while recognising that some issues haveto be given rather more discretion than the present Billgives them.

In exchange for that, it is vital that the Oppositionaccept their responsibility and cease to create what isin effect a filibustering lobby—for that is what it is. Itis high time, speaking as someone who cares verymuch about this House as an essential element in asensible, thoughtful and responsible democracy, that itis accepted that there should be some relatively smallmovement on both sides so that we can get an agreementand decision on this issue within the next few daysand, to put it bluntly, cease to lose the respect that weso much need, and usually deserve, from the rest of thecountry.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I have givennotice that I again wish to propose that we do notcontinue with these proceedings at all. I hope for amore helpful answer today than the one I was givenlast Wednesday. I have been encouraged to try againby several noble Lords who have told me that thebrush-off that I was given last week was really mostunsatisfactory and not at all in accordance with theconvention of your Lordships’ House that theGovernment at least try to answer questions; theyshould at least make a fair stab at it, even if they donot like the answer.

My question last week was simply whether it was itwas sensible to break our traditions and spend somuch time and energy debating the method by whichMembers are elected to Parliament when so muchpower has been passed to Brussels that they can dovery little when they get there. My question today goesfurther, and I touched on it in the first Oral Questiontoday: if we are to have a referendum on anything,why is it not to be on what the British people have beenpromised, which is whether or not we want to stay inthe European Union? After all, such a referendum wasgiven as a cast-iron guarantee by the Prime Ministerduring the run-up to the Lisbon treaty. The leader ofthe Liberal Democrats, and this sews up the coalitionGovernment quite nicely, actually walked out of theHouse of Commons—some would say flounced—becausehe was not allowed a vote on whether we wanted tostay in or leave the EU. Such a referendum was also inhis party’s manifesto.

Why are we wasting so much time on a referendumto which the public are supremely indifferent whiledenying them one that they have been promised andwhich 85 per cent of them say they want? Surely theDeputy Leader of the House must agree that this sortof procedure, together with the regrettable filibusterthat is clearly being mounted by Labour Peers, can donothing but harm to the reputation of your Lordships’House. Can it do anything but make the British peopledespise their political class even more than they do atthe moment? Here I entirely share the sentiments andthe words of the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza.

I add my thanks and those of my party to all thestaff in your Lordships’ House, who are behaving withsuch amazing fortitude and courtesy throughout theseregrettable proceedings. I fear that we do not deservesuch service if we continue.

Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I have not taken part inthe debates on the many amendments that have beenbefore us because, to be honest, I have not wanted tocontribute to the length of the proceedings.

683 684[24 JANUARY 2011]Parliamentary Voting System Parliamentary Voting System

[LORD GRENFELL]I have listened carefully to what the noble Baronesses,

Lady D’Souza and Lady Williams of Crosby, havesaid. However, I have to reject the accusation offilibustering. The House must understand the frustrationthat is felt on this side of the House that a matter ofsuch constitutional importance arrived in this Housewithout a White Paper or a Green Paper, and that theissues in the second part of the Bill are of fundamentalinterest to the public because they concern theconstituencies. I agree that at times we on my side ofthe House—I will get no accolades from the FrontBench for saying this—have gone too far in discussingthe amendments and that maybe it would have beenbetter if they had been discussed more briefly. However,they were and remain important amendments, becausethis is an incredibly difficult issue to deal with.

The real problem that faced us, as we all know andhave discussed many times in this House, was the factthat there were two parts to this Bill when there shouldhave been two Bills. What has happened to irritate theHouse, and maybe the public at large, has been due tothe fact that the second part of the Bill would havebeen a much shorter exercise if it had been a secondBill. As my noble and learned friend on the FrontBench has said many times, we would have had noproblem about meeting the date of 5 May if it hadbeen debated and dealt with separately. However, amatter of such great constitutional importance aschanging boundaries and all that that involves inreducing the number of Members of the House ofCommons deserved a separate Bill.

All I say to Members of the House is: pleaseunderstand the frustration of those on these Benches.It is not a question of trying to hold anything up butof trying to get proper scrutiny of a major constitutionalissue. If only there had been two Bills instead of one,we might have avoided this unfortunate situation. Inow agree that we should try to move forward as fastas possible, but I beg noble Lords to understand thatwhere there are amendments that are absolutely essentialto the second part of the Bill—to make sure that it is agood Bill in that second part—we retain the right todiscuss it fully, as a scrutinising and revising Chambershould.

3.30 pm

Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, some of usare very keen to see the possibility of some approachthat would lead to a solution to the evident difficultiesin the passage of the Bill through the House. Since wehave dealt with the amendments to Part 1 of the Bill, itwould seem reasonable to foresee that this part of theBill should go through with a view to the referendumtaking place on 5 May. However, the timing for Part 2of the Bill is not so tight, as it requires action onconstituencies to be in place by October 2013, with aview to the next election. Has the Leader considered—orwould he consider—the possibility that the Bill mightlaunch the Boundary Commission’s work but thatPart 2 would come fully into force only by order at alater date? We know there are several other issues, suchas the need for some flexibility in the 5 per cent marginon the size of constituencies. However, I intervenenow on this key issue of timing so that the Bill might

pass but Part 2 be brought fully into force later byorder, without compromising the start of work by theBoundary Commission.

Lord Strathclyde: I thank all those who have takenpart, particularly the noble and learned Lord. I verymuch recognise the constructive way in which he wishesto continue. I hope we will soon be able to restart theCommittee stage. I also thank the noble Baroness theConvenor of the Cross Benches. It is always difficultfor the Cross-Benchers to involve themselves in whatthey might see as being a political fight. This is nowmuch more than a political battle; there are seriousissues about the role of the House in scrutiny, which Itried to lay out. I very much welcome what the nobleBaroness said.

I will not respond in detail to what everybody hassaid. I say briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson:there are many opportunities in this House to raise theissues that he has raised—in Private Members’ Billsand through amendments to other Bills. He may wellhave a point but it is a point that is not part of thisBill, specifically. I urge him to raise these matters indebate, rather than on this Motion. The noble Lord,Lord Williamson, makes a suggestion similar to thosethat many others have made. We do not mind how weresolve these issues—we know that there must be aresolution—so long as we do not delay the mainpurposes of the Bill. I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Clause 11 : Number and distribution of seats

Amendment 68Moved by Lord Snape

68: Clause 11, page 9, line 30, at end insert—“( ) Each constituency shall be wholly within a single county

boundary.”

Lord Snape: My Lords, in speaking to this group ofamendments, I bear in mind the exchange that has justtaken place in your Lordships’ House. I hope thatwhoever replies from the government Front Bench willaccept that these are important amendments, whichare worthy of discussion, particularly bearing in mindwhat has just been said about the need for yourLordships’ House to act as a revising Chamber. Mostof the matters covered by this group of amendmentswere not debated in the other place for various reasons.I do not particularly blame the Government for that.

Some of us who have been around for a while—atleast in the other place—were not particularly happyabout some of the proposals made after the 1997general election to revise the sitting hours of theHouse of Commons. We pointed out that some time—thattime is now but we pointed it out even back then—theLabour Party would be in opposition and might wellregret that the number of hours available for debatefor many of these important matters would be curtailedunder those proposals to amend the hours of the otherplace, which were accepted. So much legislation nowcomes before your Lordships’ House not debated at allor, if debated, done so under a time limit and certainlywithout any great thoroughness. I repeat: that particularly


applies to this group of amendments. I hope that thenoble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, will bear thatin mind when he comes to reply and will acknowledgethat this group contains some serious and relevantproposals for the improvement of this piece of legislation.I labelled him “the nice Lord” last week, which probablydid not enhance his career greatly among his colleaguesbut I meant it anyway.

On Amendment 68, the fact that so many of yourLordships have already expressed concerns about thenew constituencies crossing county boundaries is worthrepeating, albeit briefly. After all, the county councils—the48 ceremonial counties, as they were known—were setup as long ago as 1888 by the Local Government Actof that year. Although further reforms took place inthe back end of the 19th century, the counties weresignificantly formed in 1929, when many of the powersavailable to those county councils were increased.They were largely curtailed by the Local GovernmentAct 1972, which led to the demise of some localauthorities, such as the Ridings of Yorkshire andWestmoreland, to name but two. Concern has beenexpressed in your Lordships’ House over the course ofthe debate about the prospect of the new constituenciescrossing county boundaries. I do not wish to repeatanything that was said. I understand that people inDevon and Cornwall feel very strongly about thesematters, as do some Members of the other House.

I indicated when I got to my feet that much of thislegislation has not been properly debated in the Houseof Commons. However, much of it was reported on bythe Political and Constitutional Reform Committee ofthe Commons, which had the following to say aboutconstituencies crossing other boundaries, particularlyas far as county councils are concerned. Page 25 of itsreport on the Parliamentary Voting System andConstituencies Bill, under the heading “Constituenciescrossing other boundaries”, says at paragraph 78:

“Requiring all constituencies to be within 5% of the electoralquota would mean … the creation of constituencies crossingregional and county boundaries, not least in Cornwall and Devon.Keep Cornwall Whole, a cross-party group campaigning againstthis aspect of the Bill, told us”—

that is, the committee—“that creating a constituency with a number of historical, politicaland geographical identities would pose a serious challenge to thelocal MP, and that”—

here the committee quoted Keep Cornwall Whole—“‘there is a severe risk that elements of it will go under-representedor indeed unrepresented.’ They have stated that loosening theequalisation requirement for constituencies to within 10% of theelectoral quota would mean avoiding the need for a constituencyto cross the Devon-Cornwall border”.

I hope that the Government will look carefully atthat report and will see what they can do to preventconstituencies crossing county borders. One of themain reasons behind this part of the legislation—thenew constituency sizes—was given by Her Majesty’sGovernment as the need to save money. Removing50 or 60 Members of the other place would, it wassaid, save millions of pounds. I remind your Lordships,particularly the Conservative Members, that those ofus who were active in local government in the early1970s remember the Local Government Act 1972 becauseof its creation of metropolitan county councils.

Many of us pointed out at the time that the creationof metropolitan county councils would be an extremelyexpensive exercise. So it proved to be. Chief officers ofthose local authorities rightly expected—and got—substantial pay increases because of the size of thepopulation for which they were responsible. However,the Local Government Act 1972 went ahead and themetropolitan county councils were created. They cameinto being in 1974. Within 12 years, a ConservativeGovernment decided to abolish the metropolitan countycouncils.

I do not say that the noble and learned Lord, LordWallace, who is replying to this debate, has anyresponsibility for that, but it would be an interestingfinancial comparison if he told us how much thatparticular exercise—the creation of metropolitan countycouncils and their abolition within 12 years—cost thetaxpayers of this country. I would hazard a guess thatit was considerably more than the supposed savings tobe made from the abolition of 50 or 60 Members ofthe other place. I hope that the noble and learnedLord will give us some figures so that we can compareand see just how genuine this supposed saving is goingto be for the British tax payer.

Amendment 69 refers to the number of local authorityboundaries in the new constituencies. I plead no superiorityover any other Member of your Lordships’ Housewho did not serve in the other place, but I know thatthe Minister who is replying did serve there. He knows,as I know, the difficulties of constituency Members ofParliament and the importance for them of establishingand retaining a relationship with senior officers as wellas councillors in the local government area in whichtheir constituency lies.

As with noble Lords of all parties who have servedin the other place, I met constituents who came to mewith problems that were entirely a matter for the localauthority. I said at one of our earlier debates thatsome of my colleagues down the Corridor, perhapswith more courage than I, would say to those constituentswho came with purely local government problems:“This is nothing to do with your Member of Parliament,take it to your local councillor”. Many of us, withsome difficulty perhaps as far as our parliamentarymajorities were concerned, did not see that as a properway forward, and took up those matters on behalf ofthose constituents.

The relationship with senior councillors and officers—directors as they became, thanks to the Local GovernmentAct 1972—was such that I could ring, let us say, thedirector of some particular function in Sandwell Council,which lay in my own constituency; I would not say“Do this” or “This must be done”, because Membersof Parliament in the other place have no such powers,but I would say, because of the relationship I hadestablished, “Would you look personally at this particularcase?”. Quite often I got a reply saying “We didn’thandle that very well and this is what I propose to do”.That is entirely a normal relationship and one thatnoble Lords of all parties who served in the otherplace will be familiar with. I put it to your Lordshipshow much more difficult it would be to do that withtwo or three different local authorities in a constituency.


Lord Naseby: I had a highly marginal seat inNorthampton South and I had three local authoritiesto liaise with. It is just a matter of application on thepart of the Member.

3.45 pm

Lord Snape: Yes, I noticed that the noble Lord losthis seat in Northampton South at one stage as well; Ido not say that that was anything to do with the factthat he had three local authorities to deal with, but hewould at least acknowledge, I hope, that the resourcesnecessary to deal with three different local authoritiesare considerably greater than those needed to dealwith just one. I am sure, given his reputation for hardwork, that he found dealing with three local authoritiescompletely effortless. Those of us who did not perhapspossess his stamina or his drive felt it was prettyexhausting dealing with one, let alone two or three. Iam sure that the noble Lord would accept at leastsome part of what I say; it is easier to deal with justone local authority.

Again I refer noble Lords to what the report fromthe Political and Constitutional Reform Committeehad to say about this particular aspect of the Bill andthat covered by this particular amendment.

Lord Kennedy of Southwark: I think I am right torecall that the boundary review for the seat forNorthampton South took place a few years ago andthat now it is wholly coterminous with the actual townof Northampton; the other area is not there any more.

Lord Snape: I suspect that the Boundary Commission,having noted the elevation of the former Member toyour Lordships’ House, felt that no one else couldpossibly follow in his footsteps and therefore madesure that the constituency was coterminous with thelocal authority.

Lord Naseby: Well, after 23 and a half years it is notsurprising that there were changes made. Yes, thepresent Member for Northampton South has only twolocal authorities to deal with; not one, though.

Lord Snape: Amendment 71 refers to three localauthorities, I think. I have been aware of some of thedifficulties, but I must not detain the House for longerthan necessary.

The Political and Constitutional Reform Committeehad this to say so far as local and district councils areconcerned:

“Another practical effect of the 5% equalisation requirementis that many more constituencies than at present would cross localauthority boundaries. The numbers involved will vary across theUK: Scotland is likely to see 15-20 (out of 50) cross-local governmentborder constituencies, Wales between 23 and 28 constituencies (of30), and in England, where 34 constituencies already cross aLondon borough boundary, the commissions ‘expect to crossboundaries to an even greater extent in a review carried out underthe terms of the Bill.’ The Secretaries to the English and ScottishCommissions, Bob Farrance and Hugh Bucanan, told us theyintend to take local authority areas into account when designingconstituencies. In Wales very few constituencies will be able tofollow local authority boundaries”.

We need constituencies that have some affinity.Drawing lines on maps, as has been pointed out inthese debates, does not a community make; crossinglocal authority boundaries is something that the BoundaryCommission for many years has done its best to avoid.

The committee went on to say:“Another consequence of the 5% equalisation requirement is

that the boundary commissions will have to split wards in orderto achieve the required number of electors in each constituency… Professor Ron Johnston told us that research suggested thatpolitical activity declined when wards were divided”.

I have no wish to offend the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell,by talking about political activity, but the party unit ofgovernment in my own party—once the ward and nowthe branch—is normally based on a local governmentward. If you split that ward then obviously politicalactivity in that particular area is likely to be considerablyaffected. That might not bother noble Lords on eitherside of the House, but all three major parties dependon active volunteers, and what gets volunteers activelyinvolved in a political party is a sense of communitythat I fear will be lost unless some of these amendmentsare accepted.

This the fourth or fifth time I have spoken on thislegislation. I hope that the noble and learned Lord,Lord Wallace, who is to reply, will acknowledge thaton no occasion have I spoken for longer than 15 minutes.These amendments are important. The only real debatethat took place was on the 5 per cent quota, not on thedetails that I have outlined in these amendments—andthere is a whole group of them. I say again to nobleLords that if we had really been anxious to be difficult,we would have debated all the amendments separately.These are important matters. I hope that when theMinister replies he will bear it in mind that we aretalking about communities as well as political parties,and that he will look seriously at these amendments. Ibeg to move.

Lord Kennedy of Southwark: My Lords, I supportthe amendment in the name of my noble friend LordSnape. Counties are the starting point of any boundaryreview. They are not the building blocks; wards are thebuilding blocks. Those of us who have been involvedin boundary reviews in various capacities will knowthat. I would include among that group myself, thenoble Lord, Lord Bach, and many noble Lords on allsides of the House who have served in the other place.They will know that counties are the starting point.Outside London, you always start with a county—itcan be a shire county or a metropolitan county. Youare advised of the number of seats in that county andthe initial recommendations of the BoundaryCommissions are published.

I recall my time working in the east Midlands, whenDerbyshire received an extra seat. That came intoforce at the last general election and the constituencywas called Mid Derbyshire. This was because theelectorate had increased and the county qualified for anew seat. I was always clear that that would bea Conservative seat and in May last year it returned aConservative MP. There were knock-on effects. Thereview resulted in High Peak becoming coterminouswith the district council boundary. That was positiveand sensible. A seat called Derbyshire Dales was created


close to the boundaries of Derbyshire Dales DistrictCouncil. The South Derbyshire constituency becamecoterminous with the boundary of the district council;previously, it had contained a couple of wards in theCity of Derby.

There are of course seats all across the county thatcross different district boundaries, but all are containedwithin the county. The county is compact; it provideshistoric identity and people understand it. Take awaythose county boundaries and what do we risk? InDerbyshire, bits of High Peak would go into GreaterManchester. North East Derbyshire would be puttogether with Sheffield, while seats that are largelybased on the towns and districts of Erewash andAmber Valley would be ripped up. The historic A52,which was recently named Brian Clough Way, inrecognition of what Brian Clough brought to Nottinghamand Derby, was put in a Leicestershire seat. It is wrongto ignore these boundaries. Greater London is a countyand is allocated a number of seats. It is true that inGreater London seats cross borough boundaries, butaccount is taken of that. That recognition would gounder these proposals.

Seats and communities of course change andmovements in boundaries should take account of thosechanges. However, the Government’s proposals aredeeply flawed, as nothing else matters but the numberof people, who are thereby denied their right to properinput. They will have the right to send in a letter butnot to appeal to an inquiry. That is not right. It is mostregrettable that the Government have not moved onthese proposals, but I live in hope, given what we haveheard from the Leader of the House this afternoon.

The names of seats are also important. This issometimes forgotten, but boundary inquiries are agood forum for looking at them. The inquiries do notalways get it right, but they can improve the situation.I grew up in Walworth in the London Borough ofSouthwark. When I joined the Labour Party in 1979, Ifound that I was in the Southwark Peckham CLP. Iwent to secondary school in Peckham, but calling theseat Southwark Peckham did not reflect the community.The proper name should have been Camberwell, Peckhamand Walworth, which would have identified the threedistinct communities in that constituency. I am pleasedthat in a subsequent review the seat was renamedCamberwell and Peckham, which better reflects theconstituency, because most of Walworth has beenincluded in Bermondsey and Old Southwark, althoughthat name could be improved.

I bring my remarks to a close in the spirit that hasbeen expressed on both Front Benches. I hope that adeal can be sorted out shortly.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I support these amendments.Perhaps I may give an example of where even theBoundary Commission does not always get it right.The point is that there are, at present, ways of gettingit right subsequently.

I had the privilege of representing the Batterseaconstituency. We had an anomalous situation on theWandsworth/Lambeth border. My constituency waswithin Wandsworth. As noble Lords know, Wandsworthhad a Conservative council and Lambeth, which adjoinedit, had a Labour council. One council estate that

belonged to Wandsworth was partly in Wandsworthand partly in Lambeth. That might not have been sobad in itself, except that Wandsworth’s policy was tohave a low council tax and to charge pretty heavy rentsto council tenants. Lambeth’s policy was to have ahigh council tax and to charge low rents to counciltenants.

Think of the position of a block of flats in Lambethin a Wandsworth-run council estate. The poor peopleliving in the Lambeth bit of the estate had pulled twoshort straws. They had to pay the high council tax inLambeth and the high rents charged by WandsworthCouncil. They were caught both ways. Fortunatelythat situation was adjusted, but the anomaly of splittinga council estate in two by a constituency and, as it thenwas, a borough boundary is clearly nonsense. I onlyhope that such things will not happen again, which iswhy many of us are concerned that, if anomalies ofthis sort are built into the system, it will damage localcommunities, local people and the politics of the area.

Perhaps I may widen the argument away from thatexample. We have discussed representing a constituencythat was in more than one local authority area. Iwould have found that pretty difficult. Many nobleLords have represented areas, either as local councillorsor in Parliament. It is difficult to represent an area anddeal with another local authority. It is possible underthe present system that one might have to deal withanother health authority. That is also difficult and I donot know what the future will be for the health servicein that regard. For a Member of Parliament to beeffective, it is surely important that the constituencyshould reflect the community, the local authority areaand the way in which the health service operates. Inthat way, a Member of Parliament can be most effective.

Take the situation where one wants to achievebetter co-operation between a health authority andthe social services department of the local authority—co-operation that occasionally does not work too well.If a Member of Parliament is to be effective, he or sheneeds to be able to understand these relationships and,it is to be hoped, to have these bodies covering thesame area. We used to call them coterminous boundaries.

The other important area is not just the communitybut the way in which a Member of Parliament relatesto local voluntary groups in the community. Thesegroups tend to relate to natural community boundaries.It is difficult to achieve an effective relationship withone’s constituents if the community groups do notcover an area similar to that of the constituency. I hadanother difficulty in Battersea, because part of theconstituency was in Balham and the people of Balhamdid not like to be called residents of Battersea. We hadto deal with that one, but it was all done within thelocal authority boundary, and it was a matter of justrecognising that the community in Balham was differentfrom the community in the northern part of Battersea.

I would like to feel that the Boundary Commissionwill be empowered by amendments to the Bill thattake these matters into account. I honestly believe thatthe ideal situation is when a Member of Parliamentrepresents one community within one local authorityarea, not two. That would make for the most effectiverelationship and the most effective work of the politicalparties and it would enhance democracy.


4 pm

Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke: I wish to speakspecifically to Amendment 69, which states:

“Each constituency shall contain only whole local governmentwards”.

I want to address that from a practical point of view,but, first, I endorse what my noble friends have saidabout the importance of retaining a sense of communityand the significance of the relationship between theelected representative and the community that he orshe works with and gets to know. I am sure that anynoble Lord, whether they have been a Member of theother place or not, would acknowledge that electedrepresentatives for a particular community achievemuch more when they work together—be it at thelocal authority level, the devolved Administration levelor the parliamentary level.

Often that comes into its own in a crisis. I saw it inparticular a decade ago, at the height of the foot andmouth outbreak. It did not affect my constituencybut, as I was then the Secretary of State for Scotland, Isaw it in the Borders of Scotland, particularly aroundDumfries and Galloway. Political differences were putaside and people worked together for the good of theirown community. I experienced it in my formerconstituency when the Boots factory was closed. Fordecades, all Boots’s cosmetics had been made in afactory in Airdrie when suddenly, completely out ofthe blue, a decision was taken to close that factory,costing more than 1,000 jobs, largely those of women.The community and the elected representatives cametogether. We dabble with that at our peril.

It is a heartening sight to see elected representativescome together but there is also a less than positiveelement. If a constituency boundary divides a ward, alocal councillor will have responsibility for two differentparliamentary constituencies—and not always doconstituencies agree. Local issues can emerge thatcause conflict between one constituency and theneighbouring constituency. I am thinking specificallyof issues such as the closure of part of a hospital. Forexample, the accident and emergency department ofmy local district hospital was transferred to the districthospital in the adjacent constituency, which caused anextremely fraught debate. People were distressed as aconsequence because it meant a much longer journeyfor those who had cars, while those who did not havecars would have to go from central Lanarkshire intoGlasgow and back out again. The journey for peoplewith cars would take a quarter to half an hour, butthose without cars would perhaps have to give up anentire day. I wanted the accident and emergencydepartment to remain in the constituency of Airdrieand Shotts, whereas my colleague Frank Roy wantedit to go to Wishaw General Hospital.

That kind of thing happens with astonishingregularity. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallaceof Tankerness, perhaps sees that one of the fewbenefits of a constituency that is all islands is that itis all your own, whereas in the more urban areas suchissues of conflict can arise. This is particularly true inrelation to schools and we see it a lot at the moment inScotland. Schools are often the bulwark of a communityand sometimes, often for good and sound educational

reasons, schools need to be merged. A councillorcould be faced with the challenge of a school having tobe moved from one part of his ward to another. If themove crossed the constituency boundary, it would puttwo adjacent Members of Parliament into conflict. Itis not an edifying sight and it does not help a localcommunity to remain coherent.

There is also a problem where wards are villages.Given the way in which the Bill is drafted, in a wardthat is a village a situation could arise—for example,as a consequence of a new housing development—wherethe village becomes too big to remain as a part of oneward. A chunk would then get taken off it and be putinto a ward based in another village, even though thatvillage might be five or six miles away. That wouldbreak down the community’s cohesion.

I do not want to delay the House unduly on thismatter but we need some common sense in relation tothe building blocks of constituencies. We need to takeinto account how people do the day-to-day work ofrepresenting communities and we need to be seen tobe responsive to the sense of involvement that individualshave in their communities, be it in the communityorganisations to which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs,referred, or in the formal structures that make up thebuilding blocks for the Boundary Commission thatthe noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, spoke about. I urgethe noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness,to reflect seriously on this matter, because there arepractical difficulties that will cause us great distress inthe future if we do not get them right now.

Lord Haworth: My Lords, this is the first time that Ihave spoken in the debate on the Bill—it may be theonly time that I choose to speak—but I support mynoble friend Lord Snape on Amendment 68 and whathe said about the importance of the county boundarieswithin the overall process.

My first and only experience of making representationsto the Boundary Commission took place many yearsago in respect of parliamentary constituency boundarieswithin the London Borough of Newham. I was askedby my constituency Labour Party to make strongrepresentations to the Boundary Commission to theeffect that Green Street—anyone who knows the LondonBorough of Newham will know that there is a busroute that goes straight down the middle of theborough—was an historical boundary of profoundsignificance separating the old boroughs of West Ham,which was inside the original London County Councilarea, and East Ham, which had traditionally regardeditself as being in Essex.

I decided that the two sides of that fairly narrowthoroughfare did not meet and, on arriving to makerepresentations to the Boundary Commission, I foundto my terror that I was up against the representative ofthe Newham South Conservative Association, whohad hired Ivor Stanbrook, an eminent QC—he was aleading Conservative Member of Parliament, whorepresented Orpington at the time—to put what was,effectively, the opposite point of view. We argued ourcases and the Boundary Commission went away andno doubt considered the representations that had beenmade. I was extremely pleasantly surprised when thecommission altered its original proposals and recognised


that there was a community called East Ham and aseparate and different community called West Ham.Although a London borough had been created tosubsume them both, there were nevertheless historicalties on either side of the street—I had represented it asbeing the width of the Thames, but in reality it ishardly the width of this Chamber—and thosecommunities were kept in separate constituencies.

Nothing lasts for ever and, for all I know, given thesense of identity that Newhamers may have of livingin the London Borough of Newham after 30 or 40 years,the width of Green Street might no longer be aparticularly important consideration. However, otherboundaries have been crossed in London boroughsand parliamentary constituencies, the results ofwhich have been described to me by friends in TowerHamlets as abominations. For example, the constituencyof Poplar and Canning Town spans the River Leaand two separate boroughs. The two communitieshave almost no means of contact other than onemain road on a bridge, a tube line and the DLR. Theyare completely separate and have traditionally lookedin almost opposite directions, yet they have beenbrought together in a constituency that, probably topeople who draw lines on maps, looks fairlystraightforward—“Oh, it is along the riverside; wecould call it ‘Leamouth’ or ‘Docklands’”. In the end,the title settled on was Poplar and Canning Town, butit is not a happy arrangement. People who live on bothsides of the River Lea in that constituency feel thatthey have been lumped together with communitieswith different interests.

This brings me to the point that I wish to makeabout Lancashire. Although I am pleased and honouredto have a Scottish territorial designation, I do notknow whether that quite makes me a Scottish Peer. Asnoble Lords will realise, I do not sound very Scottish. Iam a Lancashire lad. Going back to my roots inBlackburn in Lancashire, and reflecting on questionsof identity, I know that when I was growing up andwas asked where I came from, I would say, “I am anortherner”, rather than, “I am English”, even. Beyondthat I would certainly say, “I am a Lancastrian”.There is a certain pride in coming from the red rosecounty and I am sure that, on the opposite side of theborder, there is great pride that all Yorkshire men andwomen have in coming from the white rose county.Our rivalries, which were wars if one goes back farenough, should not be allowed to take on too great animportance.

Nevertheless, the sense of identity is extremelyimportant and I can see that, if this amendment isnot accepted, calculations will be made under theSainte-Lague method and, for that part of northernEngland, it will perhaps be necessary to start at thecoast. If we work inwards from Blackpool, Southportand Preston on the seaboard of Lancashire and applymere mathematics on how big the constituency shouldbe, it is likely that a constituency will be created—letus say Ribble Valley—that will breach both sides ofthe Lancashire and Yorkshire border, or perhaps therewill be a constituency called Pendle and Craven, whichagain would cross that important historical countyboundary.

I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, isnot in his place to hear this, because I know how oftenhe says that he is a Lancashire lad and proud of it. Ihope that the Minister will consult his noble friendLord McNally, as well as the Deputy Chief Whip, thenoble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, who I am sure isa proud Yorkshireman, to ask their opinion on whethera constituency that crossed the Lancashire and Yorkshireboundary would be a good idea. I think that he willfind that they would agree with me that it is not such ajolly good idea. I hope that the Minister will reflect onthat and that the amendment will be carried.

Lord Bilston: My Lords, I do not intend to detainthe House for long but I am anxious to give mysupport to the amendment moved by my noble friendLord Snape. When we began the second part of thisBill, many Members of this House gave the benefit oftheir knowledge and valuable experience on manygeographical areas the length and breadth of theBritish Isles and on the many constituencies that theyhave known and loved.

I hail from the Black Country, a group of oncequite prosperous towns and villages that are proud oftheir contribution to our industrial heritage, as theywere at the heart of the Industrial Revolution. Thesetowns nestle no more than two to three miles fromeach other and they have as many different dialects asthey have distinct communities. I was honoured andprivileged to represent the area of Wolverhamptonand Bilston at local, regional and national level formore than 40 years. I am therefore very conscious,together with all my noble friends, of the arbitrarymanipulation of constituencies in the Bill. Howeverdesirable more equally sized constituency electoratesmay be, the Bill will create lasting damage to close-knitand settled communities in areas such as Wolverhamptonand the Black Country.

I would offer in evidence—and this is why theamendments are so necessary—the recent analysismade by the Electoral Reform Society. It concludesthat five parliamentary seats may be lost in the BlackCountry and Staffordshire under this Bill. Wolverhamptonwill have just two MPs instead of three and one wouldend up looking after what are described as someWalsall matters. Residents in a new WolverhamptonSouth West seat would find themselves split betweenWolverhampton and Dudley. In Walsall, one seat woulddisappear, likewise in West Bromwich, Halesowen andStourbridge, as well as in Staffordshire.

The possible destruction of these constituencies istoo painful to contemplate. Crossing local authorityand ward boundaries will completely underminecommunities and seriously damage community relations.In addition, I foresee undoubted problems that peoplewill experience in obtaining satisfactory advocacy andrepresentation. All this becomes more and more apparentas we continue to discuss this bureaucratic and anti-democratic legislation. It reminds me of the wisewords of that wonderful philosopher Omar Khayyam:

“Ah, Love! could you and I with Him conspireTo grasp this sorry Scheme of Things entire,Would not we shatter it to bits—and thenRe-mould it nearer to the Heart’s Desire!”

I support the amendments.


4.15 pm

Lord Davies of Stamford: My Lords, there was talkearlier this afternoon and last week about filibustering.I cannot believe it and defy any noble Lord to suggestin good faith that anything that has been said thisafternoon—even one sentence—could possibly beregarded as filibustering. We have had six contributionsin less than three quarters of an hour, which is surely avery reasonable pace. I have certainly listened to everydetail that has been put forward sincerely and fromdirect experience.

I suppose that it is possible to despise this wholesubject of how people organise themselves at locallevel, canvass and campaign and how political partiesare structured, their relationship with local government,constituency organisations and so forth. It is possibleto say, “That is the grass roots and I am only interestedin the high policy issues”. There may be one or tworather haughty people in this House who take thatline. That is terribly unfortunate because if you despisethe grass roots of politics you are despising the wholeway in which our democracy works. Without thosegrass roots, we would not have a thriving politicaldemocracy.

It is extraordinary that there have been no contributionsfrom the Benches opposite on these important issues. Ican hardly believe that no one on the other side of theHouse has any views whatever on this subject. I canhardly believe that they all despise such discussions inthe way that I have indicated might be the case. I hopenot, although one or two people perhaps do. I find itvery difficult indeed to believe that noble Lords oppositewould not stand up and defend the Government andoppose the amendments if they thought that theamendments were unreasonable. No doubt they arehoping that the Minister will bring some rabbit out ofa hat at the end of the debate in the form of anargument against these reasonable amendments, butnone of them seems to have come up with any objectionswhatever. That has been the pattern of the debates, sothere is a strong sense that those who have beentabling the amendments have been winning the argumentand that those who have opposed them when votinghave done so on the basis of no arguments at all, orhave at least been unwilling to put any forward.

Viscount Eccles: My Lords—

Lord Davies of Stamford: I shall give way to thenoble Viscount, as I am delighted that I may haveprovoked him to rise to his feet.

Viscount Eccles: I am grateful to the noble Lord.He would help me if he could tell me how his remarksrelate to the rules that applied in the general electionlast year. The fifth report of the Boundary Commissionfor England was sent to the noble and learned Lord,Lord Falconer of Thoroton, and I do not believe thathe had many grumbles about it at that time. I shallread out two rules. Paragraph 6.19 states:

“Rule 4 requires the boundaries of county and London boroughsto be respected as far as practicable. As explained in Chapter 2,we have crossed these boundaries to a greater extent than before,using the discretion afforded by Rule 5 to avoid excessive disparitiesin the electorates”.

Rule 5 is characterised in paragraph 6.20 as follows:“Rule 5 requires electoral parity as far as is practicable”.

It also says:“Paragraph 6.5 of this chapter sets out how we have overall

brought constituency electorates closer to the electoral quota”.

The party opposite when it was in government acceptedthis review and fought the previous election on thoserules. Therefore, my great problem is that I cannot seewhy it does not describe to us how it sees these rulesbeing changed by the Bill in a material way. I completelyconcede that there are some material changes. Thefirst one is that, although the fifth review suggestedthat there should be 613 Members of Parliament, wehave now reached a rather higher number, and the Billproposes 600. I also concede that at that time thediscretion to the Boundary Commissions meant thatthey departed from plus or minus five to a greaterextent than is proposed in this Bill. As far as I can see,those are the only major differences.

Lord Davies of Stamford: I shall answer the nobleViscount right away. As he says, it has always been thetradition and habit of the Boundary Commission toendeavour to respect county boundaries. Indeed, thatis in its explicit rules. As far as I know, it has alwaysrespected ward boundaries. I have never heard of acase of wards being split. Perhaps they have but, if so,it has been extraordinarily rare. We all know that thisBill will place the Boundary Commission under verygreat constraints which, in practical terms, will force itto breach those important rules: the two constraintsbeing the limitation of MPs to 600 and, particularly,the 5 per cent rule. We have had other opportunities inthese debates to discuss those two rules, which have animmediate effect on the extent to which it will bepossible to respect county boundaries, local governmentboundaries or, indeed, ward boundaries. Therefore, Istrongly support my noble friends who are tryingexplicitly in these amendments to protect those thingsand to make certain that we do not cross countyboundaries except in the most exceptional circumstances.Above all—I say “above all” as this is a matter of thegreatest importance to me—we do not in any waywant to break up wards and divide them betweenparliamentary constituencies. Therefore, there is nowa need for explicit rules, and the purpose of theseamendments is to introduce them.

Viscount Eccles: As I read these amendments, thenoble Lord is not correct when he says that there areto be exceptions. There are to be no exceptions if theseamendments are accepted.

Lord Davies of Stamford: Indeed, and that is necessaryin the circumstances. I do not hold to every word ofthese amendments, as I shall explain in a second if thenoble Viscount will give me an opportunity to do so.However, their main thrust seems absolutely right, as,indeed—I do not want to anticipate the next debate—arethe amendments that have been put forward by mynoble friends on the Front Bench, which I hope thatwe will get to in the next section. In fact, the first thingI want to say on the detail of the amendments, withgreat respect to my noble friends Lord Snape, LordKennedy and Lady McDonagh, is that I wonder whether


the first amendment relating to county councilsachieves, technically, what they want it to achieve. Theamendment states:

“Each constituency shall be wholly within a single countyboundary”.

As I read that text, it means that counties that are toosmall to constitute a normal sized constituency wouldhave to be a constituency on their own. I think ofRutland. That would be a very peculiar result toemerge from the amendment. That is why I fear that Icannot support that amendment in its present form ifit came to the vote. However, I may have misunderstoodit and that the problem I have is dealt with adequatelyin another context. If that is the case, I shall either giveway to my noble friends on that matter now or lookforward to hearing an explanation subsequently in thedebate, but that aside, I am totally in favour of thespirit of that amendment for two reasons. The firstconcerns a matter I have already dealt with in anothercontext in these debates, so I will not dwell on it, andthat is the all-important issue of the extent to whichthe individual elector identifies with the constituencyinto which he or she finds himself or herself. Countiesare enormously important. We have already heardabout the great sensitivity which would arise ifconstituencies were spread across the traditional historicLancashire/Yorkshire divide.

I assure the Committee that if there were anysuggestion of taking bits of Lincolnshire and puttingthem into a constituency with parts of Nottinghamshire,Cambridgeshire or Leicestershire, there would be themost appalling outcry. I do not doubt for a momentthat that would lead to some people not bothering tovote in either county council elections or parliamentaryelections as a protest. That would go in the exactopposite direction from the one in which we wishto go.

Speaking from my considerable experience as aformer constituency Member of Parliament, I want tomake a very practical case. It is very important so faras possible to have an exclusive, or at least a limited,relationship with local authorities as it is only in thatway, when one has a large agenda, a lot of give andtake and when one sees the same people in differentcontexts, that one can effectively do business together,and where there is an atmosphere of confidence andtrust, which there needs to be between a Member ofParliament and a local authority, irrespective of politicalparty. That is enormously important. It is importantto avoid the conflict of interest which could otherwiseprevent local authorities, which may necessarily have arather bureaucratic mentality, contacting a Member atall. If there are two, three, four or, God knows, moreMPs with bits of a particular local authority, county,district council or whatever it is, they might well feelthat they cannot possibly talk to one of those MPswithout saying exactly the same thing in exactly thesame circumstances, taking exactly the same amountof time, with all the others, so they would not botherto do it at all, and so the co-operation, discussion andmutual understanding would not occur. There are realpractical arguments of this kind in favour of trying,wherever possible, to keep county councils withincounty boundaries. We are, of course, preaching to theconverted with the Boundary Commission. The noble

Viscount made that point. The last thing the BoundaryCommission wants to do is to split counties or toincorporate in constituencies parts of different counties.That is something it has managed to avoid doing ingeneral. However, we need to strengthen its hand toprevent it being pushed in that direction.

Even more important than counties are wards. Theyreally are the grass roots at which politics is conductedand are the way in which individuals are brought intoour political system and take an interest in civic affairsthrough meeting with their friends and neighbourslocally to discuss common problems. It is incrediblyimportant that a ward and a ward committee in apolitical party has a relationship with one Member ofParliament. Immense synergies flow from that becausewhen you go out campaigning you want to be in aposition to talk about local and national issues. AllMembers of Parliament have to talk about local andnational issues and all their supporters ought to be ina position to do that. It is no use campaigning for acouncil seat when if somebody raises a national problemyou say, “Actually this is not the constituency of theMember that I support and so I cannot talk about thisnational issue”. That is a hopeless system. It is veryimportant that Members of Parliament know theircounty and district councillors, that county and districtcouncillors know their Members of Parliament, thatthey tackle a common set of problems, work together,understand local issues and as far as possible have thesame views on local issues. That may not always be thecase but at least they feel that they have the sameresponsibilities which are coterminous. It is only inthat way that the whole political system we have has adegree of coherence and therefore of credibility, andhas in the minds of the electorate a degree of functionalityand purpose. All these things would be very badlydamaged by breaking up wards between differentconstituencies. That is the point on which I feel moststrongly.

Lord Rennard: My Lords, at the conclusion oftoday’s business, no doubt in the small hours of tomorrowmorning, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Davies ofStamford, will say exactly the same thing as he did atthe beginning of his speech: namely, that we have notwitnessed any filibustering. If so, by the time we get tothe end of today’s proceedings we will have made greatprogress on this Bill, with proper and legitimate scrutiny.

It seems to me that the legitimate area of scrutiny inthe amendments is about how far there are guidelinesfor the Boundary Commission to follow or how far wehave prescriptive rules which it must follow. I see themerits of the case for either strict rules or for guidelines,but there are strong and reasonable arguments aboutwhat level of discretion the Boundary Commissionshould have as it endeavours to equalise the size of theelectorates for different constituencies. I see that as areasonable argument to have.

Lord Davies of Stamford: I am grateful to the nobleLord for giving way. He is making a useful contributionand he is absolutely right: there is a choice for us inthis House this afternoon about going down the guidelinesroute or the firm-rules route. If we went down theguidelines route, which has attractions, would the


[LORD DAVIES OF STAMFORD]noble Lord be in favour of giving the BoundaryCommission some hierarchy of guidelines so that, forexample, when the issue of community feeling or ofward boundaries conflicted with the numerical targetswhich are being imposed—the 5 per cent rule, forexample—it would give the former priority and notthe latter?

4.30 pm

Lord Rennard: Introducing a specific hierarchy ofpriorities is rather more problematic than the nobleLord might think. One problem would be that if youtry to prescribe exactly in which order the commissionmust take into account different factors, you open upthe Boundary Commission process to legal challengesdown the road, which would cause greater uncertainty,including to Members in another place, about theeventual outcome. It seems to me that for flexibility inthe different criteria that the Boundary Commissionhas to follow, it is better to say, “in general, in so far asit sees fit”. When it sees fit how to take into accountthose different criteria, we should address in this Househow much flexibility it may have in trying to equalisethe electorates.

Lord Snape: I hope that the noble Lord will forgiveme for interrupting him so early in his interestingcontribution. I draw his attention to the review fromthe Political and Constitutional Reform Committee ofthe other place that the overall problem is the 5 percent leeway one way or the other. If that could belooked at, some of the other matters that the nobleLord correctly raises could be properly considered.

Lord Rennard: I am saying very carefully that Ithink that there are good arguments for looking at thedegree of variation that there might be between theelectorates of different constituencies. When, somemonths ago and before the general election, a proposalwas on the table to recreate constituency boundarieswith only a 2.5 per cent margin between electorates, Ithought that that was far too narrow and tight. TheBill currently proposes a 5 per cent variation. I amsimply saying at this stage that I think there arelegitimate arguments for discussing the variation thatwe might have, and that those are stronger argumentsto have than to say that we should have hard and fastrules about never crossing county boundaries, districtcouncil boundaries or ward boundaries.

I speak, of course, as a former party agent andparty organiser. From my point of view, it was muchmore convenient if all the wards were within aconstituency; that makes it easier for the parties. Ibelieve that, by and large, that should be the case.Indeed, amendments that we will consider later in myname and that of my noble friend Lord Tyler flag upspecifically to the boundary commissions the importanceof ward boundaries, but we do not suggest that theyshould never be crossed. The reason that I think thatthey can never be crossed is that there is still theoverarching principle in the Bill of more equal sizedelectorates. By and large, it is possible to achieve moreequal sized electorates without crossing ward boundaries.Where they are crossed, that should be very rare. I

hope that we do not cross county boundaries, districtboundaries or London boroughs more than is reallynecessary.

Lord Campbell-Savours: The noble Lord is emphasisingthe need to take greater notice of the 5 per cent or10 per cent argument than of the issue of crossingboundaries. In the light of the debate that took placein Westminster Hall, called and supported by LiberalDemocrat Members, a debate on parliamentaryrepresentation called by Andrew George which thenoble Lord will know of, it is clear that lots of LiberalDemocrat MPs want flexibility towards the 10 percent figure. Could the noble Lord go a little furtherand express support for that principle here in theChamber now? That would help the debate onimmeasurably.

Lord Rennard: The only principle I will express inthis part of the debate is my overarching belief, sharedby many noble Lords opposite, that constituenciesshould have roughly the same sized electorates, but inaddressing the different balance of the arguments,there is in my view more merit in the case for sayingthat we should look at flexibility in the size of theelectorates than for saying that we should try to treateach constituency, county or district as a special case.For example, I notice that an amendment has beentabled by a noble Lord opposite that Cumbria shouldbe a special case. There is virtually no limit to thenumber of special cases that you could try to establish.My view in opposing the amendment is simply thatthere is more merit in the flexibility of the electorateargument that there is in saying that you should nevercross the ward, the district or the county boundaries.Counties vary enormously in size, and the electoratescan rise or fall rapidly, so it is not proper to say thatyou could never cross the county boundary, but I hopethat it will not happen too often.

Lord Snape: Will the noble Lord give way?

Lord Rennard: I wish to conclude my argument andnot take further interventions. I think that we shouldmake more progress on the Bill, and I will concludemy argument rapidly by saying that in relation towards it is of course of general convenience for electedrepresentatives and constituents if ward boundariesare not crossed, but we now have ward boundaries inparts of the country—Birmingham, for example—thatare very large. There are more than 20,000 electors in atypical Birmingham ward. In Scotland, where we nowhave an STV system for local elections—thanks to theScottish Parliament and supported by three of thefour main parties in Scotland—we have larger wardsthan previously.

In my view, it would not be possible to have aroughly arithmetic equalisation procedure and nevercross ward boundaries. In some cases—I will concludeon this point—there may be a dilemma for the BoundaryCommission. For example, it may want to consider,“Do we want to keep Birmingham whole and notcross the Birmingham city boundary, or do we crosssome of the ward boundaries?”. My personal preferencemight be to say that it would be better for representation


and good governance to keep Birmingham whole andcross the ward boundaries. For those reasons, I do notsupport the amendments.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords—

Lord Lipsey: I shall follow directly on from what thenoble Lord, Lord Rennard, said, and I shall be extremelybrief, so my noble friend will not be kept waiting long.In one way, I shall go further than the noble Lord didand say that many of the principles incorporated inthe amendments are already present in the Bill in therules under Clause 11. For example, it states, moreexplicitly than the present rules, that“local government boundaries as they exist”,

on the most recent council elections, should be aspecial factor that the Boundary Commission can takeinto account. It states that a special factor that theBoundary Commission can take into account is localties. County boundaries, as we know, most famouslyin the case of Cornwall, are exactly the sort of local tiethat it can take explicit regard of. So those principlesare in the Bill. The trouble is that they do not amountto a row of beans because of the 5 per cent limit. Thatis the problem. Otherwise we would not face thisdifficulty.

Lord Tyler: The impression seems to be given byMembers opposite that somehow the existing situationis that a constituency never crosses a county boundary.That is of course not true. In the historic case ofLancashire and Yorkshire—I can think of no part ofthe country where counties have a more historic rivalry—the constituency of Oldham East and Saddleworthcrosses the county boundary.

Lord Lipsey: I cannot think what it was in myremarks—because no doubt the noble Lord intervenedon me seeking clarification—which contravened whathe just said. When he makes his speech in a minute, nodoubt he will be able to develop his point, but I do notthink that it arises from my remarks to the House,with great respect.

Lord Snape: Before my noble friend moves on, I putto him the point that I sought to put to the nobleLord, Lord Rennard, but he declined it. I refer back tothe House of Commons committee to which I referred.It states that,“many more constituencies than at present would cross localauthority boundaries”.

It is referring, as my noble friend implies, to the 5 percent limit.

Lord Lipsey: I am not in favour of any absolutes—thatis my point—but I am in favour of greater flexibility,which would enable most of the principles in theamendments to be respected. Perhaps I may take anexample that came up earlier. Under the Bill, of the46 counties of England, in only nine cases can theboundaries be respected. How does that reflect reality?However, if we had a different rule—a 10 per cent rule,for example—those boundaries could be respected inall but two cases, and these specific exceptions wouldnot need to be brought into effect. Of course I giveway to my noble friend.

Lord Campbell-Savours: Perhaps I may take mynoble friend back to the very interesting and constructivecontribution of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. I ambeing very serious when I say that because what hesuggested might, in some ways, influence any negotiationsthat take place. He placed greater emphasis on thenumerical calculation than on the area of the amendmentwith which we are dealing. I ask my noble friend topress the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, perhaps to intervenemore, not only on the Floor of the House but with hiscolleagues, because that is the way forward on the Bill.

Lord Lipsey: I have probably known the nobleLord, Lord Rennard, even longer than I have knownmy noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, and no onehas ever accused him of being as ineffective behind thescenes as he is effective on the public stage. I roseimmediately after he spoke in order to agree with himand to show that here we are finding common ground,which is desirable for the conduct of the negotiationsthat are now to take place and will help the Committeeout of the current impasse, so accurately describedearlier in our proceedings by the Leader of the House.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, once upon a time therewas a place known as the Royal Borough of SuttonColdfield, just to the north of Birmingham. In thelocal government boundary changes under the 1970-74Tory Government, it was added to Birmingham in1974. The external boundaries of Sutton Coldfieldhave remained exactly the same but it has simply beenadded to the north of Birmingham. I declare aninterest, as part of the northern boundary was part ofmy old constituency of Perry Barr. Earlier today Ibumped into the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, who thankedhis noble friends for the support that he got last week,and we had a chat about our joint boundary, whichwas always a bit of a bone of contention come theBoundary Commission review.

In my 27 years as an MP I think there were twoparliamentary boundary changes and probably threelocal authority ward changes, but this boundary remainedexactly the same. I have just looked at a map againbecause it is a few years since I represented the area.The historical boundary of the Royal Borough ofSutton Coldfield was built almost on the watershedbut was gradually developed. When you look at a mapof the area, you say to yourself, “What’s that dottedline that goes across the back gardens and up thealleyways. and at one point splits a cul de sac in half ?”.This is an urban constituency, and this boundaryhappens to form the line between the B73 andB44 postcodes. There is no question but that in partsof the country postcodes affect property values. It hasalready been mentioned, including by me, that wardsare building blocks, and the average ward throughoutEngland has about 1,400 constituents. Some of themare really tiny but the average ward in London hasabout 6,000 constituents. However, once you get outinto less populated areas, the wards are tiny. As buildingblocks they are great because you can add in 100 hereor 200 there in order to make the boundaries comeright. However, when you have a ward of 18,000,19,000 or, in some cases such as the old Sutton wards,more than 20,000 constituents, what do you do?


4.45 pmI do not wholly agree with all the amendments, for

reasons that I shall explain, but it is self-evident thatunless the Bill is changed the Boundary Commissionwill have to ignore the historical boundary and putBanners Gate Road, George Frederick Road, LongmoorRoad, Greenway Drive and Elizabeth Road, whichcurrently fall within the B73 postcode in Sutton Coldfield,with the nearby ward of Kingstanding, which wasnamed after the abortive attempt of King Charles IIto make a stand in the area. There must be similarexamples around the country. This is not the countyboundary or even the district boundary; it is a wardboundary, but the wards are the building blocks. Ihave said that there should be more equality with theconstituencies, and for that you have to split wardswhen you have wards this big. I see no alternative.

I always thought that, when Armageddon came forthe Tories, they would be left with Huntingdon andSutton Coldfield. The only threat to them in SuttonColdfield comes from some of my former friends whoare Liberal Democrats. I do not think that they willtake it very kindly when I point out—as I shall do ifthere is no give and take on the Bill—that intransigenceover the Bill will result in all those people within theB73 postcode voting in the Kingstanding ward, andno amount of Lib Dem leaflets will be able to correctthe situation with which they will be faced. That is aserious point.

I want to raise another point, which was raised bythe noble Lord, Lord Rennard. When you have bigurban areas, particularly the metropolitan boroughs,of which Birmingham is one, you are faced with achoice. Going over the boundary from a metropolitanborough into a bit of a district in, say, Staffordshire, ispretty significant for the MP. It is not like crossingLondon borough boundaries, where there are localauthorities of equality, if I may put it like that, andsimilar services. There is no comparison between thedistrict councils in north Staffordshire and the unitaryauthority of the city of Birmingham. Therefore, theBoundary Commission will be left with a dilemmaunless it gets more guidance. Does it contain theexisting boundary of the external areas of Birmingham,which includes Sutton Coldfield, and then split thewards, with all that that signifies—I see no alternative;wards have been split in the past—or does it let theexternal boundary go and give the MP some part ofthe metropolitan borough of Birmingham along withadjoining district councils? That is a pretty significantdecision, and I am not sure whether it should be left tothe Boundary Commission.

Because of the rigidity of the Bill with the figure of5 per cent, you get too wide a spread. I fully acceptthat that 5 per cent can go either way, and I would notwant 10 per cent to be the norm because that is whereabuse would come in. You have to have some kind ofconstraint in this, but partly releasing the rigidity doesnot mean a free-for-all elsewhere, and I think that thatis probably where part of the impasse has come aboutin this respect. However, I do not think that there isany choice in the matter.

The situation is different in different parts of Englandsimply because of the nature of the counties and thesmall districts. However, with the metropolitan counties,

the situation is completely different. They all havefairly large wards, although nothing on the scale ofthe city of Birmingham. I cannot see a way aroundthis. I have no personal hang-up about crossing acounty boundary, but that is because I had no experienceof representing the shires. Saying that will probably bean anathema to some, but I would far rather cross thecounty boundary than deprive the county of half anMP, because that will be the reality. If you get to5.45 per cent, you will end up with five MPs and willhave lost half an MP because you cannot make up theother half by joining someone else. I should mentionthat it is government policy—and it was the policy ofthe previous Government as well—to get local authoritiesto provide services, such as social services, jointly,whether they are districts in the same county or anothercounty. Environmental health is a classic case of wheredistricts join together and have common services. Theboundaries are irrelevant to the services that are providedto the people. It can be done and we know that it canbe very practical, so I have no real hang-up about it. Ido not think that it should be the norm but I wouldrather do that than deprive people of, say, up to half aMember of Parliament. I can recall the situation beforeI was first elected—

Lord Grocott: For a very long time, my noble friendrepresented a constituency that was essentially in thecentre of Birmingham, apart from the period that hewas talking about: when it was adjacent to SuttonCoalfield, which by that time had itself become part ofBirmingham. He might feel differently about his lackof objection to cross-county boundaries if he wastrying, for example, to represent part of the city ofBirmingham and a bit of Worcestershire or part of thecity of Birmingham and a bit of Staffordshire orWarwickshire. I think he would find that an extraordinarilydifficult thing to do. That really is one of the mainreasons why, for all the rough justice involved in someof the judgments that Boundary Commissions havehad to make in the past, trying to abide by localauthority boundaries is a common-sense thing to do,both for the MP and more importantly for the peoplewhom that MP represents.

Lord Rooker: I fully accept that, and that was madeclear in one of my previous speeches: that the localauthority might be reluctant, if some issue comes upthat transcends the boundaries, to get their MPs up tospeed and briefed to lobby and kick in doors inWhitehall to put their case. At the same time they arethinking, “Hang on, that MP represents part of thearea that we are a bit negative about, and complainingabout”. So there could be an issue here—whether it isa new air field or another infrastructure issue—thatcrosses boundaries; I fully accept that. On the otherhand, I accept there should not be a massive disparitybetween sizes of constituencies. The point is that thereis no easy answer to this. This Bill provides an easyanswer because of its rigidity, but because of that it isunfair.

The issue of the 10 per cent is important, but theother point is that, if the Bill is allowed to go throughwithout any sort of compromise, the only discussionof these issues is actually here. Those discussions will


not be held in public inquiries because the citizens ofthis country are being denied the right to go to apublic inquiry to make the points, some of which Ihave alluded to and some which others have. That isthe problem; if only there could at least be that safetyvalve so that some of these issues could be vented at aconstrained public inquiry. I am not in favour ofsending people from London around the country becausethat becomes open-ended. There could be a publicinquiry on any constituency changes in a maximum of15 working days—three weeks; I guarantee that thatcould be done. You put the constraints in place, limitthe political parties so it cannot be abused, bring ingenuine citizens and other bodies, including businessand the Church, and you could do it, but you have tohave that safety valve, otherwise the pent-up difficultiesthat will arise at the next election will be on the headsof the Liberal Democrats.

I do not live in Birmingham; I live in a shire areaand I am not proposing that we cross the Shropshireborder boundaries because I would be in a spot ofbother there. I have found it remarkable that, in thepast six months, watching stuff go through my door inLudlow from the Lib Dems, I have yet to see a singleleaflet that hints that they are in coalition with theTories in central government. It is disingenuous andunbelievable. As it hots up towards the election andthe boundary issue comes up, these things will comeback. I would rather that that did not happen, by theway. I would rather we get this right. I do not seek inadvantage in this; I think there is a good case, as theLeader said this afternoon. I heard the word “concession”,and I make no bones about that; there are concessionsto be made. Let us get it out into the open so that weknow where we are—the sooner the better, because Iwant progress on this. I repeat, having proposed theamendment that would in effect have given flexibilityon the date for the referendum, that there is no problemwith the referendum being held on 5 May. My amendmentwould not have stopped that; all it would have donewas give the Government a backstop if things wentwrong. Little did I know when I said that back in lateNovember or early December that we would still be inCommittee at the end of January.

We do need to make progress, and we need thatsafety valve so that the only debate on constituencychanges, splitting wards and crossing boundaries isnot held in the unelected part of our Parliament. Thatis balmy when you think about it. All we are asking isthat the people get the opportunity, when the changesare proposed for their area, at least to come forwardand say, “I agree”, “I disagree”, “We have been tryingto do this for years”, or “Thank heaven we are gettingsome changes”—at least to have the chance to say sothemselves and for it not just to be left here.

Lord Campbell-Savours: I intervene only followingthe intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. Iam interested in the common ground to which thenoble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, the nobleBaronesses, Lady Williams of Crosby and Lady D’Souza,and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay ofClashfern, referred last week. They all sought thatmiddle ground that we expect to arise out of thenegotiations that will inevitably have to be held. Much

of our debate on these amendments could be avoidedif the Government were to concede on the principle ofthe 5 per cent—if they were to accept the 10 per centfor which my noble friend asked or some flexibilityabove 5 per cent whereby some areas would applya 5 per cent arrangement as against others thatwould apply a 10 per cent arrangement. Only by thatkind of flexibility do we move away from the argumentsthat are being deployed during this debate. It is astraitjacket. My noble friend Lord Grocott referred torough justice. It is rough justice that arises only out ofa straitjacket that the Government have sought tointroduce.

I would like to know—some work must have beendone in government—how many county boundarieswould be breached with a 5 per cent flexibility asagainst a 10 per cent one. If that margin is substantial,surely that is an argument in favour of a 10 per centflexibility. That question applies to how many Londonand metropolitan district council boundaries are to bebreached. The difference between a 5 per cent straitjacketand a 10 per cent one applies equally to the questionof whether wards would be split within individualconstituencies. Surely Ministers must be beginning toaccept this following the intervention from the nobleBaroness, Lady Williams, today. She was absolutelyblunt and said basically that we should move from the5 per cent. Let us hope that in his winding-up speechto this debate, the Minister will signal to us that theGovernment are prepared to look at that particularissue, because I am sure it would help to move this Billalong.

Lord Bach: My Lords, we have had an interestingdebate on interesting subjects, and we look forward tohearing the Minister respond. The principle behindthis group of amendments matches that which motivatesthe next amendment, Amendment 71A, in my nameand that of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer.The stringency of the Government’s proposals as wesee it—the inflexibility of the rules set out in the Bill,the strict adherence to a tight mathematical formulaand the lack of discretion given to the boundarycommissioners in carrying out their work—will havedamaging effects on our system.

The Constitution Committee of your Lordships’House reported on the proposed equalisation ofconstituencies in this Bill, and wrote:

“Applying the new rules as to equalisation will necessitate thecreation of constituencies crossing regional and county boundaries;in addition, many more constituencies than at present will crosslocal authority boundaries. This has significant administrativeand political consequences, in terms of such matters as electoraladministration and party political organisation. The pace ofchange is unlikely to lessen such administrative and politicalchallenges and, indeed, seems likely to make them more difficultto manage”.

It went on:“The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee heard

evidence from Democratic Audit that the new rules as to equalisationwere being imposed ‘without any attempt to form a consensus’and without the Government having first investigated what peopleactually want from representation. There did not appear to be anyevidence that the electorate considers equalisation to be significantlymore important than, say, geographical, customary or traditionalboundaries”.


[LORD BACH]The committee concluded:

“Pre-legislative scrutiny and public consultation would haveenabled a better assessment of whether the new rules as toequalisation are overly rigid”.

It has come to be expected that those of your Lordships’colleagues who sit on that committee—and I remindthis Committee that they come from all parts of theHouse—are always entirely wise and sensible in theirassessment. We certainly think so.

5 pmThe Deputy Prime Minister has made it clear that it

is the Government’s intention to retain wards as thebuilding blocks of the new constituencies. In SelectCommittee evidence, the Deputy Prime Minister said,“we consulted with the boundary commissioners in great detailand they were unambiguous. We set the figure at 5 per centbecause they said: ‘If you set it at any less than 5 per cent, we willnot be able to use ward boundaries as the building blocks for ourboundary review, and if you want us to do it by’—I forget theexact date—‘October or December 2013, we must be able to usewards as the continued building blocks of constituency boundaries.We can do that to within 5 per cent on either side of thethreshold’”.

The very same Boundary Commissions have alsosaid—I am afraid in contradiction to what the righthonourable Deputy Prime Minister asserted:

“The changes to the total number of constituencies, and thetighter limits on the number of electors in each constituency, willresult in a complete redrawing of constituency boundaries ... Theelectoral parity target may require the Commissions to work withelectorate data below ward level in many cases”.

It may be that those two conclusions can be puttogether or that the Government feel a bit aggrieved athaving received incorrect advice, but these two piecesof evidence cannot hide the fact that, on taking moretime to assess the implication of the Government’splans, the Boundary Commissions have been forced tochange their assessment. The fact is that their belief isthat wards will be split, and the notable academic,Professor Ron Johnston, agrees.

Why does this matter and how much does it matter?As has been said during the course of the debate,wards are the building blocks of our constituency mapand have been regarded as such for a very long timeindeed. They, of course, vary in size across the UnitedKingdom—my noble friend Lord Rooker said that afew minutes ago—most starkly between urban centressuch as Birmingham, which has always had largewards, and rural villages. Wards form the basis ofcommunity representation. Local councillors representparticular wards and clusters of wards are joinedtogether to make up parliamentary seats. Local politicalparties and the key grass-root activity of leafletingare organised at ward level. The noble Lord, LordRennard, made it clear in his speech that wards haveadvantages for, among others, political parties fightingelections.

The problem is that the proposals contained in theBill paint a fragmented and disjointed picture ofrepresentation. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, made aninteresting comment about the present seat of Oldhamand Saddleworth. Having visited it only briefly, I donot want to sound as though I am some expert on it,

but the noble Lord is quite right: it contains remarkablydifferent elements of the make-up of our country. Thetruth is that, apart from now having a remarkablygood Member of Parliament, it also has a very strangemixture of the country within its confines. If this Billwere to become law, we would have many more seatssuch as Oldham and Saddleworth than we do at themoment because of the iron rule of numbers. In myview, that would be a pity. It is not an appropriate typeof seat for this country. It is fine if we have one or twosuch seats, but to have many Oldham and Saddleworthswould cause more difficulties than not.

As far as these amendments are concerned, we onthe Front Bench prefer the factors to guide boundaryredrawing contained in our Amendment 71A, but webelieve that these amendments are sensible and warrant—and I am sure will get—a proper response from theMinister.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Can my noblefriend or the Minister tell me whether the sort offlexibility that the Leader of the House referred totoday would allow margins of flexibility on the finalnumber—that keeps reminding me of a book in whichthe answer is 42—so that it would then be easier tohave regard to local differences? I think my noblefriend Lord Rooker, whom I respect enormously andhave worked with for years, may be able to take aslightly more laid-back view on this issue than, forexample, a Minister were he or she to dare to go to theboundary between Lancashire and Yorkshire.

The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallaceof Tankerness): My Lords, Amendments 68 to 71 specifymore explicitly the way in which the BoundaryCommissions are to draw up new constituencyboundaries and take some discretion away from theBoundary Commissions. They provide that constituencyboundaries must be contained within existing countyboundaries and must not split local government wardsand propose limits on the number of local authorityareas that constituencies can cross. With the exceptionof Amendment 69 on wards, they appear to be directedat English local government structure only. I am notsure whether that was the intention or whether theywere intended to apply to other parts of the UnitedKingdom as well, but I am not going to nitpick overthat because in moving the amendment the nobleLord, Lord Snape, indicated that they were importantand that has been reflected in the debate that we havehad.

The Bill provides for the Boundary Commission totake into account local government boundaries withinthe range of flexibility provided by the Bill. Projectionsindicate that with that flexibility it would be possibleto have constituencies varying from 72,000 to 79,000electors. The Bill’s provisions represent a rebalancingof the rules in existing legislation; namely, the equalityin the weight of a vote and the flexibility to recogniselocal factors. We believe that the existing legalisationresults in unclear and potentially contradictory sets ofrules. Indeed, the Boundary Commission for Englandhas said that each rule taken on its own is quite clearbut it is required to apply all the rules and its experience,and that of its predecessors, is that there is oftenconflict between them.


What is proposed in the Bill with regard to Rules 2and 4 is to have a hierarchy, as was said in one of theexchanges. It is because of this rebalancing that wehave given precedence to the size of electorate and thegeographical area of each constituency over otherfactors in Rule 5, such as local government boundaries.I believe these other factors are important, and that iswhy we have provided the Boundary Commissionswith the flexibility to consider them. I emphasise tothe noble Lord, Lord Haworth, that it is possible forthe Boundary Commission to have regard to local ties.The Boundary Commissions have regard within a10 per cent band of the UK electorate quota betweenthe largest and smallest constituency. We believe thatthe provisions of the Bill represent a reasonable balancebetween these factors and ensure a system where voteshave equal value throughout the United Kingdom.

In response to a point made by the noble Lord,Lord Dubs, there is nothing in the Bill or in theBoundary Commission rules at the moment to moveindividual electors from one local authority area toanother. But as is the case at the moment, someconstituencies cross London borough boundaries. Infact, 19 out of 32 London borough boundaries are crossedby a constituency boundary. That does not transferthe individual elector within that local authority area.

Lord Dubs: I may not have been clear. I was referringto a situation where a council estate was owned by onelocal authority and part of that council estate was in adifferent parliamentary constituency and borough. Itwas an anomaly in terms of both borough andparliamentary boundaries.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I am grateful for thatclarification. As I indicated, under the existing rules,19 out of 32 London borough boundaries are crossedby a constituency boundary. My noble friend LordEccles also reflected on the fact that boundaries arecrossed under the existing rules. My information isthat 16 out of 35 shire counties are crossed by aconstituency boundary and 31 out of 40 unitaryboundaries. In its fifth report the Boundary Commissionnoted that in the fourth review, 13 constituencieswhich crossed metropolitan district boundaries whereasin the review which took effect in 2010, 22 constituenciesdid so. And whereas in the previous review170 constituencies had crossed non-metropolitan districtboundaries, the recommendations for the fifth reviewincluded 165 which did so.

In Scotland, where I accept there are other issueswith regard to wards because of the multi-Membernature of the local authority wards, there is oneconstituency—that of my honourable friend Mr Mundell,the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at theScotland Office—which covers parts of three councilareas. His constituency of Dumfriesshire, Clydesdaleand Tweeddale covers the council areas of Dumfriesand Galloway, Scottish Borders and South Lanarkshire.This is an important point. My noble friend LordNaseby mentioned the fact that he had at one stagerepresented three local authority areas.

Lord Bach: I am sorry the noble Lord, Lord Naseby,is not in his place. I should have asked him at the time.The three he mentioned would have been two district

councils and Northampton county council, whichoverrode both the two district councils. So it wouldnot be three separate district councils—it would be acounty council and district councils within the samecounty, as far as I know Northampton.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I defer to the nobleLord’s superior knowledge of the English localgovernment system. In the case of Mr Mundell, it isthree unitary council areas. The constituency which Iused to have the privilege to represent in Shetland isone of those preserved by this Bill and it had two localauthority areas within it.

I recognise the point made by the noble Lord, LordSnape, about the relationship which individual Membersof Parliament have with their local authorities. Thereare numerous cases where Members of Parliamentrepresent more than one local authority area. No oneis suggesting that any of those who fall into thatcategory do not do their job on behalf of their constituentsas well as those MPs who only have only one localauthority within their constituency. I note in passingthat Mr Mundell increased his majority at the 2010 electionby 1.9 per cent. Without causing any difficulties withmy coalition partners, that, for a Scottish Conservativein the 2010 election, was quite an achievement.

It is important, too, to look at this from the perspectiveof the elector. With regard to “one vote, one value”,the electors are only in one local government area withone Member of Parliament. We should not necessarilybe looking to the administrative convenience of Membersof Parliament at the expense of the value of votes forthe individual elector.

5.15 pmAn important point has been made in this debate

about wards. Numerous contributors—the noble Baroness,Lady Liddell of Coatdyke, the noble Lords, LordDavies and Lord Rooker, my noble friend Lord Rennard,and others—have emphasised the importance of wards.I am grateful to those who tabled these amendmentsfor raising this issue. The Government recognise thatwards can be useful building blocks for constituencies,as the noble Lord, Lord Bach, noted when he quotedthe evidence to the Constitution Committee of myright honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister.However, to ensure the fairest constituencies possible,it is inevitable that even ward boundaries may have tobe crossed on some occasions. The noble Lord, LordRooker, and my noble friend Lord Rennard illustratedthe different size of wards in Birmingham comparedto many other parts of England. We believe thesedetails should be a matter for the Boundary Commissions,which may use the wards if they see fit. The Bill doesnothing to stop them doing that. In fact, the secretaryto the Boundary Commission for England confirmedthat the provisions of the Bill make it possible forwards to be used as a building block for constituenciesin most, if not all, cases in England.

Lord Howarth of Newport: I would be very gratefulif the Minister could give the House his response tothe following observation made by Dr Lewis Baston inDemocratic Audit: January 2011 on this issue of thesplitting of wards:


[LORD HOWARTH OF NEWPORT]“It is probably impossible to implement a 5 per cent rule

without splitting wards between constituencies, something whichthe Boundary Commissions currently avoid doing because of thepotential for voter confusion and highly artificial constituencyboundaries, not to mention causing headaches for the organisationof all political parties. … The worst-affected areas are thosewhere wards have large electorates, such as the English metropolitanboroughs, most of Scotland and some unitary authorities andLondon boroughs. A rigid 10 per cent rule might still involve afew isolated cases of ward-splitting, but it is likely to be veryuncommon in comparison with a 5 per cent rule”.

Is there not a lot of very good sense in that?

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: As my noble friendLord Rennard said, there is no limit to the number ofspecial cases. If we move without any other limitationto a 20 per cent band rather than a 10 per cent band,we are moving away from the basic principle of equalvalue. Broadly speaking, we have followed the provisionsof the 1986 Act with regard to local authority boundaries,and while we are keen to avoid being too prescriptiveon this issue, there may be some merit in placing adiscretionary consideration of wards in the Bill. Wecertainly want to consider further the elements ofthese amendments that concern the use of wards.Other amendments have been tabled with regard towards by the noble Lords, Lord Lipsey and LordFoulkes, and my noble friends Lord Rennard andLord Tyler. We want to consider, therefore, the use ofwards and to bring back a fully considered responseon that on Report since it is an important point. Onthat basis, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw hisamendment.

Lord Davies of Stamford: Before the noble Lord sitsdown, will he recognise that there will be considerablepleasure in many parts of the House at what he hasjust said about the recognition of the importance ofwards? On a first reading of this Bill, it looked ratherstrange that other criteria were mentioned in Clause 11(5),such as local authority boundaries and Europeanconstituencies, but there was no explicit mention ofwards. What he has just said about considering makinga specific mention will go a long way to reassuring alot of people who are concerned with this point.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I am grateful for thosereassuring remarks from the noble Lord. Not only dowards provide possibilities as building blocks, buttheir very nature means that local ties are cementedthrough them.

Lord Snape: This has been an interesting debate.Fourteen noble Lords, including those on the FrontBenches, have participated and I will ensure that myclosing remarks guarantee that the debate is concludedin less than two hours. That gives the lie to thoseoutside who say that none of this debate has beenparticularly relevant and that much of it, if not all ofit, has been designed merely to hold up the Government’slegislation. That is not the case and I am sure that Ispeak for noble Lords on all sides of the House inthanking the Minister for the way in which he has justresponded. If he could persuade his colleague, thenoble Lord, Lord McNally, to adopt the same emollienttone, we might have two nice Ministers responding. So

far he has not been too successful, so he had betterstay where he is to ensure that the mood of yourLordships’ House does not change.

I will refer in closing this debate to some of thecontributions that have been made from both sides, allof which have been relevant. My noble friend LordKennedy gave us the benefit of his knowledge ofDerbyshire, pointing out that it would be difficult toretain parliamentary seats in Derbyshire under the5 per cent rule and that it might be necessary to crosscounty boundaries. He mentioned High Peak andGreater Manchester. There is some affinity betweenthe two, in that many commuters travel between them,but that is about it; from a social and economic pointof view, there is not a great deal to unite them. He alsoemphasised the importance of the names of seats.

My noble friend Lord Dubs correctly pointed outthat there are anomalies under the present system, towhich the Minister also referred. No one says that thepresent system is perfect—it cannot be—but I referwithout quoting directly to the committee in the otherplace, which said that there would be a great manymore anomalies unless we looked in detail particularlyat the 5 per cent rule.

My noble friend Lady Liddell of Coatdyke remindedus of the importance of the relationship betweenelected Members. Although, to paraphrase what theMinister said, legislation should not necessarily beabout the administrative convenience of Members ofParliament, it should not be about exacerbating thedifferences between them either. The greater the numberof district councils involved on a particular issue, thegreater the number of Members of Parliament. That isregardless of party. It has been known for Members ofthe other place of the same party to disagree aboutconstituency matters. I know that such a thing wouldnever occur among the Liberal Democrats, but I suspectthat the Conservatives are a bit more like us and aremore inclined occasionally to fall out.

My noble friend Lord Haworth referred to a particularconstituency difficulty in London and spoke of givingevidence with some trepidation at a public inquiry. Weare anxious to preserve the principle of public inquirieson boundary alterations. Any confrontation betweenhim and Ivor Stanbrook QC would lead to only onewinner—you do not need the letters QC after yourname to be able to act as an advocate in such a way asI know that my noble friend does.

My noble friend Lord Bilston gave us the benefit ofhis 40 years of distinguished service at various levels inthe Black Country. He quoted Omar Khayyam. Icannot compete with that. I suspect that the wordsthat he quoted so movingly were not aimed at BoundaryCommissions or boundary alterations, but they werecertainly appropriate in the context of this debate. Hereminded us of the long-standing feeling of hurt whenelectors are transferred from one district to another.In my former constituency in West Bromwich, we hadsome difficulty in 1974 in deciding the name of thenew borough. Even now, 40 years on, the borough ofSandwell is not immediately recognised throughoutthe United Kingdom. You do not often hear thepeople who lived in the former authorities that formedthe borough of Sandwell saying in response to a


question as to where they live: “Well, actually, I live inSandwell”. I was a fairly new Member of the otherplace when the borough was created. I was told thatpeople in Smethwick, which formed part of that borough,having been transferred to the new constituency ofWarley, which they did not particularly recognise,were certainly not going to have imposed on themthe name West Bromwich, although that seemed tome as an outsider at the time to be the mostsensible name for the new borough. I suspect thatthere will be many difficulties and arguments such asthat unless the Government see sense on the 5 per centdeviation rule.

My noble friend Lord Davies of Stamford at leastprovoked an intervention from the other side of theChamber when he pointed out that none had beenmade until he got to his feet. He emphasised theimportance of the ward structure, as, to be fair, didthe Minister in his reply. One participant from theother side was the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, whowas rather more emollient on this occasion than hehas sometimes been in the past in saying thatthere should be discussion rather than hard-and-fastrules. He rather skated over the fact that there will bemany more such anomalies unless, I repeat, the 5 percent deviation rule is eased. He implied, although hedid not say so in as many words, that just a fewmore constituencies would cross local authorityboundaries under the legislation. That was not theview of the committee in the other place or oforganisations that wish to defend the integrity ofcounties such as Cornwall. I readily accede to theexperience and knowledge of constituencies of thenoble Lord, Lord Rennard—it was until fairlyrecently impossible to conceive of a by-electiontaking place without a figure lurking in thebackground with a coy and retiring smile, whichinvariably belonged to the noble Lord—but I hopethat he will recognise that, unless some changes aremade to the Bill, the anomalies that have been raisedon both sides of the Committee will be perpetuated.Indeed, my noble friend Lord Lipsey put his finger onthe matter in his brief intervention, saying thatunder the legislation only nine out of 46 countieswould have their boundaries respected. That is ananomaly; it is a significant change, which the Governmentshould look at.

My noble friend Lord Rooker entertained us withstories about Sutton Coldfield joining Birmingham.Unfortunately, the former Member of Parliament forSutton Coldfield, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, wasnot present, otherwise we might have seen a discussion,if not a minor spat, between the two of them. Mynoble friend and I were referred to by the British pressin the context of some of the debates last week as acouple of ageing lefties. I suppose that we ought to besuitably grateful that, for once, the British press gotsomething half right. My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours said that we have to move on the 5 per centdeviation rule, as did my noble friend on the FrontBench, who said that constituencies would otherwisebecome fragmented and disjointed.

I was grateful for the tenor in which the noble andlearned Lord, Lord Wallace, responded. These arematters to which we shall have to return on Report, as

he said. Given that, and the amiable nature of thedebate—and the fact that no time has been wasted—Ibeg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 68 withdrawn.

Amendments 69 to 71 not moved.

Amendment 71A

Moved by Lord Falconer of Thoroton

71A: Clause 11, page 9, leave out lines 31 to 33 and insert—“(2) In England—

(a) each constituency shall be wholly in one of the electoralregions specified in Schedule 1 to the EuropeanParliamentary Elections Act 2002;

(b) no district or borough ward shall be included in morethan one constituency;

(c) the Boundary Commission should, where practicable,have regard to the boundaries of counties and Londonboroughs and in any case no constituency shall includethe whole or part of more than two counties or Londonboroughs.

(3) In Northern Ireland, no local authority ward shall beincluded in more than one constituency.

(4) In Wales—

(a) no unitary authority ward shall be included in more thanone constituency;

(b) the Boundary Commission should, where practicable,have regard to the boundaries of unitary authorities, andin any case no constituency shall include the whole orpart of more than two unitary authorities.

(5) In Scotland, regard shall be had to local authority wardboundaries.”

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the amendmentwould insert a number of additional factors for theBoundary Commissions to take into account whendrawing constituencies in the four parts of the UnitedKingdom. It in effect represents the opposition FrontBench’s conclusions in relation to the issues discussedunder the previous group of amendments.

At present, the new rules for drawing constituencyboundaries proposed by the Bill are dominated by theoverriding requirement for every constituency, with afew exceptions, to fall within the margins of 5 per centeither side of a new UK-wide electoral quota. Theintervention of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, inrelation to the 5 per cent/10 per cent issue was interestingand instructive, and I strongly recommend that nobleLords read it tomorrow.

Although Rule 5 in Clause 11 lists a number offurther factors which the Boundary Commissions mayalso take into account when drawing constituencies,they are subordinate to the numerical prerequisite. Inpractice, that means, as we have just discussed, that theBoundary Commissions have very limited scope totake proper account of those other considerations.The only general rule that sits above the iron law ofthe electoral quota is the stipulation that each constituencyshall be wholly within one of the four parts of theUnited Kingdom. That at least is recognition of thefact that there are certain political and administrativeboundaries which it would be unwise to cross inpursuit of mathematical equality. We believe that that


[LORD FALCONER OF THOROTON]recognition does not go far enough and that the Billshould allow for greater sensitivity and flexibilitywhen it comes to dealing with the administrative unitswithin, as well as between, the four parts of the UnitedKingdom.

5.30 pmYour Lordships heard in the previous debate that

the Government’s intention in crafting these proposednew rules in their current form is to attain as great anelectoral equality between seats as possible withoutsplitting wards, which are the building blocks ofparliamentary constituencies. The Deputy Prime Minister,Nick Clegg, as was quoted earlier, expressed that viewin oral evidence to our Constitution Committee andon the Floor of the other place when he was beingasked Questions in his Question Time. We have alsoheard that the Bill will fail to deliver the objective thatthe Deputy Prime Minister has named—that wardsshould be the building blocks. Independent electoralexperts and the heads of the four Boundary Commissionshave all made it clear that to meet the proposednumerical target, individual wards will almost certainlyneed to be divided. Noble Lords heard the quote fromthe four heads of the Boundary Commissions.

As the conclusion of the Political and ConstitutionalReform Committee of the other place has alreadybeen quoted I shall quote only the last sentence:

“The electoral parity target may require the Commissions towork with electorate data below ward level in many cases”.

That would be a major change to the establishedpattern of political representation in England in particular,where at present no wards are divided betweenconstituencies. The secretaries of the four BoundaryCommissions also told the Select Committee:

“The electoral parity target will result in many constituenciescrossing local authority boundaries. Early modelling suggeststhat in Scotland between 15 and 20 constituencies (of 50), and inWales between 23 and 28 constituencies (of 30), would cross alocal authority boundary”.

They also said that,“the application of the electoral parity target is likely to result inmany communities feeling that they are being divided betweenconstituencies”.

The Government have been generally dismissivewhen concerns about split wards and crossed localauthority boundaries were raised in the other place.They said that people would not care if their ward wassplit between different parliamentary seats and that itdid not matter if council borders were crossed. I amabsolutely sure that nobody is talking about this at themoment; it is not an issue that has grasped the public.But that does not mean that people would not noticethe change or that it would not have negative consequencesonce the change arose. Split wards would give rise toconfusion, at least among members of the public wholive in them, with their MP being in one place andtheir councillor in another. Including parts of two orthree local authority districts in a single parliamentaryconstituency would surely make life more difficult fora Member of Parliament and undermine the servicethat he or she is able to provide to constituents, as mynoble friend Lady Smith of Basildon, recounted to theHouse last week. This was the point that psephologist

Professor Ron Johnston emphasised to the Politicaland Constitutional Reform Committee when it tookevidence on the Bill. He said:

“The issue is whether it is important particularly for administratorsand for parties and MPs, and I am sure it is, because the fewerlocal authorities you have to deal with the better”.

He said that a rule contained in the Bill referring toEngland,“only includes some of the types of local authorities. It has goneback to the old wording of the previous Bill and only theboundaries of counties and London boroughs shall be takenregard of. Why not take regard of the unitary authorities as well?Why not take regard of the metropolitan boroughs or principalauthorities? It seems to me that the Bill is deficient there and Iwonder if that clause was not written in haste simply takingsomething from a previous Bill and it would be better to reconsiderthat. Wherever possible give an MP as few local authorities todeal with as possible”.

These administrative confusions would also createsignificant problems for political parties at a structurallevel, especially in the case of the Conservative andLabour parties, which are organised on a constituencyand ward basis. Professor Johnston informed the SelectCommittee that one academic study had shown that,“when a ward was split a lot of the ward activists drifted away.They had lost their rationale to represent this place, this place nolonger existed, it was in two parts and political activity declined”.

I do not think that this is what any of us wish to see.The overall stated purpose of these Bills is to revivetrust in politics, not reduce interest in politics. As itstands, this Bill is not a formula for increasing politicalactivism and public engagement; it appears to be arecipe for undermining it. An aspect of the Bill thathas not come under enough attention is the extent towhich political parties at grass-roots level will beundermined by the boundary reforms set to be unleashedby these new rules. In particular, the requirement tohave boundary reviews on the basis of the inflexiblenew rules every Parliament will produce much greaterdisruption than we have been used to. To quote thesecretaries to the Boundary Commissions—I promisefor the final time:

“Strict electoral parity, and a fixed total number of constituencies,will result in frequent constituency redesign”.

That will mean very great organisational challengesfor local party machines which, in the end, are run byvolunteers. Something that we may have learnt overthe 13 years in government was that reorganisations ofstate providers meant that there was a focus on thereorganisation and not a focus on the provision of thecentral purpose of those organisations.

Amendment 71A is aimed at providing some solidityto the boundary review process—a better balance tothe process for drawing constituencies, and a greaterunderstanding about the potentially damaging knock-oneffect of the rigidly mathematical framework to whichthe Government currently adhere—but does it in sucha way as to accept the principle that there needs to bemuch greater mathematical consistency betweenconstituencies. The Bill is right to stipulate thatparliamentary constituencies should not cross nationalborders, and we do not propose to touch that rule, butwe do propose to bolster it with a further rule that saysthat constituencies should not cross the electoral regionsrelating to the European Parliament. The Bill itselfsuggests that the Boundary Commission should take


those regions into account. We would go a bit further,in a sensible move that would give future boundaryreviews a stable framework within which the processescould unfold.

The other elements of our amendment would providea clearer requirement that administrative units andboundaries in the four parts of the United Kingdom,in particular the ward boundaries in England, Walesand Northern Ireland, should be respected and givenproper account when parliamentary constituencies arebeing created. I very much hope that the Governmentwill treat these amendments in the spirit in which theyare addressed—namely, recognising the need for greaternumerical equality but, equally, trying to build on theimportance of communities and to ensure that politicalactivism and focus is on the things that really matter tothe people that politicians are supposed to serve.

Lord Davies of Stamford: I congratulate my nobleand learned friend. His amendment has achieved avery elegant solution to the problem that we wereconcerned with under the last amendment, and it is avery important step forward. If this amendment werepassed, would he agree that we would still need to lookvery carefully at the 5 per cent rule and replace it withthe 10 per cent rule? If that were not done, the BoundaryCommission could not have regard to the criteria thatmy noble and learned friend rightly wants it to haveregard to, because it would conflict with the verynarrow 5 per cent rule?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I agree with the lastpoint from my noble friend Lord Davies of Stamford.Increasing the figure to 10 per cent would make itmuch easier as a matter of practicality to do what theamendment would do, and the independent researchthat has been done by bodies such as DemocraticAudit also suggests that that 10 per cent flexibilitydoes not lead to unacceptable differences betweenconstituencies that might be said to favour one partyover another. We can achieve the purpose that thecoalition sought to achieve and preserve communitiesin a way that most contributes to effective politicalactivity.

I hope that the noble and learned Lord, LordWallace of Tankerness, who will be replying to thisbecause he is completely alone on the Front Bench outof the team dealing with this, takes the amendment inthe spirit in which it is offered and gives us a favourableresponse.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, I want tomake a brief intervention, encouraged by the verypositive response from the noble and learned Lord,Lord Wallace of Tankerness, to the previous debate.We are talking about very much the same subject here.I make this intervention on one issue only: the questionof political party organisation. This is, perhaps, adirect plea to the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, who Iknow is an expert on this. I think that he told us onone occasion that he became secretary of his localward party at the age of seven. He has moved onwardsand upwards ever since.

When we are talking about trying to get boundariesas coterminous as possible, we are not just talkingabout community cohesion—although that is important,

as my noble and learned friend said—about trying toreduce the public’s confusion over who their electedrepresentatives are or about keeping to a minimum thenumber of local authorities or health boards that MPshave to deal with. It is also vital in relation to politicalparty organisations. Political parties are absolutelyessential to democracy. When I go around in seminarsorganised by the Westminster Foundation for Democracy,I explain to new democracies in eastern Europe andnorth Africa—I have been to Macedonia and to Egyptto talk about this—the importance of having activepolitical parties with good organisation.

The experience in Scotland has been that, becausein both Ayrshire and Edinburgh, the two areas that Iknow best from a constituency point of view, we haveended up having different boundaries for the ScottishParliament and the UK Parliament—the noble andlearned Lord, Lord Wallace, was lucky in this, becauseOrkney and Shetland have been given special treatmenton so many occasions—great difficulties have beencaused in terms of party organisation. It really hasconfused people and made things more difficult.

The kinds of things that are difficult are, for example,fundraising activities. As my noble and learned friendLord Falconer said, political parties are run by volunteers.When you get them in, they are not paid in most cases,apart from national organisers, but they are the onesorganising the coffee mornings. At this time of year,we should perhaps think as well of the Burns suppersthat are taking place to raise money. There are LabourParty Burns suppers around the whole of Scotland atthe moment. All those kinds of activities are muchmore difficult if you have different party structures. Ifyou have to have a ward structure or a local liaisongroup for another party organisation, as we have inScotland—we have a CLP and a regional partystructure—it makes things very difficult. People canspend hour after hour organising just meetings andminutes for meetings. They are trying to get thingsorganised within their party structures rather thandoing the fundraising.

Parties should also be involved in political education.We should be having much more political educationrun by the parties, getting young people in and gettingthem to understand what democracy is about, as wellas what our parties are doing. It is therefore vital thatwe should not strangle or snuff out this voluntarypolitical activity by a complex overlapping of boundaries.That is why I hope that the noble and learned Lord,Lord Wallace, will be as sympathetic to the proposalin this amendment as he was to the previous one.

5.45 pm

Lord Grocott: My Lords, I am not sure whether mynoble and learned friend’s amendment is the best wayto encapsulate the basic philosophy of this part of theBill, as far as this side of the House is concerned. Ithas to be acknowledged that that philosophy is verydifferent from the philosophy of the side opposite.However, the amendment is certainly an attempt to dowhat is, surely, consistent with our philosophy, whichis that the best way of determining constituencyboundaries is broadly to follow how it is done atpresent. That is to say that it should be on the basis ofguidelines—and they are guidelines—within which a


[LORD GROCOTT]Boundary Commission, in public consultation withlocal people, determines what the boundaries shouldbe. To me, that is a flexible way of determining boundarieswhile totally accepting that one of the key factorsought to be, as the Government keep insisting, havingas close to equality as we sensibly can get in theelectorate in each constituency. Essentially, however, itis a bottom-up system with flexibility.

I find all this pretty astonishing. The Liberal Democratsand the Conservatives are, I acknowledge, in theirdifferent ways normally on the same rhetorical side, atleast in these arguments, and say that they do notagree with top-down solutions. How many times haveI heard that on other subjects, not least the healthservice at the moment? The Liberals pride themselveson localism. A great chunk of the coalition documentis about the importance of localism and local communities.

Lord Tyler: My Lords, how does the noble Lord,Lord Grocott, manage to suggest that the amendmentto which he is speaking is not a top-down solution andis not prescriptive, if he looks at its proposed sub-paragraph (2)(b)?

Lord Grocott: What, that,“no district or borough ward shall be included in more than oneconstituency”?

In my book, that comes under the great heading ofcommon sense. I recommend that to the Committee asbeing splendid. It is not exactly severely top-down andnot nearly as top-down as what is in the Bill, where,irrespective of boundaries, the history of communities,mountain ranges or rivers—if we had any deserts,they would no doubt be subdivided into severalconstituencies—there is what I call a top-down solution,which aims simply at precise numerical conclusions.

There is no doubt about where I think thedeterminations of our boundaries should come from.It is precisely as I have described. However, an essentialingredient of it—we are not yet there in the Bill and Iam certainly not going to talk about it now—is thecrucial importance of local inquiries in which localpeople can participate. I have sat through nearly allour proceedings on the Bill and, as ever, my noblefriend Lord Rooker has encapsulated why we arewhere we are. As he rightly said, it is the certainknowledge that we are not going to have these localinquiries that makes this Committee stage so important.This is the only point at which sensible local opinioncan be expressed at a national level.

I am sure that some will correctly and energeticallyargue that the views of local people should be takeninto account. I dare say that the noble Lord, LordTyler, will do so when we come to the debates on thecounty boundaries in Cornwall. Like everyone else inthis House, I have been getting lots of e-mails andmessages from people in Cornwall and there is almostan air of desperation in them. I was prompted to thinkthat by the comment of my noble friend Lord Rookerthat this was essentially the local inquiry going onnow, precisely because the people of Cornwall knowperfectly well that, if we decide in Committee thatcounty boundaries will be ignored, this will be their

last chance to have anything sensible to say about that.To me, that is an indictment of the approach that theGovernment are taking, which is—I know that theywill deny this and find ways of explaining it—essentiallyto end local community involvement within flexiblerules, not within rigid rules, to determine local constituencyboundaries. I plead for more flexibility.

I will not trespass too far on to other legislation,but when I thought about it I realised that this desireto make all the rough edges smooth, to apply a straitjacketto our constitution and to make it all work accordingto rigid rules seems to be an almost pervading view ofthe Government in a lot of the constitutional legislationthat they are bringing forward. I do not know whetherthat goes right across government. In fairness, theLiberals have been quite consistent about this, but weare now saying that constituency boundaries shouldbe very rigidly drawn and shortly we will be told thedates of all future general elections—presumably untilthe sun swallows up our planet. Every five years therewill be a general election, come hell or high water, on aprecise date. There will be no flexibility. I will not gointo those arguments, but, my word, I will want todevelop them when we reach the Bill about fixing theterm of Parliaments.

I think that I am right in saying that the LiberalDemocrats are very keen on us having a writtenconstitution, which will lay all these things out and, ofcourse, lead to the interpretation of the rules beingadjudicated on by the courts. The beauty of a lot ofour electoral and constitutional arrangements—thiscertainly applies to the drawing of constituencyboundaries—is that they have been flexible. They applythe greatest principle that you can apply in anyconstitution, which is the principle of common sense.They allow for rough edges not to be smoothed out.This is particularly true in the case of the four nationsthat are the constituent parts of the United Kingdom.We all know that it is a slightly unusual arrangement,whereby one of the four countries totally dominatesall the others numerically, but there are all sorts ofaccommodations, one of which we shall come to later,in respect of Wales, which is severely affected bythe Bill.

I cannot write a constitutional doctrine explaininghow the British constitution operates in relation to thefour constituent parts of the United Kingdom, but Ican say that it has worked pretty well, that people arepretty free within it and that they understand thesystem in which they operate. If there are a fewanomalies here and there, so be it. I fear that what weare seeing in the Bill in relation to constituencies andconstituency boundaries is yet another step along theroad. I may be alone in this; I have been called aconstitutional conservative by the noble Lord, LordMcNally, who, sadly, is not here. If that means someonewho believes in common sense in the operation of theconstitution, then I plead guilty. My noble friend’samendment passes the test of common sense for me. Itallows flexibility locally and that is why I support it.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I noticedthat the Minister did not respond to the question thatI asked him and my noble friend Lord Bach aboutwhether the flexibility regarding numbers that has


already been determined by your Lordships’ House,with the decision on the Isle of Wight, will be allowedto affect the number referred to by the Leader of theHouse, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, as “a nice,round figure”. It is important that we should knowthat when we are debating different views about theterms on which new constituency boundaries will bedrawn.

I make the passing comment, in light of my experiencein local government, that it is not only for MPs to beable to work with the local authorities in their area.My noble friend Lady Henig, who was on LancashireCounty Council at the same time as I was, will recollectthat there were many occasions when we sought toinfluence our Members of Parliament serving Lancashire.There could have been difficulties had the boundariesof those constituencies crossed county boundaries. Onthe whole, we had a good working relationship, to thepoint where, on one unique occasion, Dame ElaineKellett-Bowman lobbied me to find a way around theban by her right honourable friend the Prime Minister,Margaret Thatcher, on our giving children free schoolmilk. That remains a unique memory for me. DameElaine Kellett-Bowman was very concerned at thattime about EU milk subsidies.

The sense of locality among political activists isimportant. There is a mistaken belief out there in thecountry that the political parties have thousands andthousands of political activists who ought to knockon their door every time there is an election. If we cando anything during the passage of the Bill to explainthat it ain’t necessarily so, it would be a good thing. Iremember knocking on the door of one Labour supporterin a county council election and being told, “I havebeen waiting 10 years for someone from the party toknock on my door”. I said, “That is because you, as aparty supporter, are not out knocking on doors”. Hesaid, “What do you mean?”. I said, “Tonight, there areabout 18 people out”. This was in what was then theborough of Preston. The public will not understandthe debate about the importance of place in terms ofpolitical activists, but your Lordships will, from experience.

The sense of place and of belonging is critical. Inmy experience, having lived in London, Shropshire,Staffordshire, Lancashire and Leicestershire—I wasborn in Leicestershire—the sense of place in the majorconurbations is less, particularly since the abolition ofthe GLC, although I found, when talking to schoolchildrenthere, that the sense of place of West Bromwich overrodethe new title of Sandwell. The sense of place is criticalin building political interest, activism and co-operationaround a community, not only within the parties butbetween the parties. The sense of place matters and inthat context, and because of my previous experience—thisis a former interest—as leader of the Association ofCounty Councils for England and Wales, I have to saythat certain parts of the country, such as Wales andLancashire, have a very strong sense of place.

My noble friend Lord Grocott made the point thatthis is the only opportunity to debate these issues,because the Bill deprives local communities of theopportunity to put their case. As somebody who hasattended most of our proceedings on the Bill, I feelbitterly resentful that I am accused of filibustering for

being here and debating this, when I would very muchlike to go home, because the Government have concededthat local people could do the job that we are attemptingto do here. I am surprised, although I intend nodiscourtesy to the Minister, that the Liberal Democratsare giving up the opportunity that, in our experience,they have taken so often in the past to make a very fullpresentation at a public inquiry into constituencyboundaries at local level. If we want an active democracy,people need to feel that they are part of the systemthat creates the constituencies and determines boundaries.The Bill is going in absolutely the opposite direction.

I shall sit down now, but I shall come back to thissubject in other parts of the Bill. The Minister may goaway and think that my speeches are not necessary,but he could stop them at any point by accepting thatthe people in the areas that I have referred to and livedin—Leicestershire, Lancashire, Staffordshire, Shropshire,Wales and London—can make their own case, becausethis is not the place where that ought to be done.

6 pmLord Graham of Edmonton: I am tempted to enter

this debate because the premise that the constituencyis important has a slight flaw. Every constituency has anumber of wards. I first became a councillor 50 yearsago this year, and my experience is that the bestdiscussions that I have taken part in have been with 10,12 or 15 people in someone’s house. We did notmasquerade; we were proud to say that we were award and we dealt with the issue. Every issue in alocality—a constituency—has a resonance in a part ofthe constituency, whether it is a road pattern, adevelopment, a school or the closure or opening ofsomething. The ward level is very important.

Having taken part in this debate and listened tocolleagues, I congratulate them on bringing theirexperience here and on not being put off by theshaming fact that, as I detect, that experience is seen insome places as irrelevant. We have the opportunityhere to remind the Minister—rub it into him, if youlike, without being offensive—that there are peopleout in the field who will be affected by this.

The Minister and his colleagues have made greatplay of the big society and localism. However, in thisBill they are not paying attention at all; democracygrows and is stimulated by events and individuals. Wecould all in this Chamber look back on where wemade a big move on to a council, into its leadership,into Parliament and so on, but it all stems back to ahandful of people who represented the Labour Party,the Tory Party or the Liberal Democrat party, not in abig way but in a small way—and that is the way theywant it. Those of us who have an ambition to serve ata higher level have the opportunity to do so, andeveryone is here only because they have given serviceto their party in one way or another. Thousands ofpeople serve the democratic principle from a very lowbase.

I say simply to Members opposite—I cannot saythat I am replying to what they have said because Ihave not heard what they have said, except the Minister—that they ought to pay serious attention to the impactof the Bill at the local level if it is carried out, becauseit will damage our democracy.


[LORD GRAHAM OF EDMONTON]We all struggle, not just within the Labour Party

but in all parties, to maintain democracy. Issues comeup that affect the constituency, and then you get localheadlines and so on. So far as I am concerned, though,the Edmonton Labour Party that I served, and stillhave great connections with, has gone through a seriesof changes in its organisation. From having eightwards it is now down to four because of the change inthe demographic profile of the constituency. It is thatlevel, around someone’s table in someone’s house or ina back room, that I am talking about. Last Saturday Iwent along to the annual meeting of the EdmontonCo-operative Party, an organisation that is affiliatedwith the Labour Party. There were 20 people there,serious players in the political game. They might notpull many strings or be able to affect a lot, but therewere 20 of them on a Saturday morning, from 11 o’clockto past 1 o’clock, who came along and were moved todiscuss the issues that affected them.

I support the amendment. I hope the Minister isable to say something that will be helpful to the moverof the amendment, because unless there is a change tothe policy of the parties opposite—in general, butparticularly on the Bill—we are going to be worse offin the future than we have been in the past.

Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, every nobleLord who has so far spoken in this debate, and indeedin the debate on the previous group of amendments,has put forward the view that it is highly desirable thatparliamentary constituencies are aligned as far aspossible with local authority boundaries.

The only noble Lord who has demurred from thatto any extent is the Minister, the noble and learnedLord, Lord Wallace. He did not deny that, all otherthings being equal, it would be desirable, but unfortunatelyhe makes the factor of numerical equality betweenconstituencies paramount. He therefore spoke of therebeing a conflict of factors with which the BoundaryCommission is obliged to wrestle. I would not put it inthose terms; I would say that there is a tension betweena variety of legitimate factors—numerical equality,community, history, geography, and of course alignmentwith local authority boundaries. The BoundaryCommission’s task is to do its best to reconcile thosefactors to arrive at a judgment that holds them in anappropriate balance, as my noble friend Lord Grocottstressed, in consultation with local people. The presentsystem is a good one, and it seems reckless to upset itin this way.

Local authority areas, like constituencies, ought tocontribute to defining and expressing people’s sense oftheir local community. That is a point that we havebeen arguing and no doubt will continue to argue inproceedings on the Bill. Unfortunately, they are toomuch discounted in the Bill. If members of theGovernment consider that questions of identity—people’ssense of who they are and where they belong—arenegligible considerations in politics, I respectfully suggestthat they are seriously mistaken. Indeed, any system ofparliamentary representation that systematically discountsthose emotions within our national life will not last.Supposing that the Government are successful inlegislating to bring this into effect, the system of

frequent boundary reviews, within the straitjacket ofnumerical equality that the Government are designing,might work once or even a second time, but I fancythat after the 2018 boundary review the people of thiscountry will say, “This won’t do”. I very much doubtthat the system will survive, should it be legislated, andwe will do our best to persuade the Government that itis not, after all, a very good idea.

The Government ought to understand that themselves.As my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton justmentioned, the Government make much play of localismand the big society, but how can you seriously advocatethe virtues of those things if at the same time youdesign your political structures to inhibit and distortlocalism and disregard people’s own sense of wherethey take their place within society?

If the Government think that these considerationsare too sentimental or imprecise, I appeal to them atleast to consider the practicalities of the workingrelationships between MPs and elected members oflocal authorities. My noble friend Lady Farringtonwisely advised the Government to look at this fromthe point of view of local authorities. The reality isthat local authorities take decisions overwhelminglywithin a context of policy made by centralgovernment—of legislation and policy emanating fromWhitehall and Westminster. Unfortunately, we have ahighly centralised system of government in this country.Indeed, until we have radical decentralisation andgreater autonomy for local government in this country,we will continue to need more MPs.

That is partly because so much policy-making andlegislation comes from the two Houses of this Parliament;therefore you need an adequate number of Membersof the other place to do justice to the policy-makingand legislation. It is also partly because local authorities,rather than being free, as they ought to be, to get onand do their work on behalf of their local communities,must endlessly look to the centre for authorisation andmake representations to the centre to see whether theycan persuade officials and Ministers to modify theirpolicies so that they make more sense for their localconcerns. Key intermediaries in that process of frequentnegotiation between local and central government arelocal Members of Parliament. It is therefore veryimportant, in practical working terms, that Membersof Parliament have a satisfactory operational relationshipwith their colleagues and counterparts in local authorities.

Equally, it is very important that elected membersand officers of local authorities know to which Memberof Parliament they should turn. It is better, therefore,if the constituency boundaries can be drawn so thatwhole local authorities are contained within them.Local authorities then know exactly which individualMember of Parliament they need to work with. Themore MPs they have to deal with, the more confusing,expensive and time-wasting it is for people in localgovernment. Equally, the more confusing and difficultit is for Members of Parliament to maintain the kindof working relationship that they need. Neither thelocal authority nor the Member of Parliament shouldneed to duplicate, triplicate or otherwise multiplyrepresentations, meetings or the dialogue that theyhave with their colleagues at the other level of government.


A Member of Parliament should champion theplace he represents. He or she can champion a localauthority area if he or she has a clear-cut relationshipwith that local authority area. How much more difficultit is for a Member of Parliament convincingly tochampion a hotchpotch of different local authoritiesthat happen to fall within different parts of hisconstituency.

Lord Grocott: What on earth would happen in aconstituency that, let us say, crossed county boundaries,where counties could take diametrically opposed viewson major regional planning issues, or on school placementsand applications to different schools? What on earthdoes the constituency Member of Parliament do inrepresentations to central government on that? He willseriously let down half his constituency if we go bythese rigid rules.

Lord Howarth of Newport: My noble friend is absolutelyright. I was just about to make that point; the Memberof Parliament is liable to be conflicted if he owes equalloyalty to different local authorities, which mightthemselves be at odds on important policy issues.Under the provisions of the Bill, as my noble friendsuggested, it would be difficult for a Member of Parliamentto deal with elected county councillors in two differentcounties that overlapped with his constituency. In theprevious debate I quoted Dr Lewis Baston on thedanger that, with the narrow 5 per cent tolerance—or,as the Minister likes to call it, a 10 per cent tolerance:both ways from the norm of 76,000 voters—wardswould all too frequently be split.

6.15 pmEqually, there will be all too frequent occasions on

which constituency boundaries have to cross countycouncil boundaries. Again, to quote Dr Baston:

“In the Democratic Audit model of how boundaries could bedrawn using a 5 per cent rule, only 9 out of 46 counties, accountingfor 67 of the 503 seats proposed for England, did not need to begrouped with another county (North Yorkshire, Humberside,Lincolnshire, Cumbria, Staffordshire, Gloucestershire, Berkshire,Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire). Furthermore, relatively smallfuture changes in electorate size would lead to disruptive changeto the county groupings every parliament. A 10 per cent toleranceof variation would transform this chaotic picture”,

and vastly for the better. This question of a 5 per centor 10 per cent tolerance connects absolutely inextricablywith the issue of alignment with local authorityboundaries. It is very important that we do not make amistake by legislating so tightly that we break theexisting pattern of good working relations as it largelyprevails between Members of Parliament and localauthorities; and fragment constituencies between differentlocal authorities, making for a far more complex, evenchaotic, pattern—if you can call it that—of relationships.

That matters very much for the constituents ofboth ward members and Members of Parliament. Weall know that in Members’ constituency surgeries casesare brought to them that, in principle, ought to havebeen taken to the ward member. Sensible, practical,fluid relationships between Members of Parliamentand their colleagues in local government, in the serviceof their shared constituents, are very precious and

important within our system. It will be made moredifficult if we see the sort of fragmentation that theGovernment seem willing to contemplate.

The same applies to voluntary organisations, whichare part of the warp and weft of our democratic life,activism and citizenship in the healthiest way in ourconstituencies. It is unfair on voluntary bodies torequire them, often with very limited resources andhard pressed to do the tasks that they do in theinterests of their communities, to have to relate to amuch more complex cat’s cradle of elected representativesthan need be the case.

What lies behind our concern on this side of theHouse to ensure that this legislation allows for thecontinuation of a sensible and workable pattern ofrelationships between local authorities and Membersof Parliament is respect for local government. Localgovernment in this country is too weak. If it is tobecome ill-assorted with Westminster representation,it will be bad for our democratic culture. As my noblefriends have stressed, the ward is the building blockand basis of our democracy. The Minister and Mr NickClegg have both paid lip service to the importance ofthe ward as that building block. We must allow it to bea reality. Unless we make it realistic and practical forpolitical parties to organise at ward level, and then tocampaign both for elections to local authorities andelections to Westminster constituencies, we will vex,confuse and undermine the operation of local authorities.It will be made worse if there are to be boundaryreviews every five years and frequent shifts of boundary.Let us, for heaven’s sake, not make the situation anymore complex and tormenting than it need be for localpolitical parties. For these reasons, securing a rationaland reasonably consistent alignment of constituencyboundaries with local authority boundaries, andminimising the occasions on which constituencyboundaries traverse local authority boundaries, is wellworth some compromise of the pure principle of numericalequality.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I have in thecourse of my contributions over recent weeks tried tobring some fairly original material to our debates tohelp them along. I have often drawn on statisticalevidence from various organisations. However, today Ido not want to do that. I want to refer to a debate thattook place—probably unknown to Members of thisHouse—in the House of Commons on 11 January inWestminster Hall. I should perhaps start by explainingthe relevance of Westminster Hall. It is a secondaryChamber in the House of Commons where the debatesare of great importance and great interest, but where,for whatever reason, business managers in the Houseof Commons organise debates which very often attractfewer people. There was a particularly interesting debatethat took place there on parliamentary representation.It was called by Mr Andrew George who is the LiberalDemocrat Member for St Ives. The relevance of thisdebate was that it was the first time that many Membersof the Liberal Democrat Benches in the House ofCommons had had the opportunity to speak on Clause 11of the Bill. Because of the arrangements in the Houseof Commons and the use of the guillotine and thetruncating of debate, there were many issues which the


[LORD CAMPBELL-SAVOURS]Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament had beenunable to raise. Indeed, he says at the beginning of hiscontribution:

“I am delighted to have secured the debate, which will exploremany of the issues that we did not have an opportunity to exploreduring the passage of the Parliamentary Voting System andConstituencies Bill … We failed to get to grips properly with theissues that needed to be debated to improve the Bill before ittransferred to another place”. — [Official Report, Commons, 11/1/11;col. 25WH]

Then, in an aside—I have to be straight about this—heblamed Labour Members in reference to the delay indebate. Obviously, there were areas of the Bill that weregarded as particularly important which the LiberalDemocrats did not regard as important. I want toquote some of the things he and his colleague said,because they have not been considered by Ministers.The comments that were made in Westminster Hallhad not been considered by Ministers when the Billwas taken through its Committee and Report stages inthe House of Commons. Andrew George says:

“The Bill proposes that all constituencies have an electoralquota of approximately 76,000 with a margin of only 5% eitherway. It would carve up the country in a manner that would createbizarre constituencies and ignore important cultural, historic andgeographic boundaries”.

We have not heard those words mentioned by anyMember of the Liberal Democrats here in the Houseof Lords. He goes on to say:

“We do not want antiseptic constituencies with perpetuallymobile boundaries. The five-yearly boundary review that wouldhappen between each Parliament would mean an MP’s attachmentto their constituency being perpetually reviewed, so the sense ofsettlement with the communities they represent would be continuallyundermined”.

That has not been said by a Liberal Democrat Memberin the House of Lords; it was not said in the House ofCommons by a Liberal Democrat Member becausethey did not have the opportunity to say it. It was saidin the junior chamber in the House of Commons, inWestminster Hall.

He then goes on to say:

“The amendments to the Bill which I and other hon. Memberstabled were unsuccessful, in that they were not selected or thereforedebated”.

There are procedural differences in the House ofCommons. Whereas here we can debate technically allour amendments, in the House of Commons theyhave to be selected by Mr Speaker. If they are notselected, they are not debated. Even if they are selectedthey are not always debated because of the guillotineand timetable. He goes on about his amendments:

“They sought to find circumstances in which the BoundaryCommission was given sufficient discretion to work towards thetarget figure, taking into account reasonable geographic, culturaland electoral issues. We want the Government to allow places tomake decisions for themselves collectively, provided that they donot request more favourable treatment, such as over-representation”,

which we accept.

“I hope the Minister takes note of that. It is not about morefavourable treatment but simply recognising the distinctiveness ofplaces, which the Bill does not take into account”. [OfficialReport, Commons, 11/1/11; col. 26WH]

Why has no Liberal Democrat Member of the Houseof Lords got up to their feet and repeated a statementof that nature to this House? Never once in ourdebate—someone said that we have now been debatingfor 90 hours—has that point been made by a LiberalDemocrat Member of the House of Lords. I can tellyou what the answer is. There is a contractual agreementwithin this Chamber between two elements of a coalition;that agreement is silencing debate. It is completelyundermining the very ethos of this Chamber in theHouse of Lords.

A Conservative Member—obviously a very courageousone—a Mr Martin Vickers of Cleethorpes, said in thesame debate:

“Continually changing boundaries will impact on the vitalityand sustainability of local political parties. The democratic processneeds viable local parties and associations, but constant boundarychanges inevitably impact on their viability. Taking one ward outof a constituency can render the local party virtually bankrupt ifthe ward’s financial make-up means that it contributes greatly tothe party. We need to think seriously about that”.— [OfficialReport, Commons, 11/1/11; col. 26WH]

And so we do. Why are not Conservative Members ofthis House getting up and arguing the case that isbeing put in Westminster Hall in the House of Commons?And then, later in the debate, Mr Andrew George saysthat,

“the boundary of my constituency changed at the 2010 electionand those constituents who used to live in my old constituencystill contact me. Given the arrangements in the Bill, that sort ofthing would happen at every election, so there would be confusion”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/1/11; col. 38WH]

And how right he is.

Let us take a town on the margin of a county, onthe margin indeed of a constituency, that switchesfrom one election to another between Members ofParliament, where the electorate do not actually knowwho their MP is, because of this constant change andmovement as the Boundary Commission somehowhas to find a way of ensuring that constituency boundariesfall within this 5 per cent limit which we would wish toextend to 10 per cent.

Take a county like Cumbria, and let us take thetown of Kendal. Kendal was not in my formerconstituency but it was very near the county boundary;a beautiful town on the fringes of the Lake District.Indeed, the people of Kendal would say that they werepart of the Lake District. There is a possibility thatwithin the terms of this Bill that town might be split.

I know that Members of Parliament with large cityseats very often find that their cities are split. It willwork in a large city. It will work in a large community,but it will not work in a small community. It will createdivisions within that area—divisions inside parties,between officials inside parties, between treasurers,secretaries, chairmen—all kinds of unseen divisionsthat boundary commissioners when they are takingtheir decisions about the future of constituency boundarieswould never ever at any stage be aware of. Those arethe kinds of issues that might well surface during thecourse of an oral inquiry. But the Bill goes on to takeaway the opportunity for such a forum to examine theminor detail of what would happen in the small


community, a town like Kendal, in the event that itwere split in the way that the Bill might provide for inthe end.

I have a lot more to say on these matters, but I shallsave my words for later in the evening—indeed, thenight.

Lord McAvoy: My Lords, I would like to give somepractical examples of what my noble friends have beendescribing here. I know that some folk do not likepractical examples, but this is what this House is for;to listen to each other and to learn from each other. Iam still on a learning process.

The point about wards being the building blocks isillustrated in the former constituency I represented. Itillustrates the folly of tinkering with political systemsbecause a party is part of a coalition. That is whathappened to the Labour Party in 2004 in Scotland andthe Scottish Parliament elections where the Liberalsput as a price for joining a coalition the introductionof proportional representation to local government.

I can advise any coalition party involved with theLiberals that in the long run they will tinker andtamper with PR to your detriment and downfall.What happened at the local elections was a disaster,but we have already discussed that and I do not wantto be accused of or be guilty of repetition. A multi-memberward system was introduced.

6.30 pmTwo wards in my former constituency, Earnoch and

Burnbank, are each represented by three members. Iam not making a political point, because three membersin one ward are all Labour, and in the other at leasttwo are Labour. Part of those two wards is in Rutherglenand Hamilton West, and the other part is in Lanarkand Hamilton East. They are divided by WoodheadRoad. One side of the street is in one constituency theother side is in the other. I can see that applying toconstituencies, but it is not right for wards to bedivided in that manner. These wards are split betweentwo constituencies. I know that this will sound likespecial pleading, and folk will say that it does notmatter because the public come first. The public comefirst surely by allowing political parties to organise inan efficient and representative manner. No one shoulddismiss the difficulties facing party organisations intrying to get their policies across to the public andbeing elected as representatives. Party organisationcannot be dismissed as irrelevant or unimportant, ascompared to the public interest, because I would maintainthat the public interest is served by efficient politicalstructures, which will ultimately be better for the public.

We have these areas in which there are twoconstituencies. While my relations with my colleague,neighbour and friend Jimmy Hood, the MP for Lanarkand Hamilton, were okay, the situation was neverthelessdisjointed. I do not want to spend too much time onthat, because I have dealt with the issue of whathappened when constituency boundaries were split,and the town of Hamilton was split on a purelynumerical basis. The community of Hamilton hasbeen badly damaged because it is not one cohesiveunit. I have complained long and hard, and will continueto complain, about the effect of that on Rutherglen,

but after watching what happened to Hamilton, thenatural result has been that the community does notfeel that it is properly represented by one cohesivevoice in Parliament. Boundaries count. In the memorablephrase of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean,if this goes ahead without any alteration, we will have“blocks on a map”.

I intend to deal with one particular block on a mapin a later amendment in my name. I will take head-onthis argument that constituencies are just blocks on amap. I know that former MPs are not very popular inyour Lordships’ House at the moment. We seem to bea hunted species; but there we are. We will do our bestto bear up and learn our trade in here. However, I amdetermined to try to make a difference and ensure asbest I can that Rutherglen will not become part of ablock on a map.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: Can my noble friendremind me about the boundaries of the ScottishParliamentary constituency represented by James Kelly,and about the former boundaries of Rutherglen? Myrecollection is that the situation is similar to whathappened in Ayrshire and Edinburgh, whereby theboundaries are now not the same, and there are anumber of problems; MSPs have to deal with a numberof MPs, and MPs have to deal with a number ofMSPs.

Lord McAvoy: I thank my noble friend, becausethat is the next item on my little list. Again, Labourhas given in too much to Liberal machinations andfascinations about systems. Last week, I mentionedthat we kept on being told that the Scotland Act wassupposed to be the settled will of the Scottish people.The Scotland Act stated that the number of Westminsterconstituencies should be reduced and that the numberof Scottish parliamentary constituencies should bereduced in tandem. That did not happen, thanks mainly,but not entirely, to Liberal pressure. Now the Westminsterconstituency boundaries are not coterminous, and Inotice the Minister expressing satisfaction at that for, Iam sure, purely party interests. He is motivated to dothat.

There has been a disjointed effort to try to copewith that in terms of party organisation. Rutherglenand Hamilton West now has the entire RutherglenScottish parliamentary constituency within it, althoughthe people of west Hamilton feel that they are beingjust moved about as part of a block which seems to befavoured by the Minister. The people of west Hamiltonhave been shunted away from the Westminsterconstituency boundary, and into the boundary ofTom McCabe’s Scottish parliamentary constituency.James Kelly is getting down to work very well in whatis to him a new place, High Blantyre.

I know this has been said before, and I apologise toanyone who thinks I am being repetitive. I am certainlynot filibustering. I can assure colleagues of that. I amnot thin-skinned and sensitive, but I would not getaway with it. It is surely frustrating—annoying is toostrong a word—to be told that you are filibusteringwhen you are trying to get across the concerns of yourconstituency. At the end of the day, if any legislativeAssembly does not take people into account or listen


[LORD MCAVOY]to them, we are all in a bad way. I make no apology forexpressing my concerns about how this issue will affectmy community, because I was born and brought up inRutherglen, where I have lived all my life.

This continual five-year change in boundaries willbe chaotic, if it goes ahead. In my experience in theother place, all political parties showed great faith inthe link between the Member of Parliament and theconstituency. There is a terrific bond. I do not say thatto be elitist to colleagues on all sides of the House whohave never been in the other place. Nevertheless, thatbond will be broken. I return to the absolutely brilliantphrase of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean,who said there will be just blocks on a map.

Chaos will be caused to the political parties, andthat will be reflected in issues such as how best torepresent people. I used to have people come to mefrom the other side; and, vice versa, Jimmy Hood hadpeople coming to him from my side in Hamilton. Thesituation was particularly bad in Hamilton, because itwas a town split in two, just to make up numbers. Thatis an example of a town of which I have a fairknowledge being split down the middle just to fit thenumbers—end of story. That is surely wrong, and Icannot believe that every noble Lord on the other sideof the House, or our colleagues on the Cross Benches,thinks that it is good not to take account ofcommunities—especially given that this will happenevery five years. At the end of the day, this is notsimply about party mechanics and organisation tosuit the politicians. It is about whether the proposalsmake the political structures and organisations fitenough to represent the people, stop the confusionand be a useful part of a democratic process in thiscountry.

Baroness Hughes of Stretford: My Lords, like mycolleagues, I think there are many problems with theBill. The biggest problem is that the Governmentfailed to consult with local people before they dreamtup their proposals. I say that because in my experienceas, I hesitate to say, a local councillor for nearly25 years, as a leader of a local authority and as aMember of Parliament for 13 years, when faced withproposals that they feel cut across their sense ofcommunity and identity as a result of a boundaryreview, local people feel very strongly about some ofthe issues that the Bill relegates to secondary importancein favour of a rigid mathematical formulation. It is agreat pity that the Government did not consult localpeople about these proposals before they put themforward because, had they done so, they would havecome up with a different formulation.

It may be useful if I recount to noble Lords onesuch experience during those 25 years when the BoundaryCommission made a proposal, which would be commonwith the measures in this Bill, to split my then constituencyand form a new constituency in the Greater Manchesterarea of the north-west of England. The BoundaryCommission’s proposals during my period as an MPwould have taken five wards from the north of myformer constituency in Old Trafford, next to ManchesterCity centre, and linked them with four or five wards inthe neighbouring local authority of Salford.

At that time there were no straightforward busroutes between those wards in the different localauthorities. To get there by car one had to go over theM60 motorway, and by public transport one wouldhave to go into the centre of Manchester and outagain to get from Trafford to Salford or vice versa.The reaction of local people to the proposal from theBoundary Commission was loud and vociferous; theyrehearsed many of the arguments that my noble friendshave put in this Chamber. It was not because thepeople of Old Trafford rejected the people of Salfordor vice versa but because they already identified withdifferent communities represented by the constituenciesof which they were already a part—the Old Traffordwards were part of the Trafford local authority; theSalford wards were part of Salford local authority.

Those involved emphasised the importance of thecommunities in those areas; the differences betweenthe communities in Old Trafford and in that part ofSalford; they talked about the sense of identity andplace to which my noble friend Lady Farrington referred;and they argued strongly that they wanted coherenceof representation from both their local councillorsand, particularly, their Members of Parliament. Theywanted to feel that they shared the Member of Parliamentwho represented the whole area of which they were apart, and that that Member of Parliament and thatconstituency would reflect the history, the geography,the boundary, the proximity and other mechanismsthrough which people reinforce their sense of identity—local newspapers, schools and so on.

It is unthinkable that wards should be split acrossdifferent constituencies by boundaries being redrawn.If noble Lords think through the implications of thatfor political parties, local people and local authorities,they may feel it would be a chaotic situation for allconcerned. In building on wards it is important thatlocal people should feel that they have got that senseof identity and coherence in the constituency as awhole. By and large, from my experience, I believe thatwhere possible a constituency should contain a wholelocal authority and not be split.

6.45 pmThose are the direct concerns of constituents, in my

experience. A second consideration—my noble friendLord Howarth touched on this—which indirectly isalso important for local people, is how easy or moredifficult it is for a Member of Parliament to do theirjob in the situation I have described. If that had comeabout, the Member of Parliament would have had torelate to two local authorities—Trafford and Salford;to two primary care trusts; to two major hospitals;and to two police divisions. Indeed, given the inabilityof people to go from one side of the constituency tothe other because of the transport difficulties I haveoutlined, the provision of advice services across theconstituency would be very problematic.

If you are a Member of Parliament you feel stronglythat you want to do the best for your constituency,your area; you want to champion it; you want tochivvy at the heels of central and local governmentand of the government agencies that provide importantservices such as health, transport, security and policing.If you are doing that in relation to two different areas


and you are doubling up on the number of bodies withwhich you have to liaise—which often have differentinterests, as my noble friends have outlined—you cannotdo a proper job for either one of those places.

In the example I have given, the proposal by theBoundary Commission would have meant a muchsafer Labour seat for me, combining my safest wardsin Old Trafford with Salford instead of with some ofthe other Trafford wards. However, that was not animportant factor. The important consideration waswhether we could end up with a recommendation thatprovided the coherence of community and identitythat local people wanted and make it possible for theMember of Parliament to do a good job for that area.

I am happy to say that, as a result of the publicinquiry, to which local people came in their drovesunsolicited, and made all of these points and more tothe Boundary Commission, the recommendations werechanged and the principles of community and so onwere upheld. That is exactly the kind of flexibility ofjudgment applied by the Boundary Commission towhich my noble friend Lord Grocott referred.

As with many other such endeavours, the issuecannot be reduced to a simple mathematical equationwhen you are dealing with people and their sense ofplace and community, and when geographical barriersand idiosyncratic issues of history and geography areinvolved. I shall reserve my other arguments for laterwhen further amendments come forward. I supportthe amendment.

Lord Touhig: I do not intend detaining your Lordshipsvery long but I should like to refer to the impact thatthe legislation is having on Wales. As a Welsh Memberof your Lordships’ House I feel strongly about thisbecause not one amendment about Wales was debatedin the other place. The use of the guillotine ensuredthat none was debated and yet Wales is the part of theUnited Kingdom that is most adversely affected by theBill.

Paul Wood, a member of the Boundary Commissionfor Wales, in evidence to the Welsh Affairs SelectCommittee in the other place, produced a report onthe Bill and said that,“issues such as local ties and historical ties, which may have hadmore weight previously, are clearly subsumed in the legislation tothe numerical issues”.

In other words, community-based representation willfail and disappear if the Bill is not amended. Indeed,the creation of large, rigidly defined constituenciesbased on numbers will put an end to it.

I think of my part of Wales, and the south Walesvalleys in particular, as being like a hand: the valleysare the fingers and the palms are the cities of Newport,Cardiff and Swansea. There is movement from thevalleys to the cities, but there is hardly any movementacross valleys from one valley to another. That ishistorical and something that we have understood formany decades.

Perhaps I can relate my concerns on how Bill willimpact on my former constituency of Islwyn. TheElectoral Reform Society has produced a paper inwhich it has redrawn the electoral map of Wales basedon 30 parliamentary seats. In its proposals my former

parliamentary constituency of Islwyn would disappear,which would have certain consequences. Under theElectoral Reform Society’s proposals, which could bea blueprint for whichever body follows, the communityof Abercarn will be put into the new constituency ofCaerphilly. Abercarn is in the Ebbw valley and Caerphillyis in the Rhymney valley, separated by two mountainchains and three rivers. They are distinct and separateand there is no community interest across the valleys.It is proposed that the community of Cefn Fforest willbecome part of the new constituency of MerthyrTydfil. They are in separate counties and there is nocommunity of interest whatever between the two.

Lord Grocott: I assume that the Electoral ReformSociety’s map was applied to the whole country, as wehad the same in Shropshire. Was there anyone at anylevel of representation in the noble Lord’s part ofWales, such as a local authority, who thought that theproposals made any sense whatever? No electedrepresentative or official in Shropshire thought therewas any sense at all in what the Electoral ReformSociety proposed.

Lord Touhig: I am more likely to find someonerecruiting for the band of hope in hell than to findanyone in my part of Wales who supported it. It willnot happen, frankly.

The point that I am trying to get across is that thereis not the community of interest that has to exist if weare to have huge constituencies based on numbers. Ifthe Bill is enacted as it stands we will not need toemploy the Boundary Commission to do this work.Anybody with a map, a pencil and an abacus will beable to draw up the new parliamentary boundaries. Wemight as well hand it over to the Flat Earth Society forall the good it will do for locally based parliamentaryrepresentation.

This is so important and fundamental, and it is amatter that I will return to perhaps at greater lengthwhen we debate the amendments affecting Wales thatare in my name and those of other noble Lords. It isimportant to recognise that there are particular difficulties,especially across the south Wales valleys where simplyhaving constituencies based on numbers will not workin terms of the community of interest. There will beno link whatever between the Member of Parliamentand the constituent. That will be a retrograde step, so Ihope that with those few remarks the Minister will getthe impression of how strongly I feel, as do manypeople in Wales. I know how people on all sides,including Cross-Benchers, feel about this. Wales willbe adversely affected in that 20 per cent of all thereductions in the number of parliamentary seats inBritain will be in Wales. It will lose one in four of itsparliamentary seats as the Bill stands. That cannot beright and I will return to that debate later.

Lord Newton of Braintree: The last thing I want todo is extend the debate but somebody needs to say thatthe picture of idealised perfection that the BoundaryCommission arrangements have had up until now,implicitly presented by some of the things that havebeen said, is simply not the case, especially in an areaof rapidly expanding populations.


[LORD NEWTON OF BRAINTREE]I happen to have been a Member of Parliament a

lot longer ago, admittedly, in the county of Essexwhich has had a rapidly expanding population andwent through several boundary changes. I am boundto say that the constituency I represented includedparts of two districts, Chelmsford and Braintree; itwould have included parts of two PCTs, had theyexisted at the time; it related to two police divisions, toquote examples used earlier; and indeed, it had threedifferent postal districts in its geography. I found notthe slightest difficulty in representing all those partsand strands to the best of my ability. My formerconstituents might have views on whether I did it wellor badly overall, but I found no difficulty at all inrelating to both Chelmsford and Braintree councilsand all the other bodies to which I referred. I do notthink that we should have it presented, as some have,that the situation is a dreamworld without the Bill.

My other point is that the constituency that Irepresented has now been split into two and the twomain towns within it are separate. Frankly, I thinkthey probably like it as they were about the same sizeand there was a degree of rivalry so they are happy tobe split up, even though they are still in the same localgovernment district. One of them is now part of theconstituency consisting of parts of three districts:Braintree, Colchester and Maldon. I do not believethat the new MP is having any difficulty representingall those parts of her new constituency. Let us notoverplay our hand on this and recognise that there willbe difficulties whatever system we have. There is adegree of flexibility in the Bill’s proposals. Last weekthere were discussions about increasing that degree offlexibility. There is already enough flexibility to makeit quite possible not to have the abacus concept thatthe noble Lord talked about just now.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Does the nobleLord agree that in the case of both the boundaryreviews he spoke about, local people had the opportunityto say whether they were happy or whether, for example,they wanted the two towns to be split, whereas this Billwould not allow that?

Lord Newton of Braintree: I understand the pointmade by the noble Baroness, and it is yet anotherpoint that has been done to death. The suggestionsthat community is all, regardless of other circumstances,which has been implicit in quite a lot of what has beensaid, and that somehow this is death and disastercompared with the situation at present, are completeand absolute poppycock.

Lord Davies of Stamford: I have the highest regardfor the noble Lord, Lord Newton, and I listened, as Ialways do, with great interest. However, I was not surewhat central point he was trying to make. Was hesaying that basically we should not worry about any ofthese things—to hell with local government boundaries,local loyalties and identities, and let us just have acomputer divide the country into blocks of a certainidentical number and spew out whatever the result is,irrespective of those things? Is that what he was saying?

Lord Newton of Braintree: That was not what I said.I indicated specifically that the flexibility in the Bill,and the possibly greater flexibility that has been thesubject of one discussion, would allow those factors tobe taken into account. Of course, they are not to bedismissed but equally, with a reasonably fair votingsystem, they are not the be-all and end-all.

Lord Davies of Stamford: In that case the nobleLord is saying what I totally believe, which is that thepresent system is not all bad; it could be a great dealworse; and flexibility is of the essence in the role of theBoundary Commission. If those are the three principlesthat he was setting forth I could not have put it bettermyself. That is exactly what I think is the view of themajority of people in all corners of this House.

The Government have come in for a great deal ofcriticism over the past 90 hours, or whatever it is. I donot think we should have too much sympathy for thembecause they brought it on their head by going aheadwith this Bill without pre-legislative scrutiny, as mynoble friend Lady Hughes has just said. There was noattempt to consult local people at any stage. It is notan excuse to say that they had a deadline of 5 May andneeded to make rapid progress because it was anarbitrary decision of the coalition to put the two Billstogether. We have been over that several times. TheGovernment have been subject to a lot of criticism butI do not feel sorry for them. However, I shall not addto that now. I want to be much more positive andmove on.

The public would expect us in the Committee stageof such a Bill to do two things.

7 pm

Lord Campbell-Savours: I thank my noble friendfor giving way. I was just looking at my notes becausewe had an earlier intervention on Maldon. The nobleLord, Lord Newton of Braintree, referred to Maldon.He is talking to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, at themoment but he might wish to take note of this. Maldonhas a very interesting history. It was referred to byLewis Baston in his brief, which my noble friend willhave received. However, the noble Lord, Lord Newtonof Braintree, did not tell us that the boundaries werechanged in 1955 to 1974, in 1974 to 1983, in 1983 to1997, in 1997 to 2010 and in 2010 to 2015. Theevidence from Maldon is that the people of Maldonare confused about what constituency they belong inbecause of all the changes over the past 40 years to theboundaries of the constituency in which they havebeen placed. It is rather strange that the noble Lord,Lord Newton, failed to refer to that when he commentedon his own constituency.

Lord Davies of Stamford: I am sure that the nobleLord, Lord Newton, has heard and taken note ofthose remarks. I say to my noble friend with thegreatest friendliness that I do not intend to try to turnmyself into an expert on the electoral history of Maldon.I come back to the point that I was making, which isthat I think the public in general rightly expect us in aCommittee on a Bill of this kind to do two things. Oneis to explore to the full the details in the Bill to open upevery possible angle of vision to ensure that we look


through the consequences. It is very important in anyCommittee on any Bill to try to identify the possibleunintended consequence or consequences of it.

On the whole, this House has done a job in thatregard of which we can be proud. What disgracefulnegligence it would have been on the part of thisHouse if we had not discussed Wales at all, which mynoble friend Lord Touhig has just mentioned, giventhat the other House has apparently failed to do so.Anyone who has read that wonderful classic of Welshliterature, How Green Was My Valley, knows that themountains create a real cultural and social barrierbetween the different Welsh valleys. There has been noopportunity to explore Wales, or Manchester for thatmatter. I have heard more about the electoral districtsand history of Scotland than I have ever done in mylife. Of course, I am very tempted to talk about thebeautiful town of Stamford and say what a tragedyand monstrosity it would be if it were divided up andpart of it were taken away and put into Leicestershireor somewhere else, but I will not go down that routedespite the blandishments of my noble friend LordGraham, a man whom the whole House holds in thevery greatest regard. I simply say that we are doingthat part of our job properly, well and thoroughly, andit is quite right that we are doing so.

The second task which the public as a whole wouldexpect of us is to make some progress, or at least toattempt to make some progress, towards consensus,because the public always think that we should try toget consensus on constitutional matters. The publicare right about that, and I think that most of us, in ourheart of hearts, all feel that we should try to getconsensus. There has not been much of an effort to getconsensus for a long time, but such an effort has beenmade this afternoon, and that is very important. TheBill does not deal with wards at all, but the Ministerhas said that he will take that on board and come backto the Committee with something on wards. That is avery positive statement. I take it in good faith, as weall do, and I do not think that we need say anythingmore about wards this afternoon, and I shall notdo so.

Views have been expressed on both sides of theHouse, including by the noble Lords, Lord Rennardand Lord Newton, that counties are important. Wecan all argue about how important they are in particularcontexts, but it is clear that they are important. Paragraph 5to Schedule 2 says simply that the Boundary Commission“may” take account of counties. However, that is justpermissive; it implies that you can do so if you reallywant to. It does not accommodate the counties. Wedebated earlier the preceding group of amendments,some of which would have forced the BoundaryCommission to take account of counties. My nobleand learned friend proposes a very reasonable middleroad in Amendment 71A: namely, that the BoundaryCommission “should, where practicable” do so. Inother words, there is flexibility but no insistence. If theBoundary Commission feels that other more importantconsiderations ought to override the sanctity of countyboundaries, so be it. That is real progress and asensible way forward. I hope that it may be the basis ofconsensus on this important matter of counties.

I think that there is also consensus on a third andvery important point, which was made by the nobleLord, Lord Rennard, from the coalition Benches:namely, that you cannot achieve these things and givethe Boundary Commission any flexibility in practiceunless we look again at the 5 per cent limitation.Otherwise, anything that we tell the BoundaryCommission will be completely negated by the 5 percent rule. What you cannot and must not do—I do notthink that any of us would want to do this—is to givethe Boundary Commission a contradictory brief andput it in a situation whereby it cannot solve the problemthat it is being set. That would be quite wrong. If thereis to be flexibility to enable the Boundary Commissionto take account of county boundaries or other localfactors which it considers to be important, it is clearlynecessary to look again at the 5 per cent rule. I thinkthat consensus has emerged in the course of ourproceedings on that very important matter.

Fourthly, and finally, I sense there is a growingfeeling that something needs to be done about my nextpoint, not necessarily by continuing with the presentstatus quo but not necessarily, either, by having what isin the Bill, which is nothing at all. We need to ensurethat we do not just say, “Leave this matter in thisHouse and never again is there to be any open discussionof the principles of our electoral boundaries”. Thatwould be a very unnatural situation. Therefore, weneed to preserve something like the public inquirysystem. My noble friend Lady Hughes explained howthat had made a big difference in Manchester in arecent case to which she drew our attention, and Iknow of other cases in which that has happened.

I think I mentioned that I, with some supporters,gave evidence to a Boundary Commission. We did notwin our point but there was a general sense of satisfactionthat we had been able to air it and that the argumentshad been properly, duly, publicly and transparentlyweighed. We do not need the existing form of publicinquiry. My noble friend Lord Rooker set out how hethinks that the whole process could be more rapidlyconducted. I was very interested in his suggestion inthat regard, which seems a promising avenue of discussionunder the heading of future amendments on theMarshalled List. However, some sort of public andopen appeals process is absolutely essential if we arenot to put ourselves in a situation whereby the greatand the good, if we can describe ourselves in thatway—perhaps we are the great and the bad—take anirrevocable decision and then hand over to a bureaucracythe right for ever after to take decisions behind closeddoors and subsequently announce to the grateful publicwhat their electoral boundaries will be without it everhaving to explain itself in public in any kind of openforum.

We have made considerable progress on those fourprinciples this afternoon. The prospect may be emergingthrough the mist of a structure that could commandthe consensus that we all regard as very desirable for aBill of this kind.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, doesmy noble friend, like me, remember successiveGovernments and successive political parties trying toundermine the sense of place of Rutland, and failing?


Lord Davies of Stamford: The factual answer tothat factual question is yes, of course I recall that. Noone in my constituency over the age of about 40 willhave forgotten that. Nevertheless, that issue was resolvedhappily for all concerned in the context of publicinquiries and establishes a very good precedent forthem as a way of maintaining, or when necessaryrestoring, public confidence in the system.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: The amendment wouldrestrict the Boundary Commission in drawing up newconstituency boundaries by a series of provisionsspecifying that constituency boundaries may not crosscertain local authority or European constituencyboundaries. I noted that, when moving his amendment,the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton,reiterated that he and his colleagues recognised theneed for greater equality but seek to put that restrictionon to the Boundary Commission in its recommendations.

The Bill provides for the Boundary Commission totake into account local government boundaries, aswell as local ties, although that has not been acknowledgedin some contributions. As we have said on more thanone occasion, that is subject to the principle of equality.We believe that the details of how it does that shouldbe a matter for the Boundary Commission. Just toclarify, a government amendment to the definition oflocal government boundaries was made in the otherplace. I re-emphasise that it means that the BoundaryCommissions may take unity authority boundariesinto account.

It has been made clear in several contributions, notleast that of my noble friend Lord Newton of Braintreebut also that of the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, thateven under the existing arrangements the BoundaryCommission has not exactly achieved what in somepeople’s view might be perfection. The noble Lord,Lord McAvoy, talked about Hamilton being split intotwo. Even before the current split, there was a previoussplit between Hamilton North and Bellshill and HamiltonSouth. An important point, which was made by mynoble friend Lord Newton and alluded to by the nobleBaroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, is that localgovernment is not the sole challenge that Members ofParliament have to deal with. There are health boards,primary healthcare trusts and police divisions. It wouldbe a nightmare, if not an impossibility, to try to ensurethat the Member of Parliament had to deal with onlyone each of police, health and local authorities.

As we mentioned in debates on previous groups, wehave sought generally to follow the 1986 Act provisionson local authority boundaries. We want the BoundaryCommissions to have flexibility to take account ofspecific circumstances, but we also recognise that thereis some merit in placing discretionary consideration inthe hands of the Boundary Commission, includingwith regard to wards, about which I will say more in amoment.

In its fifth general report, the Boundary Commissionfor England noted that,“some wards on the outskirts of towns contained very differentcommunities. For instance, there were occasions where the majorityof the electorate of the ward were urban dwellers residing in avery small area of the ward on the edge of a town. However, thesmall remainder of the ward’s electorate was made up of thoseliving in rural communities some distance from the town”.

That is why we believe there is a reasonable case incertain circumstances for the Boundary Commissionto have discretion to split them and why there shouldnot be a prohibition, which would be the effect of atleast four of the provisions of the composite amendmentmoved by the noble and learned Lord.

I repeat that we seek—and this is enshrined in theBill—to ensure one value for one vote, not to draw upconstituencies to suit the administrative convenienceof Members of Parliament. I cannot accept that, asthe noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, proposed,it is somehow impossible for a Member of Parliamentto discharge his or her functions if his or her constituencyincludes more than one local authority. My noble friendLord Newton of Braintree made that abundantly clear.

Lord Howarth of Newport: I am not saying that. Iam certain that the noble Lord, Lord Newton ofBraintree, represented his constituents entirely admirably.I am objecting to the thrust of reform that makes it farmore likely that local authorities will be fragmentedand that constituencies will consist of more, ratherthan fewer, local authorities, which must be calculatedto make it harder for all concerned—Members ofParliament, other elected members and constituents.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I listened to the nobleLord’s speech, and he gave the very clear impressionthat that was challenging in the extreme. As my noblefriend said, there were three local authorities in theconstituency that he represented. The constituencythat I represented contained two local authorities. Onthe basis of the figures that I gave in a previous debate,by my calculation 187 Members of Parliament representconstituencies that have more than one metropolitanor non-metropolitan district boundary. I believe that itis more than possible to do an adequate job of representingone’s constituents where there is more than one localauthority in a constituency.

We do not believe that we should be tying the handsof the Boundary Commission in a way that prevents itfrom recommending the best solutions for electorssimply for the convenience of Members of the otherplace. I take the point made by the noble Lord, LordFoulkes, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hughes andLady Farrington, about the importance of localconstituency parties. They of course have an importantrole in oiling the wheels of our democracy, but I donot think that their interests should be elevated abovethose of individual constituents.

I do not want to follow down the path of anecdotage,but the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, mentioned thenumber of party fundraising events at this time inScotland that are focused on Burns suppers. I had thegreat pleasure of attending a Liberal Democrat Burnssupper in South Edinburgh, which has already reorganiseditself to take account of the changes in the boundariesand the disjunction between Scottish parliamentaryboundaries and Westminster boundaries. I do notreally want to hear more of the Burns supper adventuresof the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: I just wondered whetherit was in the Edinburgh South UK parliamentaryconstituency or the Edinburgh Southern Scottishparliamentary constituency.


Lord Wallace of Tankerness: The point I was makingwas that it now calls itself South Edinburgh to take inthe various parliamentary constituencies in the southof Edinburgh.

Lord Campbell-Savours: Will the noble and learnedLord give way?

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I have tried to bepatient.

Four out of the seven provisions in the amendmentrelate to wards and how they should be used in theBill. I cannot accept that the Government have beendismissive—the word used by the noble and learnedLord—of wards. I certainly endorse what the nobleLord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, said, about theimportance of the ward level. That is why, in responseto the previous set of amendments, I stated our beliefthat wards are in many cases already the buildingblocks of constituencies. They are the level that canoften reflect local community ties. The English BoundaryCommission has confirmed that in the majority ofcases in England, wards are used as the basic elementof each constituency. For reasons that I have alreadygiven—that some wards might combine a large part ofan urban area on the outskirts of the city and a ruralhinterland—there might be reasons to give the BoundaryCommission discretion to split boundaries. Therefore,an absolute prohibition, as proposed in the amendment,goes too far. I hope that the undertaking that I gave inresponse to the previous debate to look seriously atthe issue of wards and to bring back our proposals onReport will satisfy the House at this stage. On thatbasis, I invite the noble and learned Lord to withdrawhis amendment.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am grateful to thenoble and learned Lord for the detail into which hewent. I will very briefly deal with his points. First, herightly says that the Bill states “may take into account”,rather than the commission being bound not to crossward, unitary authority or other boundaries. If thenoble and learned Lord cares—not now—to read myamendment, he will see that in some cases it is anabsolute prohibition, for example in relation to EuropeanParliamentary boundaries, district or borough wards.In others, it is not; it is a provision to “take intoaccount”. I have sought to reflect the point that thenoble and learned Lord makes.

Secondly, I think the Minister said that 187constituencies cross both metropolitan and other localauthority boundaries. He does not need to interveneon this; his point is broadly that 187 currently crossdifferent sorts of local authority boundaries. I completelyaccept what the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree,who has much influence in the House, said. I am surethat he completely and excellently represented hisconstituency. The point that is being made on theother side is that it is better if that is not the position.One assumes that if it is 187 now, it is bound to go upunder the changes to be introduced under the Bill.

The noble and learned Lord’s third point was thathe accepts as a matter of principle that the ward willbe the building block. That was expressed explicitly byNick Clegg when he appeared before the House of

Lords Constitution Committee and when he spoke inanswer to questions in the Commons. Why not putthat into the Bill? My fourth and final point is to sayhow sad I was not to be in Edinburgh South—that is,Morningside, where I was born and brought up—toattend the noble and learned Lord’s Burns Nightsupper.

I am grateful that he said at the end that he willcome back with some ideas. I am not taking that ashim giving me any kind of assurances, but I shall waitto see what happens next before deciding what to doabout this sort of amendment. In those circumstances,I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 71A withdrawn.

House resumed. Committee to begin again not before8.21 pm.

Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations2010

Motion to Annul

7.21 pm

Moved By Lord Knight of Weymouth

That an humble Address be presented to HerMajesty praying that the regulations, laid before theHouse on 30 November, be annulled.

Relevant Document: 15th Report from the MeritsCommittee.

Lord Knight of Weymouth: My Lords, the twoMotions standing in my name on the Order Paperrelate to two instruments to change housing benefitregulations. The instruments seek to cut the housingbenefit bill by around £1 billion per year by 2015 bycutting what can be awarded under the local housingallowance arrangements from April through: first, theremoval of the five-bedroom local housing allowancerate so that the maximum level is for four-bedroomproperties; secondly, the introduction of absolute capsso that local housing allowance weekly rates cannotexceed £250 for a one-bedroom property, £290 for atwo-bedroom property, £340 for a three-bedroom propertyand £400 for a four-bedroom property; and, thirdly,the removal of the £15 weekly housing benefit excessthat some customers can receive under the local housingallowance arrangements. Fourthly, there is an additionalmeasure, which we welcome, relating to an extra bedroomfor those with care needs. However, the final—and, Iargue, most damaging—measure on which I shallfocus is the setting of local housing allowance rates atthe 30th percentile of rents in each broad rental marketarea rather than at the median. The Government areincreasing discretionary housing payment funding tolocal authorities by £130 million over four years toenable councils to try to mitigate some of the effects ofthese measures.

These instruments amount to little more than anattack on the poorer people of this country—thosewho have no choice but to rent and who are eitherlow earners or on out-of-work benefits. Since the

743 744[24 JANUARY 2011]Parliamentary Voting System Housing Benefit Regulations 2010

[LORD KNIGHT OF WEYMOUTH]publication of the Government’s impact assessmentlast summer, many organisations with expertise inhousing, homelessness and poverty, such as Shelter,Crisis and the Residential Landlords Association, haveraised serious concerns, shared by the Opposition,about these amendments to the housing benefitregulations.

The Government’s changes to housing benefit wereexpertly summarised by the noble Lord, Lord Best, inhis speech to this House on 2 December last year,when he said that,“the intention is to reduce the housing benefit bill by some£2.25 billion per annum by the end of this Parliament. That is£2.25 billion a year that will not be paid through housing benefitto landlords. There are only two parties from whom this moneycan come; one is the landlord by accepting a lower rent, and theother is the tenants finding the balance from their own resources,including other benefits—since most are on benefits of differentsorts, or pensions. Which of these two parties is most likely totake this very substantial £2-and-a-bit billion hit?”.—[OfficialReport, 2/12/10; col. 1656.]

That is a good question, and half of that sum is to befound from the changes that we are debating today.The answer to the noble Lord’s question comes in partfrom the Residential Landlords Association, therepresentative body of more than 9,200 private landlords.Its briefing on these regulations is clear. Its landlordspanel survey found that 71 per cent of respondentswould not lower rents. In fact, in light of the proposedchanges, 46 per cent of landlords surveyed indicatedthat they would look to re-let properties away fromlocal housing allowance tenants, reducing the level ofprivate rental stock available to claimants and potentiallyforcing households into homelessness. Not only havethe Government offered no evidence to support theirassertion that rents will be lowered to meet lowerhousing benefit levels, but they cannot counter theevidence that points the other way. It is clear that thebulk of the savings from these measures will comefrom the pockets of the tenants.

The measures have serious implications for hundredsof thousands of honest, hard-working and vulnerablepeople. We should bear in mind the fact that 4.7 millionpeople receive housing benefit in this country. Ofthose, 2 million are pensioners on pension creditguarantee, 500,000 are people on jobseeker’s allowanceand 700,000 are people in work in low-paying jobs.The Government’s own impact assessment of theregulations as a whole predicted that almost 1 millionfamilies would be affected, with an average weeklyincome loss of £12 nationally, rising to £22 in London.

The intention of course, as Homeless Link pointsout, is to make life in receipt of benefit “uncomfortable”,as a way of driving the jobless back into work. Thepopular rhetoric from the Government has been aroundthe assertion that those claiming housing benefit areaccessing accommodation that their working neighbourscannot. However, researchers at the University ofBirmingham have found that this claim is out of stepwith reality. Housing benefit claimants receive a rentset at median market rates and so cannot live justanywhere. Furthermore, their findings suggest that,despite infrequent, extreme anomalies, 40 per cent oflower-income working families pay more in rent thanthey would receive in housing benefit.

In truth, the Government’s posturing over extravagantbenefits sends a clear message: that the rationale behindthese ill conceived reforms is founded on the excessesof a relative few. Their application would be tantamountto collective punishment—penalising the many vulnerablepeople for the excesses of the very few. From datacompiled by the Cambridge Centre for Housing andPlanning Research at the University of Cambridge, itis estimated that these cuts will force many moreclaimants into severe poverty, with the weekly incomeof 84,000 households dropping below £100 per coupleafter housing costs. Incidentally, these households arehome to more than 54,000 children.

On the local housing allowance cuts as a whole, theSocial Security Advisory Committee, in its witheringverdict on these regulations, stated that,“these measures must impact disproportionately on those low-incomehouseholds with the least financial resilience and the fewestoptions for managing their lives and their finances”.

Critics unanimously agree that the change to a30th percentile in LHA calculations, along with thecaps on housing benefit, will result in a significantdrop in income for hundreds of thousands of households.Of these, an estimated 269,000 will fall into whatShelter calls “serious difficulty”. Unable to negotiate areduction in rent, they will have just three options:hoping their landlord will forgo a proportion of therent; moving into cheaper and probably overcrowdedaccommodation; or becoming homeless.

The removal of the five-bedroom rate will act as adisincentive for families to come together. Why wouldtwo single-parent families with, say, three childreneach come together when they would be better offapart? Many tenants will run up arrears, making them“at fault” for their eviction and perhaps not entitled toemergency accommodation. It is expected that half ofthose households in serious difficulty will have tomove or become homeless. Some 72,000 of that numberare families, equating to 129,000 children potentiallymade homeless.

These changes will affect households in rural aswell as urban areas and particularly those with highrents, such as Oxford, Edinburgh and Brighton, butthey will be felt most acutely in London. Here, houseprices are more than double the average for Englandand Wales, and private rents carry a 50 per centpremium, leaving only the worst-maintained andovercrowded accommodation available to housing benefitclaimants under these proposals. The same researchfrom the University of Cambridge estimates that,within five years, almost the whole of inner Londonwill be unaffordable to those in receipt of benefits.Poorer residents will move to more affordable housingat the periphery of the city. With demand for privaterental stock so high here, there is little incentive forlandlords to reduce the cost of renting, so LHA claimantscurrently living in boroughs such as Hammersmithand Fulham, Westminster, Islington or Camden, whereit is expected that no affordable stock will exist, will beforced into moving or into homelessness.

7.30 pmLondon borough authorities expect that, with the

caps in place, 82,000 families will face losing theirhomes in London. The Mayor of London described it

745 746[LORDS]Housing Benefit Regulations 2010 Housing Benefit Regulations 2010

as a “Kosovo-style ethnic cleansing”. The poor will bepushed out of the capital; people in work will bepushed further away from their place of employment,their place of worship or the support networks offriends and family on which they rely. Children willsuffer the upheaval of changing schools. It is all in theimpact assessment. Information from London Councilsshows that families will be moving into boroughswhere there is already a shortage of early years schoolplaces. The children may not have anywhere to go toschool.

Further still, individuals requiring specific educationalfacilities, care or assistance may not be able to accessthe types of service available to them in the borough inwhich they currently live. Those families will be movinginto local authorities in such numbers that the existingpublic services there may well be unable to cope. Igather that boroughs such as Haringey and Newhamare already looking at how to recruit more socialworkers to help them to cope. The Social SecurityAdvisory Committee remarked:

“Enforced relocation to cheaper areas entails not simply upheaval,cost and stress to the households involved, but also the transfer ofpublic service obligations and costs which the receiving areas arelikely to be ill-equipped, unprepared and unresourced to handle”.

It has been estimated by Shelter that some 35,000households will approach their local authorities foradvice and assistance on homelessness. Many of thesewill be families with dependent children and as suchconsidered to be “priority need”, to whom the localauthority has a statutory duty to provide housing.Crisis believes that the likely result will be that singlehomeless people, who are already not a priority forhousing, will become even less of a priority for assistance.

The estimated costs attendant on these housingdilemmas is not insignificant. It is estimated that£120 million will be required to satisfy temporaryaccommodation needs. Going even further, HomelessLink has identified the regulations’ tipping point—thefigure at which costs begin to outstrip any benefits orsavings derived—as £1.77 billion, equivalent to106,070 homeless people. That number represents just28 per cent of the estimated households at severe riskof homelessness as a result of the proposed changes.The most pessimistic forecasts suggest that theseamendments could cost the state in excess of £6 billion.These regulations are in danger of increasing thedeficit, not reducing it. Far from supporting peopleinto work, breaking the cycle of dependency or endingthe benefits culture, the principal effect of theseamendments looks to be the ghettoisation of the capital’sdisadvantaged—forcing families from their homes, forcingchildren into poverty and homelessness and overburdeningalready stretched public services, all at a potential costof three times the estimated savings.

Your Lordships will be relieved to hear that I donot think that the Government should do nothingabout the rising cost of housing benefit. The Ministerwill undoubtedly claim that these are unfortunatechanges forced on him by the economic legacy left bythe Government of which I was a member. I absolutelyreject the notion that there is no alternative. There isan alternative economic policy, which starts withstimulating growth and then has prudent cuts following

behind. I will not rehearse that argument now, butsuffice it to say that he could do things differently withthese measures.

The Government have got it half right. Within thepackage, the largest block of saving is made by abolishingthe £15 excess. They should do that and go ahead withthe payment for an extra room for carers. That packagewould save half a billion pounds per annum. However,they should suspend the other measures. The removalof the fifth bedroom saves them £15 million a year atmost and carries the risk of costing much more thanthat in the cost of homelessness. Capping the ratesgenerally should be dealt with through the wider capthat they are proposing on benefit income, whichwould retain much greater flexibility to deal withindividual needs.

The move to reduce affordability from half of housesto rent to 30 per cent needs more debate, as it raiseshuge concerns, especially combined with the move toconstrain local housing allowance increases to the CPImeasure of inflation, which is proposed elsewhere. Itherefore suggest that these should be tackled in thecontext of the forthcoming welfare reform Bill, whichwould allow time to address the large risk of homelessnessfrom these measures with the associated social andfinancial costs that go with them. That would allow allMembers of this House to amend and properly debatethese measures.

I have sought to be constructive and there is oneother thing that I will do to be constructive andhelpful to the House tonight. I am clear that it is inorder to move the Motions in my name, given that theCunningham report of 2006 said:

“It is consistent both with the Lords’ role in Parliament as arevising chamber, and with Parliament’s role in relation to delegatedlegislation, for the Lords to threaten to defeat an SI”—for example, in the exceptional circumstance of theMerits Committee drawing it to the special attentionof the House. That is what has happened in this case,with the 15th report of the Merits Committee inDecember last year. However, I am mindful that thereis an alternative Motion in the name of the nobleLord, Lord Best. That would not stop these damagingregulations but would send a very strong message tothe Government from your Lordships’ House. TheGovernment should listen and act if the House supportsthe Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best,as I hope it will. Therefore, in keeping with the constructivenature of this Opposition, our respect for conventionand our desire to be helpful to the House, I intend towithdraw my Motion at the end of the debate. In themean time, I beg to move.

Lord Best: My Lords, I shall speak to all three ofthese Motions, but in particular, to the third onestanding in my name. I share the concerns of the nobleLord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, that the changesintroduced by the regulations and the order are likelyto have very serious consequences. The Governmentexpect the cumulative effect of the eight caps, reductionsand restrictions on housing benefit and local housingallowances, of which two are the subject of regulationsbefore us today, to achieve savings of over £2 billioneach year by 2015. What is not certain is where theimpact of these changes will fall, as the noble Lord,Lord Knight, indicated.

747 748[24 JANUARY 2011]Housing Benefit Regulations 2010 Housing Benefit Regulations 2010

[LORD BEST]The charities working in this field have produced

excellent briefings for us. Those have come from Shelter,Crisis, Citizens Advice, Homeless Link, Barnardos,Family Action, along with the Chartered Institute ofHousing and the National Housing Federation, withsupport from the Local Government Association andsome impressive work once again from the GreaterLondon Authority. These bodies all note the likelihoodof several thousand tenants facing homelessness. Apartfrom this wrecking the life chances of the familiesconcerned, the charities point out that the extra costsof homelessness could more than outweigh the housingbenefit savings. Homeless Link notes that, on conservativeestimates, if even one quarter of those identified as atsevere risk were to become homeless, then all the gainsfrom the housing benefit cuts would be lost.

The charities also point out, as has the noble Lord,Lord Knight, that a greater number—over 900,000—oftenants who stay put when their benefits are cut couldbe forced to find the balance from their very lowincomes: state pensions; incapacity benefits; jobseeker’sallowance; or, for a fifth or so of these tenants whoare in low-paid work, from their very modest earnings.I do not believe it is the intention of Ministers to increasethe number of homeless households, which would, inany case, be self-defeating and counterproductive, nordo I believe that the Government intend to impoverishnearly 1 million very poor households with the equivalentof a cut in their pensions and other benefits of anaverage of £12 a week for each household. If that wasthe outcome, set against the coalition Government’scommitment that the effects of reducing the deficitshould not fall disproportionately on those least ableto take the strain, then the housing benefit changeswould have to be deemed a terrible failure.

Rather, it is hoped that, away from the very high-valueareas that claimants will have to leave, landlords willreduce rents to accommodate all or most of the fall inhousing benefit/LHA payments. If so, to a large extentit will be landlords not tenants who take the hit. Thiswould certainly be a desirable outcome where landlordsare abusing the HB arrangements. The analysis by theDepartment for Work and Pensions suggests that 13 percent of the rise in housing benefit is attributable togreedy landlords increasing rents to squeeze more outof the system. Thirteen per cent is not a huge proportionof the rise in costs, but nevertheless, it is worth addressing.

I think the new measures will indeed lead to somelandlords reducing their rents. In some parts of theUK, particularly where unemployment has been veryhigh and may go higher, a very high proportion oftenants are in receipt of housing benefit. If landlordsare not to risk serious arrears, they will have to adjustto lower rents. In some places, current market conditionsmean that the alternative of selling the rented propertyinto owner-occupation will not be an option. Landlordsmay be resentful, they may even lose money—I fearthey will not be investing and improving theirproperties—but, like it or not, they will have to gowith the lower rents if that is all the tenants can pay.

Just how widespread will this be? In how manycases will it be the landlord not the tenant who absorbsthe cost of the cuts? Talking to private landlords from

different areas, I think there are opportunities for rentreductions where the local housing allowance is paiddirect to landlords—as is facilitated by these regulations,avoiding the danger of arrears, which can lead toevictions that are costly for landlords as well as traumaticfor tenants—and where the required reduction is relativelysmall, say 5 per cent of the rent. In such cases, goodwill toward good tenants, combined with the hassleand costs of replacing tenants, will incline many landlordsto make modest rental concessions, particularly in notraising rents as soon as the opportunity arises, butthere are definitely finite limits on the extent of thisrestraint. Even a 5 per cent rent reduction will be aproblem for a lot of landlords. Five per cent of rentmight exceed the margin, the profit from letting, aftertaking account of mortgage repayments, managementand maintenance costs, an allowance for vacanciesand so on. Some buy-to-let landlords with relativelyhigh debts on their property could be in difficulty ifthey were to cuts rents by 5 per cent. Moreover, thefigures in the DWP’s impact assessment indicate that a5 per cent rent reduction would not be enough to closethe gap, to remove the new shortfall between benefitand rent, in the great majority of cases. It wouldappear to cover less than 90,000 cases out of a total ofwell over 900,000.

There is another reason to fear that landlords willnot implement the hoped-for rent reductions. Sincedemand outstrips supply in so many areas, landlordscan simply opt to reject those on benefit. Already ahigh proportion of landlords and their agents will notaccept those on HB. These tenants cannot put down adeposit or pay rent in advance. Local authorities,unhappily, often take some time to process HBapplications and early arrears can mount. Rent is paidon a four-weekly basis while landlords expect it on acalendar monthly basis and, however unfounded, thereare fears by landlords and their agents that those onHB will be troublesome tenants. The compensationhas been that LHA can pay up to the level of themiddle rent for the area, the 50 per cent marker, butnow that the maximum is to be reset at 30 per cent,this advantage is lost. Where they can, it seems likelythat more landlords and managing/letting agents willavoid letting to those in receipt of HB. I am told by thestaff in local authorities who seek to secure privatelyrented accommodation for vulnerable households intheir area that previously helpful landlords are alreadypulling back, even where the council guarantees therent and gives back-up support for tenants.

The underlying problem is, of course, the overallacute shortages of available homes. With more demandthan supply, experts, such as Professor Michael Ball atReading University, predict rent rises, not rent reductions.Until mortgages are plentiful again without requirementsfor large deposits, the private rented sector will have aready market of young people who cannot buy. Iflandlords stop letting to those on benefit, propertieswill be available to absorb some of this growing demand,but that would, in the absence of sufficient housing,exacerbate the problems for those reliant on benefit.

It is very far from certain that many landlords willreduce rents, and it is possible that more landlords willwithdraw from letting to those in receipt of theselower benefits. Since we now rely on the private rented


sector to house nearly a million poorer households,this would be very bad news, but, as the Merits Committeenotes, the DWP’s impact assessments states that,“it is impossible to quantify the indirect impact of the measureswith any degree of certainty as it is not possible to predict thebehavioural effects on tenants or landlords.”It is for this reason that I have brought forward theresolution in my name that is before your Lordshipstoday.

The resolution proposes a wholly independent, rigorousreview reporting to both Houses of Parliament on theimpact of the HB changes: on children; on homelessness;on whether mitigating measures, including the modestsums available in discretionary housing payments, aremaking a difference; on whether local authorities arebeing put under intolerable pressure, not least in handlingthe extra social and welfare costs if there is an influxof low-income households into their area; and so on.Thankfully, existing tenants are being given an extranine months before facing these HB changes, withnone affected before December 2012, so a first reviewone year from now can cover only new lettings, not theexisting stock. The feared mass migration out of centralLondon will not have begun in earnest before 2013 butI suspect it will become apparent quite early if landlordsare not reletting vacant properties to those on the newbenefit levels, in which case the review would enableGovernment to take corrective action. We know fromthe concessions made in response to the highly criticalSocial Security Advisory Committee’s report that swiftaction can be taken if required.

Last week I met the Minister and I believe he sharessome of my concerns. I am hopeful he will be willingto make a significant statement today in response tothe proposition in my resolution. An independentreport next year could provide the basis for theGovernment to make “in-flight” corrections to amendor suspend some of these regulations and to preventthe dramatic changes to the HB system, leading to apotential national tragedy for so many low-incomehouseholds.

Lord German: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord,Lord Knight, for his agreement that he is not going topursue the annulment and also for his support of thenoble Lord, Lord Best. The Motion will meet the problemwe are all facing—what might happen in the future. Insome ways, it is like trying to judge between those whoknow the next winner of the Grand National andthose who believe that it is an art form to study theform and decide which direction to take. Essentially,this whole issue rises or falls on an assessment of howthe market will behave.

I want to consider the agreement between the formerLabour Government and what the Government aretrying to do today. The noble Lord, Lord Knight, saidthat we should go ahead with the £15 that was madeavailable to people who could negotiate a smaller rentand we should take that away. That was a proposalthat he quite rightly made while in government. Thereis a general agreement that the costs of local housingallowance and housing benefit must be reduced andcontained. There is a question which we are all strugglingwith about the speed with which we do it. Thereprobably will be a consensus in the overall ambitionbut a difference in the speed by which we achieve that.

There is an agreement that the current expendituretrends, as shown in the impact assessment by theDWP, are unacceptable and unsustainable. Continuingas we are from the evidence that we are given, privatesector rents will be driven up, the gap between housingbenefit paid in social housing and in the private housingsectors will be extended, and the difference betweenaverage earnings and private sector subsidised rentswill be widened. That is unacceptable. We know fromthe figures that the average impact of these measureson households in the private sector will be £12 a week,but of course there are great disparities in that. Thefigure is £12 a week across the whole of Great Britainbut if you look at the difference between Blackpooland London, you get a huge variation. That was afigure which the previous Labour Government alightedon as one of the reductions they would make, but for amuch smaller group of people than that which isproposed now. So it sounds remarkably like we aremoving in a direction in which people want to travelbut not necessarily at the speed at which everybodywants to go.

There has been the critical Social Security AdvisoryCommittee report and its priority is the impact of theregulations. That is its job, not dealing with deficitreduction. Nevertheless, the report quite rightly said,“Do not implement this, but if you are choosing toimplement it, here is a range of things you should doto make these changes work”. I am pleased that theGovernment have accepted the majority of these, inparticular the delaying and phasing for current recipientsof housing benefit.

There is a quite distinct issue relating to London inthis variation. One in four of housing benefit householdsin London is affected by these measures and theprimary impact in London is that the average figureacross London for the change in rent to be paid bythese allowances is £22. However, 17,000 of the21,000 losers as a result of a cap on the rent arelocated in London, so there is a London issue which isalmost unique within Great Britain. I read in the otherplace the evidence given in the form of the committeereport and the committee discussion and there was asense that people were seeing the whole of GreatBritain through the prism of London. That is a dangerousprocess and we may have to look at London separatelybecause in the rest of Great Britain the average impactof these changes on rents is £9.84 a week. In a periodwhen landlords have low interest rates on mortgages,this may be the right time for them to absorb thischange.

I will return to the London problem later. First, Iwould like to look more closely at the impact thisfigure of £9.84 will have on household rentalsaround the rest of Great Britain. Essentially, thedifference of view which I hear on this issue is aroundthis central question. The noble Lord, Lord Best, saidit just now. Will landlords reduce their rents to meetthe new levels set by Government? This is fundamentallyan issue about the operation of the private rentedsector market.

The Government essentially influence about 40 percent of rents in Great Britain. In terms of pure economics,the state must surely have a prime influence on thelevel of general rents because it pays the rents of


[LORD GERMAN]40 per cent of the properties. It is not quite a monopolisticsituation, but the Government are a major purchaserof tenancies in the country.

How has this market operated until now? On theone hand, it seems that tenants have found propertiesfor rents at levels which they know the Governmentwill pay; on the other hand, landlords have set theirrents at the level which the Government will pay.There is no incentive on either side to adjust or to dealwith this matter. In straightforward terms, it is amarket in which the principal and largest purchaserhas not really had much influence over the price paid.

Will the changes make a difference? I sincerely hopeso, but we are talking of market behaviour. It cannotbe an exact science. That is why it is essential that thespirit of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Best, isfollowed and a full evaluation and measurement of theimpact are carried out just as soon as the first completeannual cycle of the new regime has ended. We need toknow whether the desired changes which it is assumedwill be brought about as a result of the measures havetaken place.

The market is more likely to work in the directionthat the Government want if the state enters themarket as a negotiator. Currently, there is no incentivefor the state to get the best rental price. We are talkingabout an incentive that is, first, a copper-bottomedguarantee of rental income, which the Governmentcan provide—the Government are backing the moneybeing provided—and, secondly, a direct payment tothe landlord if they accommodate the changes. That isan important concession which the Government havemade as a result of the report by the Social SecurityAdvisory Committee.

I welcome the additional funding for housing benefitspecialists to intervene in negotiations with landlords,but I have to ask the Minister two questions. First, dothose people have the right skills to enter a negotiationmarket where previously they dealt with a different setof criteria and a different environment? Secondly, isthe funding which they are making available to enablethe negotiation to take place sufficient?

The big question for London is: is there a readysupply of non-housing benefit tenants ready to fill theproperties if landlords are not prepared to reducetheir rents? That is why I suppose that such a hugeportion of the new funding for discretionary housingbenefit and assistance is going to London. Will theMinister confirm that the Government will ensurethat the most vulnerable are protected and recognisethe distinct market pressures which make London sodifferent?

I accept, of course, that there is mobility oftenancies in London. As a relatively new Member herewho has had to seek to rent a property in Londonduring the week, I have found that tenancies movevery quickly—you will not expect to take a long timelooking over a property as you might normally do inother parts of the country. A quarter of a millionmoves take place each year in inner London alone,which demonstrates to me that people seem to want tomove rapidly. Having moved several times in my life, Imust say that it has been the most horrendous part of

my life that I can remember; I would prefer not tomove at all because it is such an unpleasant exercise. Isuppose that there is a different quality to life inLondon which means that people like to move aroundmore rapidly.

However we judge this matter, we have to recognisethat the reason for pressure on the funding of privatesector rents is a shortage of social housing in thiscountry. I hope that the Government’s ambitions forthe net number of new properties in the social sectorwill be achieved, but much more can be done in thisfield by way of other arrangements with private funding.Much more imaginative use of private funding can bemade to create more units of social sector housing. Weneed to dwell on that matter because this is an equation.If we want to make sure that the balance of theequation is right, we need more social housing in ourcountry. We must remember above all else that peopleneed and deserve a proper roof over the heads. In allthe initiatives that we take to keep public expenditureunder control, we must not lose sight of this fundamentalaspect of a decent society.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I recognisewith others who have spoken a need to reform thepresent arrangements for housing benefit but I alsoexpress my concern about the measures that are beforeus. The noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Knight,presented some alarming figures which, even if weperhaps dismiss the more extreme end, neverthelessgive rise to considerable grounds for concern.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, referred to a number ofcharities that have supplied him with briefing papers; Ihave been involved with a number of others. HousingJustice expresses fear that the arrangements beingproposed would significantly increase the number ofhomeless people, particularly within London but elsewherein the country as well.

A reduction in housing benefit at a time when weare facing all the uncertainty and the outworking ofthe comprehensive spending review compounds thecomplications of the system and risks therefore greaterharm being done to those who are most vulnerable. Itis so difficult, as I think everyone who has spokenalready acknowledges, for us to assess the outcomes ofthe proposals both for those on housing benefit andfor others in the system.

8 pmThe noble Lord, Lord German, focused very much

on the financial aspects of the market and what wouldhappen to rents, and the effects therefore on the familieswho might have to bear the extra costs of the £22 herein London or the £9.84 elsewhere in the country. I havetwo comments to make about that. First, £9.84 maynot sound a lot of money. Certainly, some on housingbenefit are in employment, and perhaps some of themcould stretch to that amount—but “stretch” would bethe operative word. Many others are not in employment,and the amount of disposable income after they havemet their outgoings and the demands on them is verylimited. They are stretched already. We need to be surethat we have some imagination as to the impact—if Ican put it to noble Lords like this—even of £9.84 a


week, and how disastrous it could be for some households.It could be met only by them eating less or having lesson their fuel bill, or doing without some other majorthing that they need in their lives.

My second point is that money of course drivesthis, but the focus must not be just on the money. Wemust also understand and try to see through theconsequences of these changes, which might be drivenby finances but will have a huge impact on families,relationships and social groupings. As the noble Lord,Lord Knight, said, one consequence of the proposalswould probably be that a lot of families would have tomove from their existing houses to other areas. If theydo so with young families and small children at a pointwhen they need stability in their lives, that could bevery damaging—and not only to them; it could havelonger-term consequences. It could be damaging, too,in that they may no longer be able to work where theywere working before.

This could have a double effect by creating moremonochrome areas of our society. The areas that theyleave might become more monochrome, with moreexpensive homes and more rental homes for those whocan afford them and who move in. Similarly, the areasto which they go might become more monochrome.The big society at its best is also a very healthy society,which also means a mixed society. If the consequencesof the movements that might come about because ofthis are that different groupings become moremonochrome, that is retrograde and potentially harmfuland damaging to the societies and communities in ourland.

I was grateful that the noble Lord, Lord German,referred to the provision of social housing. I wanted tostress that as well, because part of the problem withhigh rental is demand. If we are to address one pieceof the picture, as we need to do to find a different wayin which to organise and provide housing benefit, wemust look at the totality of the picture. That is why Isupport the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Best.Part of the totality must be the provision of morehousing and a greater emphasis on the supply of thathousing.

In conclusion, I recognise the wisdom of the proposaland am grateful for it, and I hope that it will findfavour because it will help us to address complexissues. We must let our judgment be driven not just bythe finances but by the family and social needs, and wemust emphasise the need for an increase in the supplyof housing.

Baroness Sherlock: I shall pick up precisely wherethe right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford leftoff in looking at the impact on children and communities.In preparing for this debate, in common with othernoble Lords I read briefings from a wide range ofcharities and was very grateful for them. I also readthe excellent report from the Social Security AdvisoryCommittee, but probably the single most informativedocument that I have read so far has been the impactassessment from the DWP. I even thought of simplyreading out sections of it in place of a speech, until itoccurred to me that noble Lords might have read italready, but it is probably the most damning impactassessment that I have ever read.

Rather than repeating the comments that othernoble Lords have made far more eloquently—my noblefriend Lord Knight did a beautiful job of setting outthe detail on this—I want only to look at what thatmight mean for a family, because it is very easy for usto consider the policies without understanding theimpact on individual families.

I spent some time running a charity that workedwith single parents. A lot of the single parents whocame through the door would phone up when theirworld had suddenly fallen apart. Perhaps the husbandhad left, or something had happened and the marriageor family had broken up. Often, a pattern wouldfollow from that. Usually, the mother would end upwith the children. She would often have been working,as would the father. When she had to do the childcarealone she would find that she could not manage it anddo the same job, because that simply did not work, soshe would often then give up the job. The patternwould be that she would often move to be closer to herown family—perhaps her own mother or father—whowould help to share the childcare. Over time, shewould rebuild her life and often end up getting apart-time job with childcare and being helped by thefamily and friends in the neighbourhood. She wasusually able to do that only because of tax credits andhousing benefit. Suddenly, the family would begin tobe back together again.

Imagine what happens to that lone parent in thatsituation if she suddenly finds that the rent on thefamily home which she has managed to establish canno longer be met by the local housing allowance. Whatdoes she do? The landlord might be kind enough todrop her rent, but what if he does not? She then hastwo choices. Should she try to stay put and make upthe difference, when we already know from Crisis that48 per cent of people on the local housing allowancealready face a shortfall? She might already be trying totop up the rent as it is. Even if the difference is only the£12 a week which the noble Lord, Lord German,mentioned, that is a lot of money to someone on thatkind of income. If you shop around, £12 a week canbuy a pair of children’s shoes or put a lot of food onthe children’s table. At that level, £12 a week mightsimply be beyond her reach; it might as well be £1,200.

What does that lone parent do? Does she decide tomove to a different area? In doing so, if she movesfrom inner to outer London, for example, the childrenwill certainly have to change schools, if they can find aplace. In doing that, their schooling is disrupted andthey lose contact with their friends. In many cases, thewoman loses contact with her family. She might thennot be able to travel back to the job. The travel costsmight be too great or her own mother cannot mind thechildren, which means that she cannot risk being lateback as she has to be there in time to pick the childrenup from school. We can end up in a situation wherethe children’s lives have been disrupted, the mothermight be forced back on to income support, the familyhas been fractured and the children will suffer. Theconsequences are potentially significant.

I do not want to wave a shroud; that is not myintention. I want to try to dismantle a policy from itslarger scale to see what the impacts might be on an


[BARONESS SHERLOCK]individual set of families. In fact, the impact assessmentmakes it very clear what the consequences are of someof that dislocation. It talks about the evidence of whathappens to the educational attainment of childrenwho are moved—about the impact on the GCSEpoints of those who are moved at key stages. It talksabout the dangers of overcrowding, because the alternativefor our lone parent is to stay put or perhaps to go to asmaller house, squeezing a family into a tiny flat. Butthen where do the children do their homework, as theimpact assessment points out? What are the consequencesfor that family?

The other issue is the other wider impacts of achoice such as this. What happens to the families whohave traditionally lived in a very mixed area, in theway that the right reverend Prelate described? I visitpeople who live in Islington—I went to a churchthere—and was always hugely impressed that in somuch of London there are such areas, where rich andpoor live side by side. But where do they mix inpractice? I remember the vicar of Islington walkingme down a street to show me a beautiful Georgianterrace on one side and an interesting and challenging1960s council block on the other. He said, “You know,the joy is that the people in the Georgian terrace lookout on the council block and the people in the councilblock look out on the Georgian terrace”. The real joywas in fact that their bins were emptied by the samecouncil service, that they went to the same GPs andthat they shopped in the same local neighbourhoodstores when they needed to. In other words, theyshared local services. One thing that has long beenobserved is that services for poor people become poorservices, while one thing about having people in mixedareas is that you have what I think a governmentMinister memorably described as the sharp-elbowedmiddle classes, who are there to make sure that thoseshared services are available to all and are protectedand developed.

The case that I have described might be just onefamily, but the impact assessment says that 450,000 ofthe households affected contain children. If 450,000households with children are affected by these changes,I very much hope that the Minister will be able toconsider the sensible suggestion from the noble Lord,Lord Best, and take his time to consider the impact oftwo things. First, what will the impact be on familieswith children? He should track what has happened tosome of those families and look at how their lives havechanged. Secondly, I strongly urge him to considerhow this interacts with the many other measures thatthe Government have taken through.

That single parent will already be facing cuts fromthe Government in her childcare help and in theamount of money that she is allowed to earn on hertax credits. She could already be facing a range ofother cuts and benefits. She is already in a context inwhich inflation is rising and the local housing allowancewill be uprated only in line with the CPI, while VATand fuel bills have just gone up. These families aremuch squeezed already. The very least we owe them isto make sure that we do not take a step such as thiswithout properly understanding the implications.

Lord Adebowale: My Lords, I support the verysensible proposals made by the noble Lord, LordKnight. I spent a good chunk of my career working inhousing, on estates and in homelessness, and I am veryconcerned about the impact of these changes on povertyand on the Government’s attempts to reduce povertyand reduce the Government’s deficit. The noble Baroness,Lady Sherlock, set out very clearly the impact onindividual families, and we know that transition affectspoor families disproportionately more than richer families.The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Herefordmade the very strong point that these proposals notonly have a financial impact on poor families; theyalso have an impact on social services andneighbourhoods, crime, mental health and substancemisuse. Throughout my career I have seen this impactwalk through the doors with the homeless and withthose at risk of homelessness.

While I understand that the proposals of the nobleLord, Lord Knight, stand no chance of going anywhere,they are actually worthy of careful consideration. Wehave not thought through the impact on families andon the societies in which they live—on social services,on health, on mental health and on employment.Given that the amendment of the noble Lord, LordKnight, will not go through, the proposal of the nobleLord, Lord Best, is second best—no pun intended.Actually, it was intended. If you happen to be one ofthe families at risk—the majority of which, by theway, are in employment, low-wage employment thoughit is—it is not much comfort to be told, “Hang on aminute, you will suffer for a year and then someonemight pop along and do some research into the impact”.Frankly, it is one of those amendments that I amforced to support. In conversation with the nobleLord, Lord Freud, some time ago, I expressed myconcern that the Government have no plan B. It is nogood making these swingeing cuts on the poor, whodo not have the broadest shoulders to carry the impactof the deficit, and not have a clear plan B.

8.15 pmEven if we accept that we will not know, as the

noble Lord, Lord German, pointed out, what theimpact of these cuts will be on actual families—no-onecan see into the future—we know that the poor willsuffer. We know where they will suffer, we know howthey will suffer and we know what the impact onpublic services will be, but we do not have a clearplan B. At best—that is another pun—the Governmentneed to commit fully to the proposal by the nobleLord, Lord Best.

Many of the changes seem to be almost arbitrarilyimposed. Why reduce local housing allowance to the30th percentile, when in many areas the proportion ofprivate sector properties rented by tenants receivingthe LHA is well over 30 per cent? The average isestimated at 39 per cent. Why cut LHA payments by10 per cent for people on jobseeker’s allowance forover a year when those who are in social housing orare supported by other members of their householdwill be unaffected? All this has one key purpose, tosave money, but little thought appears to have goneinto the multiple transferred costs that could be incurredby evicting up to 185,000 households. The cost in legal


aid alone is estimated to reach between £3 million and£5 million per year, while the demand for temporaryaccommodation is likely to cost between £61 millionand £121 million. That is before we even consider theimpact on schools and social services in the areas thatwill have to absorb tenants who are priced out of partsof the country, particularly London. I thank AlexFenton of the Cambridge Centre for Housing andPlanning Research for those figures. Homeless Linkhas calculated that if a mere quarter of those who areidentified as being at severe risk of homelessness losetheir home, all estimated savings to the state will belost.

It is very easy to assign the cruelty to—and it iscruel if you are on the receiving end of these cuts andof the complexity that will be imposed on alreadystressed families and individuals—and to pray in aid,the Government’s and the country’s financial position.Frankly, it is not good enough, especially a week or soafter we watched the chief executive of Barclays Bankin effect put two fingers up to the poor and to the restof us. It is not acceptable. One group is being treatedvery differently from another. We need some equalityof debate and of access to the good things in life, and Ihope that the Government will at least support withenthusiasm the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Best.

Baroness Thomas of Winchester: My Lords, it is nosecret that when these regulations were first announcedI had deep concerns about them, as I made clear in thehousing debate that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis,introduced at the beginning of last November. Whenthe Social Security Advisory Committee’s very criticalreport was published, the Government modified theiroriginal proposals in two important ways, as we haveheard: in relation to the timing of the changes and inallowing direct payments to landlords in certaincircumstances.

The nine months of breathing space for existingclaimants is welcome to give them more time to findalternative accommodation if necessary, although itwill be paid for by bringing forward the moving ofLHA rates from the median to the 30th percentile fornew claimants. Also delayed is the introduction of thecap on LHA payments and a reduction in the maximumnumber of bedrooms that a claimant is entitled to,from five to four. Overall, the change in the phasingmeans that some claimants will be hit by the cut a yearearlier than they might have expected, while otherswill have a bit more time before the cuts bite.

Turning to the other concession, direct payments tolandlords, I am glad that the Government have nowagreed to widen the criteria that local authoritiesshould consider in order for this to happen, although Ifind the wording of this concession quite convoluted—perhaps deliberately so, in order to give someflexibility—so perhaps the Minister can help me. Thewording is:

“From April 2011, in cases assessed under the local housingallowance arrangements, local authorities will be able to payhousing benefit direct to the landlord where they consider that itwould help the customer to secure a new tenancy or remain intheir current home. It follows that the rent must be at a level thatthey can afford. We will work closely with local authorities toensure that this provision is used in very specific circumstanceswhere landlords are reducing rents to a level that is affordable forcustomers”.—[Official Report, 14/12/10; col. WA 170.]

I am glad that the Government are providing guidanceto local authorities because to me these three sentencescould mean three different things. I am not an expertin these matters, but they do not quite seem to hangtogether.

While I am talking about welcome news, we mustnot forget the two provisions in the original announcementof, first, an additional bedroom to be included in thesize criteria used to assess HB claims in the privaterented sector for an overnight carer of a disabledperson or someone with a long-term health conditionand, secondly, a large increase in the discretionaryhousing payments. Both those measures are very welcome.

The $64,000 question remains, however, as all thespeakers so far have said: will these housing benefitregulations mean that landlords will reduce their rents,thus bringing the huge housing benefit bill down, togeneral rejoicing by taxpayers and the Government, orwill it mean that not enough landlords will, or canafford to, reduce their rents low enough for LHAclaimants, that the discretionary housing paymentswill be spread too thin to make much difference andthat therefore thousands of people will face eviction,child poverty will increase and local authorities willeventually have to pick up a very large bill?

Many statistics have already been given and I willnot add to them. We all know why the bill for housingbenefit has ballooned—there is nowhere near enoughsocial housing throughout the country and so councilshave turned to the much more expensive private rentedsector, with buy to let becoming a popular way forpeople with capital to cash in on the shortage of rentalaccommodation. While there may be a percentage ofgreedy landlords who are able to charge unjustifiablyhigh rents—the noble Lord, Lord Best, referred tothem and gave a figure—is not the real truth of whythe HB bill is so high not that housing benefit hasinflated rents but that there are huge numbers oflow-paid and unemployed people who qualify forhousing benefit?

It is clear that, as my noble friend Lord Germanhas said, London with its high rents is in a category ofits own, even though a lot of the boroughs are receivingthe cushion of the bulk of the discretionary housingpayments. To those of us who live and work in London,the mix of housing works to everyone’s advantage, asthe noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, said in her powerfulcontribution. If a large number of the low-paid workforcewho receive LHA are forced to move out even ofGreater London, then everyone suffers, because life incentral London depends on low-paid workers; we doin this House. Of course we all understand that low-paidor unemployed people on housing benefit with largefamilies cannot expect to live for ever in high-endhouses or flats in central London, although I am quitesure that very few actually do. However, we know thata lot of families will be forced to move in the nextcouple of years, as the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale,said. We just hope that this will not mean that they willbe pushed out of the reach of good employment andtransport, thus exacerbating the situation.

The real worry about these regulations is that droppingto the 30th percentile could have a devastating effecton these families all over the country, many of whom


[BARONESS THOMAS OF WINCHESTER]find life a struggle even now. This regulation is the onethat could cause evictions, particularly in housing hotspots outside London, such as Brighton and Cambridge,with landlords not having to reduce their rents becausethey can always find someone not on housing benefitto pay the going rate.

What we need, and what I called for in our debatein November, is what the noble Lord, Lord Best, callsfor in his Motion: an independent review of housingbenefit in the private rented sector. I know that theMinister will say that this happens automatically in hisdepartment, but we need an independent review to beset up and to alert Parliament quickly if the worstfears of some of the relevant organisations in thisfield, which have already been mentioned, are beingrealised. Many groups are warning of the direconsequences of the effect of these regulations intoday’s difficult economic climate, particularly for singleparents and disabled people. The noble Baroness, LadyWilkins, may say more about disabled people shortly.What would reassure many of us who are concernedabout these changes is to hear that the Governmentwill take swift action to alleviate the situation if theyare wrong and the organisations are right. I lookforward to my noble friend’s reply.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I declare aninterest as chair of Broadland Housing Association. Iwill not follow my noble friend Lady Sherlock, theright reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, LordAdebowale, in talking about the human stress, distressand misery potentially in waiting for so many thousandsof families with children in our country. Instead, Iwant to do something different; I want to challengethe very premises behind the Government’s strategy,which I think are false.

We have been here before, with the Housing FinanceAct 1972 and especially in the late 1980s when theTory Government again pressed up rents on the groundsthat they should subsidise people, not property. We onthe Labour Benches pointed out then what wouldhappen. The selfsame money that had been spent onnew homes was now being spent on housing benefit,which in turn trapped people out of work and left uswith a shortfall in housing. Now the Government aretrying to rectify a problem of their own creation bycapping HB. They believe, falsely, that HB is drivingup private sector rents, that the HB bill has grownbecause of those increased rents and that, by cappingHB, they will press down rents.

The second fallacy is that this policy is consistentwith universal credit—a policy for which I applaud thenoble Lord, Lord Freud—which seeks to bring morepeople into the labour market. On the contrary, I fearthat these HB caps, together with the unpleasant andbizarre policies of Mr Pickles, will have the reverseeffect. Let me unpick this a little. The Minister saysthat as 40 per cent of the tenants of private rentedsector properties receive HB—a rather disputedfigure—HB rates determine rents. However, he will beaware, I am sure, of two very simple statistics from hisown department. First, as quoted by the noble Lord,Lord Best, the DWP’s own figures show that theincrease in housing benefit has been caused not by

increased rents but by increased demand for HB frommore tenants in both the private and public sectors.Only 13 per cent of the increase in HB can be attributedto private sector rent increases. In other words, theincrease in the HB bill has not come about becauseHB has driven up rents and, therefore, has sought tocatch up with the rents that it has inflated. Instead, theHB bill has risen because more and poorer people areclaiming HB, including those in low-paid work. Thatis a fact.

The second statistic is also from the DWP. AnAnswer to a PQ in August 2009—I do not have laterfigures—showed that 48 per cent, or nearly half, of allthose receiving local housing allowance had, on average,a shortfall of £23 a week. This was because theircontractual rent was higher than their HB. Some willhave been in work, others on income support and soon. I do not know how they made ends meet. Forthose in shared accommodation, paying single-roomrent, the HB research for the DWP showed that 87 percent of young people faced a shortfall, on average, of£35 a week. I dread what will happen now that wepropose to raise the age at which single-room rent canbe claimed from 25 to 35. I repeat: 48 per cent foundthat their HB did not cover their rent. If the Ministeris right and their HB then did not press down on theircontractual rent—however much the tenants wouldhave wanted and needed it to—why does he think nowthat by cutting HB 18 months later he will press theircontractual rent down? It is a triumph of hope overhistory. It was not happening 18 months ago andlandlords tell us that it will not happen this time either.SSAC confirms this. Nine in 10 landlords will avoidanyone on HB. Why? Because they can now let toother people at the rents that they seek to charge. Inother words, the Government do not control, as theybelieve they do, the rents of the private rented sector.It is a fallacy. Indeed, preliminary findings from currentresearch suggest that, whether housing benefit claimantsaccount for 20 per cent or 70 per cent of the privaterental market, it makes no difference at all to local rentlevels. HB levels, and therefore the Government, donot shape the market, full stop.

8.30 pmWhy is that? It is because it is a landlords’ market

and not a tenants’ market; it is, therefore, not aGovernment’s market and not a HB market. Surveyors,letting agents and estate agents are reporting gazumping,six to eight tenants after every property and sealed-bidrent offers. The British Property Federation tells usthat 150,000 extra tenants will enter the private rentalsector next year, pushing up rents even further. Evenwhere landlords in the past might have accepted somelimitation of their rents if they were gaining capitalgrowth, this, too, is no longer the case. Those oncurrent HB levels struggle to find a home. What willhappen?

Like the noble Lord, Lord German, I want to talk alittle about the situation outside London. I have nodoubt that the situation in London is harshest becauserents are highest, but some of the Government’sproposals—the move to the 30th percentile, the threatto those on JSA and requiring single people up to35 to share a house with others—will have a severe


effect on those outside London. Only the first ofthese—the rents covered by HB to be reduced fromthe 50th percentile to the 30th percentile—is in theseregulations, but they affect 83 per cent of those onLHA, 40,000 of whom will lose £20 and more perweek as a result of that change. What does that mean?It means that instead of HB ensuring that privatetenants can afford 50 per cent of properties, they willbe able to afford only 30 per cent of properties.

But it is worse than that. Benefits, we are told,including HB, will in future increase by CPI. CPIincludes only 6 per cent for rent—rather less, I think,than is allowed for restaurants and cafes. It is not asensitive indicator. What does that mean for theseregulations? Let us look again at history, rather thanrelying on hope. In the last decade for which we havestatistics—1997 to 2007—CPI rose by 20 per cent andrents by 70 per cent. In each year, CPI was outpacedby 5 per cent a year. Project that forward—indeed, thisvery weekend Savills has reported that it expects rentsto increase by 7 per cent next year, 6.5 per cent the yearafter and 5.5 per cent the year after that. HB, insteadof covering the 30 per cent of properties that theMinister proposes, will, the following year, on Savills’sfigures, cover only about 25 per cent of properties, theyear after 20 or 21 per cent and the year after that—ona smaller base—some 15 per cent. Within five years,only 10 per cent of properties will be affordable on HBif these proposals continue. Even if a few landlordsaccept reduce rents in year one to avoid voids orbecause they rate the quality of their tenants and soon, they will not be able to afford to do so in year two,year three or year four as the gap between the rentlevels chargeable and CPI and HB widen. In someplaces where there is even higher demand, it is likelythat HB will cover few, if any, properties. It is estimatedthat by 2020 not a single two-bedroom flat in Manchesterwill be available for rent. We know the quality of whatwill be left.

The Minister places much weight, I suspect, on thediscretionary housing payments. My authority—Norwich—had £29,000. It ran out in November thisyear. The calculations are that, even with the triplingof the sum to some not-very-generous £60 million, itwill barely help 6 per cent of those on housing benefit.

I want the noble Lord, Lord Freud, to do twothings today. First, I want him to give the House anassurance that every two years the local housing allowancefigure will be recalculated to reflect the 30th percentilerents and not be allowed to drift lower in line with theCPI. If the Government believe that from October thisyear 30 per cent is the right figure, they cannot alsobelieve that the right figure in two years’ time will be20 per cent. I am sure that the noble Lord, LordFreud, who is an honourable man, will want to holdfirm to his policy intention. That means rebasing thefigure at least every two years. I want a commitment,please.

Secondly, like many other noble Lords, I want theMinister to keep his policies under review. I am surethat he will say, as I would have done in his place, “Wealways keep everything under review all the time”.However, precisely because the Social Security AdvisoryCommittee regards these policies as high risk anddeeply undesirable, we need a report published along

the lines outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Best. If theGovernment are right, they have nothing to fear fromthe noble Lord’s Motion. If the Government are wrong,the distress caused to thousands of families with childrenwill not bear thinking about.

Perhaps I may say one final word to the noble Lord,Lord Freud. The policies of his right honourablefriend Mr Pickles will undermine much of what thenoble Lord seeks to achieve. Mr Pickles proposes thatalmost all social housing new build will come from therevenues from increasing rents for new tenants to80 per cent of market levels in new builds and re-lets.Yet almost every new tenant coming into my housingassociation is on HB. Indeed, the only sensible strategyfor housing associations is to ensure that those whowill always remain on benefit—including low-incomepensioners, those with disabilities and those alwaysmarginal to the labour market—go into the mostexpensive intermediate-rent properties, because HBwill cover the bill, while those who hope to get backinto work go into the cheaper properties, where HB isless of a barrier, because you need cheap rents if youare to get back into work. This is perverse. Those whoseek to help themselves need to live in the cheapestproperty, because only in that way can they spring thehousing benefit trap. Mr Pickles’s policies will underminethe universally credited project of bringing peopleback into the labour market.

What about the benefit bill? That, too, will soar,thanks to Mr Pickles’s proposals. Inside Housing, amagazine that I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Freud,reads, has calculated this weekend that, instead ofhousing benefit being cut by £2.26 billion, as the DWPhopes, footing the HB bill for Mr Pickles’s intermediaterents will actually force the HB bill to increase by£1.56 billion. The DWP’s benefit bill will be paying forMr Pickles’s capital programme. It is a brilliant policy.

In the light of this perversity, there will be worsehousing for private tenants, reduced stock for privatetenants and deep financial hardship for private tenants,yet there will be increased housing benefit bills, alongwith reduced incentives to work. This set of policies isan indecent mess, in which the bill, not just in money,but in hardship, stress, grief and distress, will be paidby many thousands of families in this country. I hopethat the noble Lord, Lord Freud, will accept theMotion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best. Ihope, too, that the Minister will, when we consider thewelfare reform Bill, be able to accept amendments thatwill tackle some of the dreadful implications and thefalse premises that lie behind this strategy.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I know that everyoneis waiting for the Minister’s response to this debate, soI will be brief. I support my noble friend Lord Best’sMotion, and wish to speak on two issues. One is theavailability of social housing and the other is the childprotection issue, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Knight,my noble friend Lord Adebowale, and other speakers.I join the consensus of concern in this area.

The noble Lord, Lord German, raised the questionof the availability of social housing. Most of us canagree that it is a tragedy that in this country we havefailed to invest in good social housing for our people. Ivisited recently in Walthamstow a mother with a young,


[THE EARL OF LISTOWEL]six week-old infant who was sharing the house, thebathroom and the kitchen with five other households.We have let such families down badly. I have visitedprivate housing which is being used to fill the gap inRedbridge and some of it is of appalling quality. Wehave let these families down by not investing and notthinking strategically about securing sufficient socialhousing supply. The concern, in a sense, is that thiswill add insult to injury: we have let these familiesdown and we may yet let them down further. I stronglysupport my noble friend in his call for a consideredassessment of the impact of this change.

The noble Lord, Lord Knight, spoke about theimpact on children’s services of the migration of familiesfrom one area to another. Among other local authorities,he mentioned Haringey. Your Lordships may recallfrom the report of my noble friend Lord Laming intothe death of Victoria Climbié what he discoveredabout the state of the social services department inHaringey. Among other things, there was a shortageof social workers and a high number of unaccompaniedasylum-seeking children entering the local authority,putting an additional and unexpected burden on thechildren’s services. Social worker managers said that itbecame like a service production line. Social workerswere overloaded and Victoria Climbié’s social worker,Mrs Arthurworrey, had far above her maximumcase load. This was the context of what happened toVictoria Climbié and the terrible fate that befell her. Iurge your Lordships not to forget what happened inthat case.

It would serve the Government’s interests well ifthey were to consider carefully the impact of thesechanges on children’s services. If something goes wrongand children’s services become overburdened and socialworkers cannot answer the needs, the media willunderstandably be very scathing about what they seeas the roots of such problems. It might be unhelpful tothe Government in the longer term if it seems that thepolicy on which they are now embarking might lead tothe failure of services and the death of a child or someother outcome. I strongly support my noble friend’sMotion and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, it may notbe part of our convention to challenge regulations inthis way but we are not living in conventional times.We are faced with a determined attempt by theGovernment to undermine the welfare society withwhich we have lived since the end of the last war andto replace it with something called the big society—hencethe attempt to change benefit provision without regardto what this will mean for many vulnerable people.

This is the case with housing benefit. Many peoplehave been kept from desperate poverty and evenhomelessness by the existence of this benefit. Amongthem are many single parents, mostly women, and it issurely in our interests that such women should be ableto bring up and support their children. Often theyhave poorly paid part-time jobs and some of thedifficulties that such women and their families facehave already been demonstrated to us very dramaticallyby one of the previous speakers in the debate.

I am a Londoner and I believe that London is aspecial case. The mayor may have been attacked forsome of the statements he made—he was regarded ashaving over-reacted—but, on the other hand, he has apoint. There are many areas of London, including theone in which I live, which have changed dramaticallyin the past 20 or 30 years. They have been developedand upgraded. I have lived there for 40 years, and itwas relatively inexpensive when I moved there, but itno longer is. It is desperately overpriced. Rents areimpossible, except for well-off people.

If the arrangement is that benefits in future shouldbe related to the market rent, many people will beunable to afford the resulting rent without the appropriatebenefit. Such people will have no alternative but tomove. The mayor made that point strongly in hisstatement. It is true that people will be unable to go onliving there if rent is related in some way to the marketrate. That would be impossible. A number of speakershave already referred to what might happen in suchcircumstances and the social results of such anarrangement. People will have no alternative but touproot and move to different places, where there maybe overcrowding and other undesirable effects on theirhealth and that of their families.

For those reasons, I hope that your Lordships willagree at least to support the amendment tabled by thenoble Lord, Lord Best. I certainly do and I hope thateverybody else feels the same way.

8.45 pmBaroness Wilkins: As heralded by the noble Baroness,

Lady Thomas, I will concentrate on the situationregarding disabled people. In recent years, disabledpeople have been given hope that we will achieveequality by 2025, but with these regulations we see yetagain that the Government are imposing cuts that willdisproportionately affect disabled people. That mightnot be the intention but it is the effect.

Disabled people are the group most likely to bedependent on benefits, so the most likely to be affectedby these cuts. Only half of disabled people of workingage are in work compared with 80 per cent of non-disabledpeople, and the poverty rate among disabled people isdouble that of the rest of the population. As we haveheard, the likelihood is that significant numbers ofpeople will be forced to move. Being one of the poorestgroups, disabled people are more likely to face thisthreat than others. The Minister has repeatedly impliedthat this is no problem as people are constantly on themove. What understanding does the Minister have ofwhat that means for disabled people?

First, for physically impaired people there is themajor issue of finding accessible accommodation. Thepaucity of housing stock which meets disabled people’sneeds is a disgrace and far too little is being doneabout it. Not only that, the actual process of movingwill be difficult for many who are physically disabledor who have mental illness. Secondly, disabled peopleare likely to be more reliant on informal support fromneighbours, friends and family. These networks arebuilt slowly and cannot be turned on and off like a tap.However, if disabled people are forced to move, thedislocation will inevitably mean increased isolationand result in more reliance on the statutory agencies


and charities. Related to that is the fact that existingrelationships with health and social services will bebroken so there will be additional costs of re-assessmentand re-establishing the support to be borne by thestatutory services. What assessment has been made ofwhat it will cost the state in forcing disabled people tomove as a result of these regulations?

The Minister may say that the increase in discretionaryhousing payments will meet our concerns but theincrease is nowhere near sufficient to support all thosewho need it. Disabled people will be only one of thevulnerable groups in need of this funding as LeonardCheshire Disability has pointed out. On the brighterside, I welcome the Government’s move to allow anextra bedroom for those who need an overnight carer.Cuts elsewhere will mean that this is not as beneficialas it sounds. RADAR has been contacted by Ann—nother real name—who was given housing benefit and thesecond bedroom rate for a live-in carer. As a result, hermother bought a two-bedroom property with a mortgagefor Ann and her live-in carer to rent. So far, so good,but Ann has had problems getting somebody to live in.As a result, the council reduced the second-bedroomrate to a first-bedroom rate on the ground that it wasnot the main residence of the live-in carer. Now Anncannot pay her mother the rent that she owes, and soher mother cannot pay the mortgage. This has leftboth of them in extreme financial hardship and hermother now has to look after Ann at night as well.

The severe cuts being imposed on local authoritieshave resulted in some appalling decisions, with localauthorities trying to cut overnight carers and forcingpeople to use incontinence pads instead. Such was thecase last year when the former ballerina Elaine McDonald,who was not incontinent but just needed help gettingto the loo, took the royal borough of Kensington andChelsea to court when it imposed this cut. She lost thecase. Does this mean that there will be an inevitabledomino effect with cuts by social services resulting inthe loss of the extra bedroom allowance? Will theMinister give the House an assurance that this will notbe the case and that if a person is assessed as needingovernight care, they will receive the extra bedroomallowance?

I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Knight, will notpress his Motions but I urge all noble Lords to supportthe Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best.Will the Minister agree to commission primary researchto monitor and evaluate the impact on disabled peoplein particular within the year, given that disabled peopleare likely to be disproportionately affected by these cuts?

Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope: My Lords, it is alwaysa pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins.Her personal experience and powerful testimony arealways of benefit to the House. We are very pleasedto listen to what she had to say. However, I do notagree with the last point she made because,politically, it is absolutely apposite that the nobleLord, Lord Knight, took the decision that he did toleave a Division for now. That was the right thing todo and the debate benefited from it. It certainly makesit easier for people like me, who agree with a lot of theanalysis and share a lot of the concern, to keep thepressure on the Minister for Welfare Reform. I am

also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, who admirablyset the scene. Given the expert that he is, we wouldexpect nothing else.

The politics of this are not hard to discern. Thoseof us who have been around long enough to rememberthe introduction of housing benefit in 1988 can see theTreasury’s fingerprints all over these cuts which havebeen on Treasury shelves since the income supportsystem was changed in the welfare reform Act of 1986.Given the speed with which certainly the initial trancheof changes were introduced, some of which are reflectedin the statutory instruments we are discussing, theycould have been given no other thought than theTreasury insisting that DWP Ministers had to findchanges.

As I keep saying, the noble Lord, Lord Freud, is anational treasure given that he is the architect of theuniversal credit, the principle of which I absolutelysupport. However, he had to pay a price for that. I wellunderstand the concessions that have to be madebetween departments. Therefore, I do not blame mynoble friend for what we are facing. However, thenoble Lord, Lord Knight, was right to refer to the£15 excess. That was very welcome because if there is afeeling across the House that constructive measurescan and should be taken to limit some of the damagereferred to in many eloquent speeches this evening,that strengthens my noble friend’s hand in makingrepresentations to the department. In any case, thisgame does not finish this evening; it will be a longjourney. Iterations of these cuts will be introducedover a period of years. Therefore, we have a little timeto look at what is going on. We are not, to quote aphrase, lashed to the mast; at least, I would not like tothink that we are.

If the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Best,is accepted, and as long as the Minister for WelfareReform is prepared to say that it is not just restrictedto the regulations, which are only the start of a longjourney which will make considerable changes, someof which will get considerably more acute come 2013,the House will have done a valuable piece of work.The Minister must also understand that he has torespond with a sense of responsibility, from an adultpoint of view, by being very firm about his assurancesabout what will be reviewed and reported, and how,when and why. We need to know what we are beingasked to support.

The point was made eloquently by the noble Baroness,Lady Hollis, but I have always felt that housing policydriven by housing benefit is completely crackers. It hasall got out of kilter. We all need to step back toconsider some of the excellent work done by JohnHills in his excellent report, Ends and Means, and theKate Barker recommendations of 2004—all a bit long inthe tooth now, but the direction of travel necessaryin the long term is all there. That work can be built onin future.

The private rented sector is not a place for long-term,low-income households’ housing needs to be met. It isa device that should be for another segment of oursociety altogether. We have let it get out of control in away that is difficult to justify. Like colleagues, I find itdifficult to be sure that the savings set out in these


[LORD KIRKWOOD OF KIRKHOPE]plans will be realised as they are expected to be withoutunintended consequences. It is not just the June 2010Budget proposals or the spending review proposals—as,again, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said, it is theuniversal credit changes, which are profound.

The House can be reassured that it will get a chanceto come back to some of these issues. I give anundertaking to the noble Lord, Lord Knight, that ifwe do not get a proper review or if we get a properreview but a red traffic light on the basis of the red,amber and green system of risk assessment on some ofthese issues, I will happily consider joining him in theLobby if the Government do not measure up to therequirements, which are felt on all sides to be necessary,before we can go home this evening satisfied that wehave done our job properly.

I conclude by mentioning four—well, four and ahalf—things that I want in the review. The first hasbeen discussed earlier. I want to know exactly whatproportion of the market the Government expect tobe accessible to people who are on local housingallowance. I do not believe that the proportion of30 per cent will hold. Once it is indexed to CPI, there isno real expectation that across the country LHA clientswill be able to access 30 per cent of the market. That ismy view in London and other areas.

The Government need to explain what proportionof the private rented sector they eventually expect thechanges to make available to the client group. I thinkthat the market will fragment. I think that the pressurecoming into the private rented sector is likely to segmentinto a binary system where people who are unable toget on to the first rung of the owner-occupationladder will be in a much more advantageous place.There are many more of them. The evidence that wentinto the DWP Select Committee report indicates thatthere is enough pressure there to keep rents rising andthat demand will increase. There is a real risk that thesector will split. That will be made worse after 2013.

9 pmSecondly, on housing and homelessness, we need to

make sure that the homelessness assessment that weare making in this review is not limited merely tostatutory cases; it must include non-priority cases aswell. I have to say that as a Scot because there is along-standing commitment by the Scottish Governmentto abolish priority cases from 2012. Therefore, there isa devolution dimension to some of this, and it risksundermining the devolution settlement if we do notget a proper review that accommodates not just Scotlandbut Northern Ireland as well. I know that the Ministeris sensitive to that because he has had somecorrespondence on it, but it is a very important point.

Thirdly, with regard to the statutory definition ofhomelessness, we need some assurances about temporaryaccommodation and the knock-on effect that the housingbenefit changes we are making will have on some ofthe local authority arrangements for setting up placementagreements on long-term leasing. If we do not do that,it will be very difficult to predict the chances of localauthorities being able to manage their caseloads. Allthat will get worse when the single room rent and theunder-occupation rule changes come in in 2013 for the

whole of the social rented sector. That will be adangerous moment for which we must make appropriateprovision.

My fourth point is that the long-term costs ofmigration have to be monitored. We have had evidenceof the consequences of migration and displacement,and any review that is worth its salt or worth having atall must take that into consideration—even if it onlybegins to look at the methodology of assessing theeffects of migration and displacement—before we canbe confident that we know what we are doing.

My half point concerns non-dependant deductions.It is completely impossible to justify a 27 per centincrease in non-dependant deductions for the nextthree years with no system for determining why thatfigure is chosen. As far as I understand it, the Governmentare saying, “Oh well, it hasn’t changed since 2001”.Even if you took CPI, RPI or any combination andcompounded the figures, you might get a 30 per centincrease over that period in terms of the impact onnon-dependant charges. However, it is not acceptableto invent something called an “index of eligible rents”,to fix it at 27 per cent and impose it over a three-yearperiod. This is not part of these regulations; it is partof the operating benefit, which is why the Governmentdo not need to justify it either to the SSAC or toanyone else. It is completely indefensible and I cannotunderstand why the non-dependant charges are beingchanged in this way.

The House owes a debt of gratitude to all thosewho have provided briefings—in particular, the SocialSecurity Advisory Committee. Sir Richard Tilt is awise man. He has a difficult job but he providesevidence in which I have confidence. That, togetherwith the Shelter report and the work of the SelectCommittee, demonstrates to me beyond peradventurethat there is work to be done here. Risks are being runand, unless we carry out a serious review, obtainingevidence in which we can be confident, we will beselling this very vulnerable client group short in thefuture, and I do not want that to happen.

Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords,this has been quite a long discussion but I would saythat its impact on our communities is as important aswhat we have been discussing in this House over thepast two weeks.

Of all the government cuts, the ones in this area areprobably the cruellest. They affect people’s homes,where they live and how they live, and how communitiesoperate. Indeed, if a decision in this House were basedon merit, the Motions of my noble friend Lord Knightwould carry the day in this Chamber. The Ministermay have the comfort of getting votes from thosearound him but I cannot convince myself that allmembers of the coalition—I am looking particularlyat the Liberal Democrat Benches—are sitting comfortablywhile supporting this policy. That is based on themany debates that we have had in this House in thenearly 20 years in which I have been a Member.

I can picture a House that did not have a coalitionbut would be faced with support from the Lib DemMembers. It is also telling that the Minister, who Iknow will put up a brave fight for his Government’s


policy, must be feeling very isolated. Not one memberof the coalition has stood up in this debate in supportof the Government’s policy. I think that speaks volumesabout the many Members on the Benches opposite.

I will support, and I hope the Minister will support,the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best,who has enormous experience and knowledge of thehousing sector and communities. In this rather lengthydebate, we have not covered other areas of the impactof this policy. Naturally, the House has as a prioritythe impact on single parents and other people in ourcommunity who have the narrowest shoulders withwhich to bear the implications. However, I suggestthat this has enormous economic implications, too.We have a shortage of housing in this country; theimpact of this policy will be that, in three or fouryears’ time, that shortage will have increased and willbe extremely costly to rectify.

It also means, without being too emotional aboutit, the increasing ghettoisation in our cities, Londonmost of all. How will our businesses be able easily toget labour when many people in their community havehad to move outside of the city because they could notafford the rents inside? So this is a very far-reachingpolicy; it is not about simply taking an average of£9 out of someone’s weekly income. It has a muchmore far-reaching impact than that.

I hope that the Minister will accept the Motion ofthe noble Lord, Lord Best—second best though it maybe, and I think it is. The wording is quite specific, and Iknow the department will carry out a review annually:that is its responsibility. But the Motion of the nobleLord, Lord Best, covers quite specific areas: children,homelessness and the resources that local authoritiescan allocate to this important area.

If a citizen does not have a home, he does not haveanything. Therefore, I hope the Minister will acceptthe Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best,and that this House, operating at its best, as it usuallydoes, will monitor the policy very closely and debate itas often as is necessary, until we rectify some of thecruelty we now face.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: I support the two Motionsmoved by my noble friend Lord Knight of Weymouthand that moved by the noble Lord, Lord Best. Thenoble Lord, Lord Best, anticipates a significant statementfrom the Minister, and I look forward to that as well.If it were to signify the withdrawal of these orders atthe twelfth hour, the Minister would become an evengreater national treasure than that described by thenoble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, but I do not hold mybreath.

My noble friend was right to signify that he was notgoing to press his Motions. In many ways, it would begood to test the view of the House to see if we couldstop these orders in their tracks, but I think it hashelped the tenor of our debate, as the noble Lord,Lord Kirkwood, has said. Of course, if we did defeatthe orders, we would have to carve out, perhaps throughthe welfare reform Bill, those two parts of the orderthat we do support, as my noble friend has said: theprovisions relating to carers and an additional roombeing allowed, and the removal of the £15 excess. We

sought to do this before the election, and some nobleLords may recall that one party represented here wasquite opposed to that. I think it is right now to removethat excess.

Others have explored the thrust of these orders.The most damaging are the setting of the local housingallowance at the 30th percentile of rents in each broadrental market area and the introduction of absolutecaps relating to the number of bedrooms in a property.The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, asked whether theMinister could say what proportion of the rentalmarket is in fact available to housing benefit claimants.I understand that the 30th percentile would mean, atleast on day one, that 30 per cent of rents wouldpotentially be affordable. It does not mean that 30 percent would be available, and once we move to upratingby CPI, not even that first proposition would holdtrue.

Who bears the cost of the benefit savings is at theheart of the debate we are having. Will it fall wholly ormainly on landlords or on tenants who are, by definition,the poor? In considering these matters, we need to bemindful that they are just part of a package of measuresaimed at cutting the cost of housing benefit. Still tocome are increases in non-dependant deductions, theuprating of LHAs by CPI rather than by actualmovements of rents, the docking of 10 per cent forthose on JSA for more than 12 months and theextension of the single room rate for individuals up tothe age of 35.

The need to tackle the budget deficit is acknowledged,which is why we accept and, indeed, initiated thewithdrawal of the £15 excess, but the speed and depthof the cuts proposed is not something we support, asmy noble friend has explained. The distribution of thecuts, which the IFS analyses will mean that by 2013-14there will be an increase in absolute poverty by 300,000children and 200,000 working-age parents, largely drivenby the housing benefit cuts, is simply not acceptable.The DWP issued an impact assessment in November,together with an equality impact assessment. My noblefriend Lady Sherlock spoke with some passion aboutthis. The DWP suggests that it cannot assess thebehavioural effects of the housing benefit proposals,although it provided an assessment on the assumptionthat housing choices on rent levels would be unaffected.As we have heard, it estimated that households wouldlose £12 a week on average, but declared itself unableto estimate the number of households that may move.In contrast, Shelter estimated that 68,000 to 134,000would move nationally, and the GLA estimated thatsome 9,000 households may need to move in London.

In the context of our debates, £12 is sometimes notseen as a meaningful figure, but the right reverendPrelate the Bishop of Hereford brought us down toearth on that, as did my noble friend Lady Sherlockwho said that it is better to talk of terms of a pair ofshoes or enough food on the table. Excluding theremoval of the £15 a week excess, the impact assessmentstill shows that 68 per cent of LHA claimant householdswill lose on average £10 a week and that losses forthose in five-bedroom accommodation will average£74 a week.


[LORD MCKENZIE OF LUTON]Another consequence the impact assessment

acknowledges but does not quantify is the prospect ofincreased homelessness. It also acknowledges that localauthorities have a duty to find school places for childrenmoving into their area and that that can lead toincreased costs and that children who experiencedisruption in their schooling may do less well thanwould otherwise be the case. It recognises that theremay be additional burdens on local authorities whenfamilies move into an area requiring a care-and-supportpackage, and for disabled people, as we have heard,the DWP states that the LHA proposals could reduceoptions to help independence and lead to the loss ofinformal carers and support networks. They are retrogradeprovisions indeed, as explained by my noble friendLady Wilkins. For individuals in work, an enforcedmove could extend their commute to their place ofwork.

There is a list of probable consequences, but there isno fundamental assessment of or research into theextent to which these circumstances will arise or intohow people’s lives will be affected. There is just a cruelacceptance of the traumas that these proposals willvisit on poor families and the damage they will inflicton them, their families and their communities. All ofthis has to be considered in the context of 48 per centof people on LHA already facing shortfalls betweentheir benefit and their rent. It is inevitable that peoplehaving to move, homelessness increasing and debtrising will become a reality. The Government assertthat these matters will be mitigated principally bydownward pressure on private sector rents, by transitionalrelief, by households choosing more appropriateaccommodation, and by additional funding fordiscretionary payments.

9.15 pmTransitional relief is welcome as far as it goes, but

as Steve Webb said in another place when these orderswere debated, no new resources of any magnitude arebeing made available. The relief extended to existingclaimants is to be funded out of accelerated pain fornew claimants, including those low-income familieseither in or out of work. How does it help with workincentives in the transition when the cost of tryingemployment but not succeeding could be returning toa more draconian LHA regime? The additional fundingfor discretionary payments is again to be welcomed,but it is a fraction of the money which these changesare to withdraw from the system. In so far as downwardpressure on rents is concerned—the nub of the debate—torest one’s case on a certainty that this will happen in acomprehensive way is, on the basis of the evidence,speculative, to say the least.

What are the pressures on private sector rents? Weknow that in the decade to 2009, the number ofhouseholds in England increased by 7 per cent or1.3 million. This is a trend which, because of increasinglongevity and changing lifestyles, is likely to continue.The dramatic fall-off in mortgage lending and thehuge cuts in capital financing for social renting householdswill mean that the private rented sector will bear thestrain for some time to come. To the extent that HBclaimants do what the Government hope and focus

their housing opportunities on the 30th percentile, willthis not have the effect of bunching claimants aroundfewer properties, again potentially putting upwardpressure on rents?

The House of Commons Work and PensionsCommittee considered a range of submissions on theprivate rented sector’s response to these reforms. TheResolution Foundation argued:

“Many low earners are already experiencing difficulties accessingthe PRS [private rental sector] due to poor local supply, lack ofdecent accommodation and few landlords willing to let to thismarket. The Government’s proposed changes to Local HousingAllowance will further reduce choice for low earners and mayencourage landlords to stop letting to this group entirely”.

The Building of Social Housing Foundation submittedon the following lines:

“As tenants’ benefits payments seem even more uncertain …the ability of private landlords to finance the acquisition andimprovement of homes may be hindered. Private landlords maydecide to stop renting to Housing Benefit recipients altogether ifthey can find alternative tenants”.

The Residential Landlords Association argued:“The shortages of available affordable accommodation, with

the problems facing the owner/occupier market, are one of thereasons why the private rented sector is now such an importantexpanding sector”.

This could mean that claimants of housing benefit willbe squeezed out of the private rented market. TheBPF criticised the Government’s own impact assessmentfor failing to provide any consideration of the widerproperty market. It concluded:

“A significant proportion of LHA claimants, probably morethan half, live in areas of high demand for housing and thereforeare going to find it difficult to compete for available homes”.

A study suggested:“Landlords may be willing to accept falls in rents ... if the loss

in immediate rental yield is compensated for by strong expectationof capital yield. However, many independent forecasters expectweak growth in house prices in the near future”.

The Government have put a lot behind the argumentthat when you are a 40 per cent purchaser, you arechanging the terms of trade because there is nowhereelse to go. Shelter points out:

“By the Department’s own estimations almost 50% of claimantsmake up a shortfall between what they get in payments and whatthey pay in rent”.

The BPF, when expressing the view that downwardpressure on rents would be limited, stated:

“So, it would simply be a small stone in the Atlantic. There isthis huge tsunami of different people trying to get into the privaterented sector at the moment”.

Direct payments to landlords would lower risks tolandlords and could lead to lower rents. However, itseems that this could not be delivered sustainably oncethe universal credit arrives. Nevertheless, adopting thebest practice of some local authorities—Edinburghwas cited in the evidence—could go some way towardsencouraging landlords to continue serving LHA clients.

On the one hand, the proposals recognise the rangeof negative consequences which will flow from thechanges to LHA without a full assessment of theirextent; on the other, the Government place their faithin substantial mitigation because of downward pressureon rents, which has not been demonstrated to be aprobable outcome. It is time to think again.


The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I apologise. Iomitted to declare my interest as a landlord. I do sonow.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State,Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud): MyLords, this has been an important and interestingdebate. I commend particularly the noble Lords, LordKnight of Weymouth and Lord Best, on bringingforward these Motions and securing this debate. Ishall try to answer as many as possible of the pointsraised, but, since there was an awful lot of them, I maynot cover absolutely everything.

Perhaps I may first put the debate into context andexplain why the statutory instruments are essential toadvance the changes that we have planned. Housingbenefit increases have been quite startling, as a numberof noble Lords have pointed out. During the last10 years, housing benefit expenditure as a whole hasnearly doubled in cash terms from £11 billion to£21.5 billion in the current year. Only £2 billion of thisincrease is due to caseload. About £5 billion is due togeneral price inflation, but, most importantly, £4 billionis due to growth in private and social rents over andabove general inflation. Private rents for benefit recipientshave risen in real terms 10 per cent more rapidly thanrents in the general market. These are exactly the sortof increases that we are seeking to contain. Withoutany reform, expenditure is forecast to be £24 billion by2014-15.

It was imperative that we acted swiftly to stop therunaway costs of housing benefit, those costs havingbeen allowed to rise without restriction year after year.As we made clear in the June Budget last year, welfarereform savings play an important role in reducing theoverall budget deficit. The changes introduced by thestatutory instruments alone add up to £1 billion by2013-14.

We must be fair to the taxpayer. It is not right thatfamilies who work hard to pay their own rent have topay even more so that those on housing benefit canlive in homes that they could not think of affording.Some of the rates are extreme. I know that not a lot ofpeople are taking £2,000 a week for a five-bedroomproperty in central London, but there are some andthe current system allows it. Further down the scale,£500 a week is being paid for two-bedroom propertiesand £370 a week for one-bedroom properties at thisyear’s rates. The Government’s measures are designedto take this under some control.

One of the measures that we have announced, andwhich has been widely welcomed tonight, is providingfor an additional bedroom for disabled people livingin the private rented sector who need a non-resident,overnight carer.

Noble Lords have gone through the other changes,but I shall summarise them. They include applying anoverall cap to local housing allowance rates and settingthe maximum rate at four bedrooms. Those rates are£250 for one bedroom, £290 for two bedrooms, £340 forthree bedrooms and £400 for four bedrooms. That is alittle over £20,000 as the top rate. We are also removingthe £15 weekly excess, which the previous Administrationwould have liked to do but did not. I do not think thatanyone argues that it is appropriate that we pay people

more than they pay in rent. It was introduced toencourage a process of negotiation between those whoare renting and landlords, but it does not seem to havehad that effect, so there does not seem to be muchpoint in paying those figures.

The final element that we have been discussingtonight is the adjustment of the local housing ratefrom the median to the 30th percentile. Overall, therehas been a lot of scaremongering generally, and a littleof that tonight—and some false reporting about themeasures, although there has not been that tonight.Some estimates of the number of people who will bemade homeless are, quite frankly, ridiculous. It issimply irresponsible to suggest that thousands onthousands of people will be made homeless and willhave to leave the capital in droves, as some have said. Iwelcome the opportunity to put the record straightand to respond to the concerns raised today.

First, I shall address what is essentially a Londonissue, surrounding the maximum weekly rates of localhousing allowance that we will apply from April. Theyare still extremely generous rates. It is still far morethan the vast majority of people pay out—at the rateof four bedrooms and £400 and more than £20,000 ayear, a typical family would need to earn £80,000 ayear to be able to afford that kind of rent.

These reforms are not about excluding benefit recipientsfrom the nicest areas, as some have argued. We aresimply ensuring a fair deal for the taxpayer. Thesimple truth is that individuals who claim housingbenefit according to local housing allowance rulesshould face similar choices to those people in low-paidwork. There is simply no reason why we should seepeople moving vast distances, and no mass moves outof the south of the country. In all but three of themost central areas of London, at least 30 per cent ofproperties will be affordable within local housing allowancerates. I shall just explain that figure, because there hasbeen quite a lot of misunderstanding about it. Thesurvey is based on the properties that are not in largeoccupied by recipients of housing benefit—so it is30 per cent at least, except in those three areas, pluswhatever elements of the housing stock currently occupiedby housing benefit recipients that will go on beingaffordable. So it is a large proportion, although it isimpossible to put an exact number on it, becauseclearly we are expecting prices to move and moreproperties to come into that category. But a largeproportion of houses will remain affordable.

A small number of people in the most expensiveplaces will, of course, have to move, but they will nothave to move far, and we will work with local authoritiesto give those people the support that they need. Incentral London, 2.5 million jobs are accessible within45 minutes of travel. Bus fares, although they went upthis month, are no more than £1.30 for a single journeyso they can go long distances on a bus. Low-incomeworking households mostly pay a rent slightly lowerthan the appropriate local housing allowance rate.This group living in private rented accommodation ismobile; 40 per cent of them have been in thataccommodation for less than a year. It is not unusualfor families to move. Indeed, over a quarter of a


[LORD FREUD]million people moved out of or between inner Londonboroughs in 2008-09, which is a point that the nobleLord, Lord German, made.

On the estimates of homelessness that various bodieshave put out, it is important not to rely on thoseestimates if they are based on what landlords say theywill do or on early experience. We must look at theshortfalls. After the reforms, 32 per cent will see nochange in shortfall, 450,000 households will have ashortfall of less than £10 a week and 35,000 will have ashortfall of more than £20 a week. Not all of thosewill have to move, let alone become homeless.

One difficulty in writing an impact assessment whenthere are behavioural and market-based effects is thatit is not easy to quantify those impacts, because theyinvolve a complex interplay of behavioural decisionsby individual landlords and individual tenants. We aretalking about market forces here. Although economictheory would suggest that if a purchaser of up to40 per cent of a market reduces the amount that theyare willing to spend, it will cause rents to fall, it is onlyin the end through observation that we will be able toobtain absolutely conclusive evidence.

We have had similar concerns raised about ourdecision to cap local housing allowance levels at thefour-bedroom rate but that reflects the kind of housingchoices that are made by larger families who are noton benefit. It builds on the restriction introduced bythe now Opposition in April 2009 to cap at the five-bedroom rates. Let us be clear: most families not onbenefit cannot afford to live in properties with five ormore bedrooms. We are reflecting here the choicesmade by families everywhere.

These measures have been closely scrutinised. Wehave made available more data on impacts than hasever been the case. Clearly, some people will receiveless benefit as a result of the changes but that does notnecessarily mean that all of those people will be drasticallyworse off. The gap between the 30th percentile and50th percentile can be quite narrow. On average, it iscurrently £15 a week for one-bedroom properties and£26 per week for two-bed properties in London. In theouter south-east area, the difference can be as little as£8 a week for two-bedroom properties. Clearly, oneeffect that will happen is that the 30th percentile andthe median can start moving together if we do not getthe downward pressure that we are trying to imposeon the rates. That would actually be bad news for theGovernment, because we would not lose some of thegains but see a market response as those mediansmove together, rather than the wholesale disruptionthat some people have been forecasting. In practice,setting the local housing allowance rates at the30th percentile merely reflects the choices of low-incomehouseholds; we know that from the research that weundertook last year.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, told us about theattitude of landlords. Rather than accept his concernswholesale—although he is clearly a great authority inthis area—I would point out that, in the last 18 months,more than 400,000 private rented sector tenants havebeen claiming, which shows that landlords are certainlyprepared to rent to tenants claiming housing benefit. Irepeat my point that, at 40 per cent of the market in

not all, but many areas, landlords will have no choicebut to reduce their rents and give back some of theexcess gain that we seem to have seen in this part ofthe market. We are also giving landlords an incentiveby widening local authority discretion to pay housingbenefit direct to the landlord, a point raised by thenoble Baroness, Lady Thomas. We are not giving thisdiscretion away for nothing and the complex languagehere was to make sure that we get something forsomething: that if we are translating a payment streamfrom, let us say, a triple-B-rated level to a triple-Asovereign income stream, we get something for ourmoney. That is why that is written so carefully.

Because I do not want to run out of time, I willjump to the key thing and I will come back to whateverI can fit in after that. I want to turn to the importantissue of the monitoring and evaluation of these changes.I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for histimely Motion. I am very happy to agree to his proposalfor an independent review. I make a firm commitmentto the House that we intend to commission independent,external research to help us evaluate the impact of thereforms. This review will cover all the areas that the nobleLord outlined in his Motion. I can assure the Housethat it will be comprehensive and thorough and, ofcourse, I readily agree that the outcome of the evaluationshould be presented to both Houses, together with awritten ministerial statement. Among the issues that itwould cover—these were points raised by noble Lords—will be homelessness and moves; the shared room rateand houses in multiple occupation; what is happeningin Greater London; what is happening in ruralcommunities; what is happening in black and minorityethnic households; large families; older people; peoplewith disabilities and working claimants. That is whatthis review will cover.

Lord Knight of Weymouth: The Minister has beenvery helpful in directly addressing the Motion of thenoble Lord, Lord Best. I am sure that the wholeHouse will be grateful if he gives us assurance on theone outstanding feature, that this will be an annualreview reporting to both Houses of Parliament.

Lord Freud: I thank the noble Lord for his intervention.Very elegantly, I have an answer for him on my nextpage—although, of course, I am not reading, I amkeeping carefully to my text in this important area.The noble Lord, Lord Best, suggested that the reviewshould be published after a year and we consideredthat point very carefully, but given the implementationtimescales for these changes, particularly the transitionalprotection arrangements that we have introduced, Ithink that one year is too soon for a meaningful pieceof evaluation research. Many housing benefit recipientswill not be affected by the changes until well into 2012.We will therefore make the findings available in early2013, with initial findings available in the spring of2012 and an interim report in the summer of 2012.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That is very helpful ofthe Minister. I fully understand his reasoning for whythe report may therefore need to come out somewhatlater than the noble Lord, Lord Best, originally proposed.Will the Minister also be giving us details about whatis happening with rent levels, the 30th percentile, CPI


and as a result, if necessary, the continued rebasing ofthe 30th percentile figure to ensure that it does notdrift down because of the effect of CPI?

Lord Freud: I thank the noble Baroness for that. If Ihave one minute when I finish my prepared speech, Iwill try to touch on the CPI.

With regard to further reporting after what I havejust described, I am not convinced that it would beappropriate to commit to an annual report on thesereforms when so many other welfare changes will bemade, as the noble Baroness has pointed out—notleast, the introduction of the universal credit. I suggestthat we ask the authors of the independent review torecommend whether they think that a follow-up evaluationwill be necessary. As I said, I am happy to commit tothe independent review that I have described.

Before I close on the CPI, I should point out that itis designed to bear down and we are locked into it forthe years 2013-14 and 2014-15. Thereafter it is up tothe Government to decide whether rates using thatmethodology go out of kilter.

These changes are important. We have put in a lotof transitional support along with a comprehensiveprogramme of practical support to help local authoritiesimplement these measures so that we can finally reformhousing benefit and make it fit for purpose. There isno doubt that these statutory instruments are sensibleand proportionate. They must go ahead and I commendthem to the House.

Lord Knight of Weymouth: My Lords, I do not wantto delay the House for very long. I thank noble Lordson all sides for what was an excellent debate and ademonstration of this House at its best. As the Ministersaid, it was an important and significant debate.

If Members of your Lordships’ House who werenot present for the whole debate find themselves scratchingaround for something to do late at night, perhaps lateron in the week, they would do well to read it inHansard, although I fear that if they were members ofthe coalition they might find it slightly depressing,given that it certainly gives the lie to the notion that weare all in this together. The noble Lord, Lord Best, wasso persuasive that everyone agreed with the case thathe made for an independent review—even, I think, theMinister.

We heard about the human cost from the rightreverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford and the nobleBaronesses, Lady Sherlock, Lady Wilkins and LadyTurner; we had the passion of the noble Lord, LordAdebowale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Dean; wehad the forensic analysis of the noble Baroness, LadyHollis, making a strong case that the housing benefitlevels do not shape the market but landlords do; andwe heard specific worries on child protection from thenoble Earl, Lord Listowel. The only comfort for theMinister and for those reading Hansard afterwardsmight come from the noble Lord, Lord German, andthe noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, butthey would be minute crumbs of comfort given thebalance of the speeches, where the noble Lords hadmore in common with their noble friend Lord Kirkwood,who summed up the cross-party opposition very wellbefore my noble friend Lord McKenzie completed theargument.

I thank all those who briefed us before this debate,particularly the Social Security Advisory Committeefor its excellent report, and the officials at the Departmentfor Work and Pensions for a devastating impact assessmenton the Minister’s proposals.

The Minister himself made a brave attempt topersuade us that everything will be okay. In his speech,the noble Lord, Lord German, suggested that therewas as much certainty as backing a Grand Nationalwinner in trying to predict the outcome of theseregulations. My money is on my noble friend LadyHollis’s analysis over the Minister’s. I am disappointedthat we have not had a commitment to an annualreport. It will be up to the noble Lord, Lord Best, todecide whether to divide the House, but for now I begleave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion withdrawn.

Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions)Amendments Order 2010

Motion to Annul

9.39 pm

Tabled by Lord Knight of Weymouth

That a Humble Address be presented to HerMajesty praying that the Order, laid before theHouse on 30 November, be annulled.

Relevant Documents: 15th Report from the MeritsCommittee

Motion not moved.

Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations2010

Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions)Amendments Order 2010

Motion to Resolve

9.45 pm

Tabled By Lord Best

To resolve that this House considers that becauseof the uncertain impact on children, homelessnessand local authority resources of the HousingBenefit (Amendment) Regulations 2010 (SI 2010/2835)and the Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions)Amendments Order 2010 (SI 2010/2836), theGovernment should commission an independentreview in their effects, to conclude one year afterthey have come into force, and annually thereafter,and present the report of each review to bothHouses of Parliament.

Lord Best: My Lords, I, too, thank everybody forparticipating. I think that every speaker has supportedmy Motion, which is entirely gratifying. I hope thatthat sends a strong message to the Government aboutthe level of support that there is on this issue and,indeed, a message to the world outside. The Minister,to whom I am very grateful, has promised us a genuinelyindependent and comprehensive review. On the timing,

779 780[24 JANUARY 2011]Housing Benefit Regulations 2010 Rent Officers Order 2010

[LORD BEST]he has promised—I think that I have got this right—preliminary findings after one year, an interim reportlater in 2012 and a full report presented to bothHouses of Parliament and accompanied by a ministerialStatement in early 2013, with a requirement on theauthors of the report to tell us whether a furtherreport thereafter—an annual one or whatever—mightbe necessary.

The many charities that have briefed us and theother professional bodies will follow the progress ofthese reviews extremely carefully. If, as I suspect, someof those red lights that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood,mentioned start flashing quite early, I think that theremust be an implied commitment, in setting up thisreview, to the Government’s changing course if that isnecessary—perhaps in quite a radical way. I thank thenoble Lord, Lord Freud, very much. I hope that all mynoble friends and colleagues, including those whohave been on standby in case this went to a vote, willagree that there has been an important outcome tothis debate and that we have gone as far as we cantonight.

Motion not moved.

Parliamentary Voting System andConstituencies Bill

Committee (12th Day) (Continued)

9.47 pm

Amendment 71BMoved by Lord Bach

71B: Clause 11, page 9, line 34, leave out from beginning toend of line 5 on page 10

Lord Bach: My Lords, the purpose of this amendmentis to probe the thinking behind the territorial extentrule—rule 4—in Clause 11 and, in so doing, to testsome of the fundamental assumptions that underpinthe Bill’s proposed new system before drawingparliamentary constituencies. Rule 4 is designed toplace a limit on the territorial extent of a constituency.The rule is deemed necessary because, if the principleof equality of representation was continued to itslogical end, we would see at least one giganticparliamentary constituency in the Highlands of Scotland.This is because the scarcity of population in that partof the United Kingdom means that a constituencywould have to cover an enormous area if it was goingto attain the proposed electoral quota of approximately75,800 electors.

The electoral parity rule, born out of rules 2 and5(3) in the Government’s scheme, is clear that everyseat in Britain, save for the two Scottish island seats—andnow, by the will of this Committee, the Isle of Wight—would have to have an electorate of between 95 percent and 105 per cent of that UK average electorate,which means between about 73,000 and 80,000 voters.Rule 4 overrides that requirement. It states on the onehand that no constituency may exceed 13,000 squarekilometres in size and on the other that a constituency

may be exempted from the rule requiring it to meet theelectoral quota in the event that it has a land area ofmore than 12,000 square kilometres.

What was the basis for these numbers? That is thefirst question that, we believe, stems from rule 4. Therehas never been, so far as we know, a statutory limit onthe size of a constituency; still less has there been astatutory limit on electorates and an exemption fromthat limit based on territorial extent. Where did thesenumbers come from? The answer seems to be Ross,Skye and Lochaber, the constituency represented bythe former Liberal Democrat leader, the right honourableCharles Kennedy, which is the only constituency thatcurrently has a land area in that category of between12,000 and 13,000 square kilometres.

Ross, Skye and Lochaber is the largest constituencyin the United Kingdom. The Deputy Prime Ministertold Parliament last summer, before the Bill wasintroduced, that,“no constituency will be larger than the size of the largest onenow”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/7/10; col. 25.]

In fact, he did not quite stay true to his word. Thirteenthousand square kilometres—the maximum territorialextent allowed by the Bill—is 285 square kilometresbigger than Ross, Skye and Lochaber, which is12,715 square kilometres. Before noble Lords accuseme of nit-picking, let me say that the Labour Memberfor Aberdeen North pointed out during debates on theBill in another place that it is just enough to allowRoss, Skye and Lochaber, with its 52,000 electorate, toadd some 21,000 voters from the city of Inverness,represented, of course, by the right honourable gentlemanthe Chief Secretary to the Treasury. That would bejust enough to push Ross, Skye and Lochaber towithin 5 per cent—5,000—of the electoral quota. Weare not sure, however, that the Chief Secretary wouldbe too keen on that.

Many people have harboured suspicions about thisterritorial size exemption, given the close relationshipbetween the numbers in the rule and the dimensions ofthe said constituency. Some have viewed it as a crudeattempt to protect the seat of the former LiberalDemocrat leader. I do not take that view; this sidedoes not take that view.

Even if that were the original intention, it hasbecome apparent that it would not deliver that objective.The reality of the electoral parity law means that theBill may result in the three new constituencies in placeof the four currently representing the areas of Highlandand Argyll. The seat most likely to disappear, assumingthat the Boundary Commission for Scotland operatesin its normal way, and regardless of whether it beginsits calculations from south to north or north to south,is Ross, Skye and Lochaber.

The purpose of our amendment to delete the territorialextent rule is not to remove a special protection for theright honourable gentleman. He clearly has no suchprotection. It is to raise the fundamental question asto why territorial extent should be the only generalfactor written into the Bill that may warrant a departurefrom the electoral parity rule and why that exemptionshould itself be framed so narrowly. Rule 4 in the Billcan only conceivably have an application in one partof the United Kingdom: the Scottish Highlands. But

781 782[LORDS]Rent Officers Order 2010 Parliamentary Voting System

why should the geography of that area be the onlygeography to qualify for special recognition in theconstruction of parliamentary constituencies? Of course,we understand why it might be sensible to put a limiton how large in territorial terms a constituency shouldbe allowed to grow in pursuit of the electoral quota,but we ask whether it would not also be sensible toplace some other protections on potentially undesirablegeographical entities that could be produced as aconsequence of the electoral parity rule. In otheramendments, we have sought, for example, to ensurethat island constituencies are guaranteed an allocationof whole constituencies.

However, further considerations should arguablybe included in the proposed new rules. For example,Democratic Audit has said:

“It would make sense to ban constituencies straddling wideestuaries such as the Mersey, Humber, Clyde, Forth and Thames”.

When the Boundary Commission for England hasproposed cross-estuary seats in the past, for instanceon Merseyside, there has been strong resistance tosuch proposals. It is also said that some leeway mightbe allowed for the construction of constituencies inthe Welsh valleys. The Democratic Audit report arguesthat there is,“a case for allowing small departure from the usual rules iffollowing them could lead to an absurd seat with a small part ofone valley attached to a seat based on another valley”.

We would be grateful if the Minister could explainwhether the Government would be prepared to takethese situations on board. If not, what is so specialabout territorial extent, as opposed to the other specialgeographical concerns that we have mentioned?

Lord Kinnock: Just to underline and illuminate thepoint that my noble friend made in passing aboutthe south Wales valleys, I report to him the words ofthe late Alec Jones, who, as the noble Lord will recall,was the Member for Rhondda, having been a Memberfor Rhondda West, which was then brought togetherwith Rhondda East. There was at the time of thatBoundary Commission report an idea that a part ofwhat became the Cynon Valley constituency should begrouped in with Rhondda East and Rhondda West—thatis, Rhondda Fawr and Rhondda Fach, or the largeRhondda and the little Rhondda. Alec Jones’s devastatingcomment on that to the Boundary Commission was,“Some bloody idiot has been using a flat map”. Thereis a huge danger, if the kind of amendment presentedby my noble friend is not accepted and there are noclear indicators to the Boundary Commission to useits sensible discretion, that flat maps will plague a lotof constituencies, not just in Wales but in England andScotland, that are interrupted by large geographicalfeatures that define communities. Unless properconsideration is given to that topographical reality,flat maps will come to be cursed.

Lord Bach: I am grateful to my noble friend for hisintervention. My fear is not that the maps that areused will be flat but that they will make no difference.They may well show the contours of the mountains inbetween, but no notice could be taken of them, in anyevent.

I anticipate that the Minister’s answer to my questionwill reference the overriding principle of equalisingseats. However, that principle is of course breached bythe Bill in several areas and there should not be anyideological block on debating whether it ought to bebreached even more. If the Minister were to try toexplain the rule by reference to the accessibility of aconstituency and the ability of the Member of Parliamentto travel around it, why are Argyll and Bute, with its13 islands, or St Ives, which incorporates the Isles ofScilly, not included also as exceptions to the parityrule?

It may furthermore be argued that the further looseningof the electoral parity rule by asserting the strictthreshold imposed by the Bill merely brings Britaininto line with other countries and international states.However, that assertion has been blown apart by ananalysis of international electoral systems publishedthis month by Democratic Audit, which concludes:

“Differences in constituency size … are to be found in Australiaand the United States—where equalisation supposedly rules.Constituency size is always modified by locality and geography insome form”.

The article states:“The startling truth about the government’s proposed equalisation

scheme is that it would be the most extreme version used in anynational legislature based on single member constituencies in theworld”.

I repeat that,“it would be the most extreme version used in any nationallegislature based on single member constituencies”.

The quotation continues:“This is true both in terms of the number of tolerated anomalies

and the uniformity imposed on the bulk of constituencies”.

The Government need to respond to these concerns.Their approach to constituency boundaries is toorigid and too uniform, but they still have time tocorrect the problem. There is no reason why thesemajor reports should be rushed through without anyproper consultation or analysis. We invite the Governmentto pause for thought and to take some time to examinehow their changes would impact in practical terms—theonly terms that matter—on UK constituencies andthe communities that make them up.

The noble Lord, Lord McNally, told the House lastJune that common sense and a sense of history andgeography would have an influence on this process.The narrow exemptions from the electoral parity rulecurrently contained in the Bill are inadequate to allowfor that to happen. As with so much contained, wefear, in Part 2 of the Bill, the Government need to goback to the drawing board with respect to rule 4,which is what our amendment invites them to do. I begto move.

10 pm

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (LordSkelmersdale): I should tell the Committee that if thisamendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendments 71Cto 72A.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I intervenebriefly because in the debate on the amendment on theIsle of Wight, which my noble friend moved so


[LORD FORSYTH OF DRUMLEAN]successfully, I touched on the issue of Ross, Skye andLochaber. There is a famous painting by ErskineNicol called “Lochaber No More”, which depicts theclansmen saying goodbye to their families as theyleave for the New World. It is now a part of theFleming collection and is the picture that is mostfrequently in demand to be loaned abroad. There is along tradition, and I am sure the noble Lord willforgive me for correcting his pronunciation of Lochaber.

Lord Bach: It is I who should apologise to theCommittee for having got the pronunciation wrong.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: I mention “LochaberNo More” because I suspect that that will be theconsequence of this. As I said in the earlier debate,when I read the Bill I thought that this was a protectionmeasure for Charles Kennedy’s constituency. He setme straight on that when I had lunch with him theother day. The most likely outcome is that the BoundaryCommission will start, as it has always done, in thenorth; the constituency that is currently representedby Lord Thurso will become larger; and there will thenbe a fight between Mr Kennedy and the Chief Secretaryto the Treasury for the remaining constituency. I donot know what my right honourable friend’s views areon primaries but they have always been enthusiasticallyembraced by the Liberal Party. If there is to be acontest, my advice to him was that he does not want itto be a primary because I think Mr Charles Kennedywill win hands down.

Lord Sewel: I do not wish to intervene in an internecineconflict within the coalition, but are the Governmentsure that their proposals are consistent with the Act ofUnion?

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: As the noble Lord wassuch a great mover in the process of devolution, he ison thin ice when talking about the security of theunion as a result of legislation passed through thisHouse. However, that is a debate for another day.

I have some sympathy with the amendment becauseit seems perverse to set a physical limit. When wetalked about the Isle of Wight the other day—I understandthat the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, has taken toquoting me extensively—I said that constituencies arenot about blocks of numbers. However, neither arethey about blocks of specific land mass area. I did notknow how the Boundary Commission would deal withthe problem, but we could end up with a new Caithnessconstituency, which is an entirely arbitrary line on themap, arising from this provision. Like the noble Lord,Lord Bach, we have put the proposition fairly and I donot understand why this provision is here, unless it wasthought that it would provide protection for a particularconstituency. That constituency, Ross, Skye and Lochaber,has worked very well. Despite his politics, the righthonourable Member, Charles Kennedy, has representedit very well in Parliament.

I am always in favour of saving public money, but itstrikes me as I look at the noble Lord, Lord Sewel,that there is a curious thing in the Scottish context inthat we want to reduce the size of the House of

Commons from 650 to 600, but the Scottish Parliament,which has 129 Members, has fiercely resisted anyreduction in its size. If one wanted to give the BoundaryCommission instructions, it would be far more importantto try to co-ordinate the boundaries of the Scottishparliamentary Westminster constituencies with thosein the Scottish Parliament, but that does not feature.Instead, we have this extraordinary thing that noconstituency can be larger than the existing constituency,which in itself was created to take account of geographicaland other boundaries.

I do not want to detain the House, and I certainlydo not want to be accused of filibustering or anythingof that kind, but the noble Lord, Lord Bach, makes animportant point and I look forward to hearing theMinister’s explanation.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, I am pleasedto follow the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and to pickup some of his points. In doing so, I will speak toAmendments 71C and 72A, which were tabled by mynoble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and meand would have exactly the same effect but are lesselegant than the amendment moved by the FrontBench, which has put it all into one amendment whilewe have two. I am looking forward to reading Hansardtomorrow to see how it records our correction of thepronunciation of the Ross, Skye and Lochaberconstituency. The correction is easy to say but not easyto put down in print.

My noble friends will understand why I am a bitmore suspicious of the Government’s intention thanmy noble friend on the Front Bench. Noble Lordsopposite will probably understand even more why Iam more suspicious than the Front Bench. One shouldlook carefully at the Bill, as my noble friend LordBach said. Rule 5(1), on page 10, states:

“A Boundary Commission may take into account, if and tosuch extent as they think fit … special geographical considerations,including in particular the size, shape and accessibility of aconstituency”.

Size is covered, and it is included in exactly the sameway as shape and accessibility.

Later, I shall move an amendment to include theword “wealth”. I am not sure that that is the bestword, but I also wanted to consider how rich orprosperous a constituency is. That should be a factor.Size is covered, so why do we need the separate provision,rule 4(1), which states:

“A constituency shall not have an area of more than 13,000 squarekilometres”?

Rule 4(2) then states:“A constituency does not have to comply with rule (2)(1)(a) if

… it has an area of more than 12,000 square kilometres”.

Why is the first one 13,000 square kilometres? Whynot 14,000, 15,000, 13,500 or any other figure? I askedmyself that when I read the Bill for the first time. Whyis the second figure 12,000? Why not 11,000, 10,000 or13,000?

Then I looked at the area of Ross, Skye and Lochaber.My noble friend will not be surprised to hear that thatarea is 12,779 square kilometres—that is, between12,000 and 13,000. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, isprobably right that the Boundary Commission might


perversely start at the top with Thurso and movesouth, so it might not actually preserve Ross, Skye andLochaber, but I think that that is what it was put in for.It was an attempt to preserve Ross, Skye and Lochaber;why is it there otherwise? Why is it included at all?Why do we have both these provisions and why arethey 12,000 and 13,000?

I am really looking forward to my old friend’sreply—I was going to say my noble friend. Last week,he reminded me that we have known each other for45 years. We went to the Soviet Union together allthose years ago as young, innocent students. My noblefriend and I learnt a lot on that occasion. I am lookingforward to his explanation. He has been very astute ingiving us explanations on other provisions in the Bill,but this one will really test him.

I was not going to talk about the Scottish parliamentaryboundaries until the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, raisedthem. He is now asking himself why he did so. As Isay, I would have sat down by now, as noble Lordsopposite, particularly those on the Liberal DemocratBenches, will be pleased to hear, but he raised a veryinteresting point. He is absolutely right. When mynoble friend Lady Liddell of Coatdyke reduced thenumber of Scottish constituencies from 72 to 59, theidea was that the number of Scottish parliamentaryconstituencieswouldreduceproportionately,theboundarieswould stay coterminous and we would have 108 Membersof the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Parliamentwas originally designed for 108 Members. One of thereasons why it went so hugely over budget was becauseeveryone in the Scottish Parliament of all parties wantedtostickwith the figureof 129.Thatwasratherunfortunate.I think that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and I agreeon that as well.

However, that is not the main purpose of theseamendments, which is to ascertain why these figures of12,000 and 13,000 were pulled from the hat and includedif it was not to protect Ross, Skye and Lochaber. IfRoss, Skye and Lochaber and Orkney and Shetlandare to be protected, it certainly looks like a protectionarrangement for Liberal Democrat MPs. The advicethat my noble friend—my very noble friend—has givenme on Hansard is that it should use rhyming slang toexplain that Lochaber rhymes with harbour. That is aWelsh solution. However, that has detracted me frommy main purpose, which is to say that I very muchlook forward to hearing the noble Lord, Lord McNally,explain the randomness of these figures and say whythey are included at all.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom: I will intervene briefly onthis subject as it was raised in the debate on theamendment of my noble friend Lord Fowler on theIsle of Wight. I have the very greatest reservationsabout putting any exemptions whatever into the Bill.The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has made the verygood point that it seems rather odd that so many ofthese exemptions seem to concern themselves withLiberal Democrat constituencies. There might be anargument for saying that if the only representationthat the people had in these enormous geographicalconstituencies was in Westminster, perhaps you shouldkeep the population of the electorate somewhat smaller,but of course that is not the case. As my noble friend

Lord Forsyth has pointed out, an inordinately largenumber of Members of the Scottish Parliament cananswer many of the worries and concerns that theelectorate might have in Orkney and Shetland and inother such places in Edinburgh. That would deal withall problems of education, the Scottish legal systemand many other areas.

As we all know, one reality that we live with today isthat Scottish Members of Parliament who come southto Westminster have extremely little to do—except, ofcourse, to vote, often on English matters that are of noconcern to their constituents. I must confess that I amsad that the whole business of English and Welshvotes on English and Welsh matters, which was acommitment of the Conservatives in their manifesto,is notably absent for some reason from the coalitiondocument. Presumably we must assume that the LiberalDemocrats are quite comfortable with the idea ofScottish Members of Parliament coming south to voteon matters in English constituencies that do not concerntheir constituents at all, because they are dealt with bywhat is now not even the Scottish Parliament—I amtold that it is now the Scottish Government—north ofthe border.

The whole rationale for saying that such an enormousgeographical area should have fewer people in theelectorate does not stand up any more when you havedevolution and a Scottish Parliament that deals withso many of the problems with which people in thoseenormous geographical areas will be concerned. I haveevery support for removing that provision from theBill. I think that it is a very great mistake on the partof those who put the Bill together to produce thoseexemptions in different forms, which is why I was somuch against my noble friend Lord Fowler’s idea thatfor some reason the Isle of Wight should be exempted.Once you start down the road of exemptions, there isno end to it; you produce a justification for practicallyevery amendment that we have been hearing to thishalf of the Bill.

I pick up the point made by the noble Lord, LordBach, when he summed up my noble friend LordFowler’s amendment: that I was a bit of a purist. I donot quite know whether that was supposed to be aninsult or a compliment, but in the circumstances I willtake it as a compliment and I hope that this amendmentgets a serious reading, because we must try to clean upthe Bill and make it rather more rational.

Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke: Speaking as a unionist,I will not necessarily rise to the points made by thenoble Lord, Lord Hamilton, about what ScottishMembers of Parliament can do these days, but I agreethat there is a real inconsistency in the exemptions inthe Bill. This is the second time in our discussions thatwe have had to question the choice of a number. Italmost seems as though those who drafted the Bill hada book of random numbers in front of them, if we areto believe the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who,when asked about the number of 600 Members ofParliament said that, well, it was a nice round number.Where does the number of 13,000 or 12,000 comefrom? It is blatantly obviously to protect the constituencyof Ross, Skye and Lochaber. I will be amazed to seethe Minister get out of that one.


[BARONESS LIDDELL OF COATDYKE]It troubles me that the Bill has been put together in

such a haphazard manner that we have theseinconsistencies. If there was a pressing need to protectconstituencies because of their size or their shape, Imust ask again why Argyll and Bute, another LiberalDemocrat constituency, is not in the Bill. I know Ross,Skye and Lochaber very well indeed. It is a vastconstituency, but it is much easier to move aroundthan Argyll and Bute. There are certain parts of Argylland Bute—particularly some of the islands—that youcannot visit in a day. In certain areas there is nonormal ferry service—you have to go either by achartered boat or by trawler—yet it receives no specialconsideration in the Bill. Is it that Alan Reid is a moreloyal member of the coalition than Charles Kennedy?It seems to me that those issues were raised at the timewhen there was some speculation that certain membersof the Liberal Democrat party were not wildly enthusiasticabout the coalition.

Therefore, I very much look forward to the reply ofthe noble Lord, Lord McNally, on this. I ask him notto go back to the book of random numbers but to giveus an explanation of this very bizarre choice. Mynoble friend Lord Bach talked about the equalisationof constituencies in places such as Australia. I rememberasking a Member from the Northern Territory howmany electors he had. He replied, “Oh, I’ve got about10,000”. I was rather startled and pointed out that inAirdrie and Shotts I had about 68,000 and that hemust know the inside leg measurement of every voter.However, he pointed out that his constituency was thesize of Portugal, so, even in countries where there isequalisation, there is a realisation that you cannothave the concept of constituency by block.

Lord Lipsey: My Lords, I know that the Minister ishappy only when dealing with amendments that involveequations, particularly complex ones, and therefore hemay not have been happy at the prospect of addressingthis amendment. However, I want to point out onesubsidiary advantage to the Bill of the amendmentmoved by my noble friend Lord Bach—namely, that itremoves an otherwise technical flaw in the Bill.

The equation in the Bill, U/598—from memory, it isin paragraph 2 of proposed new Schedule 2 underClause 11—is predicated on there being only twoexempted constituencies. However, if the constituencywhose name begins with Ross—I am not going to tryto say the Scots constituency name as I will no doubtmake some minor mispronunciation—is also exemptedunder the Bill, then the equation will no longer work;it would need to be U/597, and I have not seen anygovernment amendment proposing that.

Of course, were the Government to accept—andthey showed some sympathy for it the other night—therevised equation that I put forward as an amendmentto the Bill, which was adaptable to whatever the numberof exempted constituencies might be, this problemwould be removed. However, as they have not yetaccepted it, their alternative is to accept the amendmentmoved by my noble friend Lord Bach. At least the Billwould then be technically competent and the algebrawould work, which it currently does not as the Bill isdrafted.

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara: I declare an interest,as my title is Balmacara, as has already been mentioned.Balmacara is at the centre of the constituency that weare talking about—or at least it used to be until theBoundary Commission for Scotland added Lochaberto the bottom end of it, making it look rather like anelephant in shape because it has a huge area to the southof the constituency where the Member who currentlyrepresents it lives. Above that is the original Ross andCromarty constituency, which I knew and loved whenI was younger, and the two have to work together.

We have reached an interesting point in this debatebecause we all seem to agree that geography is not theright basis on which to describe and characterise ourconstituencies. However, we are struggling to come upwith the right formulation for addressing the questionsthat lie underneath a lot of the points that have beenmade by my noble friends and others. The further youare from centres of high population, the more there isa case for taking into account scarcity and otherissues, because, as my noble friend Lady Liddell said,when you are talking about areas as large as the one inAustralia that she referred to, factors not necessarilyrelated to population or dealing with communitiesneed to be brought into play. I think I am right insaying that the area that we are now talking about—thatis, the north-west of Scotland—is roughly the samesize as Belgium, yet we are talking about the possibilityof reducing the number of constituencies to three,with their MPs representing in the UK Parliament allthe various things that have to be done for a constituency.

What principle will be used there? When readingthe Bill, I came to the same conclusion as did manyothers—that is, that this must be a way of protecting aparticular area. However, if it is, it is certainly verysurprising that Mr Charles Kennedy, when discussingthis matter in another place, did not see the Bill beingphrased in that way. Talking about the size of hisconstituency, he said:

“It is no exaggeration to say that I can drive for five solidhours within the boundaries of the constituency, simply betweenpoint A and point B, to carry out one engagement, and then haveto drive five hours back. That is just insane”.

He also said that,“the Government are trying to introduce the artificial constructof a capped number of constituencies for the whole UK. Leavingaside party politics, I think the House would agree that there aredistinct and unique geographical considerations in places such asthe Isle of Wight, in Cornwall, with its relationships betweenplaces on each side of the Tamar, and in the highlands andislands…A degree of sensible flexibility is called for.”

He said that,“the crazy approach that is being applied, which simply is notsuitable and does not make sense given the communities involved”,

should be withdrawn. He concluded:“It is never too late for Governments to think again”.—[Official

Report, Commons, 1/11/10; cols. 661-664.]

If that is your friend, who needs opposition?Like several other noble Lords on this side of the

House, I support the basic approach to this Bill. Ithink there is a good case for striving for equality ofvotes; I do not dissent from the central thrust of thisBill. However, I do not think that the Bill as presentlyconstructed deals correctly with my area of Ross andCromarty as was, or points further north. If the noble


Lord, Lord Forsyth, is right, the way the BoundaryCommission will operate is going to leave a three-seatset of constituencies up in that northern area, with afight between those who currently represent Invernessand those who represent Ross, Skye and Lochaber.That is not the right solution for Scotland. It does notreflect a sense of the community, a sense of thehistory, a sense of the clan relationships or a sense ofthe travel arrangements there. It is a wonderful part ofthe world, but it is very remote. It is very different anddistinct, and it would be sad if that were to be lost inthis process. We have not got this right, and thisamendment, which I fully support, gives the Governmenta chance to think again. I look forward to hearingwhat the Minister has to say.

Lord McAvoy: There has been very considerabledoubt cast in this short debate upon the integrity ofthis part of the Bill and how it came about. Is it notstriking that not one Liberal from the Benches oppositehas seen fit to defend either the decision or the integrityof it?

The Minister has been asked on several occasionsby noble Lords to give the reasoning and logic behindthis proposal. He should realise that it really will notbe good enough not to give a precise answer. I add tothe request for a full response how this recommendationcame about. Bearing in mind the doubt cast upon theintegrity of the decision, I ask him, in the interests oftransparency and accountability—which we know theLiberals are big on—to give a public commitment tothis House and to the nation that he will put into theLibrary all the written submissions, reasoning, papersfrom special advisers, political advisers or whoeverthat he considered before this was put into the Bill.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: The noble Lord, LordMcAvoy, will forgive me for following him, but Iwanted to hear what he had to say—and I knew hewould have something to say—before I responded.The Bill, in my opinion, is not satisfactory as it dealswith the large, scattered population areas of the northhighlands. However, I am bound to say that theamendment would make it even worse. I hope that thiswill be given further consideration and, on Report, itmay be possible to produce a solution which rendersthe representation of highland constituencies feasibleand maintains the contact between the elected Membersand their constituents. I recall that, when I representedthe northernmost constituency of the mainland, Caithnessand Sutherland, and, latterly, Easter Ross, the practicalitiesof going from one end to the other, or even consultingthe fishing industry on three coasts about matterswhich were for the United Kingdom Government orthe European government, were not at all straightforward.I instituted a system of telephone clinics, which is nownot possible because of the change in our telephonesystem. The practicality of getting round and consultingthe members of one’s constituency, about somethingsuch as the Falklands Islands, which I remember doingduring the Falklands war, is demanding, and I do notdissent from what Charles Kennedy said in anotherplace. In fact, I strongly agree with him.

I am not opposed to the objective of giving votesequal value, but that has to be balanced with the sensethat electors have of being represented by an individual

with whom they are in contact. These islands of oursare largely densely populated, but the former countyof Sutherland has a density of about one person persquare mile. That is quite unlike the urban areas ofthis country, and it ought to be recognised that itpresents problems that are almost as great, or perhapseven greater, than those of island constituencies. Ihope that the Government will recognise that.

10.30 pm

Lord Hamilton of Epsom: Can my noble friend tellthe House how many Members of the Scottish Parliamentrepresent the area of his old constituency?

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: There is one MSP directlyrepresenting the area and there are list top-ups for thewider area of the highlands. That does not seem to mein any way to diminish the problem of those who areparticipating in national debates about United Kingdomissues whose contact with electors ought to be real,not remote. I believe that in matters of taxation,foreign policy, defence and energy policy and in mattersdirectly affecting the prosperity of these areas, theirvoices should be heard and should be informed bytheir direct contact.

Although I do not regard the formula in the Bill asideal, to extract it from the Bill would prejudice furtherconsideration of what would be the better solution. Iprofoundly hope that we will arrive at a better solutionbefore the Bill leaves this House.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: Will my noble frienddevelop that argument? Given that the Bill currentlyinstructs the Boundary Commission to take accountof geography and size, will he explain why removingthis provision would meet the points that he eloquentlyexpresses? If I may say so, as a Member of Parliament,he very ably represented that huge area of Caithnessand Sutherland. It would be helpful if he could explainwhy he thinks removing this provision would be animpediment to reaching a solution that meets theserequirements.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My understanding isthat the Boundary Commission’s discretion to considerthis would be removed by Amendment 71B. I thinkthat would be a mistake. I hope that the Governmenthave not set their position in concrete on this issue andwill be prepared to return to it later.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (LordMcNally): My Lords, I am deeply flattered by thenumber of noble Lords who have said how excited orinterested they are about my reply. I think I havementioned to the House before that Michael Footonce said to me that he hated reading a brief when hewas a Minister because he liked to be as excited aseverybody else about what was coming next.

Let me also clarify that it is true that the nobleLord, Lord Foulkes, and I first met 45 years ago on astudent delegation to Moscow. I always assumed that Iwas there to keep an eye on him and he was there tokeep an eye on me, and it has been a friendship thathas endured. Indeed, looking across the Chamber, Isee the faces of many men and the odd woman whom I


[LORD MCNALLY]have known since my youth. It is really sad that mymemory of these old friends was of their idealism andyet tonight we have had doubt after doubt about thegood intentions contained in the Bill and its integrity.There has been a constant questioning of motivewhen, as I have said so often to this House, ourmotives are very clear and simple: fair votes in fairlydrawn constituencies.

If we take the broad sweep of the Committee andthe special pleading we have had from time to timeabout the particular problem of looking after an innercity and the special pleading from the large ruralconstituencies about their problems, we realise that allMembers of Parliament in their different ways havejobs to do and I suspect it works out fairly reasonably.On the question of size, there is a simple reason for therecommendation which has nothing to do with thepresent incumbent of that constituency. It would haveapplied whether the present incumbent was Labour,Liberal Democrat or Conservative. It was simply thatthe independent Boundary Commission in Scotlandrecommended that that was about the maximummanageable size that a constituency could operate. Asthe noble Lord, Lord Bach, indicated, this is a problemmainly for the highlands of Scotland.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: Which figure wasrecommended by the Boundary Commission for Scotland?Was it 12,000 or 13,000? And where and when was itrecommended?

Lord McNally: I shall have to write to the nobleLord. It was in the last Boundary Commission reportdealing with the Scottish boundaries. Again, nobleLords opposite are continually looking for hiddenfactors, secret deals and political fixes. As I say, that isso sad from people who set off on a political journeywith such idealism. As has been pointed out, specialgeographical considerations can be taken into account.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: On this point about theScottish Boundary Commission and its recommendations,the Bill instructs the Boundary Commission to operateaccording to certain rules, but if the BoundaryCommission is of the view that the size of Ross, Skyeand Lochaber is about right, surely it can come to thatconclusion without being instructed to do so in theBill.

Lord McNally: The Bill helps it in its work. This isnot a time to go back to the drawing board. Most ofthe arguments have been rehearsed. Charles Kennedyhimself pointed out the difficulty of operating in thepresent constituency with his five-hour drive. One ofthe possible consequences of the amendment is thatwe would be faced with even larger geographicconstituencies.

We propose as a maximum size roughly that of thecurrent largest constituency area. Since it wasrecommended by the Boundary Commission, we believedthat it gave the best benchmark to use in our proposals.Ultimately, this is a matter of judgment. We see noreason to risk turning what are now challenging butmanageable factors into potentially unmanageable and

damaging factors for MPs and their constituencies inthese areas. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw hisamendment.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords onall sides who have spoken in what everyone who haslistened must consider to be a proper and sensibledebate at Committee stage on an important matter.The Minister did not convince me in the slightest as towhy the rule is in the Bill and I have a feeling that hedid not persuade the Committee either. That is quite aserious state of affairs, because rule 4 stands out asbeing the one whose presence in the Bill cannot beunderstood at all. I do not, I am afraid, get the pointabout the Scottish Boundary Commission. I hope thatthe Minister will in due course help the Committee bytelling us chapter and verse about the Scottish BoundaryCommission, but the rule seems effectively to apply toonly one constituency in the whole of the UnitedKingdom. If the Government wanted to exempt thatconstituency, why did they not just exempt it, as theyhave the two others and now the Isle of Wight?

I said in opening that, even if the original intentionwas to protect a particular constituency, it has becomeapparent that that objective would not be delivered. Isuppose that if there is one thing worse than trying toprotect a particular constituency, it is trying to protectit and failing to do so. I fear that that may havehappened on this occasion. I cannot think—I thinkthat other noble Lords are of the same mind asme—what other explanation there can be for the ruleappearing.

As for other speakers, I accused the noble Lord,Lord Hamilton, the other night of being a purist. Itwas meant entirely as a compliment rather than aninsult; indeed, he took it as though it were a compliment,which I was slightly surprised at. The noble Lord,Lord Lipsey, proposed a very sensible amendment theother night, which the Front Bench on the other sidesaid that it would look at and take up. We very muchhope that it does so, because the points that he madein his short speech tonight showed how important thatshould be. I am grateful also to my noble friends LordStevenson, Lord McAvoy and Lord Foulkes.

I was intrigued by and grateful for the speech of thenoble Lord, Lord Maclennan, because he has realhistory in that part of the world. He said that he didnot like the Bill as it was worded but that he liked ouramendment even less, but I was not quite sure what hewanted. I look forward to hearing in more detail atsome stage what he would like to see in place of boththe Government’s attitude and ours. He said that weshould be looking for votes of equal value that arebalanced by a sense of constituencies being representedby an individual. We know exactly what he meant bythat and we agree with him; it is exactly what we arelooking for in this case. We do not see how this clausehelps us to achieve that.

The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, asked the nobleLord, Lord Maclennan, why the rule could not just betaken out and reliance made on rule 5. I think that theanswer to that is that rule 5 is subject to rule 2, which isthe one that sets the quota, but rule 4, which is the onethat sets up this particularly odd territorial constituencysize, is not subject to rule 2 in the same way. They have


equal worth. If tonight we took out rule 4, we wouldbe left with rule 5, but that would be subject strictly tothe 5 per cent rule and, therefore, would not prevail. Ithink that that is the answer to the question that thenoble Lord posed.

I do not intend to divide the House tonight on thisissue. We have had a very sensible Committee debate.The Government must have heard concern from allsides of the House about this clause and I am sure thatthey will go away and consider carefully whether thisis really the right clause to be in this Bill and whetherthey could come up with a better version of it. It isunsatisfactory and we will undoubtedly bring the matterback at Report. By then, all sides of the House—and Ido not just mean my noble friends alongside me andbehind me—will want to have a better explanation asto why rule 4 is in the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw theamendment.

Amendment 71B withdrawn.

Amendment 71C not moved.

10.45 pmThe Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord

Skelmersdale): I call Amendment 72.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: Not moved.

Amendment 72Moved by Lord Lipsey

72: Clause 11, page 9, line 35, leave out “13,000 squarekilometres”and insert “that of the present parliamentary constituencyof Brecon and Radnor”

Lord Lipsey: I understand that my noble friend’sinterest in amendments diminishes considerably whentheir focus is removed from Scotland and taken toWales, but that was rather a pre-emptive move fromhim.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: I sincerely apologise tomy noble friend. I thought that the Deputy Chairmansaid Amendment 72A.

Lord Lipsey: I accept my noble friend’s apologies,which have added to the gaiety at this time of night.

In this amendment, we move from Scotland toWales, but I hope that this will not be the debate whenwe consider the general issues about the reduction ofWelsh representation under this Bill from 40 seatsdown to 30 seats. That falls to be considered underAmendment 89BA, tabled by some of my noble friends,and we shall no doubt want to have a full discussionon that at the time.

This is about a single constituency, Brecon andRadnor, where I have the great privilege and pleasureof living, so I know a tiny bit about it. The aim of thisamendment is very simple: to afford to Brecon andRadnor the protection offered in Clause 11 to theScottish seats that we have just been discussing, so thatthe Boundary Commission may—not must—if it issatisfied that other factors make this desirable, decidethat the seat is big enough as it is and should not beextended.

I do not rest my case on the fascinating politicalhistory of Brecon and Radnor. I was interested in itlong before I lived there, because I visited it with thethen Prime Minister Jim Callaghan in the run-up tothe 1979 general election. At that time, it was one ofthe genuine three-way marginals in Great Britain.Indeed, it was held by Labour and Caerwyn Roderick,who was a junior Welsh Minister at the time. At thelast general election, Labour’s share of the vote was10 per cent, so I think that I can be absolved of anyaccusation that in trying to save Brecon and Radnor Iam trying to advance my party’s interests. We have anexcellent candidate, but I am not absolutely confidentthat even at the next general election the constituencywill resume its status as a Labour marginal. It was alsothe site of an extraordinary by-election won by mynear namesake and much lamented friend, Lord Livsey.It is right that the House remembers him when itdebates this matter. I might be wrong, but I fancy thathe might have spoken on my side had he been herestill, as we all so wish he was.

Last week, one of my noble friends was widelyquoted when he referred to prime numbers in thesetting of the figure of 600 Members of the otherHouse. When he was quoted on the radio, I think thathe was regarded as making a rather jokey remark, nota serious point. I am about to venture into mathematics—knowing as I do that the noble Lord, Lord McNally,so loves it—to make a serious point, although I amaware that it may not appear quite so serious on theradio tomorrow. At first blush, it may seem thatBrecon and Radnor has very few claims to be too largea constituency because it is much smaller in area thanthe Scottish constituencies that we have just beenconsidering. Brecon and Radnor runs to 3,014 squarekilometres, which is only one quarter of the squarekilometrage of Ross et cetera—the constituency thatwe were just discussing. If you are a Member ofParliament, however, it is of course not the area ofyour constituency that determines how far you have totravel. It is, in fact—the noble Lord, Lord McNally,will be taking close notes at this point—the squareroot of the area, which determines the distance betweenthe points of it.

In terms of its square root, the area of Brecon andRadnor is much less different from the area of thoseconstituencies in Scotland. It is not a quarter of thesize, as it is in area, but half. If it was a squareconstituency, journeys in Brecon and Radnor couldextend to 55 kilometres—as opposed to 110 kilometreson average in the Highland seat that we were discussing—but, believe me, those journeys are also very long anddifficult. The byroads of Brecon and Radnor comparewith any in the kingdom for narrowness, snowinessand the general intervention of tractors between one’svehicle and progress. The sheep outnumber the people,as my noble friend Lady Hayter points out, although Iam not suggesting that the size of the constituencyshould be based on the number of its sheep as well asthe number of electors.

There is also a particular difficulty if you decide toincrease the size of Brecon and Radnor, as you wouldhave to, because the size of the electorate at themoment is only about 54,000. It is that Brecon andRadnor is bordered on one side by England. We have


[LORD LIPSEY]talked about ward borders, but one thing that youcannot contravene within the rules of this Bill isnational borders, so the constituency cannot move outto the east to take in Leominster or any of the countytowns out there. To the south, you have the valleyconstituencies, which are already undersized and outof which it will be extraordinarily difficult to makenatural constituencies in any case. If you pinch bits ofthe valleys and put them into Brecon and Radnor, youmake their problems worse without creating a coherentBrecon and Radnor. As your Lordships will see, thatgives only two possibilities. One is to extend to thewest; the other is to extend to the north. Again, withmy pronunciation difficulties I am not going to saywhich counties and constituencies that would meanextending into, but it gives the Boundary Commissiona horribly difficult task in where it is going to find the20,000 or so extra electors that Brecon and Radnorwill need to bring it up to the same size.

What is certainly clear is that there can be nosolution to those problems within the present boundariesof the county of Powys. For noble Lords who are notused to what happens in these sparsely populatedareas, it is scarcely imaginable how large Powys seems,even now. My wife and I would pack the car withsupplies for days to make a journey to visit the northof the county. It took me an hour and a half to get to aLabour Party meeting in the south of the county quiterecently. These are enormous places, which, incidentally,create enormous difficulties for political organisations.The Brecon and Radnor constituency party is askingpeople to drive to meetings when they require an hourand a half or two hours’ drive to get to them, evennow. Without the political parties, like them or loathethem, there would be no political life in this country.That is just a reality.

The thought of extending the constituency is difficultto stomach and the thought of the degree of theextension that would be required, given that there areno heavily populated bits anywhere near to north orwest that you could add to it, is mind-boggling. Thiswould be an absolutely enormous and unmanageableconstituency. We must add to that a factor that Isuspect applies in some of the Scottish constituencies,too—it certainly does in the Highlands and Islands,although not in every constituency—which is that, ifyou are the Member for Brecon and Radnor, everyconstituent expects you to know them by name, as,certainly, the late Lord Livsey did. This becomes suchan unmanageable constituency that the Member, if heis to cope at all, will find it extremely hard to devotehis attention to the other matters of national andinternational politics that should fall within the attentionof Members.

I add finally that, so far as I can judge local feeling—Iam not a Member of another place, so I probably doless door knocking than I would if I were—localfeeling is extremely strong, if not yet as well articulatedas in the Isle of Wight, that the constituency should beleft as it is into the future. When noble Lords look atall these facts, the case for an exemption for Breconand Radnor—I know that the noble Lord, LordHamilton, will not agree with it, but he would notagree with it for anywhere—is extremely strong. This

amendment would make it possible for the BoundaryCommission to make such an exemption, but thatdecision would rest with the Welsh Boundary Commission,so it would not be imposed by this House. If thecommission found a flaw in my argument, of course Iwould subject myself, as would the constituency, to itsjudgment. I believe that the constituency should begiven a chance to make its case to the BoundaryCommission and I commend this amendment to theHouse.

Lord Touhig: Before my noble friend sits down, Ihope that he will let me point this out. If Brecon andRadnor were to be extended north, it would go intoMontgomeryshire. If it went west, it would go intoCeredigion. The electoral populations of these threeparliamentary seats put together would only be enoughfor about two parliamentary seats under the criteriathat the Government propose, so there would be twoparliamentary seats from the heads of the valleys insouth Wales to Wrexham in north Wales and westfrom the English-Welsh border to Cardigan Bay.

Lord Lipsey: My noble friend is entirely right and, ifI had dared to pronounce the words that he has justpronounced, I would have made precisely the samepoints. The knock-on effect from changing thisconstituency would be absolutely extreme. It is anexample, incidentally, on which the whole House mightlike to reflect, of the way in which one change leads toanother change and eventually to a complete, wholesaleredrawing of the constituency map, to whoseconsequences, it seems to me, the Government havegiven not one moment’s thought.

Lord Desai: My Lords, I want to speak very brieflyabout the amendment moved by my noble friend.First, the prime number thing is very easy. My noblefriend Lord Harris asked whether 600 is a combinationof prime numbers. It is; it is 2 x 3 x 5 . That is not aserious problem. I said the other day—I think it wason Wednesday—that the Government’s difficulty isthat they have put too stringent a criterion on themselvesfor equalising the size of seats. I am entirely in favourof their objective, but to have spared only two seatsout of 600 shows that they have adopted too stringenta criterion. If they had given themselves a bit of slackby saying 99 per cent, or even 98 per cent, we wouldnot be going through this debate about individualconstituencies which are awkward in terms of thecriterion. If they had set aside 10 or 12 constituencieswhich could be awkward, the rest would fit into theGovernment’s criterion. So rather than go seriatimthrough all these different constituencies, perhaps theMinister could say that yes, they recognise that 598 istoo stringent a criterion, and maybe something like590 or 580 would do. Then all the anomalies could beadjusted and local sentiment satisfied, while theGovernment could still get the bulk of their objectiveof equalising seat sizes. I hope that the Minister willfind that a helpful remark, not a hostile one.

11 pmBaroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I have not

yet spoken in this debate and indeed I hesitate tospeak now, because I am concerned about the length


of time that these debates are taking and their impacton the reputation of the House. However, I live andwork in Wales and am aware of the different culturesin the different areas there. That is why I felt that Iwanted to support the amendment. Indeed, the firstreport from the Welsh Affairs Committee of this Sessionstarts off by saying:

“The Parliamentary Voting and Constituencies Bill will have agreater impact on Wales than any other nation of the UK. Walesis projected to lose ten of its forty parliamentary seats, a reductionof 25 per cent”.

I know that we will be debating other aspects of Waleslater, but I am not sure that I will be able to be in theHouse because I will be at work.

The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, has made an importantpoint. Culturally, the area of Brecon and Radnorshireis quite different from Ceredigion, from the north andfrom the south Wales valleys. In considering whetherto support this amendment, I looked at a map oftravel times across the whole of Powys. The routes forshort distances are inordinately long whichever wayyou go. I thought it was just my poor navigation skillsbut in the rain and the dark, in an area where sat-navsoften do not work and there is no phone signal,getting around that area is extremely difficult.

The other aspect is that the nature and history ofthat community are quite different from the historyand the interests of the area in the valleys furthersouth, of the Welsh-speaking area of Ceredigion andwest Wales, and indeed of the north, which has naturalflows because of the new main road across into Englandin the Merseyside area, as we all know. It makes agreat deal of sense that if we talk about representationof people through their Members of Parliament, wemust consider who it is that these MPs will be representing.

To have representation of that area in Powys requiressomeone who, like the late Lord Livsey, was hugelyrespected, understands the culture of that area, canrepresent it and, realistically, travel around it, anddoes not get distracted by some of the other no lessimportant but completely different problems that affectthe other areas represented by other Members ofParliament. It is for that reason that I commend thisamendment to the House.

Lord Tyler: My Lords, I think that I was under thesame misapprehension as the noble Baroness, LadyFinlay, until I actually heard precisely what the nobleLord, Lord Lipsey, said. I should say that I know theconstituency in question extremely well. My brotherhas lived there for many years, and of course RichardLivsey was one of my closest colleagues; I campaignedfor him, I worked with him and for him both in theother House and in this House, and I was privileged toattend his funeral service, which was one of the mostmoving I have ever attended.

We should be clear, however: this amendment is notproposing that this constituency should be made anexception. It does not add to the list of exceptions.The amendment would change rule 4 for everyconstituency in the country. I do not understand whythe noble Lord, who is usually meticulous in preparingamendments, moved it in totally different terms. Itmay or may not apply to the constituency of Breconand Radnorshire but it certainly introduces a completely

new rule for the whole country. Therefore, if I may sayso, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, should look verycarefully at the amendment. It changes rule 4. I understandthat it may or may not apply to this constituency, butthe noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, is making sure that thereis a completely new set of criteria for everyconstituency—in Scotland, England, Northern Irelandand Wales. It does not provide for an exemption.

Lord Howarth of Newport: I put it to the nobleLord that it is surely sensible, as my noble friendproposes, to develop sensible rules of general application,rather than to proceed by amending the Bill here, thereand elsewhere by adding new clauses to create anomaliesand exceptions to unsatisfactory rules, as we havethem at the moment in the draft Bill. That is why mynoble friend’s amendment is very sensible.

Lord Tyler: It does not do that; it provides completelynew criteria, which would presumably change overtime. That is not clear from the amendment. Theamendment is defective, even in the terms in which thenoble Lord, Lord Lipsey, has proposed it.

Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, this amendmentis not confined to Brecon and Radnorshire, as I accept.It removes a colossal and monstrous injustice as far asthe whole concept of a constituency is concerned.What is a constituency? What should a constituencybe? I suggest that it should be, first and foremost, acommunity of interest that is acceptable in relation tothe division of the United Kingdom into variousparliamentary constituencies. Sometimes this will meanthat one has to draw rather artificial lines on a map. Inmany cases, it will mean that one must respect ancientcommunities that have been there for a very long time.If you can superimpose your model on to those ancientcommunities, you should do so. That is whatparliamentary representation is about.

In relation to Brecon and Radnorshire, it is one ofthe clear absurdities of a situation where one looks atthe whole question of representation through the wrongend of the telescope. This piece of legislation says thatyou should look at representation from the viewpointof the Member of Parliament and the number ofconstituents that he has. No, my Lords: you shouldlook at it from the other end of the telescope—fromthe end of the ordinary constituent, who asks himself,“How accessible is my Member of Parliament tome?”. If you ask that question, you are likely to get amore reasonable and just result.

The whole question of how Wales is to be dealtwith in this situation will, perhaps, have to wait foranother day or two as far as this debate is concerned,but I lay down a marker. Do you think it right thatWales should lose 25 per cent of its seats, when theUnited Kingdom, by reduction from 650 to 600 seats,loses 7.7 per cent? Wales is not a region; it is a nationalcommunity. We shall come back to that question againand again. I repeat: the whole issue, essentially, islooked at not from the viewpoint of the Member ofParliament vis-à-vis his constituents, but from theviewpoint of the individual constituent vis-à-vis theMember of Parliament.


Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town: I took my title asbeing “of Kentish Town” but it could easily have been“of Ystradgynlais”. However, I felt that spending therest of life explaining how to spell that would be evenharder than it is for my noble friends to learn how topronounce Scottish names. However, I come not justfrom Ystradgynlais but from Brecon Road inYstradgynlais. It is from that point of view that I speaktoday. This is part of an ongoing concern. I spoke onSecond Reading of the memories, which I was taughtabout as a child, of people in the Empire dividing upin pencil on a flat map boundaries that were going tohave enormous implications for the local community.Part of this debate is undoubtedly about that, and ageographical area like Brecon and Radnor is a goodexample of the furthest extent to which you can describea community in any sense of that.

The particular interest in a sense follows beautifullyfrom the last speech, because in Wales, looking at thisvery much from the point of view of the people wholive there rather than from the point of view of theperson who represents them, we have lower car usethan in other parts of the Kingdom. Indeed, car useamong women in Wales is much lower. The idea ofbeing able to travel to meet your Member of Parliamentis important. It is not simply a question of the Memberof Parliament going to meet the constituents; theconstituents want to travel either separately or as agroup to meet their Member of Parliament.

Ystradgynlais, for example, very much has its ownculture, its own feeling and its own identity. We haveour own male voice choir, our own banks, solicitors’firms, our Co-op, post office, citizen’s advice, library,our miners’ welfare and our own cottage hospital.There is an identity there. People share a commonalityof concerns as well as of experience. Indeed, althoughunusually for my family I am not a Welsh speaker,there is a bit of our own Welsh there as well, which willnot be recognised everywhere. I am sorry that theReading Clerk has left; he is a great expert on this.Certainly when I lived in Anglesey for a time, mygrandmother’s Welsh was not even understood upthere. We, of course, reckoned that our Welsh was thebest.

The issue in Wales is not simply of a communitythat feels its identity but of travel. My noble friendLord Lipsey described very well the issue of driving,but imagine being a woman with no access to a carand therefore travelling by bus and trying to see herMember of Parliament. It is almost impossible to do. Ihave a great fear that boundaries are being drawn fornumerical reasons rather than from understanding acommunity—particularly in the valleys, although itwill be the same with water, and there will be others, asI argued for the City of London—and that ignore arecognisable community in which one can travel withina reasonable time and can have that joint representation.If we draw boundaries that ignore geographical size,we will not let down the Member of Parliament,because they will rise to the challenge; we will let downthe constituents.

Brecon and Radnor only just works now. It may beat the limit of what you could call a community. Itdoes cope, but if it were any larger it would be impossibleand very sad for the people who live there.

11.15 pm

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I rise toanswer for the Opposition, and noble Lords will knowthat this is my first venture into this Bill. We have hada very thoughtful debate, and I hope that the nobleLord, Lord McNally, will not think that the interventionshave in any way been cynical or lacking in appreciationfor the political niceties. It is of course my noble friendLord Lipsey who has sallied forth to save what hasbeen quintessentially a Liberal Democrat seat now forsome time.

We have had some powerful arguments. The mostimportant thing that has come out is the need forflexibility: a more flexible approach than the rigiditywhich the Bill demands. We heard some powerfuldescriptions from my noble friends Lord Lipsey, LordTouhig and Lady Hayter, the noble Baroness, LadyFinlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan,about the nature and culture of the area with which weare dealing.

My noble friend’s amendment stipulates that noconstituency shall have an area greater than that ofthe present parliamentary constituency of Brecon andRadnor. I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Tyler,says that that surely cannot be. Perhaps I may mentionas gently as I can why I disagree with him. Brecon andRadnor is one example, but an important one. Thecurrent MP, Roger Williams, a notable Liberal Democrat,followed the much loved and much lamented LordLivsey, who represented that constituency so well. It isimportant to recognise that they represented Englandand Wales’ largest constituency. For those who livethere, as has been clearly outlined, there are realdifficulties in seeing their constituency MP because ofthe distance. It is also the most rural constituency inWales and the 30th most sparsely populated in thewhole of the United Kingdom. I am reliably informedthat it would apparently be possible to fit Wales’smallest constituency, which by geographical area isCardiff Central, into Brecon and Radnor 176 timesover. A noble Lord said from a sedentary position,“And the buses”.

Transport is a very big issue in Brecon and Radnor,and traversing its area can be extremely difficult andlead to expensive fuel bills. My noble friend LordLipsey said that the size of the constituency is 3,014 squarekilometres. I have in my brief 3,007. I am sure thatnoble Lords who come from Wales will tell us who iscorrect. However, it is a large constituency with manydifficulties. For this reason we believe that the geographicalfeatures that are particular to Brecon and Radnorshould be considered by the Boundary Commissionfor Wales when drawing up the constituency boundaries.However, this is not necessarily best achieved by simplyimposing a size quota.

Democratic Audit recommends that some smallleeway might be allowed for the construction ofconstituencies in the Welsh valleys. We on this side ofthe House very much support that, although I absolutelyunderstand what the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgansaid—we will talk about Wales in greater detail in duecourse. This debate has been short and to the point.Crucially, we argue that a more flexible approach tothe new rules for boundary redesign in general would


enable such consideration. I hope that the Minister,when he answers, will be kind enough to say that hewill take back the salient points that have been madein this debate and consider very seriously indeed whetherthe context in which they are put will enable him toallow the provisions to be a little more flexible thanthey have appeared to be to date to Members of thisHouse.

Lord McNally: My Lords, the first thing I wouldsay about this debate is that it emphasises once againthat not only the inner city seats have particular problems.Those on the Benches opposite tack from one side toanother to suit whatever special argument they seemto be putting. I remember last week that we were urgedto make all kinds of special arrangements for the innercity seats, because of the heavy case load, the largenumber of unregistered constituents and the like. Nowwe hear of the problems of constituencies such asBrecon and Radnor. I come back to a point I havemade before; every Member of Parliament has particularissues and problems that affect their workload but, inthe main, it evens out. It is not useful to keep makingspecial pleadings that simply reflect the diversity ofour country and the responsibilities that face eachMember of Parliament.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: Does the noble Lord—

Lord McNally: Every time I reply to a debate, thenoble Lord, Lord Foulkes, finds something on whichto ask a question. I can only answer the debate—andthis time it is about Wales. Go on then; we might aswell keep to the rules.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: The noble and learnedLord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, did not worryabout a flurry of interventions from behind him theother day, so I am sure the noble Lord, Lord McNally,will be able to deal with one or two from the Opposition.

The noble Lord rightly points out that we arguethat Members of Parliament in inner cities have largeworkloads and that in rural areas they have particularresponsibilities, extra work and extra difficulties. Ifyou put those together, is that not an argument for notreducing the numbers from 650?

Lord McNally: No, it is an argument for having fairvotes in fairly drawn constituencies. One or two Membersconcede that the principle of votes of equal weight isimportant—and that is what keeps coming up againstthe Opposition’s objections. The flexibility that isconsistently being urged upon us by the Oppositionwould, if we accepted every one of their ideas, fatallyundermine the concept of votes of equal weight, andthey know that. I am willing to leave it to the independentBoundary Commission to work out some of the issuesthat have been raised. As I have pointed out before,there are matters within the guidance that would giveit certain flexibility, but not to throw the baby out withthe bathwater—and the baby in this case is votes ofequal weight.

Lord Elystan-Morgan: Every Member of the Housewould agree that the touchstone here is the concept ofequality. However, equality can mean an arithmeticalexactitude when looked at objectively from the viewpoint

of the Member of Parliament towards his constituency,but there is another concept of equality from theviewpoint of the ordinary elector—in other words,“Do I have an equal access to my Member of Parliamentcompared with a person in an urban constituency?”.That must be considered.

Lord McNally: Of course one cannot argue thatsomeone who lives in north Kensington has moredifficulty than someone living in a rural constituency.However, this applies in many constituencies. Althoughit is quite right that the question of travel should bebrought up, I know well that Members of all partieswho have represented large constituencies have showntremendous diligence in making sure that they getaround their constituencies and are accessible for surgeriesand so on—and, of course, galloping down the linetowards us is a whole range of new technologies thatare transforming the relationship between Membersand their constituents. However, I hear what has beensaid.

Down the Corridor, Members have regular contactand discussions online with constituents, which is ahealthy development in our democracy. As my noblefriend Lord Tyler pointed out, the amendment wouldadjust the maximum geographical size of any constituencyto the size of Brecon and Radnor. Under the Bill themaximum area set is, as it happens, that of Ross, Skyeand Lochaber. If the amendment were carried, morethan 10 constituencies would be out of line with theUK electoral quota and that would result in too manyexceptions to the principle of fairness through equallyweighted votes across the country. The amendmentdeparts from the fundamental principle of the Billthat a vote, wherever it is cast in the UK, should havebroadly equal weight. For that reason I ask the nobleLord to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Does the Ministeraccept that rule 5 is subject to rule 2 and that rule 2provides the primacy? When it comes to flexibility andinterpretation from the commission, does the nobleLord accept that that would be very limited indeed?The whole point of the amendments is to give thecommission the sort of real flexibility that it needs tomeet some of the difficult issues with which we arenow dealing. I invite the noble Lord to look again atrule 2 because it seems to set the primary course whichthe commission would have to follow. Rule 5(3) statesthat this rule has effect subject to rule 2.

Lord McNally: I do not resile from that. The Billaims to provide fair votes—votes of equal weight infairly drawn constituencies. I am not giving way again.The flexibility that the Opposition seek is the flexibilityto undermine the Bill and we are not conceding.

Lord Campbell-Savours: I have a question for thenoble Lord. The Explanatory Notes state:

“The factors are similar to the existing ones. They may considerspecial geographical considerations, such as the size, shape andaccessibility of a constituency”.

What do the words “accessibility of a constituency”mean to the noble Lord?


Lord McNally: They mean exactly what they say.They are guidance to the Electoral Commission inmaking its judgments. These are all matters of judgment.

Lord Lipsey: My Lords, I thank the Minister for hisreply. A large number of government supporters are inthe Chamber tonight and I am delighted to see them.They may have come in having heard that the Oppositionwere conducting a filibuster and behaving poorly,contrary to the rules of this House, and that we werenot subjecting the Bill to scrutiny. They may even havefelt that Ministers were being incredibly patient intreating a succession of filibustering speeches as thoughthey should be answered seriously, as the noble andlearned Lord, Lord Wallace, has done throughout thedebate.

The noble Lord, Lord McNally, has been a friendof mine almost as long as he has been a friend of thenoble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and it gives me no pleasureto say what I am going to say. The perfunctory and,at the end of his speech, bad-tempered response ofthe Minister gives the lie to what has been said. Wehave had an admirable debate on what I agree is onlyone constituency, but for the people in that constituencyit is their constituency and for the people of theneighbouring constituencies those constituencies aretheirs and the electoral geography of Wales is itselectors’ geography.

We have heard very moving speeches, which wereparticularly noted as they came from a quarter whichhad no reason to filibuster for a single second, as thenoble Baroness, Lady Finlay, made clear. The nobleBaroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, LordElystan-Morgan, made admirable cases in favour ofthis amendment. Therefore, I find the way that it wastreated—I use this word to avoid any asperity ofspeech—disappointing.

I wish to deal, first, with the intervention of thenoble Lord, Lord Tyler, who was half right. He is rightthat the amendment has a wider application thanBrecon and Radnor. He may not have heard me saythat Brecon and Radnor is the largest constituency inEngland and Wales. I am afraid that I am not qualifiedto talk about Northern Ireland but I suspect that mostof the 10 constituencies that would be affected by thisamendment are in Scotland. This matter can be dealtwith in one of two ways. You can say that the case Imake for Brecon and Radnor embraces all seats wherethere is a very dispersed population—in earlier debateswe heard eloquent pleas on behalf of other Scottishseats—and that therefore the exemption should indeedapply to all Scottish seats, or you can say that Scotlandhas a very dispersed population and cannot have morethan a certain representation, particularly in the lightof devolution, and that therefore an exception shouldbe made for Scotland. There is something to be saidfor either of those approaches but that does not knockdown the amendment that I have proposed, nor does itinfluence its effect.

11.30 pm

Lord Tyler: Does the noble Lord accept that, if theamendment were added to the Bill, it would not evenpreserve the integrity of the present seat of Brecon

and Radnor? All it would do is apply a new rule, underrule 4, to every part of the United Kingdom. However,you could still find the boundary changes in mid-Walesall too damaging to the communities to which othernoble Lords have referred, because the amendmentonly talks about a size issue; it does not talk about theexisting constituency of Brecon and Radnor. If I maysay so, I think that the noble Lord has misled theCommittee—I would not normally say that becausehe is usually absolutely meticulous—by saying that theamendment would in some way defend the presentintegrity of the seat; it would not.

Lord Lipsey: My Lords, I was going to go on torefer to the noble Lord and I will do so in a minute butthat is yet another nitpicking point. It is up to theBoundary Commission to decide whether to preserveBrecon and Radnor. I said that in my speech. I did notmislead the Committee on that point. The chances ofthe Boundary Commission deciding to preserve Breconand Radnor and then saying, “Perhaps we’ll have alittle bit of that in or take a little bit of that away” is soabsurd a notion as to cast doubt on what could begoing on in the mind of the person who did it. Thenoble Lord, Lord Tyler, does indeed have a closerelationship with the constituency of Brecon and Radnor.The people of Brecon and Radnor were very pleasedto see him make the long journey to attend LordLivsey’s funeral service and it was good to see himthere. Frankly, I am surprised that he has not fallen inlove with it and that he wants to see it dismembered bythis Government.

As I said, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, did notseek to address the specific questions that I raised butjust made some general points, the main one of whichwas wholly spurious. It is believed—we have heard thisfrom other Ministers as well—that this Bill createsvotes of equal weight. It is possible to have a system inwhich all votes have equal weight. It is called PR andmost of us are against it. However, in our system allvotes do not have equal weight. The only votes thatdetermine the result of a British general election arethose cast in marginal seats, so the great majority ofvoters cannot hope to have any impact on the eventualresult. That is why politicians of all parties pay particularcourt to the middle England voters, as they used to becalled—sometimes it is Worcester man or Essex womanor whatever. Theirs are the only votes that countbecause they are in marginal constituencies. In usingthat argument, I fear that the Minister merely illustratesthe vacuity of the Government’s general case, and it isonly a general case that he has put up against theparticular factors, which I believe to be of some force.

We have learnt quite a bit from this debate—I hopethat the Government’s supporters have learnt somethingfrom it—which is that the Bill needs to be looked at indetail and improved to reflect the realities of theelectoral geography of our country, not theoreticalconcepts dreamed up by backroom boys who have noexperience of the geographical realities of the greatcountry in which we live. I beg leave to withdraw theamendment.

Amendment 72 withdrawn

Amendment 72A not moved.


Amendment 73

Moved by Lord Kennedy of Southwark

73: Clause 11, page 10, line 7, leave out from “Commission” toend of line 8 and insert “should take into account”

Lord Kennedy of Southwark: My Lords, I am askingthe Committee to agree to delete the words,“may take into account if, and to such extent as they think fit”,

and insert “should take into account”. Some nobleLords may think that that is just an emphasis ofwords; it is much more than that. Changing “may” to“should” shows our intent. We want that to happen; itis important; I think that it must happen. It is vitalthat the Boundary Commission takes into accountspecial geographical considerations, local governmentboundaries and local ties that would be broken bychanges in constituencies and the inconveniences attendanton such changes. If the Boundary Commission doesnot do that, frankly, what is the point of the BoundaryCommission? Surely all noble Lords would want theBoundary Commission to take these factors into account,not leave the provision at “may”.

I am hopeful, as are many other noble Lords, thatthere may be some movement on the Government sideto take in the concerns expressed in this House. I hopethat we will not be disappointed later this week. This isthis House doing its job, because there is no one elseleft to provide the detailed scrutiny. Is it not right thatthe Boundary Commission should take it into accountthat having a constituency on both sides of the Merseyor on both sides of the Thames may not be the bestdrawn constituency? Is it not right that the BoundaryCommission should take into account the realities ofrural communities in Lincolnshire and the relationshipbetween those communities? Is it not right that theBoundary Commission should take it into accountthat Nottingham City is a unitary authority? It hasthree Members of Parliament representing seats containedwholly within its boundaries, and there are considerabledifferences between the city and the rest of the county.Is it not right that the Boundary Commission shouldlook at the historic county of Rutland and decide thatit is better that it stays with Melton to form oneparliamentary seat, rather than being chopped up andthrown to the winds? Is it not right that the BoundaryCommission should take account of ward boundaries,as they are the building blocks of our constituencies?Is it not right that the Boundary Commission shouldtake into account the uniqueness of Corby?

As I draw my remarks to a close, I look forward tothe debate and the Minister’s response.

Lord Davies of Stamford: We touched on this matterbefore, but it seems to me important to make the pointquite clearly that there seems to me to be all thedifference in the world between “may take into account”and “should take into account”. I ask noble Lords toput themselves in the position of members of theBoundary Commission—or members of any commissioncharged by Parliament to undertake an importanttask. If you have a criterion that says that you “may”do something, that is not a positive criterion; that isnot guidance that this is a value on which Parliament

sets some store; that is not a message from the peoplevia Parliament to respect certain considerations or totake them into account. It is not a positive criterion atall—it is the absence of a negative criterion. Thephrase “may take into account” means that, if you areminded to do so, if you really want to do so, we do notprevent you from doing so. We do not deny you theopportunity of doing so. However, there is no positivesuggestion whatever that these considerations shouldbe taken into account. Can that seriously be theGovernment’s intention? Is it seriously the intentionof anyone in this Committee that some positive valueshould not be ascribed to considerations such as localgovernment boundaries, for example, or, going backto our former debates, a sense of local community andso on? Surely the whole tone of our debates has beenthat these are genuine values, and the question is: whatsort of trade-off should we make between theseconsiderations and the desiderata, which are genuine,as I have always admitted, in terms of uniformity ofnumbers? I give way to my noble friend.

Lord Howarth of Newport: When the Bill says “maytake into account”, is it not either disingenuous orsimply confused? In reality, the 5 per cent limit intolerance around 76,000 voters means that in practicalterms it will be impossible for the Boundary Commissionto take these other factors of geography and localgovernment alignments and so forth into account,should it wish to do so. It can perhaps take them intoaccount but there is nothing it can do about them.

Lord Davies of Stamford: My noble friend makes avery important point. It is a separate point but it isobviously clearly related. If you allow someone to dosomething or if you provide a purely permissivecriterion—what I would call the lack of a prohibition;that is all it is—the question is whether they will havethe slightest motivation in the first place to use thatpermissive ability that they have been granted. As mynoble friend says, there is no suggestion at all in theBill that these matters should be given any considerationor value whatever.

It is perfectly true that, until now, historically theBoundary Commission has in practice tried to respectlocal government boundaries and county boundariesin almost all cases, although I gather from our earlierdebate this evening that there may be some exceptionsin respect of ward boundaries, for example. Nevertheless,we are now giving the Boundary Commission newinstructions which do not set any explicit value onthese things at all. The Bill says, almost reluctantly,“Well, you can take account of these things if youreally insist on doing so”. However, as my noble friendsaid, we then provide other constraints—particularlythat of the 5 per cent rule and the requirement toreduce the number of MPs by 50 to 600, which weknow will produce a very large number of boundarychanges. In practice, that will make it certain that,even if the Boundary Commission is minded to takeadvantage of its ability under the Bill to considermatters of local boundaries, it will not be able to doso. The commission is receiving no indication whateverfrom Parliament in the Bill as it currently stands that itmight be desirable to retain the tradition which it haslong maintained of respecting these boundaries. Therefore,


[LORD DAVIES OF STAMFORD]I think that there is all the difference in the worldbetween “may” and “should”, and I congratulate mynoble friend on bringing this dilemma to the fore. It issomething that we really do need to discuss.

We have heard time and again from the Governmentand elsewhere on the government side that, otherthings being equal, they believe it is inherently desirablethat local boundaries are respected. Can they not, ifthey wish to do so, come up with different wordingwhich at least reflects the value that theyacknowledge we should be attributing to theseconsiderations? Can they not send a signal to theBoundary Commission which says in effect, “If youpossibly could, we would be delighted if you were totake account of local boundaries”? Can we not sendsome signal or instruction to the Boundary Commissionsaying, “For generations”—ever since 1949, I believe—“you’ve been right to take account of these considerations.Please don’t drop that now. We aren’t trying to tell youthat that was wrong. We aren’t trying to tell you thatyou should go back on that tradition or those valuesand ignore them. We’re not just giving you a reluctantpermission if you really insist on taking account ofthese things; we would like you to do so if you cansomehow manage it”.

That surely is the sense of the message that Parliamentwants to send to the Boundary Commission—thesense of the message that has been articulated indifferent ways from all parts of House, including fromthe noble Lord, Lord Tyler, who has taken an importantpart in these debates. Surely the Government cannotreally, on reflection, be entirely satisfied with this verynegative formulation of “may”. I hope they can acceptthe proposal of my noble friend that the text should bechanged to “should”. If not, can they not find somebetter way of encapsulating the message which, I amsure, in good faith, they themselves have been deliveringto us, not just tonight but throughout our deliberationson this Bill?

11.45 pm

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: We are debating not justthe amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Kennedybut, if I understand it correctly, we are dealing with12 amendments—each one of great importance. Perhapsit is worth noting that, if we actually had wanted tofilibuster, we could have degrouped all these amendmentsand taken two hours on each of them. Maybe, sincethere are no Cross-Benchers here, there is no one hereto convince of that, so I will get on to the specifics ofthe two amendments that I have tabled and left in thegrouping.

Amendment 74B, which I particularly want theMinister to take note of, relates to the use of wardboundaries. My recollection was that, in reply to aprevious debate, the Minister—the noble Lord, LordMcNally—confirmed that he saw ward boundaries asthe building blocks for all of the boundaries that wewere going to look at, whether it was 600 or 650,whether they were preserved or whatever. We on thisside were all encouraged by that. If he wants anamendment to encapsulate that very simply, and toaccept an amendment—which would be really welcome

on this side—Amendment 74B is exactly the one hecould accept. I do not think there is anything deficientin it; it is exactly the right thing.

I remind my noble friends in particular that when Ifirst stood for election in 1970, both for the UnitedKingdom Parliament and for the City of EdinburghCouncil—I got elected to that council in that year butnot to the Westminster Parliament—at that time inScotland, there were effectively two layers of government:local government, elected by first past the post, andthe United Kingdom Government at Westminster,elected by first past the post. I am sure my noble friendLord McAvoy remembers those halcyon days only toowell. In 2011, we now have councils and larger wardselected by the single transferable vote; we have theScottish Parliament, elected by the additional membersystem; we have Westminster, still elected, thankfully,by first past the post, and the European Parliament,elected by a strange system of proportional representation.

I am not blaming the Government or their predecessorfor all of these—

Lord Davies of Stamford: I am grateful to my noblefriend for giving way. I have been fascinated by thisdescription, which is very clear and concise, of theextraordinarily complicated voting system there is inScotland. What proportion of his former constituentsdoes he think would be capable of setting out asclearly as he has just done the clear categories involvedin voting for these different levels of government andthe mechanisms employed in each case?

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: Actually, quite a lot ofthem, because we still have a very good educationsystem in Scotland, at a very high level. We haveprovided explorers, inventors, and leaders, not just forthe United Kingdom but for the Commonwealth andaround the world. The first Labour Prime Ministeranywhere was in Australia and he was a Scotsman—indeed, he was an Ayrshire man, even better.

Nevertheless, the noble Lord’s point is absolutelyright. It is a very complicated system, not just for theScottish voter, who can understand it, but for theadministration. That is why anything that can be doneby the Government to simplify the arrangements insteadof making them even more complicated would begood. As I was saying in mitigation, I do not blameConservative or Tory-led coalition Governments forbringing in all these schemes. Far from it—LabourGovernments brought them in, and I think it isunfortunate that we have ended up with such a complicatedsystem. That is why I argue the case for Amendment 74B.I hope that some of my colleagues will elaborate onthat at a later stage.

The other amendment that I want to talk to at alittle greater length is Amendment 74A. I think that,with no disrespect to my other amendments, it is oneof the most important, if not the most important,amendments that I have tabled. As I mentioned on anearlier amendment, page 10 sets out that a BoundaryCommission may—one of the amendments suggested“must” should replace “may”—“take into account, if and to such an extent as they think fit …special geographical considerations, including in particular thesize, shape and accessibility of a constituency”.


My amendment is probably not the most elegant, but Ithink it is a key amendment. It adds “the wealth of aconstituency”. That is probably not the best word touse. It could have been “deprivation” or “poverty” incontrast to wealth. The Minister, with all his advisers,will correct me if I am wrong, but my recollection isthat way back in the early 1970s when the BoundaryCommissions were looking at boundary reviews, asimilar factor was included for their consideration. Iseem to remember going to boundary hearings—whichwe still have, unless this Bill becomes an Act—and aswell as arguing the physical boundaries, arguing thecase for the relative poverty and deprivation in anarea. I think that should be included.

The noble Lord, Lord McNally, who generouslygave way to me for an intervention in his reply on theprevious debate, was arguing very convincingly aconclusion that he did not come to. It was that lots ofconstituencies have particular problems. In rural Scotland,the problem is sparsity. It is an astonishing fact thatScotland represents one-third of the land area of theUnited Kingdom and the highlands of Scotland representone-fifth. That is a very strong argument for what mynoble friend Lord Stevenson and others were arguingearlier on about the importance of sparsity.

Equally, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said thatothers from inner-city areas were arguing the particularproblems of inner cities and deprivation. That is absolutelytrue. This side has been arguing that. They are notconflicting arguments, they are complementary, andthey are arguments for not reducing the total numberof constituencies. We have been deploying them becausesome areas have inexplicably been taken out to bemade special cases, whether Orkney and Shetland orthe figures that we discussed earlier that give specialstatus to Ross, Skye and Lochaber. I think we needspecifically to include something in relation to deprivation.

Scottish Government findings have shown that in2008-09, 34 per cent of individuals in deprived areaswere in relative poverty, before housing costs, but inthe rest of Scotland, that figure was 14 per cent, whichis a huge difference. That means extra problems ofbenefits and housing that Members of Parliamenthave to deal with. I know when I was a Member ofParliament, housing and benefits were the top issuesthat I had to deal with. That was in a relativelydeprived former mining area.

Lord McAvoy: My noble friend makes a fascinatingpoint about the sparseness of population in the ruralconstituencies in Scotland. Is he aware that the Act ofUnion in 1707 gave Scotland 45 seats in the new558-seat Parliament and 16 elected Peers in yourLordships’ House? Of those 45 seats in the House ofCommons, 30 represented the 33 Scottish counties.Twenty-seven counties were given a single seat andthree pairs of smaller counties alternated with oneanother in electing a Member. This reflected the situationthat the counties had in the Scottish Parliament by1707, although in 1690—not a particularly good yearin many ways—a redistribution Act was passed thatincreased the number of commissioners returning tothe Scottish Parliament. Even in those days, the systemwas selective and took into account all sorts ofcircumstances.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My noble friend is right.I could not have put it better myself. He also remindsme that our noble friend Lord Sewel made a pertinentintervention earlier, to which neither the noble Lord,Lord Forsyth, or the Minister replied, about the Actof Union. Something that we might look at over thecoming days is whether the provisions of the Act ofUnion are being adhered to or whether they are beingbroken by this Bill. That is something that we had notreally thought of until the noble Lord, Lord Sewel,raised it, but there may be some provisions in the Actof Union giving particular guarantees to Scotlandthat are not contained in this Bill.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation in a recent reportsaid that since the 1980s wealthier people have movedto the suburbs while the poor remain in inner cities,again strengthening the case for some account beingtaken of the wealth of the constituency.

Lord Kinnock: In an earlier exchange, the nobleLord, Lord McNally, was somewhat scornful ofarguments made from this side of the House thatadditional workloads had to be borne by Members ofParliament representing deprived areas, such as inner-cityareas or poor rural areas. Does my noble friend thinkthat in those circumstances, with a reduced number ofMembers in the House of Commons, the people ofwhom he speaks, who have relatively low incomes andwho live in relatively deprived circumstances, wouldtake up the suggestion offered by the Minister toresort to electronic means of contacting their Memberof Parliament? What does my noble friend from hisextensive experience think would be the incidence ofresort to electronic means of communicating withMembers of Parliament satisfactorily undertaken bypeople from deprived backgrounds, particularly theelderly?

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My noble friend is right.It is the highly articulate middle-class people who haveaccess to a range of electronic equipment and can useit. As my noble friend knows, until the end of March Iam an elected Member of the Scottish Parliament. Iget a lot of e-mails from constituents, but they arealmost invariably highly articulate middle-classconstituents, particularly younger and middle-agedpeople. The older, less well off do not have the sameaccess to this kind of equipment.

MidnightLord Howarth of Newport: Is it not unfortunately

true that people who are significantly less well off thanthose in the affluent constituencies that my noblefriend was just talking of will be even less likely to beable to afford to resort to electronic means ofcommunication given the cuts in benefit that the coalitionis planning? At least, until now, they might have hadthe opportunity to go to the public library to find acomputer to communicate with my noble friend’s successoras Member of Parliament, but that, too, will be lesslikely to be available for them as a result of the cuts topublic library provision.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My noble friend is againright. I sat through about half of the debate onhousing benefit and was really impressed by the speechesfrom all sides, particularly from the Liberal Democrats—


[LORD FOULKES OF CUMNOCK]including my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwoodof Kirkhope—all arguing against the cuts in housingbenefit. The cuts will certainly make it more difficultfor poor people to access their elected representatives.As my noble friend said, cuts to library services willhave the same effect.

To illustrate the increasing demand in MPs’casework,I quote a couple of examples that I hope, since they donot come particularly from Labour, might convinceMembers opposite. According to Wilks-Heeg andClayton, authors of Whose Town is it Anyway? TheState of Local Democracy in Two Northern Towns,published in 2006 by the Joseph Rowntree CharitableTrust, an MP in the 1950s or 1960s, which is evenbefore I was a Member of Parliament and probablyeven before my noble friend Lord Kinnock was—

Lord Kinnock: Just.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: At that time, the reportsays, an MP,“might have required less than a few hours each week to respondto the handful of letters she received from constituents. Bycontrast, a newly-elected MP told a Hansard Society meeting at aparty conference in Autumn 2010 that she had received over20,000 emails to her parliamentary address between May andSeptember 2010”.That indicates the growing volume of work. An eloquentdescription of the crushing casework demand of aninner London MP was written by Greg Hands, thenConservative MP for Hammersmith and Fulham, inDecember 2007. He said:

“Incredibly, I have at present between 700 and 800 unresolvedimmigration cases—that’s out of a total constituency of just over80,000 electors”.If a third of an inner London MP’s casework isimmigration-based, an inner-city MP is likely to bedoing half as much other casework as an MP withvery few such cases, as I had in a rural area inScotland. That is not satisfactory in terms of equalityof representation. This points to the sense of equalityof population rather than registered electorate beingthe key criterion, as an MP represents the wholeconstituency. That is covered in an amendment towhich I shall come later this morning.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My noble friend has spokenabout wealth in constituencies and has just reflectedon the question of immigrants in constituencies aswell. Is he aware of the phenomenon that alwaysstruck me so forcefully as a former MP for Oldham,which had a very significant Asian community, whichwas that the figures and statistics for the earningpower of the constituency, which was very poor, couldnot take into account the fact that a significant numberof people, despite earning very limited amounts ofmoney, were in the practice of sending a considerablepercentage of their earnings back home to poorerrelatives elsewhere? For me, it brought to mind somethingnot dissimilar to the old-fashioned tithe, when 10 percent of one’s income went to the church. That did notcount as revenue or income that the state could tacklebecause it was secreted for the church. A great deal ofthe few resources that individuals in the immigrantcommunity in the United Kingdom command isexpatriated.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My noble friend is absolutelyright. I found it starkly revealing to sit next to colleaguesin the House of Commons who represented constituenciesin Bradford or Birmingham, where more than half thepeople whom they represented were from immigrantfamilies. They may not have been immediateimmigrants—they might have been second or thirdgeneration—but there were a huge number of them. Itwas a real revelation to me to find out about the hugeworkload arising from that. Repatriation of some ofthe money that they raised was one way in which theirspending income was reduced. My noble friend LadyLiddell was in the same situation as me, representing aformer mining constituency. We had a huge case loadof former miners, after the previous ConservativeGovernment under Mrs Thatcher forced the closure ofthe mines in Scotland and elsewhere. They were gettingcompensation for pneumoconiosis, silicosis and vibrationwhite finger. I had not dozens but hundreds andhundreds of people coming to see me and each ofthem had a huge problem to raise. So we learnt thatfrom each other.

Lord Howarth of Newport: My noble friend drawsattention to the large volume of casework that falls tobe carried out by Members of Parliament representing,for example, former mining constituencies orconstituencies with a high proportion of immigrantsresident in them. In doing so, does he not highlight thefancifulness of the Government’s contention that theywill save £12 million by reducing the size of the Houseof Commons from 650 to 600? I understand that that£12 million is compounded of £4 million for MPs’salaries and £8 million for their office costs. In light ofthe factors that my noble friend has just mentioned,they are plainly not going to save the office costscomponent of that. In fact, those costs would have torise for individual Members of Parliament to enablethem to carry out their duties. Would not it thereforebe better to be done with it and stay with at least theexisting number of Members of Parliament?

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: I absolutely agree. Themore that we go through this Bill, paragraph by paragraph,the more it unravels—and the more it becomes clearthat the original contention that we should reduce thenumber from 650 to 600 is absolutely crazy. The initialpremise forces the Government into all the other crazythings in the Bill, such as preserved constituencies andthe figure of 13,000 square kilometres.

Viscount Eccles: Does the noble Lord not think thathe is stretching the meaning of the word “scrutiny”rather wide? In that connection, I strongly recommendto the party opposite that it should not try to form ateam for “Just a Minute”, because it would be ruledout of order in no time at all both for repetition andfor deviation.

Lord Kinnock: There are no teams in “Just a Minute”.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: Has the noble Viscountseen the groupings list for today? Is he aware that inthis group there are 12 amendments, all dealing withmatters of great importance? I am talking to two ofthem—one in relation to the ward, which I dealt with


in about five minutes, and a very important one aboutpoverty. I know that the noble Viscount perhaps doesnot understand poverty—

Viscount Eccles: None of the amendments in thegroup refers to the reduction from 650 to 600. Therecommendation in the 1986 Act, which rules today,was 613. Sometimes, if I may say so, the word “scrutiny”is being murdered.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: Sometimes, also, actionshave consequences that are unseen and unpredicted. Itis only when we examine collectively the provisionsthat these unintended consequences become obvious.It is our duty and responsibility to point them out. Butbefore the noble Viscount intervened, I was coming tothe end of what I was saying.

Lord Howarth of Newport: Might the implication ofthe intervention by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles,really be that we have not tabled enough amendmentsto enable us to scrutinise every aspect of the Bill pointby point? Indeed, I suggest to my noble friend that heis being remarkably constrained. For example, weshould consider the fact that in the Legislative Assemblyof Ontario in 1997 the opposition parties tabled11,500 amendments to a Bill intended by the ProgressiveConservative Government in Ontario to amalgamatemetropolitan Toronto with the city of Toronto. Doesthat not make my noble friends on this side of theHouse appear to have been remarkably self-disciplinedand restrained in their tabling of amendments?

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: I certainly agree. I feelalmost inadequate in terms of our scrutiny in the lightof what my noble friend has said, but I finish—

Lord Kennedy of Southwark: Does my noble friendalso agree that having no Green Paper, no White Paperand no draft Bill has caused some of the problems thatwe are experiencing now?

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My noble friend is absolutelyright. I would have preferred to have had the opportunityof being on a committee to scrutinise the Bill before itcame before this House. I would have been happy todeal with some of these points during the pre-legislativescrutiny. However, I know that many of my noblefriends will want to come in on one or other of these12 amendments and I certainly do not want personallyto detain the House any longer.

Lord Rennard: My Lords, the statement from thenoble Lord, Lord Foulkes, that he does not wish todetain the Committee any further will perhaps be awelcome relief to the small number of people whomay be watching the parliament channel at the moment.Anybody who is watching or perhaps even reads thisdebate in Hansard tomorrow will clearly see that in thepast 26 minutes we have had yet again an extensiveand irrelevant filibuster in the Committee, rather thanserious scrutiny. I suggest to anyone following thisdebate that, were they to look at the last half-hour ofour debates on Wednesday night—or the early hoursof Thursday morning—which were again led by thenoble Lord, Lord Foulkes, they would see the clearest

possible proof beyond any reasonable doubt for anyMember of the Cross Benches, any Member of thisHouse or any member of the public that these aresimply delaying tactics of a wholly unreasonable nature.Students of political history such as me will havestudied how—

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords—

Lord Rennard: No, my Lords, I am sorry. I am notgoing to give way because we should try to makeprogress. I will say why: there are some significantpoints that we should be looking at in terms of scrutiny.I agree with some of the points that the noble Lord,Lord Foulkes, has made on the ward boundaries. If wewere to look at all 12 amendments in this group, thelast three of them, which are in my name and that ofmy noble friend Lord Tyler, are technical amendmentsto flag up formally to the Boundary Commissionsthe importance of the ward boundaries. UnlikeAmendment 74B in the name of the noble Lord, LordFoulkes, they are rather more correct because theydeal with the issue of the ward boundaries in itsrelevant place within the Bill, rather than in just oneplace.

Unlike other arguments relating to other amendmentswithin this group, it seems to me that the importanceof our amendments is that they are not prescriptive inthat they do not demand that ward boundaries neverbe crossed. However, they say to the BoundaryCommissions that they are an important buildingblock. They should not necessarily always be adheredto but they should be taken into account to somedegree. The origin of these last three amendmentswithin the group was my own puzzlement in lookingat the wording of the Bill, where there is a reference towards in Northern Ireland but none to ward boundariesin England, Scotland or Wales. I thought that it wouldbe helpful if a little clarity were given to the BoundaryCommissioners about the importance of ward boundariesas one of the factors that they should take into account.

As we know from the informal evidence providedby their members, the Boundary Commissions will, inany event, have every intention of looking at wardboundaries, but it would be better if the legislationwere improved, if possible. I hope that the Ministerwill respond by saying that this is something thatmight be considered as an improvement to the legislation.

The language with which we look at issues such asward boundaries or other boundaries is, in my view, ofsome importance to the Boundary Commission processes.There are alternatives within these different amendments,using either “should”, “must” or insofar as they seefit. It seems to me that there is a good reason why theprevious legislation on Boundary Commissions andthis legislation tend to use the phrase “insofar as theysee fit”. You can suggest that boundary commissionerslook at different criteria when they redraw the constituencyboundaries, but it is very hard to rank them in anypriority or say that one carries more weight thananother. The commissioners have to look at competingpriorities. By saying, “in so far as they see fit”, independentand impartial people would be given the power tochoose the relative weight of geographic ties, minimisinginconvenience and such factors, and we would also


[LORD RENNARD]avoid the danger of getting to the end of this processand the boundary commissioners being drawn intopolitical rows and continuous legal challenges. Byusing the phrase, “in so far as they see fit”, we wouldallow the boundary commissioners to exercise theirjudgment while minimising legal snarl-ups thereafter.

Lord Kinnock: I am very grateful to the noble Lordand I have a great deal of sympathy with the case thathe is putting forward. However, will he not join me inrecognising that, before any Boundary Commissiongives consideration to this Bill, let alone the Bill asamended in the way that the noble Lord wants, theyare completely ensnared by the reality that, in all andany circumstances, they must return boundaries forprecisely 600 constituencies, or, more appropriately,598 constituencies because two are protected? Doesthat not remove a great deal of the effective discretionthat should be employed, in the way that he suggests,by independent-minded boundary commissioners takingfull account of precisely the arguments that he ismaking and arguments that have been deployed onboth sides of the Chamber in our debates hitherto?

Lord Rennard: I do not accept that the democraticprinciple is such a constraint. The criteria in the Billgiven to the four Boundary Commissions are remarkablysimilar to the criteria we have had in historic legislationdealing with how the Boundary Commissions work.There is then the issue of the number of seats, but I donot accept that the number of seats will affect toomuch the way in which the boundary commissionerschoose to judge the importance of those competingfactors.

Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan: My Lords—

Lord Rennard: I am sorry but I will not give wayagain on this point. Perhaps I may be allowed to finishthe point that I am responding to from the nobleLord, Lord Kinnock, and again make the point that Ihave had to make when this position has been takenmany, many times in debate on many amendmentsduring the passage of the Bill over the 12 days ofCommittee so far. It seems to me that it is not uncommonin many countries for Parliaments to fix the size ofParliaments, usually through a written constitution.As the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, will know, myparty, and I in particular, think that it is very importantto have a written constitution. I believe that in thiscountry we are moving, in one way and another,towards a written constitution, but it is absolutely notunprecedented nor considered remotely undemocraticin other countries for Parliament to determine thenumber of seats that there should be. In the UnitedStates, for example, it is the constitution that sets outthat there shall be two members of the Senate for eachstate. That appears very early in the principles of theUnited States constitution. Therefore, I do not acceptthat the Boundary Commissions are unduly constrainedin this way.

Lord Soley: My Lords—

Lord Rennard: No, my Lords, I want to makeprogress on my argument and allow us to proceed witha couple of issues of serious scrutiny that I still want

to raise in this group of amendments. The first concernsthe amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes,making the boundary commissioners take into accounttheir perceptions of the socioeconomic base or relativewealth of each constituency. Over the decades in whichmany of us have been involved in Boundary Commissionprocesses, I have not heard it seriously argued byanybody that the boundary commissioners are anythingother than impartial and independent. However, myview is that we should not start asking them to exercisetheir judgment about the relative wealth of differentconstituencies, using different, competing socioeconomicfactors, or to try to use their judgment to suggest that,because certain MPs have a lot of problems of thisnature or fewer problems of that nature, these seatsshould be varied in some way. How could the boundarycommissioners possibly be expected to be seen to beimpartial and independent in their judgment? I suggestthat that is not a serious factor that the boundarycommissioners should have to take into account.

Having seen many submissions to public inquirieson Boundary Commission processes and read many ofthem in the past, I have thought that the criteria whichpeople sometimes think could be applied are not seriousones on which you would expect the commission toimpartially draw the constituencies in the way thatit has.

Finally within this group, I want to comment onAmendment 76, which concerns eliminating referencesto the euro regions with particular regard to the way inwhich the Boundary Commission for England works.That does not seem a sensible way in which to suggestthat the Boundary Commission for England shouldgo about its business. The Bill is not prescriptive insaying that it must follow the boundaries of the euroregions but, if it is to work in a sensible way across thewhole of England, it could not possibly start in, say,Northumberland, go down to the Isles of Scilly andthen go across to Kent. In order to make this effective,we need to retain the language in the Bill suggestingthat the euro regions may be building blocks that thecommissioners use, saying that they will want to worksimultaneously on the south-east, the south-west andthe north-east, and have a proper process of scrutinythat could be effective with online representations.They will need to work simultaneously on the differentregions rather than across England as a whole.

Lord Soley: The noble Lord who has just spokenmakes a fundamental mistake when he says thatParliaments in other countries decide the size ofconstituencies. He is right that they do, but the problemhere is that the Government are deciding it. In othercountries, political parties agree it, usually jointly orindependently. That is all I want to say about that butit is an important point: Governments do not decidethe structure and size of Parliaments; Parliamentsdecide that, and they normally do it by consent.

Lord Tyler: Does the noble Lord not recognise thatthe House of Commons has voted?

Lord Soley: I certainly recognise that. I also recognisethat this is a bicameral House and I hope that it staysas such. One of the jobs of a bicameral House is for


the second Chamber to revise what the first Chamberhas done, and that is particularly important onconstitutional issues.

I return to the core amendment. I want to speakonly on Amendment 73, but there is a wider point herethat affects some of the others. There is great diversityin this group of amendments, and it might have beenbetter if some of them had been separated out. Thosetabled by the noble Lords, Lord Rennard and LordTyler, might have been better as a separate groupbecause there is quite a bit in them that is separatefrom the others.

I want to focus on Amendment 73 in the name ofmy noble friend Lord Kennedy, where he suggestsreplacing the word “may” with “shall”. Many peoplein this Committee will recognise that the wording of aBill and the use of words such as “may” is criticallyimportant, because it carries legal weight. The word“should” is not very different from “may” and, I say tomy noble friend, not much better.

This point is important because it relates to some ofthe other amendments in this group. Why do we notuse the word “shall” in relation to my noble friend’samendment? It is a stronger commitment. The Ministerwill know that, in several other places following this,the word “shall” is used. The obvious example is inrule 6 the new schedule, which states:

“There shall continue to be … a constituency named Orkneyand Shetland”.

The Government want that to be legally enforced, sothe use of the word “shall” is essential. In rule 5,however, as my noble friend has picked out, the word“may” is used. In other words, it states:

“A Boundary Commission may take into account, if and tosuch extent as they think fit … special geographical considerations”.

The Explanatory Notes to the Bill and many of thethings that Ministers have said from time to timeindicate that they also regard the things listed inrule 5(1)(a) to (d)—that is, special geographical factors,local government, local ties and the inconvenienceattendant on such changes—as very important.Schedule 2, the measure that is driving them forwardon this Bill, says:

“The electorate of any constituency shall”—

so there they are using a very strong form of wordingthat has strong legal force. However, back over thepage, as I say, they use the much softer word “may”,which does not have that commitment.

I am after an answer from the Minister because thisquestion affects other parts of the Bill—certainly someof those affected in this group of amendments—but Iam trying to focus on one for the sake of clarity. Thereis in fact no reason why we should not also use theword “shall” in rule 5. If we are all saying, as theGovernment have done, that we want these things tobe taken into consideration, the use of the word wouldnot undermine the use of “shall” in rule 2(1)—

“The electorate of any constituency shall”.

It would simply instruct the Boundary Commission ina much more forceful way to take into account thefactors that Ministers and Members on all sides of theCommittee say are important. I do not see why weshould not ask the Boundary Commission to do that.

The Minister might well say that it could bring uplegal challenges. I understand that that could be aproblem. We do not want lots of reviews by the courtsof such things. Having said that, there is no way thatwe can assume that these factors are not important.Nor is there any reason to assume that the number ofchallenges in a court of law would necessarily bedifferent if we used the softer word of “may”. Thatdoes not rule out a legal challenge. It might make itmore difficult to win but it does not rule it out, as Iunderstand the law.

I will focus my comments just on this one point, butit is very important because it runs throughout theBill. I understand why the Government, for partypolitical reasons, have locked themselves into “shall”for the number of seats in Parliament. What I do notunderstand is why they cannot also use “shall”—thestronger legal version—for issues that they say areimportant and we all say are important. This is perhapsthe best example. My noble friend Lord Kennedy hasdrawn attention to that discrepancy. The Ministerneeds to explain why we cannot have a straight changeto the Bill here, so that it reads:

“A Boundary Commission shall take into account, if and tosuch extent as they think fit”,followed by the four factors.

Lord Campbell-Savours: The intervention of thenoble Lord, Lord Rennard, in response to my noblefriend Lord Kinnock, ignored one simple issue; theBill introduces a cap on seats. Once you introduce acap, there is no flexibility. Whatever responsibilities,powers and so on you give the Boundary Commission,it will always have that in mind in whatever decision ittakes on any boundary in the United Kingdom.

I will come to the wording of this rule in a minute,but I will first reply to something else that the nobleLord, Lord Rennard, said. In his preamble to dealingwith the amendment, he addressed himself to theparliamentary channel and those who are listening. Inso far as he did so, I will equally do so. He appeared tobe in order because no one objected. It is importantfor people who are watching the parliamentary channelto understand that we are sitting here now at half pastmidnight—we may well sit all night—because some ofus believe in a very simple principle. Because this is aconstitutional Bill, the process by which it is beingdealt with in Parliament is the wrong one. There hasbeen no Green Paper, no White Paper, no prior scrutinyof draft legislation and no consultation with the politicalparties. A number has simply been pulled out of theair, inserted into the Bill in the middle of franticnegotiations over the formation of a Government,and handed to parliamentary counsel or the peoplewho write legislation to produce it in the Bill, whichnow has to be rammed through both Houses ofParliament.

That brings me to the comments of the noble Lord,Lord Tyler. He said that the other House voted on theBill. It is true that it voted on it, but there was no realdebate in the House of Commons on this matterbecause of a contractual agreement between two partiesto a coalition. That contractual agreement means thatthere is no free debate between two major parties inBritish politics: the Liberal Democrat party and the


[LORD CAMPBELL-SAVOURS]Conservative Party. If there are people watching theparliamentary channel, they might for once stop andthink that there may be an explanation for what isgoing on in the House of Commons. I have put it inmy language; I am sure that all my noble friends couldput in theirs if they so wished.

I move now to the comments of the noble Viscount,Lord Eccles, who referred to 318. I do not think 318was a cap, was it? It was a target.

12.30 am

Viscount Eccles: It is 613.

Lord Campbell-Savours: I am sorry; 613. I got thenumber wrong.

Lord Bach: It is important that we get this absolutelyright at this stage. I do not want to prolong this. I wantto speak on my amendment in a moment, but let mejust say that rule 1(1) of 1986 rules says:

“The number of constituencies in Great Britain shall not besubstantially greater or less than 613”.

You add to that the Northern Irish figure, which isbetween 16 and 18, making a total not more or lessthan 630. I think the wording is very important, and Ithink the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, will appreciatethat. This Bill does something quite different.

Lord Campbell-Savours: I am sorry. I got the numberswrong, but the point that I am making is very simple.It was not a cap; it was a target. That is what is wrongwith this legislation. We are talking about caps andnot targets. When you have targets, the BoundaryCommission then has flexibility. It knows what Parliamentwants, it knows what people are moving towards, butit can take into account all the additional pressuresand considerations that normally arise during thecourse of public inquiries about decisions that it hasto take.

I turn now to the actual wording of the rule. Theamendments that we are dealing with are essentiallyabout rule 5(1) on page 10 of the Bill. The noble Lord,Lord Rennard, quite rightly refers specifically to thisquestion of, “If they think fit”. Those words are veryimportant, because they are part of the first sentencein the rule:

“A Boundary Commission may take into account, if and tosuch an extent as they think fit”,

when considering these matters. That leaves it withtwo options. It can either take them into account or itcan ignore them. If it goes on to ignore,“(a) special geographical considerations, including in particularthe size, shape and accessibility of a constituency;(b) local government boundaries as they exist on the most recentordinary council-election day before the review date;(c) any local ties that would be broken by changes in constituencies;(d) the inconveniences attendant on such changes”.

in my view it would not be carrying out its function.The Boundary Commission’s function is to consider

those matters, but if it cannot carry out its properconsideration of those matters because of the cap, itswhole raison d’être is defeated and it may as well not

even bother to carry out any function at all. TheGovernment might just as well draw up the map andnot even have a Boundary Commission.

Lord Kinnock: In the context of an earlier debatethat we had on the constituency of Brecon and Radnor,much was made of the fact that because Brecon andRadnor is about a third or a quarter of the size of thevery large Scottish constituencies, the whole processwould be altered radically if that amendment hadbeen adopted. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, made thepoint, and he made it very trenchantly. Because thereis a cap—not a target, as my noble friend has said, buta cap—every one of those considerations on rule 5(1)(a)to (d) would be in play so far as the Boundary Commissionis concerned in Brecon and Radnor, but it will have toignore most of (a) to (d) because any rational considerationof this most rural of English and Welsh constituenciesmeans that in order for the number 600 to be reached,there will have to be an extension, either northwardsinto Montgomeryshire, Sir Drefaldwyn, or further tothe west into Ceredigion or into the south Walesvalleys. None of those considerations could be broughtto bear by the Boundary Commission simply becauseit could not afford to deviate from the number 600 byone, let alone by the 13 that would have been possibleunder the 1986 legislation or other numbers that havebeen targets under predecessor legislation.

Lord Campbell-Savours: I would like to have heardin the debate more references to the distinction betweentargets and caps, because that is essentially what weare debating. I agree with my noble friend. I waslistening to the intervention of my noble friend whomoved the amendment, and the intervention of thenoble Lord, Lord Tyler, who referred to the newconstituency that would be created being the maximum.It would be a huge constituency that would be utterlyunmanageable, where the issue of accessibility wouldsimply have gone out of the window, which is why Iasked the noble Lord, Lord McNally, how he understandsthe relevance of accessibility. That constituency wouldhave no proper representation. It would not be possiblein the context of the size of the constituency thatwould be created. It could not, by any stretch of theimagination, have proper representation.

However, I wish to use paragraph 5(b) to the proposednew schedule, referring to,“local government boundaries as they exist on the most recentordinary council-election day before the review date”,

as a peg to draw attention to the conversation thattook place at one of my dinner engagements last week.Someone raised an issue, and I suddenly thought,“That is particularly relevant to what we are discussingin this House”. The whole process in which we areinvolved is, we are told, essentially about equalisation.The noble Lord, Lord McNally, keeps referring tovotes of equal value. That is a very interesting principle.The question is: where, when and in what circumstancesdo you apply that principle? I want to draw attentionto other circumstances where that should equally apply,if you take the word that everyone is using, “localism”,into account. I want to see whether this localism—asort of bottom-up principle—applies to this area.


I want to give as an example what is going on inWestminster, where we now sit. We are within the areaof the Westminster local authority. I have here a list ofall the wards within that authority. I was wonderinghow far this principle of equal votes of equal valueapplied in Westminster. I simply draw the attention ofthe House to what is going here. If we are prepared tohave flexibility here in Westminster, why can we notapply the same flexibility throughout the whole of theUnited Kingdom? In every ward in Westminster thereare three councillors. There are 20 wards. I want todraw attention to the variation in electorates withinthe council area where the Houses of Parliamentstand. Knightsbridge and Belgravia has an electorateof 6,400, Tatchbrook has 6,400, Churchill 6,500, WestEnd 6,600, Marylebone High Street 6,700, Little Venice7,100, Maida Vale 7,200, Warwick 7,200, VincentSquare 7,300, Abbey Road 7,300, Bayswater 7,400,Church Street 7,500, Regent’s Park 7,600, Hyde Park7,700, Bryanston and Dorset Square 7,800, St James’s7,900, Harrow Road 7,900, Queen’s Park 8,100, LancasterGate 8,200 and Westbourne 8,300.

It seems that in Westbourne, the 8,300 electorsvoted in three councillors; but if you live in Knightsbridgeor Belgravia, the 6,400 electors vote for three councillors.Where are votes for equal value there? We are dealingwith the budget of one the largest local authorities inthe country. I understand that Westminster’s budget isgreater than those of some government departments.What about votes of equal value? Councillors electedto those wards are taking decisions on the use of thesevast resources. I find it incredible that—guess what?—thelargest electorates to elect the three councillors are inthe Labour wards. So, built in to the arrangements forthis votes-of-equal-value principle is an arrangementin Westminster whereby Labour voters are penalisedand the individual voter has less influence on theexpenditure of Westminster City Council. So muchfor votes of equal value.

Someone else told me that this is going on all overthe country.

Lord Howarth of Newport: The situation in theconstituency of the Cities of London and Westminsteris even worse than my noble friend has suggested. It isa constituency where under-registration is particularlyextreme. It is thought that the registered electorate inthat constituency is only some 60 per cent of the16-plus population. So we are talking about extremelyskewed patterns of electoral representation in bothlocal government and the Westminster constituency ofthis part of London.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My noble friend has referredto an issue that I intend to raise. I do not knowwhether we will be going at eight o’clock or nine o’clocktomorrow morning, but we may well get to the amendmentwhere I wish to raise that issue. I have some importantinformation to place on the public record about thepopulation of the Westminster area and we can perhapsdeal with those matters later on.

On the Westminster statistics, when I was inconversation today with others I was told that Westminsterhas by no means the worse differential in its electorate;there are parts of the country where some councillors

are elected in wards with half that number of peopleon the register. I give way to the noble Lord, LordGarel-Jones.

Lord Garel-Jones: If the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, finds the lack of equalisation within boroughsso offensive, why does he not find it so for parliamentaryconstituencies?

Lord Campbell-Savours: I do not know whether thenoble Lord popped in at this hour or a couple ofhours ago, but he will find that it is the inconsistencythat is worrying me. If we were to have a consistentapproach on these matters, then the BoundaryCommission would have, to some extent, greater flexibilityavailable to it in the decisions it is required to take.

Lord Liddle: I support, particularly, the first part ofthe argument of my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savoursand the argument of my distinguished noble friendLord Kinnock. The key point about this section of theBill which the Government have not satisfactorilyanswered is that the function of the BoundaryCommission, as it has operated since the BoundaryCommission was established by all-party agreementduring the Second World War, will be drastically curtailedby this legislation.

Although all the nice, reassuring words about takingaccount of communities, geography and so on will stillbe there, the work of the Boundary Commission willbe curtailed as a result of the cap on the number ofMPs. The Bill does not say that we should have600 MPs but the Boundary Commission can increasethe numbers by five or 10 or 15 in order to takeaccount of local circumstances; it imposes a rigidnumber. There is also the corset of the 5 per cent ofeither side of the quota. The effect of these twomeasures will be to completely change the flexibilityand discretion that the Boundary Commission hasbeen able to exercise, under all-party agreement, sincethe Second World War. Why do the Government feelthat they have a mandate to make that change withoutconsulting all parties through a Speaker’s Conference?What argument do they have for doing this? I do notthink that there is a good argument.

Once again, from my own part of the world, I shalluse an illustration of what the impact of these changeswill be, so that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, understandshow he is tearing up decades of cross-party agreementon how the Boundary Commission should operate.Let me talk a little about my beloved Cumberland.Before my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours becameMP for Workington, I remember as a young man thatthe Boundary Commission came up with a proposalthat Cumberland—this was before Cumbria—shouldbe created—

Lord Rennard: Will the noble Lord tell us whichamendment he is speaking for or against in theseremarks?

Lord Liddle: I am in favour of the amendments thatwould change the wording from may to shall or mustbecause I feel very strongly that the wording is beingkept as it was in the previous legislation but disguising


[LORD LIDDLE]that a fundamental change is being introduced. Thenoble Lord, Lord Rennard, knows that very well. It isall part of a deal that his party has done with theConservative Party without consultation with otherparties, which is without intellectual justification.

Let us think about the situation in the 1960s whenthe Boundary Commission suggested that Cumberlandshould come down from four to three seats. There wasan inquiry and it was decided that on grounds ofcommunity and geographical representation the fourseats should be kept. In the 1980s and 1990s, with thenew county of Cumbria, as I mentioned before, thequota did not justify having six seats. The BoundaryCommission used its discretion that because of thespecial geographic nature of Cumbria, there should besix seats. That is what the Government will destroy.The Boundary Commission will not have the ability toshow such discretion. We are all in favour of equal-sizeconstituencies and the principle of equality, but youhave to have around the edges flexibility to cope withspecial situations. Therefore, I urge the Government tothink again.

Lord Bach: My Lords, Amendment 75A, to which Ishall speak shortly, is in my name and that of mynoble and learned friend Lord Falconer. The Committeehas just heard a superb speech from my noble friendLord Liddle, which both parties in government shouldtake note of. He put his finger on the problem withthis part of the Bill more clearly than has been donebefore. The debate has highlighted once more what wethink is the Government’s undoubted folly in seekingto subordinate every other factor in the constructionof parliamentary boundaries to the overriding goal ofcreating seats that fall within the bounds of a verynarrow electoral quota threshold.

We do not oppose moves to create more equallysized constituencies; indeed, we support them. That isalready the letter and spirit of the present law andwhat the Boundary Commissions strive to deliver. Werecognise, too, that the current law could be improvedin that regard. We have tried to help the Governmentto deliver such an improvement but, alas, they havechosen to reject every amendment that we have advanced.As a consequence of this failure to engage in thenormal and proper process of revision in this House,which is the role that this House is traditionally supposedto perform, serious flaws will be left uncorrected inthis legislation. I appreciate that the Government havetaken away one or two amendments to look at and wewelcome that very much, but there has not been thenormal give that Governments accord to Bills of thiskind.

The focus of this debate is the proposed new rule 5,headed “Factors”, in Clause 11. We believe that this isa prime example of the Bill’s fundamental defects. Asthe Committee knows, rule 5 lists a number of factorsthat the Boundary Commissions are permitted to takeinto account when drawing up constituencies. Theseinclude having regard to special geography, issues ofaccessibility, local government areas, local communityties, the inconvenience attendant on changes toconstituency boundaries and the encouragement towork within the framework of the existing European

electoral regions. Of course, these are all sensiblefactors that ought to be considered by a BoundaryCommission in the course of its deliberations andshould impact on the outcome of such deliberations,but the interplay between this rule and some of theother rules set out in the Bill mean that the BoundaryCommissions will not be able to give proper weight tothis list of factors.

Take the issue of inconvenience. Rule 5(1)(d) statesthat the,“Boundary Commission may take into account, if and to suchextent as they think fit … the inconveniences attendant on suchchanges”.

But if we read across to rule 9(2)—that referenceappears to be a small drafting error—we find that,“rule 5(1)(d) does not apply in relation to a report under section 3(1)of the 1986 Act that a Boundary Commission is required, bysubsection (2) of section 3 of that Act as substituted by section 10(3)above, to submit before 1 October 2013”.

In other words, inconvenience attendant on boundarychanges may be considered by the Boundary Commissionin future reviews but not in the review that the Governmentintend to rush through before the next general election.

However, even if that anomaly was removed, therewould still be a problem about Boundary Commissionstaking into account not just inconvenience but any ofthe factors in rule 5. This is simply—I am sorry if I amrepeating a point that has been made before, but it isfundamental to the understanding of this Bill—becausesub-paragraph (3) of rule 5 states that the rule is,“subject to rules 2 and 4”.

Those are the rules relating to the electoral quota and,in the case of rule 4, as we have debated today, to thearea of constituencies. In other words, the BoundaryCommission may take account of a variety of factorsbut only within the bounds of the overriding requirementto make constituencies adhere to within the 5 per centthreshold of an electoral quota and consistent onlywith the special rule on the maximum territorial extentof a constituency.

The major problem here, to which the governmentside appears deaf, is that the degree of tolerance fromthe electoral quota is just too narrow. Rule 5 mightstate that Boundary Commissions may take into accountgeographical factors, local ties, issues of accessibilityand so on, but the Government know that the verytight threshold regarding the electoral quota meansthat in practice—this is the point that the noble Lord,Lord Liddle, was making—they have very limitedroom for manoeuvre. We know that because the headsof the Boundary Commissions have said that thestrictness of the electoral parity target will mean thatlocal authority boundaries will have to be criss-crossed,county boundaries overlapped and wards divided. Weknow that islands will have to be split, historic borderstransgressed and natural boundaries such as rivers,valleys and the sea just plain ignored. The BoundaryCommission secretaries conclude that the applicationof the electoral parity target is likely to result in manycommunities feeling that they are being divided betweenconstituencies.

Ironically, the Bill exposes the problems caused bythe 5 per cent threshold in the special exemptions thatit gives to Northern Ireland and parts of the Scottish


Highlands and Islands. That begs the question whyNorthern Ireland and the Scottish Highlands andIslands are the only places in the United Kingdomdeemed worthy of rescue from the iron law of theelectoral quota. Why are other islands or areas ofpeculiar geography not being afforded special protection?

When we come to Amendment 79A, we will debatethat more fully. For now, we can rest on the knowledgethat many parts of the UK have been, without anyadequate explanation, denied that special treatment.We are trying to help the Government to tidy up theBill and to avoid some of the negative outcomes thatare the inevitable consequence of the severe electoralquota requirement, both by suggesting a number ofareas that should be guaranteed an allocation of wholeseats and by proposing a greater tolerance in theelectoral quota threshold.

We propose that, although a 5 per cent disparityfrom the electoral quota should be the general aim ofthe Boundary Commissions when drawing upconstituencies, an outer limit of 10 per cent ought tobe allowed where overriding factors such as those thatwe have discussed on all sides of the Committeewarrant it. The amendment would not make any differenceto the Government’s aim of adjusting a perceivedelectoral bias; it would just deliver a more sensibleprocess. Alas, up to now, the Government in thisHouse refuse even properly to debate this matter anddo not give us a response as to why they are taking thisattitude.

Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke: For the sake of thenoble Lord, Lord Rennard, I say that I shall speak toAmendments 73, 74A, 74B, and that my remarks willbe about rule 5(1)(c). The noble Lord, and the nobleViscount, Lord Eccles, claim that this is a filibuster.He needs to get out more. I remember the Scotlandand Wales Bill of 1978. As a young reporter, I remembercovering Mr Tam Dalyell during that debate. I want tosay that he spoke for days, but that may be exaggerating.On one occasion, he spoke for about six hours. To me,that is a filibuster. In all my interventions, I have keptmy remarks very brief—to some extent because the airconditioning is going to my throat; perhaps I will get acough sweet whenever I get an opportunity to go outof the Chamber.

I compliment my noble friend Lord Kennedy onintroducing Amendment 73, because it gets to theheart of where the Bill has gone wrong and reintroducessome common sense. The Bill has been cobbled togetherfrom two different directions and been rapidly putthrough the Clerks with, I repeat, no consultation, nopre-legislative scrutiny, and no discussion through theusual channels. As a consequence, we have a Bill whichis a dog’s breakfast.

One area that most concerns me is the frameworkwithin which the Boundary Commission will operate.All of us who have attended Boundary Commissionhearings know that sometimes, when the first stab ismade at the shape of the boundary, extremely bizarreresults come out. The late John Smith, on 10 May1994, two days before he died, addressed the BoundaryCommission about the new constituency of Airdrieand Shotts, which would have resulted in the town ofAirdrie being cut right down the main street because a

bureaucrat somewhere had thought, “We need to getsome numbers right here”, and took no account whateverof the cohesion of the town, the history and the natureof the communities built up within that area.

If the Government accepted Amendment 73 onrule 5(1)(c), we could ensure that any local ties brokenup by changes in constituencies should be taken intoaccount by the Boundary Commission. That is a lotmore sensible than the rather vague construction containedin the Bill.

1 amMy noble friend Lord Foulkes introduced two very

interesting amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard,made a powerful case for his amendment on wards;the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness,in an earlier debate, pointed out the importance ofwards and I intervened in that debate too. The otheramendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Foulkesrelates to what he calls the “wealth” of the constituency,but I am not 100 per cent certain that that is the rightexpression. It should really be the “socioeconomicmake-up”of a constituency, because there is a differencein dealing with areas of social deprivation comparedwith dealing with areas where there is wealth, educationand people with the self-confidence to take on issues.One of the big problems that people encounter at anylevel of election when they are dealing with areas ofsocial deprivation—particularly where a number of uscome from, in the west of Scotland—is high levels ofmortality. In some areas—like the area that was previouslyrepresented by the noble Lord, Lord Martin ofSpringburn—life expectancy of the average male is 44.That is quite a shocking statistic and it has an impacton the kind of work that has to be done by councillors,Members of the Scottish Parliament and by Membersof the other place in this Parliament. It does makesense to take factors like that into account. What wereally need to look at—and I believe the amendmentof my noble friend Lord Foulkes is really a probingamendment—is whether there is a better way ofencapsulating that into this piece of legislation

I notice that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has lefthis place, so I assume that it will be the noble andlearned Lord, Lord Wallace, who will be answeringthis part of the debate. Could I make an appeal tohim? At the end of the previous debate, the responsewe got from the noble Lord, Lord McNally, was notacceptable. I accept that he is tired: he seems to havebeen a one-man Government today. He answered threeQuestions at Question Time, and he has been goingfor some hours, so I have a great deal of sympathy forhim. But because this Bill is so badly drafted, what theMinister says at the Dispatch Box is of vital importance.It allows the interpretation of the Bill to be taken toanother level.

I am sorry the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is nothere, because there are many Scots in this House, and Isee the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, on the other side.Although for this House it is still Monday, for the restof the world it has now slipped into Tuesday and, ofcourse, today is Burns Day. With noble and learnedLord, Lord Wallace, and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde,in their places, perhaps they could say to the nobleLord, Lord McNally:


[BARONESS LIDDELL OF COATDYKE]“Tam, Tam, ye’ll get yer fairin,In hell they’ll roast ye like a herrin”.

If he would please give us the kind of response to thisBill that I think we are entitled to, we will intercede tomake sure he is not roasted like a herrin.

Lord Kinnock: In deference to noble Lords whohave asked for specific references to the amendmentsthat we are supporting, I am supporting Amendments 73and 74. That is because the debate on these amendmentsseems to have been a focus of the real differencebetween those who uphold the Government’s positionimplacably, and more reasonable counsel who reallydo understand what the implications of this part ofthe Bill are so far as democratic representation in theHouse of Commons really amounts to.

By way of preamble, I say to the noble Lord, LordRennard, and to an extent to the noble Lord, LordTyler, that yes, of course it is true that, in countrieswith written constitutions, the back-up of constitutionalcourts, and all the systems of appeal and representationattached to that, Parliaments do fix the number ofseats in their democratic, legislative assemblies. But wedo not have a written constitution; there is no prospectof one emanating from this Bill or any other Bill that Ican see in the coalition agreement, and therefore I amsure they will accept this pragmatic point. We are notdiscussing these proposals in the context of a writtenconstitution or anything resembling one, and if thelegislation proves to be wrong in application, there isno process of appeal that can be used by the citizens ofthis country, noble or not ennobled, to try to rectifythe problems that might result.

My second point is attached to that. It is true thatparliamentary bodies or congressional bodies underthe terms of written constitutions set the number ofseats to be in their houses of representatives, and weare all familiar with the case of the United StatesCongress and the fact that there are very small stateswith exactly the same number of senators as verylarge, heavily populated states. There are complaintsabout that, but everybody is familiar with it, and itwould take a constitutional volcano to dislodge thathallowed reality.

The same thing applies to the overall numbers ofthe lower House of Congress, the House ofRepresentatives, but the term “gerrymandering” waseffectively given meaning by the way in which, overdecades, that House has been used to sort and resort,mix and mangle, constituency boundaries forrepresentatives who are elected to the lower House ofCongress. Some cases, in some states, in somecongressional constituencies, are a mockery of democracywidely acknowledged in the United States. So eventhere, where there is a written constitution and Congresssets the number of seats, there is an openness to abusethat my democratic friends—with a small “d”democraticbecause they come from both parties—deeply regretand would like to see changed.

This is one of the reasons why they have admiredour pragmatic, deliberative system of the BoundaryCommission with the built-in appeals process whichdislodges control of the number of seats from politicalhands, accepts the idea of a target number of seats in

our democracy and then leaves the detail of deliberationand boundary setting, and consequentially the eventualnumber of Members of Parliament, to detached,independent persons who must rely not only on theirown judgment but on the rational arguments and localconsiderations submitted to them from the localitiesfor which they are setting the parliamentary boundariesand by that means substantially determining the qualityof representation and government that is enjoyed bythe people of this country.

Lord Campbell-Savours: Is not the distinction betweenus and many of these other countries that we have afirst past the post system? It is critical in this discussionbecause you can get away with a cap system where youhave proportional representation and far larger seatsthat are more able to gather in fringe candidates. Thatis a very important distinction.

Lord Kinnock: It is not an area into which I want tostumble because I do not want to have a debate thisevening about the benefits or disbenefits of proportionalrepresentation, save to say that my one reservationabout having a much more proportionate system ofrepresentation in this country, which I favour in principle,is the implied departure from single Memberconstituencies. I believe that it is not beyond the wit ofthis House, the other House or the political communityin general to discover ways of ensuring that there aresingle Member constituencies where the Members areelected by a much more proportionate system, but thereality remains the one spelt out by my noble friend:there are accompanying systems where the number ofparliamentary seats is fixed by the Parliament buttressingconsiderations of vital importance, and even that doesnot safeguard those systems against distortion or abusein the way that the Boundary Commission systemintact has done in this country.

My final point specifically refers to the paragraphentitled “Factors” on page 10. My point is straightforward.Whether the legislation eventually provides that BoundaryCommissions may, should or must “take into account”the considerations set out “as they think fit”, as mynoble friend Lord Liddle said earlier, future BoundaryCommissions will not be able to exercise a judgment“as they think fit” according to a group of sensiblecriteria laid down in this Bill.

Why not? It is because of the eunuch clauses in thisBill. Eunuch rule 2 is the 5 per cent rule. Eunuch rule 4is the 13,000 square kilometres rule. Most of all, undereunuch rule 1 there will be 600 Members of the Houseof Commons. There is no possibility that the BoundaryCommission should be given not a target but a cap, afixed figure, regardless of all the surrounding realities,the requirements of constituents, the workload ofMembers of Parliament or any of the other considerationsentered into this debate in this House or in the Houseof Commons. There is no possibility that the BoundaryCommission will in any realistic sense be able to act“as they think fit” according to these listed factors. Itwill be circumscribed and supervised utterly by thefigure of 600. Just in case that is not enough, it will notbe able to make an adjustment of more than 5 per centeither way in the numbers. And just in case that is notenough, there are the two figures of 12,000 squarekilometres and 13,000 square kilometres, which would


make a constituency that is the size of many countriesin the world, and would forbid consideration to begiven from a very remote—indeed, the most rural—constituency in England and Wales, such as Breconand Radnorshire. That would be regardless ofconsideration for the West Country, beloved of thenoble Lord, Lord Tyler, the moors of northern Englandor any of the realities that relate to the Lake District.Decisions cannot be made on the pragmatic basis ofthe influence of size, the remoteness and scarcity ofthe population, the workload of Members of Parliamentor any other objective consideration to a margin of, letus say, 10 or 12 seats or, for the sake of argument,13 seats. That would give us the England, Wales andScotland figure of the 1986 legislation.

Why legislate for cosmetic purposes when on theprevious page of the Bill the discretion being awardedto the Boundary Commission is torn to shreds andthrown to the wind by the limitations imposed by thepreordained figure of 600? I know that there are nobleLords opposite who are true servants of democracyand who have dedicated their lives to trying to improvethe way in which the citizens of this country and othercountries are represented and governed. I beg of them,when we give further consideration to these issuesrelated to “Factors” and the real powers of discretion,the real powers of objective judgment and the realpowers to act as it thinks fit that are awarded to theBoundary Commission, to record their reservationsand insist that enough discretion is given to the BoundaryCommission to permit it to do its job effectively indemocratic terms and with the integrity which it hasso richly earned during the past 60-odd years. If it isnot given enough discretion to alter the total numberof seats in the House of Commons from 600 to a fewmore, it is being made the object of ridicule, which iswhy I describe the rules that will effectively deprive itof the essential power of discretion as the eunuchrules.

1.15 am

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, I start byapologising on behalf of my noble friend Lord McNally,who, as some of your Lordships noticed, left somemoments ago feeling somewhat unwell. I know thatthat is not something that he would do lightly. I havethe slight difficulty of having not having been in theChamber for the whole debate, and I intend no discourtesyto the Committee in that. I shall do my best, althoughsome of the arguments are perhaps familiar fromprevious times.

The amendments adjust the factors that the fournational Boundary Commissions are to consider indrawing up boundaries. In some cases, they give thecommissions additional tasks or they take away theirdiscretion. In most contributions, the size of the Houseof Commons was raised. We debated that at considerablelength last week and I do not propose to rehearse thearguments again.

As the noble Lord, Lord Bach, indicated when hespoke concisely to his amendment and those in thisgroup, the criticism that would appear to come fromthe other side of the Committee is that although theBoundary Commission is given discretionary factors

which it can take into account to the extent that itthinks fit, it is nevertheless subject to rule 5(3), whichsays that the discretion,“has effect subject to rules 2 and 4”,

with rule 4 being the area, which has already beendebated today, and rule 2 being the electoral quotaand a 5 per cent variation either way.

I appreciate that I repeat myself from previousdiscussions when I say that these rules are designed toensure that we rein close to the electoral quota whereas,while the quota is the focus of what the BoundaryCommission is currently expected to do, circumstanceand the factors of flexibility that noble Lords seek inthis case have taken boundaries reviews ever furtheraway from it. It is worth repeating that the BritishAcademy Policy Centre, in commenting on the Bill,states that,“the rules set out in the Bill are a very substantial improvement onthose currently implemented by the Boundary Commission”.

We believe that the rules set out in the Bill strike theright balance. Some noble Lords have argued that weshould remove the English Boundary Commission’sability to take European regions into account. Otherssay that we should compel it to do so. The Bill saysthat the commission should have the discretion if theregions help them to manage the review, which is theright balance.

The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, movedan amendment that would have added wealth as afactor. The Government cannot agree on principlethat people should be banded together in constituencieson the basis of similar income. I am not quite surehow such a thing would be measured by the commissionseven it was desirable. I can confirm that wealth wasnot a factor in previous boundary legislation. Ourview is that the factors in the Bill are broadly thosethat are in existing legislation and that have workedwell in previous reviews. Again, I believe that this isthe right balance.

As I have indicated, some amendments compel thecommissions to have regard for the rules, and someremove the primacy of the parity requirement. Ourposition is that the rules give due discretion to thecommissions, but I reassure noble Lords that while thelegislation says, “may take into account”, it is notopen to a commission simply to disregard the factorson a whim, as has perhaps been suggested in somecontributions. So further tightening up of the wordingis unnecessary and could prove unhelpful.

I have already said, as we have indicated in debateson previous amendments, that the Government willconsider how we can add wards to the list of localgovernment boundaries that the commissions are askedto consider at present. As for parity, the rules giveflexibility within a 10 per cent variation from thesmallest to the largest constituency. Again, I believethat that strikes the right balance, giving us flexibilityto recognise properly local factors while ensuring thatvotes are fairer and have more equal weight—a principleto which even Members on the Front Bench oppositehave said that they agree. On that basis, I apologise fornot being able to answer as fully as my noble friendLord McNally would no doubt have wished to, but Iask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.


Lord Kennedy of Southwark: First, I wish the nobleLord, Lord McNally, well. He has had a very toughday—we all have—and I hope he just needs sleep anda meal and nothing more than that.

I thank all noble Lords for their contributions inthis important debate. My noble friend Lord Davies ofStamford agreed with me that the point of “may” or“should” was to give very clear instructions to theBoundary Commission. My noble friend Lord Foulkesof Cumnock made very many important points—onwards, on his time in local government and on electoralsystems. His points about the wealth of a constituencywere very interesting. We may come back to that onReport and expand those points further.

The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, made some pointsthat I agreed with, although I did not agree with himon the points that he made about scrutiny. We havehad no Green Paper, no White Paper and no draft Bill,which is part of the point of the problem we havetoday. My noble friend Lord Soley made some importantpoints—that parliaments of other countries, notGovernments, decide the number of seats. My noblefriend Lord Campbell-Savours, made the crucial pointthat introducing a cap on the number of seats underminesthe provisions that the Boundary Commission takesaccount of elsewhere.

My noble friend Lord Liddle reminded the Housethat the function of the Boundary Commission iscurtailed because of the cap and the 5 per cent tolerancefigure. His point about the Speaker’s Conference waswell made. My noble friend Lord Bach hit the nail onthe head when he said that the cap was, above everythingelse, the problem. He also pointed out that the failureto engage with the Opposition was a real problem andthat the timescale of the review is a problem in itself.My noble friend Lady Liddell of Coatdyke madesome excellent points. She explained that she witnessedsome of the problems that we have been discussingboth as a politician and a journalist. My noble friendLord Kinnock, in supporting my amendment, madesome very pointed and incisive comments about awritten constitution and the very difficult situationthat we find ourselves in today. He made a verypowerful case.

In conclusion, I was going to say to the noble Lord,Lord McNally, who is not here now, that he is notsomeone I have had the pleasure to talk to yet. Wehave said hello to each other in the corridor and stuff,and he is always very friendly to me and says hello. Itmust be a very frustrating time for him, but he reallydoes need to take a leaf out of the book of the nobleand learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness. I donot want to get my head bitten off, but we need to lookat these things very carefully.

I hope that the discussions that we have this weekwill bear fruit. With that, I beg leave to withdraw theamendment.

Amendments 74 to 74B not moved.

Amendment 74BAMoved by Lord Tyler

74BA: Clause 11, page 10, line 12, at end insert—

“( ) boundaries of existing constituencies”

Lord Tyler: My Lords, I recollect that some 10 hoursago the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, my noblefriend Lord Strathclyde and the noble and learnedLord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, encouraged us tobe brief and to the point, and I shall be extremely briefand to the point on this very simple amendment. Ishall resist all temptation to take a leisurely lane in myconstituency—as was the case last week, so oftenduring the middle of the night. Instead, I shall simplymove a very straightforward amendment that wouldbe a modest improvement to the Bill.

Under rule 5, there is no reference to existingconstituencies. That, I believe, is a pity, and this simplereference in Amendment 74BA would simply add anappropriate respect for existing constituency boundariesto the list of criteria that the four Boundary Commissionsshould take into account in making recommendations.It is very simple and useful. It would indeed take upthe point made by the four Boundary Commissions:that they want to have, to such an extent as they thinkfit, responsibility for examining these sorts of criteria.I very much hope that my noble friend the Ministerwill feel able to accept this modest improvement to theBill. I believe that all parties in both Houses, and,more importantly, the public, will welcome the recognitionof the need to avoid unnecessary disruption to existingconstituencies. I therefore beg to move.

Lord Davies of Stamford: My Lords, the nobleLord, Lord Tyler, may not have expected me to rise tomy feet to support his amendment, but I do so willingly.I shall also do so briefly. The effect of his amendment,as I see it, would be to create a bias in favour of notchanging existing constituency boundaries. It wouldin fact be, for the first time in our system, recognitionof the costs of change. There are costs of all kinds:costs in disruption, costs to the political parties and tolocal authorities and, above all, the unquantifiable butvery real cost that we have discussed throughout ourproceedings of individuals feeling less attached to theconstituency that they thought they were a part of.

As I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, hastaken into account all these considerations and said,“Surely, when in doubt, don’t make a change”—oreven if there is a small doubt, do not make a change.He has not attempted to quantify the instructions thatwe would be giving to the Boundary Commission ifwe accepted this amendment. He has left it to thejudgment of the Boundary Commission, which isright. However, he has alerted it to what the view ofParliament would be if his amendment were adopted—theview that it is important, whenever possible, not tochange existing loyalties and perceptions of localconstituencies and much better to preserve the statusquo. It is a very sensible amendment. The noble Lordis to be applauded for having conceived it and broughtit forward. I hope that it meets with the approval ofthe whole House.

Lord Lipsey: My Lords, this is not only a sensibleamendment but a very important one. Because thenoble Lord moved it very briefly—he was right to dothat, given that he knows that the House is sitting verylate tonight and is keen to make further progress—itsfull significance could not be brought home to us. It isimportant for what it does, because it is obviously


right that this should be one of the factors that theBoundary Commission takes into account. It is moreimportant for what it symbolises—the fact that thereis, on all sides of the House, recognition that weshould be very chary about going into this situation ofa permanent revolution in constituency changes.

By itself, the amendment would contribute onlymodestly to avoiding that malign outcome, because ithas to be combined with what is at the moment the5 per cent rule in the Bill, which, as we have seen sooften, causes knock-on effects. One constituency growsslightly, which changes the next one and the next until,in the end, it is very difficult to preserve boundaries. Italso has to be combined with the five-yearly review—another unwise feature of the permanent revolution.Nevertheless, a chink of light has seeped under thedoor on to the true nature of this Bill and the truechanges that need to be made to it. Given that it comesfrom the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, I cannot believe thatthe Government will not wish to recognise this andsupport the amendment that he has laid before ustonight.

1.30 am

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree withthe noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, and verymuch with my noble friend Lord Lipsey. I agree withthe important amendment moved by the noble Lord,Lord Tyler, which is in his name and that of the nobleLord, Lord Rennard. They obviously understand history.They know what happened in the 1950s when, as thesecond boundary review came around after the SecondWorld War, MPs rebelled at the thought that therewere going to be so many changes in constituencies.That was completely reflected in debates that we hadearlier in this Chamber, in which ex-MPs and non-ex-MPspointed out that, if you break the link between aMember of Parliament and his constituency, youundermine democracy and you create uncertainrelationships. The then Conservative Governmentproduced a Bill that, in effect, made the disruptionmuch less. From this Front Bench, we support theprinciple underlying what the noble Lords, Lord Tylerand Lord Rennard, are seeking to achieve, which is toreduce the disruption.

However, the speech that my noble friend LordKinnock made has to be borne in mind, because wecan reduce the disruption only by so much if we havewhat he described as the “eunuch” clauses. I anticipatethat there will be those on the Benches on which thenoble Lords, Lord Tyler and Lord Rennard, sit whothink that the way to deal with the points made sopersuasively by my noble friend Lord Kinnock wouldbe by moving the 5 per cent up to 10 per cent; theythink that that would make a substantial contributionto dealing with the point about the ongoing relationshipwith a Member of Parliament.

So, yes, I support the amendment proposed by thetwo noble Lords, but I also hope that they will engagein this debate properly. By that I mean that I hope thatthey will put forward arguments and amendments thatthey think will genuinely improve the Bill. I read theamendment that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, has put

forward as doing that, but I very much hope that theywill feel able to express honestly their view as towhether the threshold should be 5 per cent or 10 percent. If they did that, they would, I think, unlock oneof the principal problems in the Bill.

I very much hope that the noble and learned Lord,Lord Wallace of Tankerness, whom I congratulate ondealing with the last amendment—he was rather givenit beyond the last moment—will find it in his heart tosupport what the noble Lords, Lord Tyler and LordRennard, have proposed. However, I also hope that hewill address the issue that the amendment goes only sofar and that it is only if we add more discretion—5 percent to 10 per cent—that we make it meaningful. It isimportant to take into account what has been said inthese debates quite widely across the House—that it isnot a good idea to have a constantly changing constituencywith a constantly uncertain Member of Parliament.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, thisamendment proposed by my noble friend—in a waythat, I am sure, if I may take the words of the nobleand learned Lord, Lord Falconer, he genuinely thinkswill improve the Bill—would add existing constituencyboundaries to the list of factors in rule 5 that theBoundary Commissions may take into account whendrawing up their recommendations for new constituencyboundaries. I think that it is a perfectly reasonableproposal and we certainly agree with noble Lords thatthis would aid the Boundary Commissions in drawingup their recommendations, not only in the first boundaryreview but obviously in the subsequent ones as well.As has been said, it is the case that, particularly in thefirst review, the Boundary Commissions expect thatthere will be a considerable change owing to the reductionin the number of seats from 650 to 600. Nevertheless, Ibelieve that this amendment will allow for the meritsof existing boundaries to be taken into account whereappropriate, thereby ensuring that the boundarycommissioners do not have to start with a blank page.Therefore, the Government are content to accept thisamendment.

Amendment 74BA agreed.

Amendment 74C not moved.

Amendment 74D had been withdrawn from the MarshalledList.

House resumed.

City of London (Various Powers) Bill [HL]First Reading

The Bill was presented and read a first time.

Transport for London Bill [HL]First Reading

The Bill was presented and read a first time.

House adjourned at 1.35 am.

835 836[24 JANUARY 2011]Parliamentary Voting System Transport for London Bill [HL]

Grand CommitteeMonday, 24 January 2011.

Energy Bill [HL]Committee (3rd Day)

3.30 pm

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (BaronessHarris of Richmond): My Lords, if there is a Divisionin the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committeewill adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung andresume after 10 minutes.

Clause 33: Regulations and orders

Amendment 20A

Moved by Baroness Noakes

20A: Clause 33, page 21, line 16, at end insert—

“(za) orders and regulations under section 1 or 2,”

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, briefly, Amendments 20Aand 20C, which stand in my name in this group, comedirectly from the Delegated Powers and RegulatoryReform Committee’s eighth report of Session 2010-11.The amendments concern the level of parliamentaryapproval that should be given to orders and regulationsmade under Clauses 1 and 2. The eighth report makesit clear that the powers in Clauses 1 and 2 are significant.For example, the Government have powers to specifyin detail what a Green Deal plan is, what improvementsfall to be dealt with and what descriptions of propertyare covered or not covered. Clause 2 confers powers toextend by order the meaning of energy efficiencymeasures, and therefore the scope of the Green Dealscheme, as well as other matters.

The key point for the Delegated Powers and RegulatoryReform Committee is that the affirmative procedureis, in its view, the appropriate level of scrutiny, giventhe ability to extend key terms by subordinate legislation.In paragraph 5 of its report, that Committee recommends,“that orders and regulations under clauses 1 and 2 should besubject to the affirmative procedures”.

That is what my two amendments provide. I beg leaveto move.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If Amendment20A is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 20B byreason of pre-emption.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I also put downamendments—Amendments 20B and 20D—which aredifferently worded but would have exactly the sameeffect. Having listened to my noble friend Lady Noakes,I have nothing to add, except to support her fully. Ibelieve that it is normal practice for the Government,having considered the proposals of the DelegatedPowers and Regulatory Reform Committee, to seek toaccept them.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, having hadrecent experience of the phenomenon to which thenoble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has drawn attention, I cansay that in Government we of course took therecommendations of the Committee very seriously. Iam glad to see these amendments. I appreciate that theMinister has something of a choice, but in any case atCommittee stage he is not going to accept theseamendments exactly as they are written. However, theOpposition give their full support to the concept behindthe amendments. Therefore, I hope that the Ministerresponds positively and that the appropriate amendmentis tabled.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State,Department of Energy and Climate Change (LordMarland): My Lords, I welcome back the noble Baroness,Lady Smith of Basildon, and hope that she is well. Ihope that all noble Lords have had an agreeableweekend. We will now carry on with the Energy Bill.

The amendments in this group would affect a numberof orders, including those that define qualifying energyimprovements and eligible properties. We need to strikethe right balance between normal administrative functionsand parliamentary scrutiny of the criteria by whichadministrators exercise their functions. I am very gratefulto my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lord Jenkin ofRoding for tabling their amendments. However, weneed to ensure that the amendments have the intendedeffect in law. Therefore, we will warmly and favourablyconsider the amendments and all the recommendationsof the Delegated Powers Committee.

I hope that honourable Members have found myexplanation reassuring and will not press theiramendments.

Baroness Noakes: With the proviso that I am anoble, rather than an “honourable”, Member, I amgrateful to the Minister for warmly considering myamendments. I hope that that warmth will extend toaction on Report and I assure him that, if he does nottake action, we will return to the matter. I beg leave towithdraw the amendment.

Amendment 20A withdrawn.

Amendments 20B to 20D not moved.

Amendment 20DZAMoved by Baroness Smith of Basildon

20DZA: Clause 33, page 21, line 25, at end insert—“( ) Before making regulations or an order under this Chapter,

the Secretary of State must report to Parliament with proposalson green deal apprenticeships.”

The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I adviseMembers that there is a mistake in the amendment asit appears in the supplementary Marshalled List. Itshould state, “Clause 33, page 21, line 35, at endinsert—”.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: My Lords, we havediscussed before the issue of skills and whether therewill be enough people with the skills required toundertake the Green Deal. Amendment 20DZA wouldrequire the Government to report to Parliament before

GC 115 GC 116[24 JANUARY 2011]Energy Bill [HL] Energy Bill [HL]

[BARONESS SMITH OF BASILDON]any orders or regulations were made to state where weare on the issue of skills and, in particular, on introducingGreen Deal apprenticeships. When we discussed thisissue, there was wide agreement on the need to ensurethat the workforce has the skills available. At theweekend, the Minister for Skills made an interestingstatement that recognised the need to appreciate andvalue skills in manufacturing and engineering. Clearly,if we are to reach the desired level of Green Dealtake-up, we will need significantly to upgrade skills inengineering as well as in science and technology.

I recommend to the Minister the Aldersgate Group’sreport, Mind the Gap: Skills for the transition to a lowcarbon economy, which was published in November2009. The group is a high-level coalition of businesses,environmental groups, individuals who have been involvedin employment and trade unions, all of whom are keento ensure that we capitalise on the number of jobs thatcan be made available through environmental work.The group believes that high environmental standardscould ensure that we are an international leader in thefield. The report—the outcome of a project chaired byformer TUC president John Edmonds—is, I found,very helpful. Its key point is that, whatever the speedof our transition to a low-carbon economy, we need tofix the skills shortage in those areas. We are nottalking about a completely new skills set so we do notneed to build up new skills from scratch, but wecertainly need training courses and further work toenhance the current skills set.

The biggest problem identified in the AldersgateGroup report is that, because the debate on the workforceskills has moved on so quickly, people at various levelsin engineering and manufacturing in the UK—includingat the highest management levels—have not reallyunderstood the implications of the degree of changethat needs to be made. If we are to meet the significantchallenges that we want the Green Deal to overcome,we must ensure that the skills are available. Companieswill need to understand the nature of the change andexplain the required skills to the workforce.

A number of recommendations in the AldersgateGroup report and in other reports—including somefrom the Government—deal with very similar issues.What is clear from all the reports that I have looked atis that business needs certainty from Government if itis to invest in skills and equipment. The Governmenthave the responsibility to work alongside industry andthose involved in training to ensure that we have theright kind of training programmes at the right time,with the right level of skills and the right kind of skills.

These are significant issues that the Governmentneed to address. All that we ask today is that theGovernment take this away, look at the level of changethat is required and ensure that there are Green Dealapprenticeships in place so that we have the take-up,which will initially come through owner-occupiers—wewill come later to the issue of the delays that arecurrently envisaged in the private rented sector. Weneed to ensure that we have the necessary number ofpeople who are fully trained to undertake the jobsrequired.

Amendment 20DZA is a probing amendment. Iwill be interested in the response from the Minister,but we may want to return to the issue, as we feel thatit is crucial to the success of the Green Deal.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, the Green Deal willrequire a trained workforce to install measures in asafe, competent and professional manner. This will beassured by a new Green Deal quality mark andaccreditation framework. The noble Baroness is rightthat this is going to be an area for jobs growth, and theAldersgate Group is right to highlight that. It is estimatedthat, as a result of the Green Deal, 100,000 jobs will becreated by 2015 and 270,000 by 2025. Business doesindeed need certainty, and this Bill is part of providingthat certainty and the way forward.

As the noble Baroness will know, this Governmenthave previously pledged to increase the number ofapprenticeships available across all sectors. It is apromising sign that the insulation industry has alreadylaunched a pilot apprenticeship scheme, which it hopesto expand over the next year in anticipation of theGreen Deal. We welcome this development and wewill work with the industry to promote the use ofapprentices where possible. We will be speaking furtherwith ministerial counterparts in the Department forBusiness, Innovation and Skills about this matter andwe will continue to liaise with them over this.

However, we feel that Amendment 20DZA as draftedmay interfere with the degree of flexibility necessaryto tailor the Green Deal training to the needs of thesector and may risk forcing training opportunitiesdown an inappropriate route. We understand the purposesbehind the amendment. On that basis, I hope thatnoble Lords will be happy that the amendment bewithdrawn.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: I beg leave to withdrawthe amendment.

Amendment 20DZA withdrawn.

Clause 33 agreed.

After Clause 33

Amendment 20DA not moved.

Clause 34 agreed.

Clause 35: Meaning of “domestic PR property” and“non-domestic PR property”: England and Wales

Amendment 20EMoved by Baroness Maddock

20E: Clause 35, page 22, line 8, leave out “let”

3.45 pmBaroness Maddock: I rise to move Amendment 20E,

as set out in the Marshalled List, and I will speak toAmendments 20F, 20G, 20H, 20J and 20K.

As we are starting on the chapter of the Bill thatrefers to the private rented sector, let me make a fewgeneral comments before speaking to the amendments.I welcome the fact that, for the first time, the Governmentare making a serious attempt to deal with energy

GC 117 GC 118[LORDS]Energy Bill [HL] Energy Bill [HL]

efficiency in the private sector. The issue has doggedthe housing world for a number of years, so I reallywelcome the Government’s proposals.

In making a few general points about the situationin the private sector, I also want to mention fuelpoverty. In many cases, not only is private rentedaccommodation the worst maintained part of ourhousing stock, but it contains a large number ofvulnerable households and those living in fuel poverty.The sector accounts for 14.2 per cent of the housingstock—a little over 3 million homes in England—andhas a disproportionately high number of homes withthe worst energy performance ratings compared withother sectors. According to the Government’s fuelpoverty advisory group, 19 per cent of private tenantslive in fuel poverty. According to the Chief MedicalOfficer, the annual cost to the National Health Serviceof winter-related diseases due to living in cold homesis something like £859 million.

Historically, landlords have had little incentive toimprove their properties because the tenants ratherthan the landlords pay the fuel bills. A substantialcoalition of bodies outside this House has now calledon the Government to introduce a legal minimumstandard of energy efficiency for rented homes and tomake it an offence to let a property that does not meetthe standard until it has been improved. I put onrecord that those organisations include: Age UK,Consumer Focus, Citizens Advice, Crisis, the NationalChildbirth Trust and Macmillan Cancer Support aswell as councils up and down the country.

There has already been much discussion about theissue in another place, where an Early Day Motion hasbeen signed by 147 Members of Parliament fromacross the political spectrum. The Government’s fuelpoverty advisory group strongly supports the proposal—noble Lords might like to look at its annual report for2009 rather than have me read it out here. Further, theCommittee on Climate Change has called for mandatoryenergy efficiency standards to be set for the privaterented sector.

The Government’s recognition that special attentionneeds to be paid to the poor condition of privaterented properties is very much in line with views heldoutside Parliament and among civil society. The EnergyBill contains provisions that could, if taken up, givethe Government powers to improve rented homes. Myseries of amendments aims to strengthen the Bill byintroducing minimum standards that both landlordsand tenants could both understand and plan for theintroduction of.

Let me give a bit of detail about the minimumstandard and its influence on fuel poverty. In December,Consumer Focus published a report setting out animpact assessment of Friends of the Earth’s minimumenergy standard proposals. In terms of the measuresrequired and their costs, two scenarios were investigated:one was to meet a minimum band E standard by 2015;the other was the impact of raising the minimumstandard to band D by 2020. Raising the minimumenergy performance certificate to band E for privaterented homes would remove 150,000 households inthe private rented sector from fuel poverty—25 percent of households in private rented accommodationare currently living in fuel poverty. Raising the EPC

for such homes to band D by 2020 would remove alittle over 300,000 households from fuel poverty, whichrepresents 50 per cent of those currently living in fuelpoverty in the private rented sector.

The cost of doing that would not be as high assome people might think. A study has found that thecost of meeting the minimum standard would be lowand would be well within the levels of finance associatedwith the Green Deal. In many cases, the cost would below enough to be easily financed directly by the landlord,with no impact on rents. Some 40 per cent of F-ratedand G-rated properties could be improved to EPCband E for less than £1,500, at an average cost of £270per property. Of those properties in bands E, F and G,two thirds could be improved all the way up to band Dfor less than £3,000 per property. That is consistentwith some work done by the Energy Saving Trust,which concurred that most F and G-rated propertiescould be improved to band E for less than £3,000. TheEnergy Saving Trust also said that 60 per cent of Fand G-rated private rented properties could be broughtup to band E for less than £5,000.

I turn to my amendments to Clause 35. As drafted,Clause 35 limits the categories of domestic short-termlettings that will come within the provisions of Chapter 2to those categories of tenants that are expressly includedwithin the provisions of the Rent Act 1977 and toassured short-hold tenancies under the Housing Act1988. Undoubtedly, that captures the bulk of short-termlettings, but it certainly does not capture all forms ofdwelling that are owner-occupied. Therefore, the purposeof my amendments is to expand the tenancies anddwellings included in this clause. Amendments 20E to20J in my name would apply in particular to agriculturalworkers, whose tenancies have for some time beentreated slightly differently from those of other tenantsin landlord and tenant legislation.

Historically, many agricultural workers have occupiedself-contained accommodation owned by their employers,often at very low rent. The Rent Act 1977 did notapply to tenants who were occupying buildings at norent or very low rent. Instead, the bulk of agriculturalworkers are covered by the provisions of the Rent(Agriculture) Act 1976, which offers security of tenureto people occupying buildings at nil or low rent providingthat they work in full-time agriculture. In 1989, theprovisions of the Housing Act 1988 replaced the provisionsof the Rent Act 1977, but again no specific provisionwas made for agricultural tenants. Living in ruralNorthumberland, I am very much aware of this issue,and I hope that the Minister will look on this matterfavourably.

Amendment 20K—the last of my amendments inthis group—would expand the categories of domesticoccupiers to include those tenancies currently excludedby Schedule 1 to the Housing Act 1988 and also somehouses in multiple occupation. The amendment wouldalso allow the Secretary of State to include otherdefinitions, should that be desirable at some point inthe future.

The complication with the tenancies that have beenleft out is that the Government have used the Rent Act1977 and the Housing Act 1988 to define a domesticPR property. However, in neither of those statutes was


[BARONESS MADDOCK]the building the central point. The Rent Act had twomain purposes: to establish a fair rent structure and toseek to provide security of tenure for tenants whilestriking a balance between security and the needs ofthe landlord. The Housing Act 1988 similarly dealtwith security of tenure. A long list of forms of occupationof dwellings were excluded from the Housing Act 1988because it was considered inappropriate for tenants tohave more security than they already had. However,this means that many properties that are actuallydwellings will be left out of this Bill. I hope that thatexplains to the Minister why I think that this is importantand that we look a little further at doing that. I begto move.

Baroness Parminter: I support my noble friend LadyMaddock in her amendments, which seek to extendthe reach of the Bill to those who live under short-termresidential leases. While the Bill will ensure that themajority of those in the private rented sector willbenefit from the Green Deal, about 1.5 million propertieswith long residential leases are outside the scope ofthis Bill. Many of those leases require the permissionof the landlords for home energy improvements. Insome cases, there may be an absolute prohibition onsuch improvements. I am aware of a leaseholder whois looking to make a home energy improvement offitting a new gas boiler, but because that requires anexternal flue he is unable to get his landlord’s consent.

I accept that there are issues around long residentialleases. I am also very much aware—and I am grateful—that the department is aware of those issues, but Ihope that the department might use the period of theproposed review of the private rented sector to lookclosely at the issue of long residential leases and athow we might extend the Green Deal to the 1.5 millionpeople who at present have long residential leasesand are currently excluded from the benefits of theGreen Deal.

Lord Grantchester: I am grateful to the noble Baroness,Lady Maddock, for bringing forward her amendments.I echo her opening words on the private rented sector,as we on this side of the House have also receivedconsiderable approaches from organisations that wantus to look diligently at that sector. We take encouragementthat the Government are now looking at those issues.Like the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, we thinkthat several such properties could be adequately improvedat no great cost. We have also received a lot of submissionsasking that we look carefully at this issue.

We also thank the noble Baroness for bringing theattention of the Committee to the issues around theHousing Act. On this side, we initially thought that alleventualities would be covered, so we thank her fordrawing our attention to that. Along with the nobleBaroness, we would wish, in so far as is possible, for allhousing, including rural housing, to be brought withinthe ambit of the Bill. Will the Minister confirm thatother types of housing, including in the mining industry,will be covered under the provisions?

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Energy and Climate Change (Lord Marland): MyLords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Maddock,

for moving Amendment 20E. She comes with a greatwealth of knowledge of this sector, which is alwaysmuch appreciated. In particular, her opening remarkswelcomed some of the action that we are taking inthis sector.

On the issue raised by my noble friend Lady Parminter,I should like to pick up the issue of the review at alater amendment.

I am glad to see that the Minister, my colleagueMr Gregory Barker, who will be taking this matterthrough the other place, has come to see how it is doneproperly here in the Upper Chamber. He will learn alot from being here.

Amendments 20E to 20K all seek to amend Clause 35by expanding the range of tenancy types and dwellingscovered by the provisions in the Bill relating to thedomestic private rented sector. Clause 35 lays thefoundations for the provisions in the private rentedsector by clearly defining what we mean by “domesticprivate rented property” and “non-domestic privaterented property” in England and Wales for the purposesof this Bill. The domestic private rented sector iscurrently defined by the two most common types oftenancy arrangements in the sector: assured tenanciesand regulated tenancies. We want to capture the largestrange of private rented sector properties; we do notwant to unintentionally exclude properties. I will nowconsider them in turn.

Amendments 20G and 20J would apply toaccommodation provided for agricultural workers undereither an assured agricultural occupancy, as defined inthe Housing Act 1988, or a protected occupancy, asdefined by the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976. Those willbe included in the definition; they do not need to bereferred to specifically. I hope that that deals with thepoint made by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock.

4 pmI can see the arguments for the Secretary of State

having the power to add tenancy types to thedefinition of “domestic private rented property”, butAmendment 20K refers to “dwellings”—rather thanforms of tenancy—which I feel runs contrary to theprinciple of the clause. However, I am happy to takethis issue away and consider it in more detail beforeReport. We shall also look into the subject of miningtenancies, which was raised by the noble Lord, LordGrantchester. If, on consideration, such a governmentamendment were felt to be valid, it would offer asafety net. If, after further research, the Secretary ofState considers that the forms of tenancy agreement inAmendment 20K should be covered by the regulations,those would be included at a later date. That wouldalso be the case if the review proposed in the Billrevealed other relevant tenancy types that wereinadvertently missed.

With these explanations—and on the basis thatbefore Report I will look again at Amendments 20G,20J and 20K—I ask that the amendments not bepressed.

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I am grateful to theMinister for his pretty positive reply. Of course, that ispartly dependent on a review. As we will discuss thisafternoon, some of us think that the timing of variousreviews and actions following from them should be


slightly different, so I may disagree with him a littlelater. However, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdrawthe amendment.

Amendment 20E withdrawn.

Amendments 20F to 20K not moved.

Debate on whether Clause 35 should stand part of theBill.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, in reading theBill, and in getting the substantial number ofrepresentations that I suspect that we have all hadfrom the relevant organisations, I have been impressedby the sheer complexity of the problem that we face indealing with the private rented sector. It covers anenormous range of properties, of kinds of tenancy,and of people who occupy the houses. One tradeassociation, the Federation of Master Builders, toldme that there are around 26 million homes in Britain,over half of which were built before the 1960s. Fivemillion are Victorian terraced properties. The scale ofthe challenge is nothing short of enormous. That iswhat has impressed me. Yes, we have new homescoming up with new standards and owner-occupiedhomes, but the private rented sector offers a severechallenge to the Government and to all those workingwith them.

Everybody with whom I have spoken has had nothingbut total support for the whole concept of the GreenDeal. At the same time, they recognise that it will haveto maintain a careful balance between the desire to getmaximum energy efficiency from this huge range ofhouses and, at the same time, maintaining the availabilityon the market of homes to rent. Some of therepresentations that I have heard have expressed someanxiety that, if too many obligations and restrictionsare placed on landlords of rented homes, one resultcould be that they will simply be taken off the market.The consequence would be almost worse than theoriginal problem.

There is no question about it: the rental market hasgrown substantially in recent years, largely because ofthe progressive removal of the controls which hamperedit for so long. When I was very young, I lived in arent-controlled property. My mother was renting andthe landlord could not put up the rent at all. In thosecircumstances it was almost impossible for anybody torent a house because none of them came on to themarket. If the house was empty, it was immediatelysold for owner occupation. One has to hold thatbalance carefully.

I hope that, when dealing with the amendments tothe later clauses, the Committee will feel that we haveto give attention to this. There has to be a properbalance between the desire to improve these housesand their energy efficiency, and making severe inroadsinto the rental market as a whole. I am encouragedthat, both in the Bill and in one of the amendments tobe moved by the Opposition, there is a recognitionthat this needs to be done rather carefully. A considerableduty rests on us to try to get that balance as fair as wecan between the two objectives—making sure thatthere is a proper market in homes for rent and gettingthe houses improved.

I want to make only one other point, which hasbeen made by speakers already. The biggest problemswe face here are in the homes that are extremelydifficult to make more energy efficient. It has beenmade clear in some of the representations that thelimit of £5,000, or whatever it is, would not coverthose sorts of places. They are coming under theenergy company obligation, or so I understand. Onedoes need to look at all these various aspects if we aregoing to achieve our objective.

Like my noble friend Lady Maddock when movingher amendment, I congratulate the Government onhaving had the courage to pick up this ball and runwith it, because it is important that we try to deal withthis hugely varied sector of housing if we are toimprove the lot of the tenants and at the same timesave energy.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: My Lords, I welcomethe comments of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin ofRoding, because I think they sum up some of thechallenges of the legislation and why it is so welcomethat we seek to make improvements in the privaterented sector and indeed other sectors—the privatesector and the social housing sectors—through theenergy market.

It is right that we examine this in detail because theissue around the balance between the quality andquantity of housing is a fine one to walk, and we wantto ensure that at all times the Government reach thecorrect balance. In proposing amendments and discussingand debating the clauses of the Bill, we want to ensurethat the Government can fulfil the objectives they haveset themselves. We entirely agree with the Governmentwhen they said that they wanted to be the greenestGovernment ever. When the Minister referred to thatin the Chamber in our first energy debate, which seemsan awful long time ago, and I challenged him on it hesaid, “Like it or not”. I let him know that we do like itand that we will support the Government in these aimsand wider where they seek to be as green as possible.The issue of having greener properties and more energyefficient properties goes beyond just the idea of beingenergy efficient. It goes into health, the economy andmuch wider. As we debate these clauses about theprivate rented sector I give the Minister our assurancethat every time we raise an issue we do so only toimprove the Bill and work with him to achieve hisstated objectives.

Lord Marland: My Lords, it is wonderful to hear somuch green co-operation bouncing backwards andforwards. We appreciate the very generous words fromthe opposition Benches, and of course from my noblefriend Lord Jenkin of Roding, who has told us that wehave a very significant task to perform in this Bill. Hehas told us that there are many challenges ahead,which we will have to address. The noble Baroness,Lady Smith, and my noble friend Lord Jenkin bothtalk about a balance that needs to be had, and they arequite right. If I may, I will deal with his specific pointabout ECOs later, when it comes up in the list ofamendments, but I am very grateful for theencouragement.


[LORD MARLAND]I will speak to Clause 35, so that we are clear where

that is going. Clause 35 lays the foundations for theprovisions in the private rented sector by clearly definingwhat we mean by domestic and non-domestic privaterented property in England and Wales for the purposesof this Bill. The domestic private rented sector isdefined by the two most common types of tenancyagreements in the sector: assured and regulated tenancies.We have intentionally excluded social landlords fromthese requirements. The sector has previously beenrequired to invest in the energy efficiency performanceof its homes. As a result, it has made some of thebiggest energy efficiency gains in recent years.

The definition of a non-domestic private rentedproperty is one which is let under a tenancy and is nota dwelling. A dwelling is already defined under theEnergy Performance of Buildings (Certificates andInspections) (England and Wales) Regulations 2007,so it is logical to use this existing definition for thepurpose of this chapter. I hope that that satisfies nobleLords.

Clause 35 agreed.

Clause 36 : Review of energy efficiency in the privaterented sector: England and Wales

Amendment 20KA

Moved by Baroness Smith of Basildon

20KA: Clause 36, page 23, line 4, after “must” insert “, inparticular,”

Baroness Smith of Basildon: My Lords, it is interesting,looking at Clause 36 about the review, that it describeshow the review should be undertaken; who wouldundertake it, in that the Secretary of State appointssomebody; it mentions an arrangement to includeprovision for payments; it talks about how; it talksabout what will be done; and it refers to what followson. However, it never says what the purpose of thereview is and why the review should be undertaken. Itseems to me that the purpose of the review is toexplore how we can best implement proposals in theGreen Deal in the private sector, and how we canensure that we get the best possible take-up of theGreen Deal in that sector. Perhaps it is just a quirk ofdrafting that the purpose of the review is never set outin the clause. I assume that its purpose is clear: tomaximise the take-up of the Green Deal and to ensurethat it is taken up in the right way.

Amendment 20KA suggests that in Clause 36(5) weare able to include other issues in the review. Thereason we are putting that forward is that there areindeed other issues that the review should look at andconsider, if its purpose is to maximise the take-up.One example is apprenticeships. The Minister did notseem too keen on that, but certainly on the issues ofskills and training there has been widespread agreementin this Committee today and previously. Another issueis the role of local government and how it will undertakeits responsibilities under the Green Deal. As we havealready heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock,

what level of energy efficiency will the review seek toensure that landlords implement? The amendment isfairly limited. It is a probing amendment. I am justcurious as to why the purpose of the review is notthere; and I do not think that we should limit what thereview must include to the four criteria listed in thelegislation.

4.15 pm

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I have Amendment 20Lgrouped with this. Unfortunately I did not see thegrouping before I got in today, and I am not sure it fitsparticularly well with Amendment 20KA. I supportwhat the noble Baroness said about the review beingcapable of including other issues, whether specified bythe Secretary of State or determined to be appropriateby the reviewer. I suggest that if that is what she wantsshe should have tabled the amendment differently—tosay whether the Secretary of State should specifyadditional matters or whether the reviewer should beempowered to consider whatever other matters hewants. It seems to me a sensible flexibility to introduceinto the Bill in some way.

Amendment 20L is rather different. I support thenecessity of a review prior to the implementation ofthe private rented sector provisions of the Bill. Theamendment is inspired by a briefing from the BritishProperty Federation. It is differently expressed fromthe suggested amendment; my noble friend, Lord Jenkin,who has an amendment in this group, has followed thesuggested amendment more faithfully.

Clause 36(5)(b) requires this review to include aconsideration of the extent to which financial assistanceis available to landlords of private rented propertiesfor the purpose of taking measures to improve theirenergy efficiency. My amendment takes this further,and asks that the review also examines the extent towhich such financial assistance is known to be available.There is a world of difference between somethingbeing available and people knowing that it is. Mynoble friend Lord Jenkin’s amendment focuses on theamount of marketing effort and the sums spent inmaking landlords aware of financial assistance. Tothat extent his amendment focuses on the inputs to theprocess, while mine tries to focus on the outputs: inother words, whether there has actually been knowledgeof the financial assistance available. For example, ifthe marketing in the early stages of the Green Dealwas not addressed to landlords in the private rentedsector, there may be zero knowledge of that in thesector.

Alternatively, landlords might know about theavailability of financial assistance, not through marketingefforts from Green Deal providers, for example, butthrough trade bodies or the media. We cannot assumethat because financial assistance is available landlordsare aware of it and ready to act on it. It is importantthat the powers in this chapter are not activated unlessand until there is awareness of financial assistanceamong private rented sector landlords.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, as my noble friendBaroness Noakes has indicated, Amendment 20MA inmy name follows a recommendation from the British


Property Federation. The federation makes the importantpoint—which I may have made earlier—that the energyefficiency supply sector does not have a good record ofapproaching private rented properties. It is much easierto take the low-hanging fruit provided by the owner-occupier properties, where the owner is the one payingthe energy bills. The private rented sector has hithertonot been approached formally—other than perhaps ina number of cases—but that needs to happen. Therefore,the suggestion in my amendment is—as my noblefriend Lady Noakes has said—that there should be aclear review of the efforts made to bring this wholeprocess to the attention of both landlords and tenants.

I imagine that many noble Lords will share myexperience of having people in their families who areboth landlords and tenants—some are landlords andsome are tenants. Of course, the biggest single problemis always to get both parties to see that an improvementwill be to both their advantages. That will require aconsiderable effort. All that I am saying is that thereview must take account of the efforts that are beingand could be made to spread the awareness both ofthe process and of the mutual advantage that willcome to landlords, from the enhancement of the valueof their property, and to tenants, from lower energybills and perhaps a more comfortable house. That willtake some effort. The review must recognise that andform a view on how successful the measures have beento date.

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, further to my noblefriend’s comment about the record of the privaterented sector in this area, he is absolutely right that wehave not seen its efforts in any great quantity. However,I remind him that one or two schemes got grantsunder the Home Energy Conservation Act. If he caresto look back, I am sure that the Energy Saving Trusthas records of the one or two schemes that were quitesuccessful. Unfortunately, nobody ever looked at thestatistics to see how those schemes might be grown inthe rest of the country, but that is history. I alsoremember that one very good scheme was initiated byWestminster City Council.

Lord Deben: My Lords, I just hope that we do notunderestimate the big role that the British PropertyFederation and others ought to have in making surethat information about the measures reaches boththose who rent and those who let property. I am a littleunhappy about the pressure from the British PropertyFederation. Having been involved in property and inwriting about it all my life, I rather think that, despitethe efforts that are being to suggest that somebody elseought to provide the information, those who let propertyought to do that. In addition, if there is a problemfrom the private sector, the British Property Federationand others could certainly take that up.

When the Minister replies, I hope that he willaccept that it is not just for the Government to tellpeople of the advantages available to them; the firstpeople who ought to do that should be those who havethe interests of the landlords—and, I hope, the tenants—inmind. It would be a pity if we suggested that that wasnot a proper role for the industry to take on its

shoulders. If this were something that was hurting theindustry, the various organisations would be the firstto make sure that everyone knew about it. Therefore, Ifind this whole pressure a bit odd. I hope that yourLordships will not move us towards a position thatwill underestimate or remove the important role thatthe organisations should take.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: My Lords, that isexceptionally good advice. It will be crucial thatinformation is available for tenants and for landlords.My point in moving the amendment was that thereview should not be limited to the items listed insubsection (5) of Clause 36.

The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, suggested thatmy amendment is not clear on whether the Secretaryof State or the reviewer would decide the criteria. Irefer her to Clause 36(3)(a), which makes it clear thatthe matter is for the Secretary of State. All that I seekis not to limit the review to the four criteria listed insubsection (5). I hope that the Minister will take onboard my point about information being available andhow crucial that will be for the process being successful.

Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan: My Lords, before weleave this issue, I am not quite clear on the extent ofthe penetration of the membership of the BritishProperty Federation and on whether it captures alllandlords. If the BPF has not so far—as I imagine—captured the recalcitrant landlords, I suggest that weshould not try to impose too much responsibility onthe BPF. At the same time, if this legislation is tosucceed, the Government’s role should be to showleadership by trying to inform the public of whatcould be available to them and what might be beingdenied them because of landlords who by and large—historically, sadly, there are all too many of these—areindifferent to the needs of many of their tenants.

It would seem that the more insecure the tenancy,the higher the rents and the less attractive theaccommodation. Very often, individual metering andinadequate insulation are the hallmarks of such properties.While we have a responsibility towards those tenantswho live under registered or trade association landlords,we have an important and even greater responsibilityto those who live in wretched and dreadful conditionsbecause of the force of very complex circumstances.Sometimes, such tenants are not in a position to makethe right economic judgments—which, in many respects,lie at the heart of the Green Deal—because, sadly,they have too many other things to worry about. Thefact that these folk may not be in these properties forlong does not mean that their successors should becondemned to the same dreadful conditions as thosein which the previous tenants had to stay. The Governmentmust pay greater attention to this issue. It is to theshame of previous Governments that these situationshave been allowed to prevail for so long.

Lord Best: My Lords, perhaps I may add a littlefactual information on the profile of the private rentedsector. We know from Dr Julie Rugg at the Universityof York that there are some 1.2 million private landlords.Very few of these belong to the British Property


[LORD BEST]Federation, for which I have a great deal of timeand which is doing some very good work, including onthis Bill. The vast majority of the 1.2 million privatelandlords do not belong to any kind of federation.The Residential Landlords Association and the NationalLandlords Association together have, I think, lessthan 5 per cent of the ownership from the privatelandlords sector. We will have to bypass some of thoseinstitutions and put in place mechanisms that willreach out to this huge mass of small-time privatelandlords.

Lord Marland: My Lords, this group of amendmentscovers a wide range of issues. The noble Baroness,Lady Smith, rightly asked about the purpose of thereview, which is, we hope, to safeguard against regulation.We do not believe that regulation will be the answer ifwe want to encourage landlords in the private rentedsector to respond to the Green Deal with open arms,to embrace it and to act as willing and proper landlords.As my noble friend Lord Deben rightly said, we shouldstrike a balance between the pressures brought on bythe sector and what we want to achieve, but we shouldnot be led by the nose. Of course, we are workingclosely with the BPF.

The noble Lord, Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan,rightly drew our attention to the fact that there areunscrupulous landlords out there. It may be that wehave to take action against them in the strongestpossible way through regulation, but it is our desirenot to do that and to give them an opportunity—abreathing space—to take part.

The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock—the godmotherof HECA—drew our attention in her usual persuasiveway to the merits of the Home Energy ConservationAct. We are incredibly grateful for all the work thatshe did but, as she has nobly recognised, we havemoved on to another phase. Perhaps she will be godmotherof HECA II.

Finally, let me respond briefly to my noble friendsLord Jenkin and Lady Noakes, who have raised anumber of issues relating to the review period. PerhapsI may discuss the review later, given that—as my noblefriend Lady Noakes mentioned—groupings 7 and 8also deal with the review and its various timeframes.Although my noble friends’amendments aim to strengthenthe review, I reassure noble Lords that there is alreadya requirement in Clause 36(5)(b) for the review toassess the extent to which financial assistance is available.On the broader point, I think that we will be able todebate the timings of reviews and the need for themwhen we consider groupings 7 and 8. With theseassurances, I ask noble Lords not to press theiramendments.

4.30 pm

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, before the noble Baroness,Lady Smith, decides what to do with her amendment,I will say that my amendment—Amendment 20L—seeksto go beyond what is in Clause 36(5)(b), which theMinister rightly said covers,“the extent to which financial assistance is available”.

I accepted that, but I went on to ask for the review toensure that financial assistance is “known to be available”.The Minister did not cover that point in his summingup—unless I missed it—and I would be grateful for hiscomments.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: While the Ministerseeks inspiration on that point, perhaps I may put tohim that my comments and my amendment seek toprobe whether there should be additional items in thereview, but he did not address that, either.

Lord Marland: Could you repeat that?

Baroness Smith of Basildon: The purpose of myAmendment 20KA is to probe whether additionalitems should be in the review other than those inparagraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (5). I do not thinkthat the Minister addressed that, but I apologise if Ihave missed it.

Lord Marland: I will deal first with the point madeby my noble friend Lady Noakes. There is a limit tohow much one can inform. Clearly, there is a greateremphasis on the private rented sector to inform. If wefind that the sector is not informing people, we willbring that to attention under the review. I hope thatthat deals with the point.

I am not sure of the direction of the question of thenoble Baroness, Lady Smith. Perhaps I could also dealwith that at a later point.

Baroness Noakes: I am sorry. Possibly my noblefriend has said that this might be looked at, but thepoint is not specified in Clause 36(5). I tabled Amendment20L to see whether that should be specified, so that thematter would be covered. The Minister sort of saidthat it would be covered, but it is not covered inClause 36, so I am still struggling on whether theGovernment think it important that landlords of publicrented sector properties are aware of the financialassistance. As I pointed out, there is a big differencebetween financial assistance being available and peoplebeing aware of it, in particular if Green Deal providersdo not target private sector landlords because of thedifficulties.

Lord Marland: I think that I understand the question,so it may be the second question that I do not understand.If we are talking about awareness, it is incumbent onthe private rented sector to make people aware. It isalso incumbent on the Government to make peopleaware of the range of assistance available under theGreen Deal. If there has been no—or not enough—positive action, the review will endeavour to make thenecessary adjustments to make sure that that action isprovided to communicate the information that is required.This set of opportunities should be widely knownabout. This is a very new initiative that, as I understandit, virtually everyone in property knows is about tohappen. If we feel that the information is not beingpassed on, obviously we should take action.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: I hate to confuse theMinister and I apologise if my earlier comment wasnot clear, but all that I seek is confirmation that thereview will be able to consider items other than thoselisted in paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (5). Are


those the only items that the review will look at? Is thereview limited to those items, or can other issues betaken into consideration?

Lord Marland: I am getting a lot of notes, but theshort answer is that the review can consider otherissues. I hope that that answers the question.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: I am most grateful. Ibeg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 20KA withdrawn.

Amendment 20L not moved.

Amendment 20M


20M: Clause 36, page 23, line 14, at end insert—

“( ) a consideration of the willingness of tenants of PRproperties to agree to repay the financial assistanceavailable to improve the energy efficiency of PRproperties”

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, we are sticking for thetime being with Clause 36(5). I have another suggestionto make. The report that is required under this subsectionfocuses on property characteristics and on landlords,but it does not seem to say anything about tenants. Iflandlords enter into a Green Deal scheme, it will meanthat the energy bills of tenants will increase and thustenants’ willingness to pay is an important elementwhich should not be ignored. The theory is that thegolden rule would not allow a Green Deal to go aheadif the energy savings do not cover the additional costof energy bills, but it is less than clear that tenants willsee the analysis in that way. They will have differenttime horizons from, say, owner-occupiers, and almostcertainly different appetites for risk. While tenants inthe private rented sector are clearly not homogenous, Iimagine that significant numbers do not have theability to analyse a Green Deal and its potentialimpact on their household finances in their rentedaccommodation, or whether, even if they could analyseit, they would be comfortable with it.

The purpose of the amendment is to ask the Ministerto explain what role the Government see for tenants indecisions under this clause. It seems that they have noexistence in the context of a scheme, yet they are theones who will be paying the energy bills. I beg to move.

Lord Teverson: My Lords, I welcome this amendmentfrom my noble friend. It is important that tenants areactually mentioned, which is the emphasis here. Thebroader point is that although tenants are not ahomogenous group, because of the differences thatarise in the sector, there certainly will be people whocannot and never will be able to afford their ownhomes as opposed to more transient people who havenot bought a property perhaps, because they are seekingto move on. The group will be different in many ways.I therefore support the idea that the review should tryto identify the particular hurdles faced by this group

in asking their landlords to make the improvementsthrough the providers of the scheme. It is an importantarea and one it would be useful to understand if andwhen the report is produced.

Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan: Short-term tenantswho are in poor-quality houses and move on regularlyare not normally the kind of people who will have thetime, let alone the inclination, to enter into such anagreement. They may not actually be involved when itcomes to the implementation of the scheme, becausethere is likely to be some time lag. The other side ofthat is that the kind of landlords who operate in theseareas are often unscrupulous and indifferent. Particularlyin big cities, we now have substantial numbers of analmost underclass of people who live on the nationalminimum wage, are in one job that is lowly paid andget moved on to another and, perforce of circumstance,keep moving. There does not seem to be muchconsciousness on the part of government that such agroup of people exist. I am not certain whether theywill really be touched by the Green Deal because ofthe indifference of the landlord, the difficulties facingthe tenant, and the persistence of high energy bills dueto the inadequacy of the insulation of the houses—thatis the simplest form of improvement that such propertiescould have. No matter how much encouragement wegive either to the tenant or to the landlord in thesecircumstances, I am not sure that much will happen.We might have to fall back on other forms of remedialaction, which might not have the market finesse thatthe Green Deal is supposed to promise.

Lord Teverson: My Lords, I am a landlord—verymuch in the line that the noble Lord, Lord Best,described of one property, but I thought that I shoulddeclare that interest in this debate.

Lord Best: I shall just add another statistical pieceof information. Some 40 per cent of tenants movewithin a year of the occupation of their home. Inprinciple, the idea of consulting with the residents of aplace before you start doing anything to it is entirelyright, but we have a big transient population in theprivate rented sector. My other point is that, althoughyou could consult the first occupier, the debt is takenon and lasts 25 years. In almost no cases will the sameperson be there for all that period, and you are notable to consult people further down the line about adecision taken by an earlier tenant. Although I sympathisewith the sentiment that one should consult with thetenants, this is possibly impractical.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we are gettingto the complexities and challenges of the Green Deal.We had early indications this afternoon of the problemsin the private rented sector; they are not solely in thatsector, but they mushroom in significant ways so far asit is concerned. The important statistic that the nobleLord, Lord Best, brought in identifies the challengesbefore us. As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, argued onthe previous amendment, it is no doubt important thatwe get as much information across as we can bothto landlords and to tenants. This is a major public


[LORD DAVIES OF OLDHAM]information task, and we should make sure that thislegislation enhances and creates the opportunities forthe spread of as much information as possible. Ofcourse, as my noble friend Lord O’Neill identified,there will be groups who are difficult to reach and forwhom the relevance will be limited; that is where asignificant challenge is represented by this legislation.We want the Minister’s assurance that he appreciateshow important it is that the legislation be as enhancingas it can be on the need to distribute information sofar as possible, and that we succeed in bringing thenation on board with regard to the objectives, benefitsand significance for society. We have a whole range ofprivate interests that are massively diverse, so we shouldrecognise the challenge that the Government face.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, it is vital as a threadrunning through this debate that we ensure that thisdeal has as wide an impact as possible, and we welcomethe input that noble Lords are putting into how that isto be achieved.

The nature of the review, as my noble friend LordMarland has indicated, will be discussed in a bit moredetail shortly. I would note to the noble Lord, LordO’Neill, in terms of hurdles to tenants, that this is oneof the reasons we want to give local authorities thepower if needed to require improvements in the worstaccommodation. When my noble friend Lord Teversonsaid that he had to declare an interest, I was hopingthat it was not that he was a landlord of the typementioned by the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill; it wasreassuring that he was of the type mentioned by thenoble Lord, Lord Best.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for tablingthis amendment, which would require that the reviewinvestigates the willingness of tenants to take on GreenDeal repayments. We understand the intent behindthis proposal. As she herself said, the golden ruleshould mean that tenants’ bills should not go up as aresult of the Green Deal because of the energy savingsthey will be making. I see her slightly dissenting. Thatis part of the way this has been structured but we arewell aware of the points that have been made inprevious debates on that.

4.45 pm

Baroness Noakes: Perhaps I can clarify the goldenrule. The issue is that tenants have different timehorizons so a tenant might be looking at a one ortwo-year time horizon for their tenancy, which is quitedifferent from the time horizon of looking out over a25-year period of an occupancy or long-term tenancy.That may well create difficulties in the rented sectorbecause tenants analyse things differently. The point Iwas trying to make was that the golden rule does nothelp to give a guide to rational decision-making fortenants.

Baroness Northover: I understand what the nobleBaroness is saying. These are all areas which thedepartment is looking at. However, I point out thatthe Bill already ensures that sitting tenants must givetheir express consent before a Green Deal can be taken

out, so if a tenant feels that it is to their detriment,they have the right to refuse. Similarly, landlords mustmake clear to new tenants if a Green Deal is attachedto a rental property before they sign a contract.

Given that these consumer safeguards are alreadyin place, and bearing in mind what the noble Baronessis saying, I hope that at this stage she feels able towithdraw her amendment.

Lord Teverson: I ask the Minister what happenswhen we have a change of tenancy and the golden ruleis met by the first tenant whose energy use is quitehigh, so it works, but the new tenant is a lower energyuser. They may be a smaller family or a smallerhousehold or have a different preference as to howthey spend their money. The golden rule that was metby the first tenant might not be met by the second andyet, because there is such a competition for rentedaccommodation, you will possibly get a position wherethe incoming tenant, although warned, will just sayyes anyway.

I wonder if the Minister could remind us—or me—ifthere is an opportunity for the Green Deal to berenegotiated at that point or does the higher electricityrate stay the same all the way through? This may beimportant in terms of this change and whether subsequentfamilies could be put into energy poverty.

Baroness Noakes: Perhaps I may clarify the aspectof the review that I was probing. While the consent ofthe individual tenant to a Green Deal may be required,the point of making sure that this is covered in thereview is that if there was widespread tenant apathy orunwillingness to get involved because of the issuesthat I have raised, there would be little point in goingahead with a regulatory approach, which is whatChapter 4 allows the Government to do. I also suggestedthat the tenant environment should be properly assessedbefore we go down the regulatory route. That is why Itabled the amendment.

Baroness Northover: I hear what my noble friendsays. We will debate the review in more detail. Mynoble friend Lord Marland has indicated that, inaddition to the areas that are listed in connection withthe review, there is the possibility that it will considerother things. It may be that the department shouldgive some thought to this area.

I will respond to my noble friend Lord Teverson. Iam concentrating on DfID, justice, et cetera. I ampretty sure that in this situation, should a tenantdecide that they want to take a holiday from optinginto the Green Deal, that would be possible. I rememberbeing briefed on that. That may fit the situation thatthe noble Lord spoke about in which a tenant decidesthat it is not in their interest that the Green Deal ispushed down the track and that they do not want torepay the charge. I will make absolutely sure that I amright about that.

I am briefed that one cannot renegotiate the charge,but one can have a repayment holiday. Therefore,should the tenant decide in that instance that that iswhat they want to do, that would be possible. It doesnot mean that the money does not have to be paidback. However, it may not have to be paid back bythat particular tenant at that time. It has also been


pointed out to me that there will be a Green Dealombudsman who will provide some protection. I hopethat that will reassure noble Lords.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The Minister is doing herbest in what we all appreciate is a very difficult area.We all understand that the tenant’s response is optional.We discussed this in the previous sitting of the Committee.We cannot have a situation where a tenant exercises anabsolute veto, because one person might operate aveto on 400 fellow tenants, all of whom agreed to thechange. We all recognise that there is no veto. However,there is an issue about a tenant’s consent and subsequentpayments. The Minister is leading us down somestrange paths. Are we saying that the holiday couldlast for the whole period of their tenancy, howeverlong that might be? Who makes the judgment on theright to opt out of an agreement that admittedly mayhave preceded their arrival in the tenancy? How dothey exercise the opt-out, for how long, in whichcircumstances and who is the adjudicator?

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I feel provoked tointervene. We are making the subject far too complex.I thought that I heard, a few minutes ago, that thegolden rule of the Green Deal would be that theenergy savings would equal the cost increases. If I didnot hear that, I am mistaken, but I am fairly sure that Idid.

If that is the case, let us consider a situation whereone tenant leaves and a new tenant comes in. Providedthat rule applies, there is no disadvantage or, indeed,advantage to the new tenant in saying that he does notwant to be part of the deal. If the deal is cost-neutral,why is he likely to refuse to participate?

I also think we need to bear in mind that word ofmouth is a very powerful force. Once the schemebegins to operate on any sort of scale, I suspect thatthere will be a great deal of support from those whoinitially participate in it. They will all be telling theirfriends that they have a warmer house; that theirenergy bills are at a new level; and that the improvementsapply to both tenants and landlords. I suspect that wewill get to the point after a time where tenants start todemand their landlord to make the improvements ifthey cannot themselves. I am therefore optimistic aboutthe way this scheme will go, and we should not raisetoo many potential difficulties. The difficulties arethere, I admit but in reality, once the scheme begins totake off, it will develop its own momentum and thenightmare scenarios being portrayed will not in factexist.

Lord Deben: My Lords, I do not think we ought totake it quite as simply as that. One of the things welearned from the Warm Homes operation—which Ihad the privilege of introducing—was that many peoplelive, as far as their heating is concerned, to the levelthat they can afford. If their house becomes betterinsulated, what happens is not that they have a lowerbill: they merely warm the house better than they wereable to do before. In other words, this is not as simple amathematical equation as one might think.

I am worried about the concept of a sort of holiday.If someone enters a tenancy where the agreement hasbeen made already, they will know the terms of the

tenancy: it will be part of what they are offered. Itdoes not seem possible that anyone can have a holidayin those circumstances, because that is what theyjoined in the first place. I realise that we have chosen toconcentrate on people at the bottom end, with perhapslittle choice in the tenancy they have. I very muchagree with the comments made about some landlords.However, in my experience of having had a lot oflandlords in my former constituency, a good numberwere decent. In those circumstances all I am suggestingis that when people enter into an agreement, theyknow what the situation is, and there certainly shouldnot be a holiday.

The only circumstance seems to be the first one,where people are actually able to control the heatingbills. If you have better insulation, you can decidewhether you are going to continue with the amount ofheating you had before—in other words the price youhad before—but get more benefit from it because thehouse is better insulated. Alternately, you may decide—andmany people do—that you would prefer to get evenwarmer. I am sure people who have gone canvassingknow that there are certain houses where you bang onthe door and cannot stop yourself stepping back fromthe wave of heat that hits you. It is not always true thatwe are sensible about our heating. The fact is thatthese things are within the control of the tenant, and Ifind it difficult to understand why we are going downthis line. Tenants have a good deal here, paid for by thestate, and it is absolutely right; but do not let ourselvesget into a position in which we find that tenants areable to turn up the heat and then ask for a holidaybecause it does not work out as they thought it would.

Baroness Northover: Before I get dispatched back toDfID, justice, and all the other areas I am supposed tobe covering, I think I had better pull myself back andmake sure that the whole area is reported on in duecourse. As I mentioned before, we will be looking atthis review in a bit more detail in a later grouping, andno doubt my noble friend Lord Marland will be ableto put everybody—including me—absolutely straightas to what the situation is. I very much welcome thenoble Lord, Lord Davies, trying to stop me goingdown roads I should not go down, and I very muchwelcome the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, explainingwith such clarity how the golden rule works so that itshould indeed be to everybody’s benefit and so that, Ihope, we will not find ourselves in difficult situations.

5 pmLord O’Neill of Clackmannan: I would like to ask

the noble Baroness one further question. What willhappen in the short tenancy housing market if landlordsstart increasing the rent on the basis that the house isnow better insulated as a consequence of the GreenDeal? That would mean that subsequent tenants wouldbe paying twice—once for the improved property, andsecondly for the improvement. Is there an ombudspersonwho is going to take care of that?

Baroness Northover: I will resist the temptation tospeculate about areas that I may be less than wellbriefed on. If the noble Lord wishes to bring that upagain when my much better briefed noble friend LordMarland is dealing with a suitable amendment, I


[BARONESS NORTHOVER]would welcome that he does that. ECO will targethouseholds and presumably subsidise poorer ones.However, before I get myself into any more of acomplicated mess, I invite the noble Baroness, havingled me down various alleys, to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I am happy to withdrawthe amendment. I think that we have opened up anumber of interesting areas in the debate on my smallamendment. I cannot pretend that the Minister hasanswered all the points to the satisfaction of theCommittee. I feel sure that, in one way or another, wewill return to this topic when we reach Report stage;but, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 20M withdrawn.

Amendment 20MA not moved.

Amendment 20MB


20MB: Clause 36, page 23, line 14, at end insert—

“( ) a full assessment of the burden placed on localauthorities as a result of any duty to improve the energyefficiency of the private rented sector”

Baroness Smith of Basildon: My Lords, this is afairly straightforward amendment; I like to bestraightforward to help the Ministers. I declare aninterest as a current vice-president of the LocalGovernment Association; therefore I have some concernsand an understanding of the impact of additionalburdens on local government. I am helped by theMinister’s response to my last question. Whatever thepurpose of the review—which I understood was toseek a review to maximise the uptake of the GreenDeal, or, as the Minister said, to safeguard againstregulation—we need to ensure that any new duty thatis placed on local authorities can be properly scopedand evaluated to get a full assessment of the impactthat will have.

My sense is that local authorities recognise theimportance of the Green Deal, they want it to workand they want to be involved. They are aware of theduties being placed on them by this Bill. However,Clause 37 outlines some of the regulations that werebrought in by the Secretary of State that will impactand place duties on local government. Therefore, it issensible that these be included as part of the review sothat they can be properly understood in terms of whatit will cost local government, the implications on localgovernment budgets, the implications on the time thatwill have to be spent by the officers who undertake it,the implications on their skills, and what additionalinformation local government will need. It is a verystraightforward provision to ensure, as we proceedand progress on this, that we can be confident thatlocal government will be in the right place to undertakeits responsibilities under the terms of the Bill. It isseeking to ensure in a new provision under subsection (5)that we make a proper assessment of the impact onlocal authorities.

Lord Teverson: I apologise for having asked theMinister a not particularly helpful question earlier. Iwant only to make a brief point that relates to thisissue, and I should declare that I am a member of alocal authority. I welcome the fact that local authoritiesare being brought back into the frame as well as therecognition that there will be implications at a time offinancial stringency but, as the noble Baroness hassaid, local authorities will want to become involved inthis area, and it is really important that they are.However, there is a slight irony here in that I amconcerned that sometimes local authorities are unableto control building regulations sufficiently to minimisethe amount of work that has to be done on these sortsof deals. If buildings are constructed to the specificationsset out in the building regulations when they are firstbuilt, the problems might not be as great as they arenow. The enforcement of building regulations andstandards of insulation is a lesson because where inthe past money has been saved in these areas, that hasnot had a good effect in terms of housing and energyperformance standards for the future. I make thepoint, but it is not necessarily completely relevant tothis amendment.

Baroness Northover: I thank the noble Baroness forher straightforward amendment and acknowledge herconcern about the funding of any additional burdenson local authorities. I can assure noble Lords thatshould we require local authorities to carry out anynew duties, we will make a full assessment of the costsof such actions and how they might be appropriatelyfunded. We are already committed to ensuring thatnew burdens on local authorities are properly fundedto avoid pressure on council tax. With this explanationand assurance, I hope that the noble Baroness will becontent to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: I beg leave to withdrawthe amendment.

Amendment 20MB withdrawn.

Amendment 20N


20N: Clause 36, page 23, line 15, leave out “2014” and insert“2015”

BaronessNoakes:Ishall speakalsotoAmendments20Yand 21C in this group. These amendments concern thetiming of the regulations that will affect the privaterented sector. Currently, the review that is requiredunder Clause 36 has to be published by 1 April 2014,and the regulations that will follow the review, asprovided for in Clauses 37 and 40, should come intoeffect no earlier than 1 April 2015. The effect of myamendments would be to slip all of those dates byexactly one year.

As I understand it, the Green Deal regulationsthemselves are likely to come into force in October2012. If that is the case, the review under Clause 36(4)cannot start until October 2013. The report must bepublished by April 2014, which gives a mere six months.


Since Ministers have said that a key element will be theimpact of the Green Deal, it is difficult to see whetherenough data from the early stages of the Green Dealwill be available to reach an informed assessment.Indeed, initial take-up may well be low among theprivate rented sector precisely because Green Dealproviders will target the very much easier owner-occupiedsector rather than try to reach this diverse group ofprivate sector landlords with different types of tenants.

A key component of the review under Clause 36(5)(a)is a“comparison of the energy efficiency”,

of private rented sector properties with that of non-privaterented sector properties. The British Property Federationhas pointed out that the most comprehensive statisticsavailable on housing are to be found in the EnglishHousing Survey, but they take 18 months from collectionto be published. So the review that is going to betaking place in the six months from October 2013 toApril 2014 will use data that are considerably out ofdate and will not reflect the impact of the Green Deal.Therefore, the review, based on heaven knows whatinformation, could lead to regulations being enforcedfrom April 2015, only one year later. Those who areinvolved in the private rented sector believe that moretime should be made available before something asheavy-handed as regulation under this chapter isintroduced.

A number of bodies have lobbied for the Bill’sprovisions on the private rented sector to be modified.However, none of them has suggested a date as earlyas 2015. They seem to have coalesced around 2016. Itis interesting that the Government’s date is 2015 whilethose who have campaigned most actively for actionto be taken in the private rented sector are contentwith 2016. My amendments challenge the Governmentto say why the timetables set out in the Bill are fair andpractical. I beg to move.

Lord Teverson: My Lords, I am very concernedabout the amendment. This is one of the risks of thecritical path that we have in the Bill. I accept thatbecause of training requirements, the setting up ofeverything that has to be done, proper consultation,and because the Green Deal has to work effectively,preparation is crucial and we cannot expect it to startuntil 2012. That is the Government’s expectation.Therefore, we have the whole of this year and somepart of next year. It is logical to start the review of theprivate rented sector by 2013. It will not report until2014 and therefore we could not precipitately takeaction until 2015.

I like the direct approach on these issues of mynoble friend Lord Dixon-Smith. If the policy is notworking for tenants and landlords—which is one ofthe key areas of policy importance—the amendmentwould mean that we would have to twiddle our thumbsfor four years from when the Bill gets Royal Assent.That worries me. There is logic in the current timeframe.It is questionable whether that is the case in theamendment of the noble Baroness.

If the Bill goes through in its current form, it will beobvious within a year—if we are collecting any data—whether it is working in the private rented sector.

Whether or not we have sophisticated analysis, we willhave enough data-capture to understand whether it isstarting to work. I would be fundamentally concerned,and would not believe it to be the case because of theimportance of the programme, if the Secretary ofState were just to sit in his chair—I know that hewould not do this—and say, “I’ve got to wait until2014 to test this thing out and see whether I need to doanything else”. Surely that will not be the case.

I could perhaps cope with local authorities notbeing empowered to take action before 2015, althoughI am very sceptical even about that timeframe. I askthe Minister to imagine what actions the Governmentmight take, apart from the formal process detailedhere, to make sure that the tenanted sector gets a moveon. This is my problem with the issue. There are verygood landlords. I have nothing against the privaterented sector, which is crucial in delivering accommodationto families. However, the Bill’s timetable gives a signalthat says, “Actually, guys, you don’t have to do anythinguntil 2015. That’s when we’ll start to get angry, anduntil then there won’t be any pressure”.

5.15 pm

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I was about tomake the same speech. But as the Minister is likelyto listen to a noble Lord who supports the coalitionrather than to the Official Opposition, I will merelysay that of course it can be seen from our amendmentthat we saw no reason why there should be a timeconstraint—a delaying element—built in. We very muchagree with what the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, saidabout the impact of these amendments building anextra year of delay. But we are not quite clear on whythere should be a restriction in Clause 37(8), which iswhy we have tabled an amendment for its deletion.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. Ofcourse, we will not get a perfect profile of the challengewhich lies ahead. Governments never have perfectinformation on which to act, any more than anyoneoperating in the so-called market mechanism ever hasperfect information on which to act. But we will haveclear indicators of where the issues lie. We do not seewhy we should build into statute—certainly, not throughan amendment—an extension to what the Governmentthink is realistic and what can be achieved. I hope thatthe Minister will answer the points made by the nobleLord, Lord Teverson.

Lord Marland: My Lords, I should like to correctthe noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, by sayingthat of course I listen to the Opposition. It is fundamentalto this entente cordiale that we currently enjoy that Ilisten to the Opposition. The whole purpose of thisdebate is to listen to people and to take in their views.We now have two sides of the argument: one side saysthat we should start the review at a shorter time, andthe other side says that we should push it out and askswhether the time is readily available.

The review will not be just one review; it will beconstant. We have to keep this under constant review.Having listened to the arguments, I would be minded—andI will urge my colleagues to do the same—to start ourfirst review in 2013. At least that would be a start and


[LORD MARLAND]allow us to see, as my noble friend Lord Teversonasked, whether it is working. We should do that at theearliest possible time and set down a timetable inwhich to do it. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes,perhaps feels that we should give a greater time. Ofcourse, there will be a greater time, because we willreview it to see whether this is working.

We are trying to achieve an acceleration of a reductionof carbon and of take-up on the Green Deal. It isincumbent on the Government to make sure that it isworking and to urge everyone to get on with it. Therefore,I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.Before I sit down, I should declare an interest as alandlord, which I perhaps should have done at thebeginning. It is in the House of Lords register ofinterests.

Perhaps I may help my noble friend who was throwninto the lion’s den with some rigorous questioning andanswer two or three of the questions that were put.The noble Lord, Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan, whois not in his place, asked what would happen to short-termtenancies if bills were put up as a result of thesemeasures. My answer to that is that they would be veryshort-term tenancies because people would look elsewherefor a better and more commercial short-term tenancy.We are in a competitive market in that respect.

As regards payment holidays, the Bill enables theGovernment to specify circumstances in which GreenDeal payments can be suspended. The policy of this isbeing consulted on, as one would expect, and we willdevelop that as we go through consultation. But we donot expect that tenants will be able to opt out otherthan in the usual circumstances.

I ask noble Lords to forgive me for dealing withthese questions now, although they might want tocome back to these issues. But let us do that as wefollow the Bill through by way of information. Thenoble Lord, Lord Teverson, asked about the enforcementof building regulations. Obviously, that is a matter forCLG and we will pass his remarks on as noble Lordswould normally expect. I hope that that clarifies acouple of the points and that it enables the nobleBaroness to withdraw her amendment.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Lord has clarifieda number of interesting points but we are talkingabout dates here and I am not sure the Minister hasresponded on the issue of dates. What is the point ofhaving a statutory limit with regard to these regulationsin circumstances where the Government are hoping tomake progress? As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson,indicated and I agree with him entirely, we do notknow the nature of the information, how full it will beor the basis on which the Government will act. Whybuild in a set date when in fact the Government maybe able to act against their good instincts with regardto this Bill earlier if it were not prescribed by thelegislation? We do not need this prescription.

Lord Marland: The answer is quite simple. We haveto put in a prescribed date or it is unfair on those whohave to fulfil their obligations by that time. If you donot prescribe the time when we are going to review it,

they have no idea of the timetable on which they haveto act, so it is very clear. I have made quite a concessionalready that we are going to review the first date,which will be 2013, and that thereafter there will bedates to monitor how this Bill goes forward. I disagreewith the noble Lord on this rare occasion. We have tosend clear signals to the market as to how this is goingto operate.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: Perhaps I may add a wordor two to the debate because I put my name on theamendment. We spent a good part of this afternoon’sproceedings all agreeing that the Government face amajor challenge in seeking to extend the Green Dealor apply the Green Deal to the private rented sector;indeed many noble Lords from all parts of the GrandCommittee were stressing the problems that are beingfaced on this. I agree with that.

Although I have a lot of sympathy for those whosay we have waited a long time, we must get on withthis. If we try to hurry it forward and bring forwardthe date of the review and curtail the length of timethat the review may take, it will go off at half cock.When dealing with the complexities and the challenge,which I described earlier as enormous when citing thefederation, we have to be prepared to make sure thatthe authorities and all the people who take part inthis—the property owners, landlords and tenants sofar as is possible—are sufficiently aware of what isexpected before one tries to rush forward.

My noble friend Lord Teverson says that by 2013we will know and have enough experience, but withthe greatest respect I do not believe that for a moment.This is going to start pretty slow and the immediatereaction will be people coming along and saying “It’snot happening”, and that we have to have compulsionand the full panoply of regulations. That would bevery unwise because it might get the process off in thewrong way.

The Minister has been absolutely right. TheGovernment do not want to go down the road ofcompulsion through regulation, yet if one rushes thereview and starts to make decisions on what is boundto be pretty imperfect and incomplete information,my guess is that is that we will be in greater difficultythan we otherwise would have been. I would thereforeurge more caution on this.

The date that my noble friend and I have put on thisamendment and the other amendments that go with itare perfectly realistic and I would not agree with thenoble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, that we couldbring the thing forward. That would run straight intothe dangers which I have been trying, in my ownimperfect way, to point out.

Perhaps I can say to my noble friends on the FrontBench that, if the Government are being criticised foranything, it is that on a number of issues they aremoving too fast and trying to do too much at the sametime. We are dealing here with a problem whose originsgo back many decades. Indeed, in some cases it will becenturies. To try to rush forward and deal with it all ina relatively short time is a potential recipe for disaster.I hope that the Government will get the message thatthis needs a measured approach with enough timebeing given for people to consider and make sure that


they understand the information that is to come out ofthe review before rushing to make regulations. Thatcomes back to the very first point I made earlier thisafternoon. If you go too fast, it will have the effect ofdrying up the rented sector. People will throw theirhands in the air and say, “Blow that. I am not going tolet any more”. That would be a very great pity.

Lord Teverson: Perhaps I could respond to thatbecause it is exactly not what I am saying. I amsurprised that we have a Bill where the Governmentare constraining themselves with a “best after” date asopposed to a “best before” one. I am not suggestingthat things have to move forward at any time, but thatwe have within the Bill something that Governmentsnormally try absolutely to avoid, which is a restrictionon when they can take action if they feel that thataction is necessary. We all hope that the action will notbe necessary, although I note that a report of thereview must be published by 1 April 2014, so there is alongstop. However, while I am the last person to arguethat we should not put the quality and success of thisscheme first—that is essential and why the 2012 date isright—what I find difficult to understand is not thatwe are forcing the Government to do this earlier, butthat they could not exercise their own power to moveforward if they felt it necessary to do so.

I did invite the Minister to suggest, if the schemewas seen not to be moving forward particularly well,other ways of doing it. I am sure that there are waysoutside this Bill that the Government would get onwith. Indeed, I know that my noble friend would dothat, which may be part of making sure that landlordsare aware of the benefits of the scheme, that it existsand can be successful. We have also discussed ways ofutilising the local authorities, although not throughenforcement because I am sure that the Governmentwould find other ways to respond. What I find difficultis that the Government have imposed a constraint onthemselves in the Bill about when the process canstart.

Lord Marland: I am afraid that I cannot agree withmy noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. I deeplybelieve that Government have lost themselves in amire by failing to proceed quickly on things. We havea massive task ahead of us of reforming so manythings in order to meet our commitments and face thechallenges that lie ahead, so I am afraid I do not agreethat we should elasticate time so that some people inthe building sector who have been briefing noble Lordsdo not feel that they are perhaps being rushed intosomething.

We are now effectively at 1 January 2011 and we aretalking about having a review in perhaps two years’time. Every professional organisation knows about theGreen Deal. People understand the possibilities thatare available and a number are already making plansto take full advantage of it and put it into the housingsector. It is therefore not right that the Governmentshould not set down tight timelines to see how thisprogresses.

I will follow up on the remarks of my noble friendLord Teverson that we need to find out early on if it isworking and, if it is not, what action we need to take

to make it work. I will amplify what I said earlier. Thestart of the review will be at the end of 2013. Somepeople—I am one—are persuaded that it should bedone then, while others think that it should be donelater. We must start somewhere and get on with it. Wecannot allow the land to lie fallow. We have a massiveand monumental task. As my noble friend Lord Jenkinof Roding graciously admitted, this has been sittingaround unresolved for a long time. The Governmentmust get on and resolve it. Therefore, I am afraid thatI do not agree with the amendment. Perhaps we willdiscuss the issue further. In the mean time, I ask mynoble friend Lady Noakes to withdraw the amendment.

5.30 pm

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, we have had an interestingdebate, with differing views on the most importantfactors, including whether we should press on quicklyor make sure that we are very clear about whetherregulatory action is required. The purpose of amendmentsis not to say that the Government should not, forexample, communicate with landlords in the rentedsector to ensure that, so far as possible, they areencouraged to act. My concern is to ensure that regulationis not rushed into. There is a danger that the Minister’srather gung-ho approach will be replicated across thewhole of his department. I fear that precipitate actionmay be taken in this area.

Lord Marland: I slightly object to it being called agung-ho approach. It is a very measured approachthat has taken a lot of time. I am saying merely that atimetable should be available, that we should stick to itand that we should send out the right signals to themarket.

Baroness Noakes: I will withdraw the word “gung-ho”,but perhaps not the sentiment. The Minister seems tobe rushing towards action, particularly regulatory action,rather than focusing on the outcomes that are required.The need to take regulatory action would be a failureon the part of the Government. This early timetablewill allow Ministers to be put under pressure by thosewho think that much tougher regulatory action shouldbe taken much faster. That would not be the bestapproach in this area. The points of my noble friendLord Jenkin were well made. As the noble Lord, LordBest, pointed out the rented sector is very complex,with a large number of different players who are noteasily reached through organised groupings. Therefore,action in this sector will be particularly difficult. Thatis another reason for a longer timetable.

Lord Marland: Perhaps I may clarify one point forthe noble Baroness. There are fundamental differencesbetween reviews and regulations. It is important thatwe do not confuse them. What the Bill states is thatthere will not be any regulation before 2015. We willsimply review the activity that has gone on in themarket up to the end of 2013 in order to see whatprogress has been made. The Governments are notfixated on regulation. In fact, we have a common tenetof “one in, one out”. We are not in a rush to regulatefor the sake of regulating. We are talking merely about


[LORD MARLAND]a review, not an insistence on regulation. We willreview the situation to see whether we can urge themarket to act more speedily if it needs to do so.

Baroness Noakes: I thank the noble Lord for that. Iam sure that the Government will keep this underreview. The issue is that a formal review will be launchedat a particularly early date when the evidence on theimpact of the Green Deal will be relatively light. Thiswill lead to rushed and ill considered action. I will notpursue this further, but will read carefully in Hansardwhat the Minister and other noble Lords have saidand may return to it, perhaps in a different form, onReport. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 20N withdrawn.

Clause 36 agreed.

Clause 37 : Power to make domestic energy efficiencyregulations: England and Wales

Amendment 20P

Moved by Baroness Maddock

20P: Clause 37, page 23, line 18, leave out subsection (1)

BaronessMaddock:MyLords,inmovingAmendment20P,perhaps I shall half come to the rescue of the previousdiscussion. Clause 37 refers to action by local authorities.My amendment would stop the introduction of somemeasures being conditional upon the outcome of thereview to be established under Clause 36. My noblefriend the Minister has said that he wants things to getgoing in this sector. We have had a view that perhapswe are trying to get going too quickly.

I agree with the Minister and with my noble friendLord Teverson that we should do all that we can toencourage this to happen quickly. That is why I amanxious that some things can be done that are notconditional on the review. I think that my amendmentsin the next group will help us to get going quickly.Making regulations conditional on a review increasesthe likelihood that landlords will not do anythingbefore 2015. However, if we set a clear minimumstandard now to come into force after 2015, it wouldgive landlords absolute clarity that from 2016 theywould not be able to re-let a property with an F or Grating, thus allowing a significant time for preparationand encouraging voluntary uptake.

Crucially, the Government’s impact assessment admitsthat, because use of the powers to regulate is conditionalon the outcome of the review, one would not expectlandlords to install energy efficiency measures in significantnumbers as a direct result of taking these powers. It istherefore assumed that there will be no pre-emptiveaction by landlords, but we could encourage actionbeforehand. If we set up a clear, timetabled, minimumstandard of legislation now, it would maximise theopportunity for voluntary compliance by landlordsand minimise the need for enforcement action later.The current legislation might achieve the reverse. However,a clear signal now will provide certainty for the market;

will allow landlords to plan ahead; will allow thesupply chains to get their supplies in; and possibly willallow new business models to be developed to servethe private rented sector. That is why I have introducedthis amendment to stop the introduction of the measuresbeing conditional on the outcome of the review establishedin Clause 36.

I will speak further to other amendments, whichwill give an idea of what else could be happening inlocal authorities to speed up action in the privaterented sector, as many of us want. We are all sayinghow pleased we are that the Government have graspedthe nettle. For goodness’ sake, let us try to be keen andencourage them to get on with it. I beg to move.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (ViscountUllswater): My Lords, I must advise your Lordshipsthat if this amendment is agreed to I will not be able tocall Amendments 20PA and 20Q because of pre-emption.

Lord Deben: My Lords, I would like to suggest—

Baroness Smith of Basildon: Amendment 20PA,which is in my name, is in some ways not dissimilar tothe amendment in the name of the noble Baroness,Lady Maddock. I think that we are perhaps trying toachieve the same ends in different ways. We bothraised concerns that any regulations introduced bylocal authorities should not be conditional on a reviewtaking place. It is worth looking at the scale of theproblem, which we will perhaps do in respect of thenext group of amendments. Nineteen per cent ofprivate tenants live in fuel poverty. The figures and theimpact assessment show how great the problem is forthose who live in the private rented sector, the difficultiesthat they face in meeting their bills and the impact ofliving in cold properties on their health.

Properties in the private rented sector have theworst energy performance rating of any property sectorin the UK. My amendment takes a slightly differentapproach to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock.However, we share a widespread concern about thetiming of the review and the fact that until the reviewtakes place no regulations can be brought in. We donot want the action to be conditional on the review,but any regulations brought in must improve energyefficiency.

As regards the number of properties available torent, no one wants to see a decrease. However, theissue is the degree of decrease. I am sure that althoughthe Minister will tell me that the word “significant” isnot normally used in legislation, he will understandthe point that we are making. There may be timeswhen it is appropriate to have a short-term decrease inthe rented housing stock in order that work can beundertaken, but no one wants to see a permanent or along-term decrease. We have put in the word “significant”to address that and to tease out from the Ministerwhat he anticipates when he refers to a decrease in thehousing stock.

The clause raises the enormous concern that theregulations will be pushed so far into the future thatthe significant problems of energy efficiency that existnow for people living in fuel poverty in the privaterented sector will not be addressed. I am grateful to


the Residential Landlords Association, to which wewill come in the next group of amendments. Theprivate sector needs certainty. As the Bill stands, allthat it knows is that there will be a review, after whichit may be required to undertake energy efficiencymeasures. But there is no clarity or certainty. This is aprobing amendment. I hope that the Minister understandsthe points that are being made and why the concernshave been raised; namely, that great problems exist inthe private rented sector.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I shall speak toAmendment 20Q in this group. I allowed it to begrouped with Amendments 20P and 20PA because itgives a contrasting view on the topic. The amendmentmoved by my noble friend Lady Maddock, and thatspoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, seek toremove the conditionality, either totally or in relationto the report, before regulations are introduced. Myconcern, which I expressed earlier, is to ensure thatregulation is not introduced unless there has beencareful thought and consideration, because a regulatorysolution would be an admission of failure and is not tobe undertaken lightly.

Clause 37(1) requires not only that the report ispublished but that the Secretary of State considersthat the regulations will improve energy efficiency andnot reduce the number of properties available for rent.Those are the good requirements prior to the introductionof any regulation, and I support them. Amendment 20Qadds another requirement, namely that the reportshould be approved by both Houses of Parliament.We have already discussed the fact that the use of theregulation-making powers in this chapter could have asignificant impact on the private rented sector, both interms of economics and of the regulatory burden thatcould be laid on it. It will be important to ensure thewidest possible consideration of the impact of anyregulation. I tabled my amendment in relation toClause 37, but my points apply also to Clause 40,which covers the power to make tenants’energy efficiencyimprovement regulations. Both will have a significantimpact.

Let us assume for a moment that the Secretary ofState is some kind of ideologue who sees everythingthrough green-tinted spectacles. While not for a momentwould I say that this is a description of the currentholder of that office, let us assume that we have such agreen ideologue in the position of Secretary of State.That Secretary of State appoints another green ideologueto carry out the review, because Clause 36 makes norequirement for the reviewer to be an independentperson. We could easily get one ideologue appointinganother ideologue—there are rather a lot of themaround in this area—to carry out a review whichwould then be undertaken from a particular set ofprejudices. My amendment, in addition to providingthe ordinary involvement of Parliament in such animportant decision at any early stage and not simplyin approving regulations, in approving the report wouldalso be able to provide some kind of counterweight ifa green bias was built into the review.

I am aware, of course, that there is a form ofinstitutionalised bias along certain lines in both Housesof Parliament, and that Members of both Houses

have a wide range of views on these issues. It istherefore important that the findings of the review aresubjected to full and dispassionate scrutiny by bothHouses and approved as the basis, effectively, for theSecretary of State to go forward and introduce regulations.While I have treated this in a rather light-hearted way,there is a serious point here in that we want to be clearbefore defaulting to regulation. This would provideanother pause in the process before ending up inregulation. For that reason, I hope that the Ministerwill favour my amendment in this group and not thoseof the two other noble Baronesses.

5.45 pm

Lord Deben: I did try to get in rather earlier, but Iam now able to say that I would be very unhappy if theMinister were to go down the route of putting inanother pause. We have had enough pauses in thisover the past 20 years, so really we have now got to geton with it. I also have a slight difficulty believing thatthere is a connection between green bias and greenideologues. I hope that one is not a green ideologue,but I hope that there is a green bias. If there is not, theworld will be in some difficulty. The concept that theopposite of that is a person who is somehow independentand not of that kind worries me very much. I hope,therefore, that the Minister will not go down thisroute.

My problem with the first part of the clause is that Ifear the Minister will be in real difficulties. Undersubsection (1)(b)(ii), he has to consider that the regulations,“will not decrease the number of properties available for rent”.

Let us consider this in imaginary terms. When youthink of some of the landlords we have, I can see anumber of them saying, “I don’t want to spend anythingand I don’t want to have anything to do with it. Ifthere are regulations, I will take my property off themarket”. In those circumstances, how on earth will theMinister be able to say that he does not consider thatthere will be a decrease in the number of propertiesavailable for rent? He could say that someone is offtheir head or make any number of comments, but thewording of this sub-paragraph could mean that hemight be under judicial review if it could be adducedthat any landlord had taken this view.

I am closely following the noble Baroness, LadySmith, here. The problem is that this is one of thoserare occasions where the actual wording is dangerouslytotal. It is does not say “significant” or perhaps thatthere is “good reason to believe” that the number ofavailable properties would decrease in more than amarginal way. There is nothing about whether thesituation might change over time. It is a dangeroussentence and I hope that the Minister will agree atleast to think about it again. I think that it is wrong.

The second reason why I am a supporter of theamendment proposed by the noble Baroness, LadyMaddock, is that I think that, although it is reasonableto say that regulations should not be made until thereport has been published, it is perfectly reasonableto say that, once the report has been published—notwithstanding the worries of the noble Baroness,Lady Noakes—it should then be for the Minister tomake his decisions in the context of the report. Picking


[LORD DEBEN]out two things in the way that subsection (b) does willlimit his ability. After all, this is a Government who donot believe in and do not like regulation; they turn toregulation only when necessary. My fear is that regulationmay be necessary simply because the people in thisbusiness—or a very large number of them, as thenoble Baroness opposite said—are not an easy lot toget to do things in a rational and sensible way. However,we are going to do our best. No one can possiblyimagine that this Government will not go as far as itcan to help people to do their best.

Having been responsible for the housing policy ofthe United Kingdom for some years, I have to say thatprivate landlords—even the good ones—are not theeasiest group of people to corral. There are some—ratherfewer than some people think—who are certainly notgood and who are impossible to corral. Given thatthat is what we know now, this may be an area where—however hard we may wish to bear down onregulation—we may need to do something. If we cometo that conclusion, surely we ought to leave it in thehands of the Minster, who will, after all, have to arguehis case for doing something that he has said that hedoes not want to do. He will have to argue his caseagainst the general view of the coalition parties inboth Houses of Parliament, and he will have to lay theregulations. Therefore, there are quite a number ofhurdles in his way anyway in addition to any psychologicaldislike of regulation.

I would much prefer the Secretary of State to befaced with the simple statement of the report. Thereport will say to him these things, and he will have tomake up his mind about it. That is what I wouldprefer. I would be happy to accept subsection (1)(a) ofClause 37—although, as no such amendment has beenput down, I would be prepared to go for not havingsubsection (1) at all—but it seems to me that theMinister has undermined his position in a way I wouldhave preferred him not to have done. Therefore, Iwould like him to accept this amendment. Certainly, Ithink that he would be well advised, if I may say so, tolook at subsection (1)(b)(ii), because whatever bits ofnotes he gets handed to him from behind, I suspectthat he will rue the day that he included that provision,because somebody will make mischief over it—even ifit is somebody who just wants to push this off becausethey do not really believe in it.

Lord Marland: My Lords, I am very grateful to thenoble Lord, Lord Deben, for his remarks and toothers for the remarks that they have made. Before westart, to get us on the right footing, I would like tosay that his excellent remarks about Amendment 20PAand subsection (1)(b)(ii) are very well made. Of coursewe will consider his comments, take them away andsee how best we can improve matters. I am verygrateful that he and the noble Baroness have drawnour attention to that particular issue, because thesethings do need tightening up.

On Amendment 20Q—some of this was answeredby my noble friend Lord Deben—I agree with mynoble friend Lady Noakes that it is an admission offailure for Government to regulate. That is a primarytenet of this Government, as my noble friend Lord Deben

has said. If we cannot encourage people through theseactions to participate in this opportunity—this greatopportunity—then we will have failed and we will,therefore, have to regulate accordingly. However, as Isaid earlier, regulation is made on the basis that wehave a “one in, one out”, arrangement, so we will haveto look at the matter very carefully. I am not into“what if” scenarios about ideology, but I think thatGovernment have quite a strong track record of choosingsomeone to do a review. That individual has to withstandthe brickbats and the challenges of both Houses as towhether they are competent or going to give fairreason. Of course we must remind ourselves, as we doperiodically, that the Green Deal will be a market-ledproduct. We have to have confidence in the marketwithout imposing too much regulation if the peopleinvolved are to go and be the proponents of themarket. On that basis, I ask the noble Baroness, LadyNoakes, to consider withdrawing her amendment.

Amendments 20PA, 20P and 20Q would impact onthe preconditions ahead of a Secretary of State beingable to make these regulations. The Secretary of Statewill be able to make regulations only following publicationof the review and only if he considers that the regulationsare necessary to improve the energy efficiency of domesticprivate rented properties and would not decrease thenumber of properties available for rent. That is theframework that I mentioned earlier.

I hope that that largely covers the questions thathave been asked. I invite noble Lords to withdrawtheir amendments.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, although I havenot participated greatly, I have attended quite a few ofthe Committee’s meetings. The Minister says that hewill take away and consider issues such as those raisedby my noble friend Lord Deben. With the great efficiencyof this Committee, we are presently discussing theclauses to do with England and Wales, but exactlymirroring clauses, which are word for word the same,later extend the provisions to Scotland. However, nobodyhas thought to extend their amendments into thatsame text, but no doubt the Minister will consider—

Baroness Noakes: Boring.

The Duke of Montrose: Well, I have said that it ishighly efficient to consider these matters at the sametime.

Lord Marland: Perhaps I should clarify that theauthorities in Scotland will and can do whatever theywant with their own powers. We are acting only as afacilitator for them to consider enacting those powers.I hope that that clarifies the matter for the noble Duke.

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I thank the Ministerfor his reply. In a minute, I will be moving furtheramendments that are about regulation in local authorities.I hear what the Minister says. We may want to returnto this another time, depending on the outcome offurther discussions on this area.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that, not forthe first time, I am grateful to him for his support inthis sort of area—the last time being rather long agoin another place. I am very pleased to see the noble


Lord here because I know that he is a great enthusiastof the sorts of things that we are trying to put forwardin this Bill. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdrawthe amendment.

Amendment 20P withdrawn.

Amendment 20PA not moved.

Amendment 20Q not moved.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees: My Lords, ithas been suggested that this may be a good time forthe Committee to adjourn for 10 minutes. We willreturn at about eight minutes past 6.

5.58 pm

Sitting suspended.

6.09 pm

Amendment 20R


20R: Clause 37, page 23, line 26, leave out “may make regulations”and insert “shall make regulations to come into force no laterthan 1 April 2012 setting a minimum energy efficiency level fordomestic PR properties and”

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I shall speak also toAmendments 20S to 20X. What I am trying to do hereis to hurry up local authorities’ action since they arebest placed to understand the state of the rentedsector in their own areas. These amendments are designedto give local authorities a bit more certainty and abetter timetable for action. As the Bill stands, localauthorities are merely given access to the energyperformance certificate database. They will also beallowed to continue to use their existing powers underthe housing health and safety rating system. Thislegislation will not give landlords long-term certaintyin advance about what their legal duty is or when theywill be required to act. Further, they do not know nowwhether local authorities will be given a duty to actpost-2015. Equally, after 2015 they will have no priorwarning of when local authorities are likely to make arequest of them or what that request might be. Thismeans that although a small minority of landlordsmight react by taking their properties out of bands For G in advance, I think that the vast majority will beencouraged to wait and see. This will considerablydelay any action.

Local authorities will also have to take two actions,the first of which is a request and the second is tomonitor actions taken and enforce compliance. It wouldbe perfectly legal for landlords to let out bands F andG-rated properties until local authorities get aroundto issuing them with a request. In the absence of aclear timetable for local authorities, this could be aslate as 2020 or beyond, and a landlord would not becommitting an offence by letting out a band F orG-rated property until he had been issued with arequest by the local authority and had then failed to

take action by not claiming an exemption for theproperty, which he could do by going through a courtor tribunal process.

I believe that the measures should be brought forwardto 2012 and used to give local authorities an effectivetool to make progress on improving the worst of thelocal private rented sector housing stock at a pace thatis appropriate to local circumstances. This is importantbecause local authorities know best what the localcircumstances are, so it would be good if we couldencourage them and landlords to start taking actionsooner.

There is no guarantee, as the Bill is written, thatproperties will be brought out of bands F or G on therequest of local authorities. Indeed, given that theSecretary may determine in regulations what level ofenergy efficiency was deemed to be too low and thereforerequiring improvement, there is no guarantee that,despite the intention as set out in the impact assessment,properties other than those with a G rating will berequired to improve. The Bill also does not allow localauthorities to carry out works by default, wherebylocal authorities can carry out general improvementworks in other areas and charge the landlord. Thatwould be useful in this area as well; indeed, it is rathermore useful than issuing a fine, because the workwould actually get done. This flexibility is importantto ensure that as many properties as possible areimproved rather than simply issuing penalties to landlords,and is something that I know has been called for bythe Local Government Association. I have alreadydeclared that I am a vice-president of the LGA, and Iknow that it is keen to act in this area.

The amendments grouped with Amendment 20R tryto address some of these problems. Amendment 20Rand 20T would bring forward the date of the introductionof local authority improvement notices to 1 April2012, and would ensure that where a local authorityissues a notice to a landlord requesting relevant energyefficiency improvements, those improvements wouldensure that the property is brought up to a minimumlevel of energy efficiency. Amendment 20U would givethe Secretary of State the power to establish a local ornational register of private rented properties,

“for the purpose of distributing information relevant to this Act”,

to landlords and tenants. This touches on a pointmade by my noble friend Lady Noakes, who wasconcerned about information for landlords and tenants.The register could also be used for other purposesdesigned to help increase the energy efficiency ofprivate rented properties.

Amendment 20V would define energy performancecertificate band E as the minimum level of energyefficiency that private rented properties must meet iflandlords have been issued with a notice to makerelevant energy efficiency improvements by a localauthority. It also allows the minimum level to beraised in accordance with the timetable as proposedunder Amendment 20W. That will ensure that theminimum energy efficiency level is increased fromband E at least once between 2016 and 2020.


6.15 pmI hope that I have demonstrated that there is a big

role for local authorities. If we are careful about howwe set out their duties in this Bill, we could get thingsshifting a little earlier, which I think is the will of manyin the Committee and many of the people in the widercountry. In particular, local authorities have for yearsbeen trying to deal with problems of poor privaterented sector properties. I have not been a councillorfor a few years, but many years ago I was a citycouncillor in Southampton. We used to struggle tobring the private sector properties up. This is a realopportunity and, given that landlords can see whatmay happen later, let us for goodness’ sake put somethingin this Bill to get them acting sooner rather than later.I beg to move.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I must adviseyour Lordships that if this amendment is agreed to Iwould not be able to call Amendment 20RA becauseof pre-emption.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: My Lords, I speak toAmendments 20RA and 20YA, which, in the newgroupings list, are in this group. When I spoke to theprevious group of amendments I mentioned the scaleof the work that needs to be undertaken to improvethe energy efficiency of our private rented sector andhow many homes are affected. If we look at theinformation we have got from our own impact assessmentreport, from fuel poverty groups, from Friends of theEarth and from the Residential Landlords Association,we see that all are agreed that this is an enormoussector with enormous problems. The scale of the workthat needs to be undertaken is huge. It is importantthat we discuss these amendments to ensure that weget it right.

Amendment 20RA seeks to take on board commentsmade last week on the issue of “shall”and “must”—thatthe Minister “must” make energy efficiency regulations.As the clause stands, it pushes back any interventionon private rented stock. I am not clear about when thetimescale will start. I know when the review will startand how long it will roughly take, but we will not seeany regulations in place until 2015. It is difficult toascertain when the regulations will become effectiveand when that will come into play. We are talkingabout beyond the next election—four or five yearsaway—before we see any significant improvements inthe private rented stock.

One of my concerns is that that does not create thecertainty for those involved to prepare to undertakethe necessary work. At this stage, landlords do notknow what is required of them. They do not know ifand when, or to what level, they might be required toundertake work. In an earlier debate, the Ministertalked about giving clarity to the private rented sector,but these regulation-making powers do the exact opposite.They give very little clarity because of the conditionalityon them.

If the industry is to meet the needs of the GreenDeal, it needs clarity, probably on the scale of thetake-up, although I appreciate that that will not beeasy at first. The industry will need to know what

skills, training and employment will be required. Localauthorities will need to know what is required ofthem. It is so far down the road that that will be verydifficult and the conditionality will add to it. It couldmean that this will have little impact and the worseproperties—that is, the bands F and G-rated properties—being with us for many years to come. I am sure thatthat is not what the Minister intends. However, thewording of the Bill would have that effect.

There are a number of reasons why we might wantto move more quickly. If we continue to have so manyF and G-rated properties, the impact will be higherbills for those tenants and health issues. The ChiefMedical Officer has estimated that the annual cost tothe NHS of winter-related diseases due to cold housingis in the region of £859 million. That is a significantcost to the NHS and the Government.

I take on board the comments of the noble Baroness,Lady Maddock, about minimum energy efficiencystandards. I have some sympathy with them. I wouldbe grateful if the Minister would look at this. Thecosts of improving properties in bands F and G toraise them into band E are well within the Green Deal.That would give the critical mass needed for it to takeoff; it would give certainty to those involved; and asignificant number of people in F and G properties—something like 40 per cent of tenants in these propertiesare in fuel poverty—could be moved into E-ratedproperties for less than £5,000 for each property. Thatis a significant issue.

I am unclear also about how the Minister can makeregulations—it would be helpful if he would explainthis to me, because I may have missed something—unlesshe knows what he is aiming for in terms of the kindand level of improvements that need to be made tothose properties that are not energy efficient. Howdoes he know that the correct regulations are in place?Owners will need to know what standard their propertiesmust be brought up to. It may be a missed opportunityif we just look at the golden rule, which is arbitraryand will change over time—it is guidance more thananything else—and in two or five years find that thoseproperties are still rated F and G because the workthat has been undertaken has not been to the requiredlevel.

The Committee on Climate Change has recommendedto the Government that there should be mandatoryenergy efficiency standards in the private rented sector.I do not often quote the Mayor of London, BorisJohnson, in support of proposals that I am puttingforward. He stated:

“I agree that requiring landlords to meet energy efficiencystandards when properties are re-let could be an important tool inimproving the energy efficiency of the private rented sector inLondon. How these standards are communicated and enforcedwould be key to their success”.

There is a lot of sympathy for the view that landlordsshould know what is expected of them before theystart on the process. It will be difficult for them toembark on it if there are no changes to the Bill beforeit passes into legislation. I am not clear what messagethat would send to landlords. Will they think, “Thismay happen later” or, “There will be changes. I shouldprepare for them now. What can I do?”? The issue isabout giving certainty to landlords about whether


they need to take action and, if they are to take action,what level of action they should take. The proposalspoint in the right direction, but are rather weak. If weare to see this critical mass, certainty must be given tothose who rent out properties, to those who pay torent them and to local government.

I will speak briefly to Amendment 20YA. I tabledthis as a question to the Minister because I wasconfused. The amendment refers to Clause 38. I lookedfor an explanation of what it meant in the ExplanatoryNotes, which state that,“the Secretary of State could provide that a landlord is notrequired … to make improvements if he cannot obtain consentwhich is required to be given by his freeholder”—that is understandable—“or if the property is likely to be worth less as a result of theimprovements being installed”.I cannot envisage what improvements to energy efficiencyin the home would make the property worth less. Whowould make the judgment that the property is worthless? This could be a get-out clause for the landlord tosay, “If I do that, I won’t get so much rent in” or, “If Ido that, I couldn’t sell it”. Will the judgment be madeon rental income or the price that the property wouldfetch if it were sold? It would be helpful if the Ministerwould give us more information.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I feel compelled to intervenebecause I am not quite sure whether we are going inthe direction in which this Bill should be aimed. I goright back to Clause 1(2),

“An energy plan is an arrangement made by the occupier orowner of a property for a person to make energy efficiencyimprovements to the property”.

The occupier of a property may well be the tenant.We have made a great deal of the efficiency or inefficiencyof certain landlords. They do not just occur, sadly, inthe private sector; there are good and bad landlordsin the public sector. There are good and bad tenants inboth sectors. The essence of this scheme, however, wasthat if the landlord did not want to do something thetenant could. I thought that the essence of the schemewas that it was voluntary but if I listened to my noblefriend Lady Maddock correctly, and I am not surethat I did, she seemed to be thinking that perhaps localauthorities should be in a position to compel.

I am not sure I agree with that because that is notwithin the original purpose of the Bill. But maybeI have misunderstood the Bill or maybe I havemisunderstood the noble Baroness. I am not surewhich; I am becoming rather confused. That is why Iam speaking. I thought that this Bill was designed togive the property occupier—if the owner happenedto be there, that would be fine and good—the right totake action which is in his own interest. If that is so, itis perfectly true that he would probably have to get theconsent of his landlord because almost all tenancyagreements that I have seen say that any alterations tothe property must be made with the consent of thelandlord. I cannot conceive, as the noble Baroness,Lady Smith of Basildon, has said, that any landlord isever going to refuse to have this sort of action taken ina property in their ownership. She is absolutely correctto say that action like this must enhance the value ofthe property one way or another.

That is not the bit that concerns me. It is that weseem to think that we should be giving local authoritiespowers to compel landlords to take action, but theyare landlords themselves very often. I am quite happythat they should be compelled to take action forthemselves, but I thought that the essence of the Billwas that this was an arrangement essentially betweenthe consumer of energy and the energy supplier. If thatis the case, I am very concerned about these amendmentsbecause they seem to imply something else.

I am anxious to see homes having their energyefficiency improved as soon and as rapidly as possible.However, it seems to me that the process suggested,and which I thought lay behind this Bill, would belikely to achieve that faster than any action implyingthat compulsion might come from somewhere elsewould be likely to do.

Earl Cathcart: My Lords, I have not spoken on thischapter before but I welcome provisions in the privaterented sector. I am not attacking the noble Baroness,Lady Smith, but I recall it being said that nothingwould happen in the private rented sector until 2015when the regulations can come in. That is assumingthat landlords do not allow all this to happen, as mynoble friend said. There are many landlords and, asthe noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, said, not all of them areunscrupulous. I like to think that a lot of good landlordswill want their tenants to use these provisions because,as my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith said, it willincrease the value of the property; it will make thetenant warmer; it will increase the well-being of thetenants; and it will make them want to stay longer. Alot of landlords and tenants will want to do this dealwell before regulations have to come into place.

I want to play devil’s advocate here, following what mynoble friend Lady Noakes said in her Amendment 20M,which talked about,“consideration of the willingness of tenants”.Clause 37(2) requires local authorities to issue noticesto the landlords of each domestic private rented property,“(c) which falls below such level of energy efficiency … as isprovided for by the regulations”.Subsection (3) states:

“The notice is one requiring the landlord to make to theproperty such relevant energy efficiency improvements as areidentified by the notice”.I might be splitting hairs, but should not subsection (3)read:

“The notice is one requiring the landlord”,to allow,“such relevant energy efficiency improvements”,to be made to the property,“as are identified by the notice”?My thinking is that it could be the tenant who wantsthis done and the landlord who is dragging his heels,and that therefore one needs this notice to make surethat the landlord allows the tenant to sign up to theGreen Deal.

6.30 pmI have three questions on this clause. First, is the

notice issued because tenants want to sign up tothe Green Deal but the landlord is dragging his heels?If that is the case, that is fine. Or, secondly, is the


[EARL CATHCART]notice issued because the property falls below thestandard set out in subsection (2)(c) as provided for inthe regulations? I have a slight concern about thisbecause, as my noble friend Lady Maddock was saying,it is about local authorities assessing which propertiesneed to have this sort of work done on them and thenmaking landlords do it. Where are the tenants in allthat? No one has asked them and there is no provisionfor their agreement. This is where Amendment 20Mtabled by my noble friend Lady Noakes comes in,which would insert a provision for,“a consideration of the willingness of tenants”.

Tenants are absolutely vital in this because if they donot want to sign the contract, there will be no GreenDeal and the thing will not work. My third questionfollows on from there: what happens when a notice isissued and the property is vacant? Does the landlordsign up to the Green Deal, and how does the goldenrule fit in? I cannot get my head around that one and Ithink it needs a little further consideration.

As the Bill is written, it assumes that tenants aregoing to sign up to these regulations, but they may notwant to do so because, say, they are moving in twomonths’ time. A tenant may say, “I am not signing acontract. I am not signing anything”. We need somethingincluded here about the tenant.

On a slightly different point, if a landlord has anumber of properties and wants to do the Green Dealprogramme with all his tenants, what if a few of themrefuse to do it? Are there going to be regulationssaying that a tenant must sign up to the Green Deal? Ipresume, however, that you cannot force him to sign acontract. We have provisions that put the onus on thelandlord to sign up to the Green Deal, but absolutelynothing for the tenant. If a good landlord—there aregood landlords—wants to do the Green Deal on allhis properties, he could be held up in a row of terracedhouses by two tenants saying, “No, I am not going todo that”, in which case the deal might fall through.

Lord Marland: My Lords, I am grateful for theseamendments, which aim to set a minimum energyefficiency standard for the private rented sector. As aresult, Amendments 20R, 20S, 20T and 20V would seta minimum energy efficiency level of EPC band E forthe domestic private rented sector. I hope that thisdeals with one of the questions asked by the nobleBaroness, Lady Smith. Amendment 20X would requirethe Secretary of State to make at least one increase tothis minimum standard between 2016 and 2019. TheEPC is a key factor in this.

First, I can reassure the House that our provisionsin Clause 37 already target the worst performing properties.Our intention is similar to that of the amendment—thatproperties below a band E rating would be targetedunder the local authority enforcement powers. Secondly,and most importantly, we are achieving this withoutsetting a minimum standard that could be viewed as abarrier to new landlords entering the market. That isvery important. The private rented sector is an increasinglyimportant part of responding to our housing challenge.Yet evidence suggests that there is currently a shortageof supply, which is illustrated by increasing rents. We

are trying to plot a pragmatic and sensitive coursehere. I believe that the provisions are drafted to achievethis balance.

Amendment 20YA would remove an importantsafeguard for property owners. While we do not believethat improving a property’s energy performance willresult in a negative impact on its value, it is only rightand proper that we provide owners with that reassurance.I agree with my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith andthe noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that it is unlikely.There could be solid wall installations, for example,which do not enhance the value of an old property,but that would be pretty rare.

Amendment 20U proposes a national or local registerof domestic private rented properties. On 10 June, theHousing Minister stated that the Government have noplans to create a national register of landlords, althoughhe will keep that position under review. I am, however,aware that local authorities are initiating local lists ofthis type of property where they deem that such listsare of benefit in their areas. My noble friend LordDixon-Smith made the good point that some landlordsare the local authorities.

Amendment 20RA would provide that the Secretaryof State must make regulations requiring local authoritiesto issue a notice to landlords of domestic private rentedproperties requiring them to make such improvementsas are identified in the notice. If regulation is required,it is our intention clearly to set out provisions requiringlocal authorities to issue a notice to landlords requiringthem to make the necessary improvements. Finally,Amendment 20W would appear to create an incorrectcross-reference. It proposes deleting “subsection (5)”and inserting “subsection (6)”. I hope that that acts asan explanation.

I was asked about whether it is the landlord whomust make improvements to a property. Under Clause 37,the requirement is on the landlord, but tenants canrequest that the landlord take action. I was asked:what if the property is vacant? That is not covered by adefinition. No action is required until the property isre-let, after which the action will take place. In summingup, I would invite my noble friend Lady Maddock towithdraw her amendment. Her amendments are extremelyvaluable and I am very grateful to her for presentingthem to us.

Baroness Noakes: Before the noble Baroness, LadyMaddock, decides what to do with her amendment,perhaps I may follow up a point made by my noblefriend Lord Cathcart in relation to tenants. I do notunderstand the position. Since my noble friend laid itout so clearly, I recall some of the debates that left mewith a slightly foggy view when we debated this earlier.

The local authority can require an energy efficiencyimprovement under the terms of the regulations. Anenergy efficiency improvement is one which is eitherpaid for by the Green Deal or is free under the energycompany’s obligations. Let us assume that it is not freebut must be funded by the Green Deal. Let us supposethat the tenant says: “I do not want it. I am the billpayer and I do not want this Green Deal because I donot understand all this stuff about getting extra billsand about energy efficiency—it is too complicated”.


This is the point I was trying to make earlier abouttenants having a different perspective on life, withdifferent timescales. What happens then?

Lord Marland: The first tenant has to agree to theGreen Deal. If he or she does not, it will not beinstalled. If he or she does, it will be part of theongoing tenancy agreement. As to the desire to havethe Green Deal installed, the initiator is the firsttenant.

Baroness Noakes: That is what I hoped the Ministerwould say. Can he then explain to me what happens inrelation to the local authority’s powers, and whether alandlord who is not in compliance with his obligationsis therefore subject to the sanctions that are covered byClause 39? The local authority issues the regulations;the landlord says, “I will do it, I will get this GreenDeal”. The tenant then says no, so the energy efficiencyof the property is not improved. Is that landlord,because of the tenant’s action, in non-compliancewith his obligations and therefore subject to the penaltyclauses?

Lord Marland: The noble Baroness hits on animportant point. It is that awkward period when thelandlord is under an obligation to achieve a minimalEPC banding and is continuing to let the property. It istherefore incumbent upon the local authority to putpressure on the landlord to deliver a property thatreaches that banding. I totally accept that, if you havea tenant who does not want the improvements, there isa period of time when pressures are brought to bear. Ifthey do not work, the landlord may have to withdrawhis property from the market and the tenant mighthave to find something elsewhere.

Baroness Noakes: It is my understanding that youcannot just throw tenants out nowadays; it is a rathermore complicated process.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, my noble friend hasa serious point. If the tenant seriously objects, it iscompletely wrong to hold the landlord responsible forthat individual decision. It may be uncomfortable, butthat is the reality. Otherwise, we have a form of compulsionthat is wholly inappropriate.

Lord Marland: The point that I am making is thatthe landlord, if he has a tenant who will not agree, willcontinue the tenancy. When the tenancy changes, thelandlord will have to change his plans. No one canforce a tenant out, unless it is done legally—and, asthe noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, says, tenants arestrongly protected. But what would one do? One cannotforce people into this Green Deal; one has to encouragethem. The Green Deal is a market-led product. We aresaying that once the tenancy ends, the new tenant willhave to have the Green Deal. I am afraid that that is asfar as we can legitimately go at this stage. No doubtduring the review we will find out whether this hasoperated voluntarily or whether we need to find otherways to encourage people.

Lord Deben: Would the Minister not agree thatthere is a difficult issue here? We have to do things inthis uncomfortable way because we could not have asituation where the landlord puts pressure on thetenant to refuse the Green Deal in order that hehimself can claim that he was therefore not subject tothe local authority’s rules. It has to be a little uncomfortablebecause we know there are landlords who will bringpressure on their tenants to do a number of things,and it would be very difficult to stop this. Therefore,we must accept that this is an uneasy but reasonablecompromise.

Lord Marland: I am very grateful to the noble Lord.The situation is not ideal, but we have to live in aregulatory framework and the landlord-tenant frameworkthat exists. In an ideal world, we would insist thateveryone did this at a particular time, but the world isnot ideal so we are going as close as we can toachieving that. I think that the noble Baroness makesa very valid point. When we review this, we will seewhether there are other nudges or encouragementsthat we can make in respect of landlords.

6.45 pm

Baroness Smith of Basildon: The point made by thenoble Lord, Lord Deben, relates to issues raised byamendments that we discussed in the previous Committeemeeting about consent being given or withheld reasonablyor unreasonably. The issue was whether a landlord ortenant was behaving unreasonably or reasonably. Itmight help the Minister to reflect on the amendmentsthat we put forward the other day.

I seek clarification on a couple of points. TheMinister referred to the lists that are held by localauthorities, but those are held very much on an ad hocbasis. It would be preferable, as far as concerns theresponsibilities placed on local authorities by thelegislation, if such matters were made more formaland uniform, so that local authorities know what isexpected of them and so that landlords, too, will knowwhat information they are expected to provide to localauthorities. The Minister also said that Clause 37provides that the worst performing properties will bethe first to be improved. I would be grateful if he couldclarify or explain that, as I do not understand where Iwill find that in the legislation or how it can beguaranteed.

My response earlier to the comments of the nobleEarl, Lord Cathcart, was perhaps badly worded. I wasnot at any stage trying to suggest that there are notlandlords who at this moment are taking good energyefficiency measures in the homes that they rent out. Iam sure that all noble Lords who have declared aninterest as landlords will rush home to ensure thatenergy efficiency measures are put in place immediately.I was trying to argue from the landlord’s point ofview. There are no guarantees for landlords that theseregulations will ever come into effect because of theirconditionality on the review. There is no guarantee ofany substantial change, whereas we need substantialchange across an enormous number of properties,given that the Residential Landlords Association estimatesthat 40 per cent of properties were built prior to 1919


[BARONESS SMITH OF BASILDON]and some of those will be the hardest properties totreat. Many landlords will be waiting to see what willhappen. Good landlords will rush to undertake thework, and some have done so already. However, becausethere is no guarantee for landlords that there will beregulations, it will be very difficult for them—manyare working on a budget for the properties that theyown—to guarantee that they will be able to do thework, because they are not sure whether the regulationswill come into play.

My final point is that I asked a question onAmendment 20YA, but I think that the Minister wasunable to respond at the time.

Lord Marland: The noble Baroness raises severalquestions. It is not for this Committee to prescribe tolocal authorities what they should be doing. I hopethat this Bill is one that local authorities can buy in to.That is a subject for the DCLG. We are committed tofocusing on the worst performing properties becausewe are committed to energy efficiency, and if we canattack the lower-performing properties, we will do it.Clearly, we have a governor in place—the EPC, whichwe are reviewing at the moment—which will establishthe level that properties must come up to. We willfocus on the worst performers. We can use only thetools that are available in a market-driven product. Itwould be totally wrong for us sitting here to prescriberegulations at this point for those in the sector who arebeing recalcitrant or not performing. That is the pointof the review, which will take place as we have discussed.We will then consider what regulations, if any, areneeded to push this thing forward.

On Amendment 20YA, which the noble Baronessspoke to, and on her question who makes the judgmentabout the property’s energy performance, the judgmentwill come from the EPC, which defines performance.That is there in black and white on every home.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: I think that the Ministerhas misunderstood the point in my amendment, whichrefers not to energy performance but to the impact onthe price of the property. Indeed, the ExplanatoryNotes refer to the possibility of an exemption,“if the property is likely to be worth less as a result of theimprovements being installed”.Who will make that judgment? That is not a matter forthe EPC, which deals with energy efficiency.

Lord Marland: With all due respect, I think that Ianswered that. I said that it is very unlikely that therewill be negative value, but the market makes the judgmentif something has gone down in value. If you put aproperty on the market or to rent, the market determineswhether its value has gone down. That is how everyprice is achieved. I hope that that answers the nobleBaroness—she is looking a little bit negative. I cannotimagine that we can set up a system that prescribesthat a property is worth this or that amount; themarket determines that.

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I am grateful to theMinister for his reply and to other noble Lords whohave taken part in the debate on this group ofamendments. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith,

said, when we are looking at some of these very lowrated properties, we are not talking about a lot ofmoney to improve them one step up to the next band.I suggested some figures at the beginning and thenoble Baroness, Lady Smith, repeated some of them.When we discuss this, I think that people are not reallylooking at what these properties are like. We may betalking about insulation and draught proofing, sosome measures will involve quite low amounts ofmoney. Therefore, in persuading tenants to improvethe property’s rating, it may not be very much extrathat they will be asked to contribute.

I am not quite clear what the Minister was saying inhis answers to my amendments. I think that he wassaying, “Yes, we understand all of this, and when weeventually get around to making regulations, we mightdo something a bit like what you are suggesting”. I amnot sure whether that is what he was saying, but I willlook at what is in the record. Perhaps at some point wecan have a discussion about this. If we are keen to getlocal authorities and landlords working together toimprove properties, we need a little more than is on theface of the Bill at the moment.

Lord Marland: Would the noble Baroness allow meto reply? What I am saying is that we must notprescribe regulation now for the private rented sector.This whole Bill is about trying to enable the sector topick up the Green Deal and run with it. If we startsaying, “If you don’t run with it, we’ll do this, that andthe next thing”, we will be making a rod for our ownback. That is the whole point. I think we are agreed onthis particular subject of a review—an early review—andthen a second review to work out what the dynamicsare. I hope that answers her question; but, as always, Iam very happy to extend the invitation to discuss thematter further outside the room.

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, the offer of furtherdiscussions might be helpful, because I think that, byusing some of the legislation that we have already gotand by being a bit clearer about the dates whenregulations and so on might come into effect, wemight be able to get landlords to start taking actionearlier. We may be able to explore that between nowand Report stage. In the mean time, I beg leave towithdraw my amendment.

Amendment 20R withdrawn.

Amendments 20RA to 20T not moved.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Colwyn):I understand that Amendments 20TA to 20Y are notmoved. The question is that Clause 37 stand part ofthe Bill—

Baroness Smith of Basildon: Amendment 20TA, anamendment to Clause 37, has not yet been moved.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I thought itwas not moved. According to my list, it should havebeen debated in the previous group. However, we willnow debate Amendment 20TA.


Amendment 20TA


20TA: Clause 37, page 23, line 36, at end insert—“( ) The Secretary of State must make regulations for the

purpose of securing that a landlord of a domestic PR property ofthe type mentioned in subsection (2) who has failed to complywith a notice issued under subsection (3) may not let the propertyuntil the landlord has complied with that notice.”

Baroness Smith of Basildon: I thank the Committee.This is a probing amendment to look at the powers oflocal authorities regarding sanctions and the non-lettingof properties where landlords have failed to make therequired energy efficiency improvements. Clearly, landlordsneed to be given a reasonable length of time to comply,and that must be built into the notice. We should lookat this in the light of later clauses.

Imposing a fine on a landlord who has failed tocomply is not always the best way to proceed. If alandlord is fined for not complying with energy efficiencyimprovements, he has to recoup the money he hasbeen fined and the energy efficiency of the propertywill not be improved. The council could seek to undertakethe work and put a charge on the landlord through theGreen Deal, through rent or by other means. It seemsto me that where a landlord does not comply, it isnecessary to make a range of compliance tools availableto local authorities, giving them a number of optionsto take up depending on the circumstances. I amrather reluctant to follow the line of fining landlordsor seeking to remove properties from letting as thefirst course of action. Every case has to be looked aton its merits.

As I have said, this is a probing amendment to lookat what the Minister envisages in this regard. Whatkind of tools does he consider could be made availableto local authorities to ensure that energy efficiencymeasures are implemented within a reasonable andappropriate timescale? I beg to move.

Lord Best: I am not sure that the new clauses I haveproposed to come before Clause 40 fit terribly well atthis point, but since they have been grouped withAmendment 20TA, perhaps I may now speak to them.I have a feeling that may well be familiar to nobleLords. I might have wasted my Sunday preparing alengthy speech because the debate up to this point hasalready covered much of what these proposed newclauses seek to address. The point of them is to add afew more teeth to the regulatory process and to try toensure that the difficulties in the private rented sectorthat we have been discussing are dealt with by reachingall landlords.

I ought to add a point that has not yet arisen. It isoften necessary to reach the agents of private landlords.Some 60 per cent of homes in the private rented sectorare managed by managing and letting agents ratherthan directly by landlords themselves. I declare aninterest as chairman of the council of the PropertyOmbudsman that receives the complaints about managingagents. Although I can assure you that most agents doa very good job, there needs to be some protection

against lazy agents who do not get round to doing thethings that they ought to do on behalf of their landlordsand on behalf of the tenants who live in those properties.

7 pm

The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I wonder ifthe noble Lord could clarify for the Committee whichamendment he is speaking to, because I do not haveany in my grouping.

Lord Best: I am speaking to the two amendmentsgroupedwithAmendment20TA;namely,Amendments21ZAand 21ZB. Further, I think we will probably be able toembrace a bit of 21ZC.

These two proposed new clauses have been preparedby the Association for the Conservation of Energy,which represents 30 organisations in this field, andFriends of the Earth. They are trying to avoid thepitfalls of the Green Deal, of which I am a tremendoussupporter, proving to be a bit of a wet blanket forsome parts of the private rented sector. They establisha minimum standard of energy efficiency at band E onthe energy performance scale, which we suspect iswhere the Government are going in any case, for allproperties that are let from 2016. To put it in thenegative, this would make it illegal to let a propertyafter 2016 if it does not accord with the minimumstandard set at band E, which is a pretty modest levelbut one that affects some 350,000 properties in theprivate rented sector. As we all know, the privaterented sector has a much higher number of propertiesthat are in need of bringing up to new standards.

Let me give the reasons why this might be a goodplan. Knowing that this legal obligation will kick in infive years’ time would mean that landlords are likely togear up now to make sure that their properties meetthe standard. Their agents will also know that it iscoming, so they can prepare for this as a certainty inthe future. This follows the same approach thatGovernment have already determined for commercialproperties, where a minimum standard will apply.

Properties that are rated only F and G are in factclassified as a health hazard, a category one risk,under the housing health and safety rating system.Action to enforce that measure, however, has provedto be difficult. Local authorities have other fish to fry,they often do not have enough environmental healthofficers to go round and there are other priorities. Thiswould address the health hazards of people, oftenon low incomes and vulnerable, who are prone tohypothermia and winter deaths in these low-energyrated properties. It does not put the onus on thetenant, and indeed it is unrealistic to expect tenants inall cases to be bold enough to go through the hassle ofrequiring their landlord to do something. We shouldremember that many tenants have short-term tenancies.They do not have security of tenure and, if they fallout badly with their landlord, the tenancy may not berenewed. It is better if there is a regulation outside ofthe landlord-tenant relationship to do this.

Landlords, and as I mentioned in 60 per cent ofcases their agents, are familiar with the gas safetycertificate. The new regime that requires you to meetan energy performance certificate standard is just thesame as the gas safety certificate. Landlords have all


[LORD BEST]got used to it. Tedious as it may seem, you have to gothrough the inspection process and the property has tomeet the gas safety requirement. This is a health andsafety matter as well, so they would have to meet theenergy requirement on that same pattern. This is classifiedas moving into regulation, but it is fairly light-touchbearing in mind that band E is a pretty low level toreach, and it is five years away, giving plenty of timefor people to get there.

It gives local authorities a specific measure and aclear duty. They know where they stand and they canget on with it. These clauses would be a helpfuladdition to the Bill. They also put on the Secretary ofState the duty to take the minimum standard upanother notch by 2020, since band E still represents avery basic bottom line.

The second proposed new clause here puts someconstraints on the requirement to meet a minimumstandard over the next five years or face a fine of up to£10,000 if it is ignored. These constraints are thatthere must be exceptions where the landlord can showthat achieving the minimum standard is impractical; itoffends against the golden rule. The tenant may refuseto have the works done, although there is still a questionmark in my mind following the point made by thenoble Earl, Lord Cathcart, as to what happens whenthere is a group of tenants of which all but one arekeen to see energy efficiency measures in their block offlats or converted house, and one tenant refuses. Theremay be more to be said on that, but where the singletenant of a single property refuses to have the worksdone or because the changes would reduce the value ofthe property—these circumstances would be exceptionsand the obligation would not apply.

Secondly, there would need to be a duty placedupon the Secretary of State to establish an appealsprocess to ensure that all was fair and proper. Thirdly,if in a particular local authority area there is evidencethat the new requirement is leading to a shortage ofrented properties, which frankly is an unlikely event,the Secretary of State could then suspend the minimumstandard for that area. This contingency seems betterthan a blanket suspension across the whole country onthe basis that the number of homes to rent had fallenin one or two specific places, as it would target theplaces where it happens.

These amendments seek to ensure that for the privaterented sector the Green Deal is not a damp squib.They make it pretty certain that the very worst propertieswill be tackled within the next five years. Landlordswill know where they stand, and voluntary action overthe years ahead seems highly likely. I was pleased tonote that the thinking behind these amendments isendorsed by the Government’s fuel poverty advisorygroup, by the Committee on Climate Change and bythe many MPs who signed the Early Day Motion. Iwas also going to quote the Mayor of London, but thenoble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, has alreadydone that for me.

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, my name is attachedto the amendments to which the noble Lord, LordBest, has just spoken. I do not intend to say much. It isclear from the amendments I moved earlier that I have

a great deal of sympathy for what the noble Lord issaying. Perhaps we can also discuss between theCommittee and Report stages whether there is somemerit in doing more to encourage the private rentedsector and to help local authorities with this work. Isupport the noble Lord, Lord Best, and I hope theMinister can at least agree to discussions on the detailedproposals that have been put forward.

Lord Marland: I am very grateful to the noble Lord,Lord Best, and for the support expressed by my noblefriend Lady Maddock. The noble Lord spent aconstructive Sunday writing his excellent speech becauseit has given us a good picture of what is going on inthe sector. In many ways I wish he had spoken earlier,because he would have set the scene nicely for some ofthe debates today, as indeed he did at Second Reading.

Amendments 21ZB and 21ZB would insert twonew clauses setting a minimum energy efficiency standard.However, they go further in that they would preventthe renting of properties that do not meet the minimumstandard. They would also allow for the Secretary ofState to suspend regulations with any local authorityarea if it is found that regulations are having anadverse effect on supply. Amendment 20TA wouldalso prevent a landlord letting a property if a noticehad been served by a local authority but not compliedwith.

The amendments raise an interesting proposition:that of using a minimum standard to improve performancein the sector and preventing properties that do notmeet this new standard from being let. I read themwith interest and welcome their intention to create alevel playing field in terms of energy efficiency withinthe sector. However, I cannot accept the proposals fortwo reasons. First, I reassure the Committee that theprovisions as currently drafted in Clause 37 alreadytarget the worst performing properties. Secondly, andmost important, we will achieve this without settingminimum standards, other than those that have beenreferenced, which could be viewed as a barrier to newlandlords entering the market. We are trying to plot apragmatic and sensitive course.

Amendment 21ZB would give powers to the Secretaryof State to suspend minimum standard regulations inlocal authority areas where they could be shown to beimpacting adversely on the supply of properties available.As I have outlined, it is not our intention to impact onthe market; in fact, it is the opposite. We want to createa more attractive rental market for improved properties.The review already creates a safeguard. It will take avery careful look at the impact of potential regulationon the rental market across the country.

I turn to the issue of timing, which we have coveredquite frequently. Amendment 21ZA proposes thatregulations, if any, be made no later than 1 January2016. The noble Lord, Lord Best, has already referredto that. I hope that this explains the Government’sposition. I am extremely grateful for the very valuableinput, but I hope that these amendments will not bepressed.

Lord Best: My Lords, I will address the point thatthe Government are very keen for there to be nobarrier to the entry of new landlords into the market.


It is improbable that people will enter at the level ofthe worst properties in the worst conditions. The buy-to-letmarket has become an extraordinary phenomenon.More than 1 million properties have been acquired ona buy-to-let basis. The typical profile of these propertiesis that they cost around £100,000 to £110,000, arebrand new and are in a block of flats built by ahousebuilder. The energy rating for these properties ispretty good. One would not be setting a big barrier ifone prevented the entry into the market of landlordswho buy the most rubbishy properties on the market.It might be a good idea if they were required, beforethey let them, to bring them up at least to band E as abasic level. With those provisos, we live to debate thisanother day.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: I am grateful for theMinister’s comments, but I am not sure that he answeredany of the points that I raised. I am still seekingguidance from him about the non-letting of a propertywhere a landlord has failed to make the requiredenergy efficiency improvements. I think that the Ministerwas referring to Clause 37(2)(c) when he said that thelegislation provided that regulation should apply firstto the worst performing energy efficiency homes. Itdefines a property in this category as one that,“falls below such level of energy efficiency … as is provided for bythe regulations”.The Minister has not made it clear, and we do not yetknow, what that level will be, although there has beena lot of guidance to the Committee that it should notbe below band E. What happens when the landlorddoes not meet that standard? At what level would thelocal authority be able to tell the landlord not to re-letthe property? That was the point that I was probingand that the Minister has not yet answered.

7.15 pmLord Marland: I think I have answered that point,

and I answered it on the previous batch of amendments.There is a guideline of EPC band E. The noble Baronessasked what the guideline is; that is it, and I have said iton a number of occasions. It is incumbent upon thelocal authority, because of not only its own carbontargets but its authority targets, to ensure that thatproperty delivers that standard. Therefore it will usewhat powers the local authority has and what powerthe Local Government Association decides to use tomake them fulfil their own carbon commitments. As Isaid on the previous group of amendments, it is notfor us to be prescriptive to the local authority, otherthan in respect of the broader picture of what we aretrying to achieve and what the Government are tryingto achieve. It is up to the local authority to achieve itscarbon reduction targets and its home improvementtargets.

Amendment 20TA withdrawn.

Amendments 20U to 20Y not moved.

Clause 37 agreed.

Clause 38 : Further provision about domestic energyefficiency regulations: England and Wales

Amendment 20YA not moved.

Clause 38 agreed.

Clause 39 : Sanctions for the purposes of domesticenergy efficiency regulations: England and Wales

Amendment 20Z


20Z: Clause 39, page 25, line 7, leave out “may” and insert“shall”

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I shall speak also toAmendments 20AA and 20AB. I will be very briefbecause I believe I have covered quite a lot of this. Wealso have an amendment coming up later which isa little similar to amendments that I am speaking tohere. I have already discussed the fact that I amconcerned that we do not have a very good timetablefor the regulations. Nevertheless, the Bill allows forsome regulations to be made to deal with the worstproperties, and that is what I have been assuming insome of my amendments. However, the Bill says thatthe Secretary of State “may”, and I have asked that itbe “must”. If I had been well tutored by the nobleBaroness, Lady Noakes, it would be “must”—I haveput “shall”, but I think we all know what I mean, so letus leave it at that for now and not have a long discussionabout may, shall and must.

I have already indicated that I think that if landlordsare not complying with the regulations for the veryworst properties—my noble friend Lord Best said thisin speaking to other amendments—and if they are notletting these properties which, frankly, probably noneof us in this Room would want to live in, then we needto be a bit clearer about how and when we are going toact. At the moment, under the housing health andsafety rating system, where there are health hazards,the local authorities can go in, do the work and chargepeople for them. It is a far more effective way thanfining people, because if we fine people, as I said, thework does not actually get done. It is clear that theMinister could bring in regulations in this legislationand the penalty put forward on the face of the Bill is£5,000. I have suggested that we make it £10,000, but itis clear from my Amendment 20AA that I prefer thatwe have local authorities going in and doing the workrather than fining, because then you actually get itdone. At this stage in proceedings, I will not sayanything else, and I beg to move.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I get the impressionthat we are coming up against the problem of balancethat I referred to in a speech made some hours ago. Itis now getting to the point where, if these amendmentsare accepted, the Bill will expect local authorities totake fairly drastic enforcement action. The noble Lord,Lord Best, will know much more about this than I do,but I have always been given to understand that localauthorities already have quite substantial powers underthe housing health and safety rating system, whichcan be used to tackle houses where tenants sufferexcess cold and, no doubt, other factors. But the realproblem is that these powers are very rarely used. Thenoble Lord, Lord Best, made the point that localauthorities have many other duties, that they do nothave enough environmental health officers, and that


[LORD JENKIN OF RODING]with the stringencies under which they now have tooperate, it is not expected that they will be in aposition to recruit more. Faced with pressures onresources and competing priorities, I wonder wherethe sense is in landing them with still more duties.Indeed, one has to ask what the probability is of suchnew duties being enforced.

There is no point in substantially increasing penaltiesand in introducing other measures that enable localauthorities to take over houses, improve them andthen charge the landlord, if no one is going to enforcethem. Increasing the fine from £5,000 to £10,000 willdo absolutely nothing if the notices are not enforced. Iwill sound a note of caution on this. We should notexpect local authorities, over the next few years, totake substantial action when they are well known fornot using the powers that they already have under thesystem that I have just mentioned. Again, I am justsounding a note of caution and I hope that the Ministerwill look at some of these proposals with a fairly coldand analytical eye to assess whether they will improvethe Bill and increase the chance of the objectives thatwe all support being achieved, or whether this will bethe point at which landlords simply throw up theirhands and say, “Blow the lot of you, we are not goingto re-let”.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I have not theslightest doubt but that the Government will apply acold and analytical eye to these issues, because that istheir role. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin,says, and we all know that certain powers are morehonoured in the breach than in their exercise. But, ofcourse, the powers underpin the position of the localauthority. He is absolutely right to say that localauthorities do not often exercise their powers: but ifthey did not exist at all, standards would conceivablybe a good deal lower, because everyone would knowthat if minimal standards were not observed, the localauthority would not be able to take action.

These amendments commend themselves becausethey introduce a floor to the position. They say, basically,that these are the powers that local authorities willenjoy. They may not have to exercise them often, but ifthey do not exist, the Minister will have to show howenforcement can effectively take place. It seems to methat these amendments are a constructive way ofunderpinning the Bill with an effective sanction. Giventhat, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, is onsomewhat dangerous ground if he says that the issueof enforcement depends on the level of resources atyour disposal, and therefore underperformance maybe looked at in those terms. If that were translated tothe police under the present cuts, the Governmentwould be in serious trouble. One has to look carefullyat the issue of what level of resources is available, butwhat is important is that it is only through localauthority enforcement that certain minimum standardswith regard to this legislation can be achieved. Weshould seek to guarantee that such powers exist. Thedegree of enforcement will depend on resources, onwill and on a general perception of the value of thelegislation. We have said all along that the legislationdepends not on compulsion but on the engagement of

the community. That is the main driver. The issuecovered by the amendments is the provision of anelement of underpinning, which I subscribe to.

Lord Marland: I am grateful to my noble friendLady Maddock for putting forward the amendment.Obviously it has considerable merit. The greater thefine, the greater the determination we show to achievewhat we set out. On this occasion, contrary to the last,I agree with my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding—generally I agree totally with the noble Lord—that£5,000 is a reasonable limit. It is a considerable amountof money that is in line with existing limits for theamounts that local authorities can fine landlords forletting out substandard and hazardous accommodation.On that basis, and with due respect, I invite the nobleBaroness to withdraw her amendment. As she rightlysays, we have spoken to other amendments coveringvarious parts of the Bill, and no doubt we will infuture as well.

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, as I was only speakingto that amendment, I cannot withdraw it. However, Ican withdraw Amendment 20Z that led this group.Given the discussions that we have had, I am preparedto do that. However, in doing so, I will say that itwould be helpful to have some discussion about howwe can encourage landlords to improve their properties,particularly the very bad ones—I hope that that willhappen—and about how we can involve local authorities.I am particularly keen on local authorities because ofsome of the powers that they have under other legislation,which I will not mention again by name. That is onereason why I am keen to see them involved. I beg leaveto withdraw Amendment 20Z.

Amendment 20Z withdrawn.

Amendment 20AA not moved.

Amendment 20AAA

Moved by Lord Grantchester

20AAA: Clause 39, page 25, line 16, at end insert—“( ) Provision falling within subsection (1) may also include

the power to carry out improvement works in default of thelandlord, recovering all reasonable costs necessary for undertakingthe work.”

Lord Grantchester: I apologise for the delay; thegroupings are a little confusing. I am reminded duringthese debates of the words of the noble Lord, LordJenkin, who said that we were entering a very complexarea. One comes to the Grand Committee thinkingthat one understands everything, but as the debatemoves forward one is often prompted to think that weare questioning at cross-purposes. On other occasions,one thinks that one knows all about it when a questionis suddenly asked that makes one think, “Have I reallyunderstood it?”. In proposing Amendment 20AAA, Iwonder whether I have really understood it because Iam confused as to why this amendment is not alsogrouped with Amendment 20AA, but there are quite afew areas in which that amendment could have had aneffect. The amendment is rather simple, but it touches


on three serious areas which we have already debatedand which I shall pick up on as I go through myremarks.

7.30 pmAmendment 20AAA takes issue with Clause 39

where it refers to landlords. What I am referring tohere could happen in the first instance where there areextra costs involved, a point also touched on byAmendment 20AA. I refer to where a local authority,as the landlord, may face some extra costs of whichthere is no mention in the legislation and the regulations,and could possibly not be mentioned; that is, thequestion of fees.

The second area I wish to draw to the Minister’sattention for clarification has also been touched on bythe noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, when he questionedwhat would happen if a bill payer refused to take partin a Green Deal, especially when that bill payer is onlyone among a group of tenancies or properties. Hewould then hold up the application for the Green Dealby refusing. What we have in mind is that perhapsother tenants could group together and say that theone tenant has unreasonably withheld his consent,which affects the rest of the group. In that situation,could that individual tenant be overruled? That is alsoincluded in this provision.

The third situation is where there is a mix of landlordsand tenants within a property and it is difficult toidentify all the tenants involved. That may bring upfurther issues where fees and applications need to bemade. As my noble friend Lord O’Neill and the nobleLord, Lord Best, identified, there are properties witha high turnover of tenants, which only adds to thedifficulties.

Having set out the three avenues I wish to pursue, Ibeg to move.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I certainly do notwant to delay the Committee beyond its natural span,but perhaps I could just ask the noble Lord, LordGrantchester, how the possibility of local authoritiescarrying out improvement works and charging forthem fits with the scheme of this Bill, which containsa requirement to carry out the relevant efficiencyimprovements financed either by the Green Deal or bythe energy company obligation. I do not understandhow another party in the form of the local authoritycan do something that should be dealt with by eitherthe Green Deal or by the energy company obligation.It seems unfair at the very least, if we are talking abouta group of tenants where one is holding out, for thelandlord to be stuck with the cost for a whole buildingor block in circumstances where, for the rest, therewould be a Green Deal. I do not understand how thisamendment fits with the scheme, which is that therelevant energy efficiency improvements are GreenDeal or energy company obligation-funded. They arenot funded in any other way.

Lord Grantchester: I thank the noble Baroness forseeking that extra clarification. In this clause we areassuming that in a situation where a tenant is holdingout against the wishes of every other tenant in a block,

he would be required to undertake the improvementsas part of the Green Deal. The costs arising would notland on the local authority. The tenant that was provingto be the roadblock would be entered under the GreenDeal and would make payments under that deal. Ithink that this provision is set out in Clause 37.

Lord Teverson: My Lords, I admit that I do notunderstand this amendment. I do not understandwhat it does. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester,for his explanation, but I do not see how it relates tomultiple tenancies. I apologise and will leave it at that.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, I am very gratefulto noble Lords for their amendments to Clause 39.Amendment 20AAA would give local authorities thepower to carry out improvement works if the landlorddefaults, and to recover all reasonable costs for undertakingwork. We are not convinced that it is appropriate togrant such powers. Local authorities already have thepower under the Housing Act 2004 to carry out worksand recover costs in cases where there is an immediateand serious threat to health and safety. We are notconvinced that any further power is appropriate orproportionate.

I will address the point about a tenant dissenting.Sitting tenants will not be forced to take on a GreenDeal, and secondary legislation will set out how thisaffects landlords’ obligations under any PRS regulations.I hope that the noble Lord will be happy to withdrawthe amendment.

Lord Grantchester: I am of course grateful for thequestions on this matter, especially from the nobleLord, Lord Teverson. Perhaps later we will sit downand put our heads together. It could benefit all of usto read today’s proceedings twice or three times tounderstand the different angles from which everyonehas approached this. What I was referring to here, andperhaps did not explain clearly, is a situation whereone tenant in a block of flats is holding out and thelandlord does not go ahead because he does not havethe full agreement of that tenant. I remember thepoint of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, whoasked: if there is no consent, where are we? The pointof the amendment was to get over that hurdle andenable a local authority to step in if a landlord cannotcarry on because one tenant refuses to make theimprovements. However, at this time of the evening,and in view of all the debate that we have had, Isuggest that we will all benefit from sitting down andthinking through where we are on the Bill. I beg leaveto withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 20AAA withdrawn.

Amendments 20AB and 21 not moved.

Clause 39 agreed.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, this may be aconvenient moment for the Committee to adjournuntil Wednesday at 3.45 pm.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Committeestands adjourned.

Committee adjourned at 7.37 pm.


Written StatementMonday 24 January 2011

Sudan: ReferendumStatement

The Minister of State, Foreign and CommonwealthOffice (Lord Howell of Guildford): My right honourablefriend the Secretary of State for Foreign andCommonwealth Affairs (William Hague) has madethe following Written Ministerial Statement.

I am pleased to inform the House that polling in theSouthern Sudan referendum took place between 9 and15 January 2011. Over 3 million Southern Sudanesecast their votes in this historic referendum to decidetheir future, far exceeding the required 60 per centturnout figure. Many queued for hours at pollingcentres, waiting patiently and calmly for the opportunityto express their view.

The successful completion of the referendum is amomentous step towards the implementation of thecomprehensive peace agreement signed between thenorth and south in 2005. Observers from the UnitedKingdom and many other countries have been on theground monitoring the process closely. This week domesticand international observers have made clear that theprocess to date has been conducted in a crediblemanner. This is a truly remarkable achievement and Iwelcome the observers’ assessments, including the EUobservation mission’s preliminary statement of 17 Januarythat the referendum had met international standardsand been free and fair. We await the formal announcementof the result, currently due on 7 or 14 February.

I commend the enormous efforts made over thepast few months to prepare for the referendum bythe political leadership in Khartoum and Juba, andthe work done by the Southern Sudan ReferendumCommission (SSRC). I also commend the logisticalsupport for voting inside Sudan provided by theUnited Nations Mission to Sudan (UNMIS) andthe arrangements made for out of country voting by

the International Organisation for Migration (IOM).The UK provided significant technical and financialassistance to the polling within Sudan and overseas.

During polling I spoke to both Vice-President Tahaand Southern President Kiir about the need to resumenegotiations on the outstanding CPA issues as soon aspossible. I also spoke to President Mbeki, who leadsthe African Union High Level Implementation Panelthat is supporting the parties, and to President Melesof Ethiopia. My right honourable friend the InternationalDevelopment Secretary has spoken to Jean Ping ofthe African Union, Baroness Amos of OCHA andDr Amre Moussa of the Arab League. My honourablefriend the Africa Minister has spoken to HaileMenkerios, the United Nations Secretary-General’sspecial representative for Sudan.

The UK, working with international partners, workedclosely with the parties to reach the comprehensivepeace agreement in 2005. We remain fully supportiveas they address the major challenges that still lieahead. These include questions around the borderbetween north and south, the status of Abyei, internationaldebt, citizenship and security.

At the same time, the UK remains engaged onhumanitarian and development issues. Of recent concernhas been the large movement of people from northto south, and the displacement of 40,000 people dueto violence in Darfur. Perhaps as many as 180,000people have returned to Southern Sudan since November.Contingency arrangements put in place have so farheld: the UK has contributed £15 million to referendum-related contingency preparedness and, with the UN, ismonitoring the situation closely.

Whatever the outcome of the referendum, the UKwill continue its commitment to both north and southSudan. We will continue to support African Union/UnitedNations chief negotiator Djibril Bassolé and theGovernment of Qatar as they seek to establish alasting and inclusive peace in Darfur.

This is a critical moment for the people of Sudan.Much has been achieved that lessens the risks of areturn to war, but there is still much to be done beforethe end of the comprehensive peace agreement on9 July 2011.

WS 29 WS 30[24 JANUARY 2011]Written Statements Written Statements

Written Answers

Monday 24 January 2011

AbortionQuestions

Asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how muchthey spent on all aspects of abortion funding inEngland and Wales in each of the last five years;and what restrictions they placed upon such funding.

[HL5705]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State,Department of Health (Earl Howe): The departmentdoes not hold data on the devolved Administrations.For England, the information that is available is setout in the following table.

The department does not collect information onspending by primary care trusts (PCTs) on abortionsundertaken by National Health Service providers inEngland. The department does however collectinformation on the cost to NHS providers (NHStrusts, NHS foundation trusts and PCT provider arms)of abortions. The following table sets out the cost toNHS providers of abortions between 2005-06 and2009-10. The figures in the table do not include thecost of abortions performed by the independent sector,which were commissioned directly by PCT commissionerarms, as this information is not collected as part of thereference costs collection.

(£m) 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Cost to NHS providers (NHS trusts, foundation trusts andPCT provider arms) of providing abortion services

81.7 83.6 84.2 82.1 82.6

Cost to NHS providers of commissioning or contracting abortionsfrom independent sector providers1

12.4 17.7 10.9 10.4 7.5

Total 94.1 101.3 95.1 92.4 90.1

Note: 1For reference costs purposes, only PCT provider arms can report commissioned data. Figures are rounded.Source: Published reference cost data, available at www.dh.gov.uk/nhscosting


To ask Her Majesty’s Government which Ministershave policy responsibility for (a) abortion in Englandand Wales, (b) abortion overseas, and (c) fundingfor (1) the International Planned ParenthoodFederation, (2) the United Nations Population Fund,and (3) Marie Stopes International. [HL5707]

Baroness Verma: The right honourable Andrew LansleyMP, as Secretary of State for Health, has policyresponsibility for abortion in England and Wales,supported by Anne Milton MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Public Health.

As Secretary of State for International Development,the right honourable Andrew Mitchell MP has policyresponsibility for the Government’s approach to abortionin developing countries. My right honourable friend issupported by the right honourable Alan Duncan MP,Minister of State for International Development, wholeads on UK funding for the United Nations PopulationFund, and Stephen O’Brien MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development, wholeads on funding to Civil Society, including theInternational Planned Parenthood Federation and MarieStopes International.

The Department for International Development(DfID) does not support abortion as a method offamily planning. We believe the best way to eliminateunsafe abortion is to provide access to family planninginformation, services and supplies and to ensure thatwomen have more control over the circumstances inwhich they have sex. In countries where abortion ispermitted, DfID will support programmes that make

abortion safe and accessible. DfID’s policy positionon safe and unsafe abortion is available on our website—www.dfid.gov.uk/Media-Room/Publications/.


To ask Her Majesty’s Government how manyabortions performed in countries overseas were paidfor by (a) the Government, and (b) organisationsfunded by the Government, in each of the last fiveyears, by country; and whether any restrictionswere placed on the performance of those abortions.

[HL5847]

Baroness Verma: The information requested is notavailable without incurring disproportionate cost.

The Department for International Development(DfID) does not support abortion as a method offamily planning. We believe the best way to eliminateunsafe abortion is to provide access to family planninginformation, services and supplies and to ensure thatwomen have more control over the circumstances inwhich they have sex. In countries where abortion ispermitted, DfID will support programmes that makeabortion safe and accessible. DfID’s policy positionon safe and unsafe abortion is available on our website—www.dfid.gov.uk/Media-Room/Publications/.

Agriculture: Organic FoodQuestions

Asked by Lord Krebs

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is theirassessment of the recently launched EuropeanCommission £1.8 million campaign to promote theconsumption of organic food. [HL5730]

WA 81 WA 82[24 JANUARY 2011]Written Answers Written Answers

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State,Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs(Lord Henley): The organic industry has raised halfthe cost of this campaign and the European Unionwill be providing the rest. Defra was involved in discussionsduring the development of the campaign and helpedto facilitate meetings between the UK organic sectorand Commission officials. The approach taken, whichis to use every day examples of ordinary consumers,may help to address barriers and misconceptions aroundthe market for organic products. We share theCommission’s hope that the campaign will increasethe amount of organic product sold by UK organicoperators, who work hard to increase consumer choice.

Asked by Lord Krebs

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is theirassessment of the statement on the EuropeanCommission’s website that organic farming is “Goodfor nature, Good for you”. [HL5731]

Lord Henley: The phrase “Good for nature, Goodfor you” was chosen by the Commission as part of itsorganic promotion campaign to convey that a systemof farming that promotes biodiversity can improve thelives of European citizens by enhancing their enjoymentof rural areas. The wording may be ambiguous in theEnglish language as it could be seen to suggest that allorganic products are nutritionally beneficial, which isnot the case, for example, for organic confectionary.When the campaign was being developed in 2006-07,Defra officials proposed that the Commission adoptthe wording “Good for nature, good for us”, better toconvey the essential objective.

Asked by Lord Krebs

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether theyhold any scientific evidence that indicates whetherorganic food is (a) better for nature, and (b) betterfor consumers. [HL5732]

Lord Henley: Whether organic production deliversenvironmental benefits is a complex issue.

In respect of improved biodiversity attributable toorganic systems, studies include those by Shepherd etal. 2003, Hole et al. 2005 and Norton, L. et al. 2008.While these recognise that alternative methods ofencouraging biodiversity on non-organic farms maybe at least as effective, they also note that the organicsystem provides a valuable whole farm approach toencouraging environmental benefits.

However, other studies arrive at different conclusions.For example by Gabriel et al. 2010 conclude thatorganic farming delivers only small increases in biodiversityon average and in some farm types a slight reductionin the numbers of small birds such as linnets andskylarks.

In terms of organic production being better forconsumers, recent studies funded by the Food StandardsAgency have shown that there are no important differencesin the nutrition content of organic food when comparedwith conventionally produced food. However, it isclear that some consumers prefer not to have detectable

residues in their food, and certified organic food containsfewer pesticide residues than food produced usingconventional methods.

Organic regulation imposes strict animal welfarerequirements on farmers and many consumers preferto rely on the assurance of good welfare provided bythe purchase of certified organic livestock products.Consumers may also choose organic products becausethey do not use hydrogenated fats or synthetic flavours.As stated above, consumers of organic products mayalso contribute to environmental benefits biodiversity.These are areas in which consumers may consider thatorganic foods are better for them.

Armed Forces: Parachute OperationsQuestion

Asked by Lord Moonie

To ask Her Majesty’s Government on how manyoccasions in the last 20 years regular United Kingdomforces have been deployed on operations by parachute.

[HL5582]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministryof Defence (Lord Astor of Hever): UK parachuteforces were formally deployed in Sierra Leone in 2000.

Although the Special Forces have a parachutecapability, information on any operations relating tothem has been withheld as its disclosure would orwould be likely to prejudice the capability, effectivenessor security of the Armed Forces.

BahrainQuestion

Asked by Lord Patten

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether theyhave received reports that the disabled academicDr Al Singace, arrested in Bahrain following anaddress to the House of Lords on personal freedomsin Bahrain, has (a) had his wheelchair removed,and (b) been subjected to torture whilst in detentionpending trial. [HL5764]

The Minister of State, Foreign and CommonwealthOffice (Lord Howell of Guildford): The Governmentremain concerned by reports that torture was used inBahrain’s Ministry of Interior detention facilities. Webelieve that torture is unacceptable under anycircumstances. We regularly encourage the Governmentof Bahrain, at the highest level, to meet all theirhuman rights obligations, demonstrate transparencyand follow due process in the investigation of allegedoffences committed against those who have been detained.The Government of Bahrain have assured us thatthere is zero tolerance for torture in Bahraini detentionfacilities. We have not received reports that Dr AlSingace had his wheelchair removed while in Bahrainidetention facilities but we continue to monitor thesituation.

WA 83 WA 84[LORDS]Written Answers Written Answers

BankingQuestion

Asked by Lord Myners

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, furtherto the answer by Lord Sassoon on 11 January(HL Deb, col. 1333), what is the amount of corporationtax to be paid by the United Kingdom’s six largestbanks in 2009–10; and what is the amount forecastto be paid by the same banks in 2010–11. [HL5820]

The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (LordSassoon): Due to HM Revenue and Custom’s taxpayerconfidentiality rules, it is not possible to provide theamount of corporation tax to be paid, or forecast tobe paid, by the United Kingdom’s six largest banks in2009-10 and 2010-11.

Banking: BonusesQuestions


To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether thepublication by the Financial Services Authority ofa revised code on remuneration constitutes thecompletion of the “robust action to tackle unacceptablebonuses in the financial services sector” included inthe coalition agreement; and whether bonuses paidto employees in the United Kingdom financial servicessector will be acceptable in quantum and structure.

[HL5603]

The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (LordSassoon): Robust actions have been taken by theGovernment to tackle unacceptable bonuses, includingthe revision of the Financial Services Authority’s (FSA)Remuneration Code, the implementation of the FSA’snew remuneration disclosure rules, the establishmentof the Independent Commission on Banking and theintroduction of the bank levy. In addition, the Chancellorhas written to counterparts in the European Unioncalling for urgent consideration of proposals for aninternational pay disclosure regime, and the Governmentcontinue to work with international partners to investigatethe costs and benefits of a financial activities tax.

The Government have been clear that banks mustact responsibly in setting their bonuses. The Governmentare in discussion with the banks to see whether a newsettlement can be reached whereby smaller bonusesare paid than would otherwise be paid; and that thereis greater transparency in relation to remunerationthan hitherto. If the banks cannot commit to such asettlement, the Government have made it clear tothem that nothing is ″off the table″, and the Governmentwill keep the House informed of all relevant policydevelopments.

Asked by Lord Higgins

To ask Her Majesty’s Government to what extentthe bonus pool of the Royal Bank of Scotland isrelated to its performance; and to what extent paymentsfrom it to individuals are related to their performance.

[HL5875]

Lord Sassoon: The Government are clear thatremuneration policies at banks need to reward long-termsustainable performance and not incentivise short-termexcessive risk taking. The Financial Services Authority’srevised Remuneration Code ensures remuneration policiesare consistent with effective risk management andimposes strict rules that ensure significant portions ofthe remuneration paid to material risk takers are deferredand linked to the performance of the individual andthe firm.

The Government have made it clear to the RoyalBank of Scotland that they should have a smallerbonus pool than last year, and that it should be aback-marker in the industry.

Banking: LiabilityQuestion

Asked by Lord Roberts of Conwy

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are thetotal liabilities of the Royal Bank of Scotland andLloyds Banking Group that may be added to thepublic sector net debt. [HL5947]

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: The information requestedfalls within the responsibility of the UK StatisticsAuthority. I have asked the authority to reply.

Letter from Stephen Penneck, Director General forOffice for National Statistics, to Lord Roberts, datedJanuary 2011

As Director General of the Office for NationalStatistics, I have been asked to reply to your ParliamentaryQuestion asking Her Majesty’s Government the totalliabilities of the Royal Bank of Scotland and LloydsBanking Group that may be added to the public sectornet debt. [HL5947]

In November 2009, ONS published an article whichestimated that the impact might be between £1 trillionand£1.5trillion. [www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/nojournal/Financial-crisis.pdf,]

Work to quantify these impacts more precisely andto implement them in public sector finances statisticshas proceeded subsequently The November 2010Public Sector Finances: Statistical Bulletin, published21 December 2010 and available at www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/psf1210.pdf, explained that ONS intends toincorporate the data for these two banking groupsinto the Public Sector Finances: Statistical Bulletinthat will be released on 25 January 2011. This will beaccompanied by an article describing the data and themethodology used.

Banking: Royal Bank of ScotlandQuestion


To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether thereport into the collapse of HBOS commissioned byand currently being produced for the FinancialServices Authority is subject to the same confidentialityconditions and publication restrictions as the reportproduced on the Royal Bank of Scotland. [HL5600]


The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (LordSassoon): On 2 December the Financial Services Authority(FSA) announced that it had completed a supervisoryinvestigation into the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS).The FSA is conducting supervisory investigations intothe other banks that required extensive governmentsupport during the crisis. These investigations areongoing. If they lead to enforcement action beingtaken, then it would be usual for the FSA to makethese outcomes public if such actions against individualsor institutions are successful.

Banking: Special Liquidity SchemeQuestion


To ask Her Majesty’s Government how manyUnited Kingdom banks continue to be funded underthe Bank of England’s Special Liquidity Scheme;what is the extent of current utilisation of theScheme by value; and whether participation is, orcould be, dependent on recipient banks avoidingbonus practices judged as unacceptable by theGovernment or the Bank of England. [HL5726]

The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (LordSassoon): The Special Liquidity Scheme (SLS) is aBank of England scheme. Participation is determinedaccording to eligibility criteria set out in the Bank’sMarketNoticeontheSLS(availableatwww.bankofengland.co.uk/markets/marketnoticeO90925sls.pdf).

The Bank announced in the Market Notice of3 February 2009 that the number of banks and buildingsocieties that had accessed the SLS was 32. The relevantMarket Notice can be found at www.bankofengland.co.uk/markets/marketnoticeO90203c.pdf

As published in the Bank’s December 2010 FinancialStability Report, £75 billion of the £l85 billion Treasurybills advanced under the scheme had been repaid byend-November 2010.

Banks: Fees and ChargesQuestion

Asked by Lord Kennedy of Southwark

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessmentthey have made of the level of fees and chargeslevied by United Kingdom banks. [HL5921]

The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (LordSassoon): The Government committed in the coalitionagreement to introduce stronger consumer protection,including measures to end unfair bank and financialtransaction charges.

This issue is being considered in the joint Departmentfor Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) and HMTreasury Consumer Credit and Personal InsolvencyReview. The call for evidence for this review has nowclosed, and the Government are considering the responsesand will come forwards with specific proposals in duecourse.

Banks: LendingQuestions

Asked by Lord Taylor of Warwick

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plansthey have to encourage banks to lend to the poorestfamilies. [HL5814]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plansthey have to ensure that banks will lend more topoorer families this year. [HL5904]

The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (LordSassoon): Decisions about lending are a matter forindividual financial institutions to make on a commercialbasis. The Government do not intervene in these decisionsas a matter of course.

The voluntary Lending Code sets minimum standardsfor the way that banks, building societies and otherbanking service providers treat their customers. It ismonitored by the Lending Standards Board, whichis independent of government.

BenefitsQuestiosn

Asked by Lord Laird

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what methodsthey use to ascertain whether recipients of socialsecurity benefits living abroad are still alive; andwhether they use signed life certificates in the caseof state old age pensioners. [HL5645]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State,Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud): Thedepartment carries out data-matching on death datawith Spain, Gibraltar, New Zealand, Australia, Ireland,the Netherlands and the USA to identify whetherbenefit recipients in these countries are still alive. Weare progressing plans to data-match with a number ofother countries where there are high numbers of UKbeneficiaries.

Where data-matching is not possible or practical,for example, because the country does not have asuitably robust registration system, life certificates areused. Life certificates require customers to presentthemselves to a recognised foreign authority to havetheir certificate signed. The customer must also presentphotographic evidence, for example, a passport.

The life certificate programme has recently beenexpanded to include annual certification of all customers,not covered by data-matching, in high-risk cohortsbased on age. This expansion has proved successful.

Asked by Lord Laird

To ask Her Majesty’s Government which socialsecurity benefits United Kingdom recipients cancontinue to receive while abroad and which ceasewhen no longer residing in this country. [HL5646]


Lord Freud: A person moving to or residing inanother EEA country or Switzerland can continue toreceive the following benefits if they have satisfied theconditions of entitlement:

state retirement pension;contributory jobseeker’s allowance but only for upto three months;contributory employment and support allowanceand long-term incapacity benefit;bereavement benefits;industrial injuries benefits;winter fuel payment provided the person wasentitled to it before they left the UK;disability living allowance (care component),attendance allowance and carer’s allowance;maternity and paternity benefits which are basedon a period of employment and a level of earnings;child benefit and child tax credit; andguardian’s allowanceDomestic law provides for some benefits to be paid

wherever a person resides abroad:state retirement pension;bereavement benefits;industrial injuries benefits; andguardian’s allowanceIn addition to these benefits, under a small number

of reciprocal social security agreements with othercountries, persons living in those countries can also bepaid state maternity allowance, child benefit and long-terminvalidity benefit. Some other benefits can be paid,depending on the circumstances, for a period when aperson is temporarily absent from the UK.

The income-related benefits (income-based jobseeker’sallowance, income-based employment and supportallowance, income support, state pension credit, housingbenefit and council tax benefit), are not payable topersons residing abroad. The mobility component ofDLA is also not exportable.

Births: StatisticsQuestion

Asked by Lord Kilclooney

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how manybirths there were in England in each of the lastthree years for which figures are available. [HL6074]

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: The information requestedfalls within the responsibility of the UK StatisticsAuthority. I have asked the authority to reply.

Letter from Stephen Penneck, Director General forOffice for National Statistics, to Lord Kilclooney, datedJanuary 2011

As Director General for the Office for NationalStatistics, I have been asked to reply to your recentquestion asking how many births there were in Englandin each of the last three years for which figures areavailable. (HL6074)

The table below shows the numbers of live births tomothers usually resident in England in each year from2007 to 2009.

YearLive births to mothers usually

resident in England

2007 655,3572008 672,8092009 671,058

Bribery Act 2010Questions

Asked by Baroness Whitaker

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what resourceswill be allocated to the enforcement of the BriberyAct 2010; what changes will be made to UnitedKingdom law enforcement machinery for suchpurposes; and when such changes will be made.

[HL5753]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (LordMcNally): An impact assessment was prepared for theintroduction of the Bribery Bill. It was estimated thatthere would be an additional annual cost of £2 millionfor enforcement of the new offence of failure by acommercial organisation to prevent bribery, principallyin respect of investigations and prosecutions by theSerious Fraud Office. The Serious Fraud Office expectsto carry out all its normal functions, including BriberyAct investigations and prosecutions, within its announcedfunding settlement.

On the law enforcement machinery in relation toeconomic crime more generally, the coalition agreementmakes clear the Government’s intention to rationalisethe current piecemeal enforcement landscape for complexeconomic crime.

Asked by Baroness WhitakerTo ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the

relevant sections of the Bribery Act 2010 will comeinto force in April 2011 as envisaged without anyqualification. [HL5752]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether,consistent with their previous statements, they willpublish the guidance envisaged in section 9 of theBribery Act 2010 in January 2011, so that the BriberyAct can commence in April 2011. [HL5754]

Lord McNally: We intend to publish the guidanceunder Section 9 of the Bribery Act shortly in preparationfor the full commencement of the Act in spring thisyear, in line with my Written Statement of 5 Octoberlast year.

Charities: VATQuestions

Asked by Lord Morris of ManchesterTo ask Her Majesty’s Government how much

they raised in each of the last five years fromirrecoverable VAT from charities; how much inparticular they raised from Sue Ryder Care; andwhether they have any plans to cease the practice.

[HL5763]


The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (LordSassoon): It is not possible to assess accurately theamount of irrecoverable VAT incurred by charities.Even if it were, considerations of taxpayer confidentialitywould preclude the disclosure of information relatingto specific organisations or individuals.

Charities benefit from a range of tax reliefs whichthe Government estimate were worth approximately£3 billion per annum in 2009-10. These include reliefsfrom VAT, including VAT zero-rating on the sale ofdonated goods, medical and scientific equipment and,for qualifying charities, goods for use by disabledpeople. All zero rates are derogations from the normalEuropean Union VAT rules, and represent benefitsnot enjoyed by charities elsewhere in Europe. Thereare no plans to introduce any additional VAT recoveryschemes for charities.


To ask Her Majesty’s Government what estimatethey have made of the impact which the increase ofVAT to 20 per cent will have on charities; whatassessment they have made of the estimate of theCharity Tax Group that the 2.5 per cent rise in VATwill cost an additional £140 million in irrecoverableVAT; and why charities are not able to reclaim VATin the same way as limited companies. [HL5870]

Lord Sassoon: Charities can recover VAT incurredon their purchases and expenses, to the extent thatthese relate to taxable sales that they make, but theycannot recover VAT that relates to exempt sales ornon-business activities. These rules also apply to limitedcompanies and other businesses.

Information is not available to assess accurately theamount of VAT that cannot be recovered by charitiesor the effect on this of the increase in the standard rateof VAT.

Charities benefit from a range of tax reliefs whichthe Government estimate are worth approximately£3 billion per annum in 2009-10. These include reliefsfrom VAT, including VAT zero-rating on the sale ofdonated goods, medical and scientific equipment and,for qualifying charities, goods for use by disabledpeople. All zero rates are derogations from the normalEuropean Union VAT rules, and represent benefitsnot enjoyed by charities elsewhere in Europe.

Asked by Lord Hollick

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether thereview of the charitable-related VAT scheme willconsider allowing charities the same opportunity asthe National Health Service and other public bodiesto recover 20 per cent of the irrecoverable VAT theypay. [HL5880]

Lord Sassoon: The Government have no plans tointroduce such a scheme. The VAT which is refundedto the NHS and other bodies is taken into account aspart of those bodies’ overall funding arrangements.The schemes that are in place are the most efficientmeans of delivering this part of their funding.

The Government continue to look at ways of ensuringthat VAT does not act as a barrier to the reform ofpublic services where such options are open to us andaffordable within agreed funding arrangements. Forexample, we are continuing to work closely with thecharity and other sectors to explore options forimplementing the European Union VAT exemptionfor cost sharing, and the recent announcement of anew VAT refund scheme for academies demonstratesthe Government’s willingness to create a level playingfield for VAT where this can be done in a fair, targetedand affordable way.

However, a general VAT recovery scheme for allcharities would not be affordable or well targeted, norwould it be fair to reimburse those charities which arein competition with private sector providers.

ChinaQuestion


To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether theyhave made, or intend to make, representations tothe government of China concerning the whereaboutsand welfare of the imprisoned dissident Gao Zhisheng.

[HL5845]

The Minister of State, Foreign and CommonwealthOffice (Lord Howell of Guildford): My right honourablefriend the Foreign Secretary raised the case of humanrights lawyer Gao Zhisheng during his meeting withVice Premier Li Kegiang on 11 January 2011. Myhonourable friend the Minister of State, Jeremy Browne,also raised his case with the head of the Chinesedelegation to the UK-China Human Rights Dialogueon 13 January 2011. The Chinese delegation to thedialogue was unable to provide any new information.We will continue to ask the Chinese Governmentabout Gao’s whereabouts and welfare.

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and MyalgicEncephalomyelitis

Question

Asked by The Countess of Mar

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether theywill release the public records, reference BN 141/1,relating to Myalgic Encephalomyelitis andChronic Fatigue Syndrome, from 1 January 1984 to31 December 1993, including correspondence withmembers of the medical profession, held in theNational Archives; and why that information isclosed to public access until 2072 (78 years) insteadof the usual 30 years. [HL5970]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (LordMcNally): The file BN 141/1 contains a high volumeof personal medical information about ME sufferers(Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome(ME/CFS). Due to the personal nature of the content,the file remains closed until 2072 under Section 40(2)of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. This exemption


applies because the overwhelming majority of this filecontains sensitive personal data of named individualswho are believed to still be living. Releasing the fileinto the public domain would breach the requirementin the Data Protection Act 1998 that personal data beprocessed fairly and lawfully.

Redaction of this personal information so that therest of the file can be released has been considered butruled out. The volume of personal information aboutME sufferers and benefit claims within the file meansthat redaction would render the open part of the fileso small that it would cause the contents to be meaningless.

The file closure decision was reviewed in 2010 bythe National Archives and the Department for Workand Pensions.

Commonwealth Countries: Accession tothe Throne

QuestionAsked by Lord Myners

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further tothe answer by Lord McNally on 10 January (HL Deb,col. 1169), whether any objections have been raisedby Commonwealth countries concerning affordingequal rights of accession to the Throne to daughtersof the Sovereign. [HL5858]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (LordMcNally): Commonwealth countries of which the Queenis head of state are in regular dialogue over the legaland constitutional issues in which they have a sharedinterest. Discussions have taken place between officials,and are continuing. But they remain confidential, andthe Government are not in a position to reveal informationabout the contents of those discussions.

Constitutional ConventionQuestion

Asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in light ofrecent discussions about the status of England withinthe United Kingdom, what plans they have to setup a constitutional convention to consider the position;and whether they will propose a referendum inEngland to test support for an English parliament.

[HL5968]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (LordMcNally): My honourable friend the Minister forPolitical and Constitutional Reform informed the otherplace on 15 December 2010 (Hansard col. 822W) thatthe Government will make an announcement aboutour plans to establish a commission to consider theWest Lothian question—the term used to sum upexisting arrangements which allow MPs representingconstituencies from devolved territories to vote onEnglish-only matters.

The Government are giving careful considerationto the timing, composition, scope and remit of thecommission. Its work will need to take account ofthe proposals to reform this House to create a whollyor mainly elected second chamber, the changes being

made to the way the other place does business and theamendments to the devolution regimes—for example,in the Scotland Bill presently before Parliament. Wehave no plans to propose a referendum in England.

Consular ServicesQuestion

Asked by Viscount Waverley

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether theUnited Kingdom not being a party to the SchengenAgreement precludes the sharing of consular serviceswith European Union partners for issuing visas;and, if not, what would be the criteria for andagainst the sharing of consular services for thepurposes. [HL5945]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones): Visas issued under Chapter 3, Articles 9 to 18of the Schengen agreement give access to the territoryof any state participating in that part of the agreementfor a period of three months. The UK has not appliedto join this part of the Schengen agreement and thereforeis not able to share consular services with other memberstates of the European Union for the purpose ofissuing visas.

The UK has different rules for considering visaapplications which would make it impractical for theUK to represent or be represented by other memberstates.

Debt: Public SectorQuestion

Asked by Lord Roberts of Conwy

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is thecurrent public sector net debt. [HL5948]

The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (LordSassoon): According to the December Public SectorFinances (PSF) statistics release, public sector netdebt is £863.1 billion. More information on the PSFrelease can be found here www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/psf_statistics.htm.

Economy: Double-dip RecessionQuestion


To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plansthey have to prevent a double dip recession in theUnited Kingdom. [HL5906]

The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (LordSassoon): The June Budget set out the Government’splans to accelerate deficit reduction. Putting the publicfinances back on a sustainable path is a prerequisitefor economic growth.

In its Economic and Fiscal Outlook, published on29 November 2010, the Office for Budget Responsibility’scentral economic forecast shows that the economy willgrow in every year of the forecast horizon to 2015-16.


Education Maintenance AllowanceQuestion

Asked by Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what impactthe abolition of the Education Maintenance Allowancewill have on people from lower socio-economicgroups wishing to continue into higher education.

[HL5614]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State forSchools (Lord Hill of Oareford): We are committed tomaking sure that young people from low incomehouseholds can continue in education and trainingpost-16. We are considering the replacement for theeducation maintenance allowance and want to ensurethat the funds we have are targeted on those youngpeople who most need support to enable them toparticipate in learning.

In reaching the decision to end education maintenanceallowance (EMA) we have looked closely at evaluationevidence and other research, which indicates that thescheme does not effectively target those young peoplewho need financial support to enable them to participatein learning. The evidence suggests that around 90 percent of the young people who receive EMA would stillhave participated in learning if the scheme was notavailable.

Education: NurseriesQuestion

Asked by The Earl of Listowel

To ask Her Majesty’s Government why they haveremoved the requirement that each nursery be ledby a graduate professional. [HL5434]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State forSchools (Lord Hill of Oareford): There has never beena requirement for all early education and care settingsto be led by a graduate professional. We have, however,recently removed the overly prescriptive requirementfor all Sure Start children’s centres in the mostdisadvantaged areas to provide full day care, and theassociated requirement that this provision be deliveredby both a qualified teacher (QT) and an early yearsprofessional (EYP).

In the past, children’s centres in the most disadvantagedareas were required to provide full day care, i.e. 10hours a day, five days a week, for 48 weeks a year.However, the National Audit Office memorandum forthe Children, Schools and Families Committee, December2009, suggested that in some areas, when demand forfull day care is low, money intended for other SureStart services—like family support and outreach tovulnerable families—is subsidising the provision ofearly education and care.

We do expect children’s centres to continue to playa critical role in early education and care, includingproviding and encouraging take-up of free nurseryeducation for two, three, and four-year-olds and additionalhours where there is demand. Furthermore, where

children’s centres in disadvantaged areas offer earlyeducation, we would expect this to be of the higheststandard and delivered by either a QT or an EYP.

The Government remain committed to investing inthe quality of the early education and childcare workforce,and will develop proposals to support this by March2011. The recent local authority and school fundingsettlement provides for the ongoing support anddevelopment of the workforce. From April 2011 Fundingis being made available through a new simplified earlyintervention grant. Continued national investment inthe early years workforce includes the funding ofplaces on the early years professional status programmeand the new leaders in early years programme whichbegan in November.

EmbryologyQuestions


To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further tothe Written Answer by Earl Howe on 9 December(WA 76–7), how the policy whereby the HumanFertilisation and Embryology Authority “does notcomment on the involvement of individual membersof staff in the course of the normal discharge oftheir duties on behalf of the authority” relates toeach of its press releases on 24 July 2003, 2 July2008 and 11 January 2010. [HL5607]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further tothe Written Answers by Earl Howe on 9 December(WA 76–7) and 20 December (WA 247), whyDr Christine Mary O’Toole’s name had beendeliberately obscured in the copy of the minutesthat were placed in the Library of the House pertainingto the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority(HFEA) Research Licence Committee Meeting on16 March 2005; whether her name and those ofother personnel were already masked when theminutes for this meeting were originally publishedon the HFEA website; whether any of the personnelwhose identity has latterly been withheld continuesto be employed by the HFEA; and what are theHFEA’s reasons for withholding the identity of itscurrent or former full-time employees but not thoseof other attendees at a meeting of the Authority.

[HL5608]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Health (Earl Howe): In determining whether tomake public the name of an official, it is the conventionthat staff below senior civil service or equivalent leveland those whose names are not already within thepublic domain are not released. As an independentstatutorybody,thesearemattersfortheHumanFertilisationand Embryology Authority itself to determine. I havenothing further to add on this matter.


To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further tothe Written Answer by Earl Howe on 20 December2010 (WA 247), why the minutes of the Human


Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA)Research Licence Committee Meeting on 16 March2005 contained no reference to the autoimmunenature of type 1 diabetes before concluding thatcloning offered a means of avoiding ″the likelihoodof rejection of the transplanted cells″; and whatinformation was communicated to the HFEA priorto 16 March 2005 in which the autoimmune natureof type 1 diabetes was highlighted or queried inrelation to the licensing of this project. [HL5609]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further tothe Written Answers by Baroness Thornton on6 April 2010 (WA 393) and by Earl Howe on20 December 2010 (WA 247), why cloned humanembryos created using the nuclei from a patientwith type 1 diabetes are still considered by theHuman Fertilisation and Embryology Authority(HFEA) to be necessary or desirable to improvetreatment of this disease when no further discussionof this was included in the Research Licence InspectionReport and associated minutes pertaining to themeeting on 18 June 2008. [HL5610]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further tothe Written Answer by Lord Drayson on 19 May2009 (WA 290), what specific epigenetic criteriawould satisfy the Human Fertilisation and EmbryologyAuthority (HFEA) that iPS cells could replace theuse of (a) stem cells derived from IVF embryos or(b) stem cells derived from cloned embryos followingnuclear transfer; what consideration the HFEA hasmade of epigenetic defects associated with somaticcell nuclear transfer; and whether correspondingdefects in the product of interspecies nuclear transferwould therefore preclude the licensing of such entitiesfor research as “necessary or desirable” or, if not,why stricter criteria might be imposed by the HFEAfor the feasibility of research with alternatives thanto the purported legitimacy of using embryos inresearch with the same stated aims. [HL5611]

Earl Howe: The Human Fertilisation and EmbryologyAuthority (HFEA) has advised that the research licencecommittees of the authority exercise their functions inaccordance with the procedure, and applying the criteria,prescribed in law. In reaching a determination, a licencecommittee will take into account the opinion of expertpeer reviewers, including an opinion on whether theuse of embryos in the proposed research is necessaryor desirable for one of the purposes specified in therelevant legislation, and relevant general advice fromthe authority’s scientific and clinical advances advisorycommittee. The HFEA publishes minutes of licencecommittees on its website at: www.hfea.gov.uk.

The HFEA has also advised that it does not commenton past decisions made by licence committees andfuture licensing decisions will be made in the light ofthe best scientific and other relevant information availableat the time.

Asked by Lord Alton of LiverpoolTo ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to

the Written Statement by Earl Howe on 24 November2010 (WS 101–2) and the Written Answers byEarl Howe on 14 December 2010 (WA 163) and

10 January (HL 5438), how the incidence of ovarianhyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) at centres 0076,0162 and 0017 compared to the total described inthe journal Human Fertility (volume 10, issue 3,pages 183–7); which other licensed centres couldhave been primarily responsible for the data describedtherein; what steps have been taken to reduce thenumber of patients hospitalised due to OHSS ateach of these centres since 2003; what role theHuman Fertilisation and Embryology Authority(HFEA) played in ensuring that such steps weretaken; and what actions have latterly been taken bythe HFEA to ensure that data reported annually tothe European Society of Human Reproduction andEmbryology does not significantly under-representthe numbers of women hospitalised due to OHSSin the United Kingdom when it is published by theEuropean IVF Monitoring Programme in the journalHuman Reproduction. [HL5612]

Earl Howe: The Human Fertilisation and EmbryologyAuthority (HFEA) has advised that it does not holddata on the overall incidence of ovarian hyperstimulationsyndrome (OHSS). Recognising that OHSS may occurin the course of the provision of licensed assistedconception treatment, the HFEA has included casesof OHSS resulting from licensed treatment, that aregraded severe or critical and result in admission tohospital, within the scope of reportable incidents anddraws clinics’ attention to the guidelines produced bythe Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

The reporting of cases of OHSS to the HFEA wasdescribed in the answer given to the noble Lord on22 November 2010, Official Report, col. WA263 andthe HFEA has advised that it has nothing to add tothis.

The HFEA has further advised that it hascommissioned two independent reports on OHSS,which are available on the authority’s website. TheHFEA’s code of practice requires licensed centres tohave documented procedures for the management ofOHSS, which may be reviewed on inspection. Theauthority does not report data on cases of confirmedOHSS to the European Society of Human Reproductionand Embryology because it does not hold such data.

Asked by Lord Alton of LiverpoolTo ask Her Majesty’s Government how much

the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authorityhas spent on the services of Media Strategy orHanover Communications; which other arm’s-lengthbodies have required the services of these companies;and what have been the total costs per annum ofservices provided by Media Strategy or HanoverCommunications to each of the arm’s-length bodiesconcerned since April 2002. [HL5869]

Earl Howe: The Human Fertilisation and EmbryologyAuthority refers the noble Lord to the Written MinisterialStatement of 4 March 2010, Official Report col. WS 184and has nothing to add.

Of the remaining 17 Arm’s Length Bodies (ALBs),only Monitor—the Independent Regulator of NHSFoundation Trusts—has required the services of thesecompanies and the total costs per annum of servicesprovided since April 2002 are:


ALB: Monitor—Independent Regulator of NHS Foundation Trusts

Financial YearMedia StrategyTotal Costs PA

HanoverCommunications

Total Costs PA

2002-03 n/a—Monitor notin existence

n/a—Monitor notin existence

2003-04 0 02004-05 0 02005-06 0 02006-07 0 02007-08 0 02008-09 0 87,338.602009-10 0 14,721.67

Energy: GasQuestion

Asked by Viscount Waverley

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what percentageof United Kingdom gas is supplied from EuropeanUnion sources of production. [HL5942]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Energy and Climate Change (Lord Marland): In2009, 64 per cent of the UK’s gross demand (excludingexports, but including operators’ own use) was suppliedfrom the United Kingdom continental shelf, a EuropeanUnion source of production.

The UK also imports gas from other Europeanmember countries. The transmission of gas within theEU involves a complex pattern of imports and exportsthat makes tracking the physical origin of the gasmolecules impractical.

International practice is to report the physical flowsof gas transmitted through pipes from neighbouringcountries or via ship. DECC regularly summarisesthese data which are published on the DECC website.These show that gas sourced from the European Union(Belgium and the Netherlands) accounted for a further7 per cent of UK gross demand.

For further information:Imports and exports of gas showing transit via the

pipelines from Norway, Belgium, and the Netherlands,along with liquefied natural gas shipped from varioussources: www.decc.gov.uk/media/viewfile.ashx?filepath=statistics/source/gas/et4_3.xls&filetype=4&minwidth=true.

The European gas transit map, showing Europeangas flows and production by country: www.decc.gov.uk/media/viewfile.ashx?filetype=4&filepath=Statistics/publications/trends/articles_issue/1104-physical-gas-flows-trends-art.pdf&minwidth=true

Energy: Light BulbsQuestion

Asked by Lord Stoddart of SwindonTo ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, in

the light of concerns about the danger of disposingof energy-saving light bulbs, they will lift the banon the manufacture, sale and importation of traditionaltungsten filament light bulbs. [HL5966]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentfor Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Henley):Regulation 244/2009 sets the timetable for the EU-widemandatory phase out of incandescent bulbs. This becamelaw, directly applicable in all EU member states, inspring 2009 after agreement by the European Parliamentand Council. Article 7 requires the European Commissionto review the regulation no later than five years after itentered into force. We have no plans to seek an earlyreview.

Compact Florescent Lamps (CFLs) contain smallquantities of mercury. The amount of mercury islimited by the Restriction of Hazardous SubstancesDirective to 5 mg (and will be reduced over the nexttwo years). Before the ban on placing 100W incandescentlight bulbs on the market came into force in September2009, the Health Protection Agency (HPA) reviewedthe potential health effects of mercury exposure frombroken CFLs, and found that the exposure was likelyto be small and very unlikely to cause harm. Nevertheless,they should be disposed of responsibly.

The Waste Electrical and Electronic EquipmentDirective (WEEE) requires CFLs to be recycled. WEEErequires distributors to take back used electrical equipmentbut in the UK many retailers have opted instead to payinto a central distributor take-back scheme, which hasfunded many local authority recycling sites. Fromthese sites, manufacturers are obliged to fund thetransport, treatment and recycling, where most of themercury can be recovered.

CFLs also cause less mercury to be emitted to theenvironment over their life time than incandescentlight bulbs. This is because mercury is emitted frompower stations during electricity generation. As CFLsare more energy efficient, less energy needs to begenerated.

Energy: Photovoltic InstallationsQuestion

Asked by Lord Reay

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further tothe Written Answer by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change,Mr David Kidney, on 15 December 2009 (HC Deb,1126W), whether they have revised the answer giventhat the Department’s modelling suggested thatthere would be 800,000 domestic-scale photo voltaicinstallations by 2020; if so, what they now expect;what will be the amount of electricity produced;and what will be the cost imposed on the consumerby the feed-in tariffs they will earn. [HL5901]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Energy and Climate Change (Lord Marland): Theprojections referred to reflect modelling undertaken bythe previous administration for the impact assessmentwhich supported the summer 2009 consultation onrenewable financial incentives. These projections weresubsequently updated by the previous Administrationto reflect the final design of the feed-in tariffs (FITs)scheme as introduced in April 2010.


The final impact assessment, which was publishedin February 2010, includes the most recent projections.These suggested that approximately 750,000 small-scale(i.e. up to 5MW) renewable installations would beincentivised under FITs by 2020, generating approximately3TWh additional small-scale renewable electricity in2020. Of these, 725,000 were expected to be domesticscale renewable installations, predominantly solarphotovoltaics.

The final impact assessment also estimated that theexpected cost to consumers of FITs, cumulative to2030, would be in the order of £6.7 billion, leadingto an average increase in annual household electricitybills of approximately £8.50 over the period 2011-30.It should be noted that these estimates relate tothe costs of supporting all FITs installations and notjust PV.

EU: BusinessesQuestion


To ask Her Majesty’s Government whatassessment they have made of a proposal by theEuropean Union Commissioner for Industry andEntrepreneurship, Mr Tajani, to establish a EuropeanUnion authority to supervise foreign purchases ofbusinesses within the European Union. [HL5691]

Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint: Her Majesty’sGovernment are focused on maintaining and improvingthe UK’s position as a world leading destination forforeign direct investment. The UK’s inward investmentregime is currently amongst the most welcoming in theworld. We are aware of Mr Tajani’s proposal. Whilewe are open to any ideas to make Europe as a wholemore competitive, we would not take any step whicheroded the UK’s competitiveness. HMG currently havelegal powers intended to ensure unsuitable or unwelcomeinvestors are kept at bay. Further details of the UK’sinward investment strategy and policies are to befound in the upcoming trade White Paper and growthreview.

EU: UK National SovereigntyQuestion

Asked by Lord Tebbit

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further tothe Written Answer by Lord Howell of Guildfordon 30 November 2010 (WA 432), on how manyoccasions since 10 May 2010 the authorities of theEuropean Union have used powers under existingcompetencies which they have not previously used.

[HL5675]

The Minister of State, Foreign and CommonwealthOffice (Lord Howell of Guildford): Existing EuropeanUnion competencies have been conferred by the UnitedKingdom on the European Union within EU treatiesagreed by both Houses of the UK Parliament. Inagreeing to the treaties, Parliament has also agreed to

EU use of powers falling under all competences withinthose treaties, and in this context we do not holdcentrally a list of these powers as they come into use.

EU: UK TradeQuestion


To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in light ofthe recent PricewaterhouseCoopers report The Worldin 2050 that concludes that Britain is paying a pricefor its over-reliance on customers in the EuropeanUnion and the United States, what assessment theyhave made of the impact of European Unionregulations on Britain’s trade with the rest of theworld. [HL5689]

Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint: There is nocomprehensive assessment of the consequences ofEuropean Union regulations on Britain’s trade withthe rest of the world. However, using the EU singlemarket as a platform for innovation, economies ofscale and trade should help British firms to be morecompetitive internationally and seize global opportunities.

Free BooksQuestion


To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plansthey have to provide funding for free book schemes.

[HL5543]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State forSchools (Lord Hill of Oareford): The Government aredetermined to ensure that reading for pleasure is a giftevery child can enjoy. Although the current programmewhich contributes to the Booktrust bookgifting schemeswill end in March 2011, the Department for Educationis talking to Booktrust about developing a new programmewhich will ensure that every child can enjoy the gift ofbooks at crucial moments in their lives.

Fuel PricesQuestion


To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is theirassessment of the impact of the rises in fuel bills onlow-income families. [HL5811]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Energy and Climate Change (Lord Marland): Thecoalition Government recognise the impact of risingfuel prices on low income and vulnerable householdsand is committed to helping the poorest heat theirhomes at an affordable cost.

The department publishes annual statistics whichassess the level of fuel poverty in England. Fuel priceshave risen at a rate well above that of income since


2004, acting as a major contributor to the rise in fuelpoverty. Between 2004 and 2008, domestic energyprices rose by around 80 per cent, during which periodthe number of fuel poor households in England rosefrom 1.2 million in 2004 to 3.3 million in 2008.

These statistics are available on the DECC websiteand the latest set was published in October 2010.

Using this information the department has estimatedthat:

In England in 2008 the number of households witha child under 16 was 5,716,000, 907,000 of thesehouseholds were in the lowest three income deciles.Of the households with a child under 16, 539,000were fuel poor and 394,000 of these fuel poorhouseholds were in the lowest three income deciles.In England in 2007 the number of households witha child under 16 was 6,122,000, 974,000 of thesehouseholds were in the lowest three income deciles.Of the households with a child under 16, 479,000were fuel poor and 361,000 of these fuel poorhouseholds were in the lowest three income deciles.

Government Departments: FundingQuestion


To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether theyplan to cut funding to the Ministry of Defence.

[HL5735]

The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (LordSassoon): The Ministry of Defence’s spending planswere published in the spending review. This set outplans for an 8 per cent real terms reduction in thedefence budget over the next four years.

Government Departments: StaffQuestion

Asked by Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in light ofthe formation of the Behavioural Insights Team inthe Cabinet Office, whether there are any examplesof new policy recently introduced which demonstratethe effect of behavioural economics being appliedin practice. [HL5622]

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: Examples include theintroduction of “prompted choice” for organ donationand the establishment of smoking cessation trials withBoots (both of which appear in Applying BehaviouralInsight to Health, December 2010).

Gross Domestic ProductQuestion


To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether theyhave instructed the Bank of England MonetaryPolicy Committee to target growth in the nominalGross Domestic Product. [HL5932]

The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (LordSassoon): The Bank of England Act 1998 states thatthe objectives of the Bank of England shall be tomaintain price stability; and subject to that, supportthe economic policy of Her Majesty’s Government,including their objectives for growth and employment.The Government confirmed in the Budget that theMonetary Policy Committee will continue to target2 per cent inflation, as measured by the 12-monthincrease in the consumer prices index.

Health: Contaminated Blood ProductsQuestions

Asked by Baroness Campbell of SurbitonTo ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps

they are taking to ensure that the United Kingdomhas a secure blood supply that is free from bothknown and unknown pathogens. [HL5673]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State,Department of Health (Earl Howe): The United Kingdomblood services must comply with the Blood Safety andQuality Regulation (2005), as amended. The principalmeasure to protect patients against transfusion-transmittedinfections is the careful selection of blood donors,supplemented by specific testing for transfusion-transmitted infections.

There are well established systems in place withinthe UK blood services to identify, assess and respondto threats to the UK blood supply posed by knownand emerging pathogens that may be transmitted bytransfusion. The independent expert Advisory Committeeon the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs and theNational Expert Panel on New and Emerging Infectionsalso monitor developments nationally and internationally,and provide advice to the department and to the bloodservices.

A number of safety measures are in place to reducethe risk of transmission of variant Cruetzfeldt-Jakobdisease (vCJD) as there is no specific test available forscreening of donors. These include lifetime deferralfrom donation by people who have been advised theymay be at increased risk from vCJD and by thosepreviously transfused; leucodepletion of all donatedblood; the use of non-UK plasma for production ofplasma products such as clotting factors; and importationof fresh frozen plasma for treatment of children under 16.

The introduction of bacterial screening of plateletsprovides an additional safety measure for these products.

Asked by Lord BeechamTo ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to

the statement by Earl Howe on 10 January concerninginfected blood (HL Deb, cols 1229–32), how manyof those infected through NHS blood and bloodproducts they expect to receive counselling underthe three-year programme. [HL5719]

Earl Howe: All those affected by National HealthService supplied blood and blood products will beeligible to apply for this counselling. There is noinformation available on the number of individualswho might want to access this counselling. Thereforeit will not be possible to ascertain how many people


might receive counselling until the arrangements havebeen put in place. Once arrangements are in place,officials will seek information regularly about take up.

Health: DrugsQuestion


To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plansthey have to provide funding to make drugs forAlzheimer’s available to patients with mild symptoms.

[HL5990]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Health (Earl Howe): The National Institute forHealth and Clinical Excellence (NICE) is currentlyupdating its existing guidance on the use of donepezil(Aricept), galantamine (Reminyl), rivastigmine (Exelon)and memantine (Ebixa) for the treatment of Alzheimer’sdisease.

NICE issued final draft guidance on 18 January2011 which recommends the use of donepezil, galantamineand rivastigmine for the treatment of mild and moderateAlzheimer’s disease under certain conditions. Memantineis also recommended for patients with moderate andsevere Alzheimer’s disease. We understand that, subjectto any appeals, NICE expects to issue its final guidancein March.

There is a statutory obligation on primary caretrusts to make funding available for drugs and treatmentsrecommended by NICE within three months of finalNICE technology appraisal guidance being published.

Health: FertilityQuestion

Asked by Baroness Gould of Potternewton

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether theyhave contacted individual primary care trusts thathave recently announced a suspension of, or restrictionto, funding for infertility services to convey theirexpectation that, when commissioning services, theyhave regard to the National Institute for Healthand Clinical Excellence clinical guidelines on fertilityand the impact that fertility has on people’s lives.

[HL5882]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Health (Earl Howe): The National Health ServiceDeputy Chief Executive, David Flory, wrote to primarycare trust commissioners on 11 January 2011 to highlightthe importance that those involved in commissioningfertility services have regard to the National Institutefor Health and Clinical Excellence fertility guideline,including the recommendation that up to three cyclesof in-vitro fertilisation are offered to eligible coupleswhere the woman is aged between 23 and 39.

This communication is available at:www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/

dh_digitalassets/documents/digitalasset/dh_123405.pdf

Health: General PractitionersQuestion

Asked by Lord Mawson

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what percentageof general practitioners were partners rather thansalaried in each of the last ten years. [HL5956]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Health (Earl Howe): The information requested isset out in the following table.

All general practitioners (GPs) (excluding retainersand registrars) and proportion of partners, in Englandas at 1999-2009

Year

All GPs(excluding GPregistrars and

retainers)Number of GP

ProvidersPercentage ofGP Providers

2009 35,719 27,613 76.92008 34,010 27,347 80.42007 33,364 27,342 82.02006 33,091 27,691 83.72005 32,728 29,340 89.62004 31,523 28,781 91.32003 30,358 28,646 94.42002 29,202 28,117 96.32001 28,802 27,938 97.02000 28,593 27,791 97.21999 28,467 27,681 97.2

Notes: Data as at 1 October 1999 and 30 September2000-2009. All GPs (excluding retainers and registrars) includesGP Providers and GP Others. GPs categorised as GP Providersare partners within the practice they work in.

Data Quality: The NHS Information Centre for health andsocial care seeks to minimise inaccuracies and the effect ofmissing and invalid data but responsibility for data accuracy lieswith the organisations providing the data. Methods arecontinually being updated to improve data quality where changesimpact on figures already published. This is assessed but unless itis significant at national level figures are not changed. Impact atdetailed or local level is footnoted in relevant analyses.

Source: The NHS Information Centre for health and socialcare General and Personal Medical Services Statistics

Health: GP Commissioning BoardQuestion

Asked by Lord Mawson

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how theyintend to ensure that each general practitionercommissioning board has the breadth of talent andbusiness skills to manage multi-million poundcontracts. [HL5954]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Health (Earl Howe): The Government recognisethat consortia will need to be supported in order tocommission services that will improve outcomes forpatients. From 2011-12, primary care trusts will besupporting prospective consortia to develop their skillsby providing financial support as well as assigning key


individuals to them who have expert skills, such assenior finance managers and people with commissioningexpertise and experience.

In the longer term, this will be a key role for theNHS Commissioning Board, which will publishcommissioning guidance, model care pathways andmodel contracts for consortia. Consortia will alsohave the freedom to consider what additional supportthey may require to achieve the best outcomes forpatients, and we will be exploring further with consortiawhat constitutes an optimal level of total runningcosts that meets the twin aims of securing sustainableorganisations and maximising resources going to thefront line.

Health: HaemophiliaQuestion

Asked by Lord Morris of Manchester

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plansthey have to ensure that people with haemophiliaunable to work as a result of their condition,particularly those with a terminal illness, will not berequired to return questionnaires regarding theirentitlement to incapacity benefit. [HL5762]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentfor Work and Pensions (Lord Freud): We have no plansto exempt people with haemophilia from completingan ESA50 questionnaire in regard to their applicationfor Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) or thereassessment of their incapacity benefit entitlement.This is because entitlement to ESA is not condition-basedbut is based on someone’s functional assessment, whichvaries between individuals with the same condition.The questionnaire is a valuable way to gather informationabout an individual and for them to explain in theirown words how their condition affects them.

However, claimants who are identified as terminallyill are fast-tracked through the application process,without having to complete a questionnaire or attenda face-to-face assessment and are put straight onto thehighest level of benefit.

Health: InfluenzaQuestions


To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plansthey have to provide more funding to combat secondaryinfections from flu outbreaks. [HL5905]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Health (Earl Howe): The Chief Medical Officerwrote to general practitioners and other clinicians on10 January reminding them of the need to be vigilantof bacterial co-infections occurring in patients withflu-like illness. A copy of this letter has been placed inthe Library. The Government have no plans to provideadditional funding in respect of this specific issue.

Asked by Baroness Masham of Ilton

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plansthey have to offer young children the flu vaccine, inlight of the number of young children who areseriously ill or who have died as a result of swineflu. [HL5940]

Earl Howe: The Government’s policy on influenzavaccination is informed by the expert advice of the JointCommittee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI).In its statement of 23 July 2010, JCVI recommendedthat those children with clinical conditions which putthem more at risk from the effects of influenza shouldbe offered the vaccine. JCVI does not recommend thatchildren under the age of five outside the at-riskgroups should be vaccinated. JCVI met on 30 December2010 to review the latest evidence on this issue. Followingthe meeting, the JCVI chairman assured my righthonourable friend the Secretary of State for Healththat this advice remains appropriate, and recommendedthat efforts be focused on maximising vaccine uptakeamong all those in the risk groups. As with all vaccinationprogrammes, JCVI will keep this matter under review.

Health: PolioQuestions

Asked by Lord Crisp

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what they aredoing to support global efforts to eradicate polio.

[HL5789]

Baroness Verma: The UK Government are a longterm supporter of polio eradication and provide supportthrough annual contributions to the Global PolioEradication Initiative (GPEI), based in the WorldHealth Organisation. Officials at the Department forInternational Development (DfID) are closely engagedwith GPEI, other key donors and endemic and formerlyendemic country governments over the policy challengesto elimination that remain.

In 2010, UK support contributed about 10 per centof the surveillance, staff and other costs associatedwith vaccinating up to 167 million children under fiveyears, underpinned by a financial contribution of£100 million over five years. UK funding is not earmarked,enabling GPEI to allocate it against current priorities.

Asked by Lord Crisp

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plansthe Department for International Development haveto make global polio eradication a priority over thenext five years. [HL5790]

Baroness Verma: The UK Government continueto be committed to polio eradication as animportant global goal. The Department for InternationalDevelopment (DfID) is currently reviewing its aidprogramme to determine how we can achieve bettervalue for money for the taxpayer and accelerate progresstowards achieving all the millennium developmentgoals.


Once the department has considered the findingsfrom its bilateral and multilateral aid reviews, a decisionwill be made on future funding commitments to polioeradication.

Health: Spending CutsQuestion

Asked by Baroness Gould of Potternewton

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what guidanceis being given to primary care trusts to ensure thatthe cuts to services are not being targeted in adiscriminatory manner; and what steps they aretaking to ensure that the cuts do not discriminateagainst gender re-assignment cases; and whetherthey will ensure that their financial policies areequitable and have been subject to equality impactassessments. [HL5883]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State,Department of Health (Earl Howe): Primary care trusts,as with other National Health Service organisationsand public bodies, must fulfil their statutory responsibilitiesunder the Equality Act 2010, including assessing theimpact of their decisions. Guidance is available from anumber of sources including the Equality and HumanRights Commission and NHS employers with whomthe department is working to support the NHS toimplement the Equality Act.

The NHS chief executive wrote to all NHSorganisations in September 2010 reminding them thatcompliance with both the spirit and letter of the Actis essential during transition. The NHS OperatingFramework 2011-12 also reminds NHS organisationsto ensure that all decisions are taken with due regardto the public sector equality duty to ensure that decisionsare fair, transparent, accountable, evidence-based andconsider the needs and rights of staff and patientsacross all the equality characteristics.

HomelessnessQuestion

Asked by Lord Ouseley

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, following theimplementation of cuts in housing benefit, howmany homeless people they forecast there will be.

[HL5665]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentfor Work and Pensions (Lord Freud): We have carriedout an impact assessment on the changes to housingbenefit. This was published on 30 November 2010 andis available in the Library. It does not contain anestimate of the impact on homelessness as we cannotanticipate the behaviours of tenants or their landlords.We have taken action to reduce the risk of householdsbecominghomelesswithasubstantialpackageof financialand practical support in place, worth £190 million overthe spending review period. We are also giving existingcustomers up to nine months’ transitional protectionsothattheyhavetimetolookforalternativeaccommodationif they need to.

House of Lords: CateringQuestions

Asked by Lord Willis of Knaresborough

To ask the Chairman of Committees what planshe has to make available to Members the April 2010Consultant’s Report into House of Lords Cateringand Retail operations. [HL5715]

The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon ofTara): I have no plans to make this report available,since it was commissioned for internal use by officialsto enable them to formulate appropriate proposals forconsideration by the Refreshment Committee.


To ask the Chairman of Committees what wasthe total cost of the April 2010 Consultant’s Reportinto House of Lords Catering and Retail operations.

[HL5716]

The Chairman of Committees: The successful consultantwas awarded the contract following a competitivetender exercise, involving a group of pre-selectedcompanies. Assessment of tenders was based on multipleevaluation criteria to establish which supplier providedbest value for money and the most appropriate skill setand methodology. The total cost of the review was£15,025.


To ask the Chairman of Committees whatrecommendations have been made following thepublication and consideration of the April 2010Consultant’s Report into House of Lords Cateringand Retail operations; and whether he will makethese available to Members. [HL5717]

The Chairman of Committees: A large number ofrecommendations made by the consultant have beenimplemented. These include a series of “quick wins”and operational improvements, such as simplificationof menus, the removal of loss-making vending machinesand improvements to purchasing and stock controlprocesses. The Refreshment Committee has also conductedthe price review against external benchmarks whichthe consultant recommended, and prices across theHouse have recently been increased as a result. Finally,the Refreshment Committee is in the process ofconsidering what changes might be made to the variousrefreshment outlets in response to the consultant’sreport. Any major proposed changes which ensue willbe communicated to Members in a report to theHouse by the Refreshment Committee.

House of Lords: WebsiteQuestion

Asked by Lord Norton of Louth

To ask the Chairman of Committees what wasthe number of page views of the House of Lordshomepage on the Parliament website for each monthin 2010. [HL5950]


The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon ofTara): The number of page views for the House ofLords homepage on the Parliament website in 2010was as set out in the table below. I apologise thatfigures are not available for every month for technicalreasons.

Month Number of page views

January 35,440February 31,973March 39,678April 19,378May UnavailableJune 13,095July 25,871August UnavailableSeptember UnavailableOctober 38,312November 46,032December 32,723

Houses of Parliament: MailQuestion

Asked by Lord Norton of Louth

To ask the Chairman of Committees how manyitems of mail were received in the Palace of Westminsterin 2010; and, of those, what percentage were receivedin the House of Lords. [HL5949]

The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon ofTara): In total, 3,082,187 items of mail were receivedin the Palace of Westminster in 2010. Approximately25 per cent (770,547) of these items were destined forthe House of Lords. These figures do not includeparcels, courier items or internal mail.

HousingQuestions


To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is theirforecast of the number of local authority homesthat will be built in the years 2011 to 2014.[HL5798]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is theirestimate of the number of housing association homesthat will be built in the years 2011 to 2014.[HL5799]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State,Department for Communities and Local Government(Baroness Hanham): The department does not forecastlevels of future house building as delivery will bedetermined by local housing plans. In the comprehensivespending review we announced almost £4.5 billioninvestment in new affordable housing to help deliverup to 150,000 affordable homes. However, we aregiving housing associations much more flexibility onrents and use of assets, so our aspiration is to delivereven more homes through our investment and reforms.The department will be publishing its impact assessmenton the affordable rent model shortly.

ImmigrationQuestion

Asked by Lord Laird

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further tothe Written Answer by Lord Freud on 11 January(WA 433), whether employers need to establish theright of all potential employees to undertakeemployment by checking their immigration statusand ascertaining whether they are subject toimmigration control; and what provisions are inforce to ensure discriminatory practices such asracial profiling are not followed when requiringfrom applicants documentation proving a right towork in the United Kingdom. [HL5960]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones): The UK Border Agency recommends thatdocument checks are conducted on all prospectiveemployees including British citizens as this providesevidence of an open and transparent recruitment processthat does not discriminate against individuals on racialgrounds. Guidance documents for employers onpreventing illegal working include a code of practicethat helps employers to comply with the law on illegalworking without discriminating against individuals onthe basis of their race. This code of practice—Guidancefor Employers on the Avoidance of Unlawful Discriminationin Employment Practice While Seeking to Prevent IllegalWorking—is available on the UK Border Agency website:www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/employers/preventingillegalworking.

Immigration: DeportationQuestion


To ask Her Majesty’s Government, following thedeath of Jimmy Mubenga when restrained by officersfrom G4S, whether G4S continues to accompanydeportees. [HL5757]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones): The Government would prefer that those withno basis of stay in the United Kingdom leave thecountry voluntarily. Where they fail to do so escortsare empowered legally to ensure they comply withtheir removal. It has been the practice of successiveGovernments to use private security companies toescort immigration detainees. G4S has a contract toprovide such services to the UK Border Agency untilthe end of April 2011 when the service will be providedby Reliance Secure Task Management.

Israel and Palestine: West BankQuestion

Asked by Baroness Tonge

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessmentthey have made of the demolition in Dkaika villagein the West Bank on 12 January of 16 homes, a


school classroom and other structures and theconsequent homelessness; and what representationsthey have made to the government of Israel regardingthe increased number of displaced people fromArea C in 2010 compared to the previous year.

[HL5935]

The Minister of State, Foreign and CommonwealthOffice (Lord Howell of Guildford): We are aware of thedemolitions that took place in the village of Dkaikaon 12 January 2011 and are concerned at what appearsto be a sharp increase in the level of demolitions andevictions in East Jerusalem and Area C throughout2010.

According to UN figures, over 430 Palestinianstructures were demolished throughout the occupiedWest Bank, including East Jerusalem, in 2010. Thesedemolitions rendered almost 600 people homeless.Israel argues that these buildings have been constructedwithout the required Israeli permits. We do not recognisethat Israel has any right to impose such Israeli Law onEast Jerusalem.

We continue to monitor the situation closely andwill continue to raise the matter with the IsraeliGovernment as necessary.

Israel: TradeQuestion

Asked by Lord Clinton-Davis

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what recentassessment has been made of the value of tradewith Israel to the United Kingdom economy.

[HL5971]

Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint: In 2009, bilateraltrade in goods and services between the UK and Israelexceeded £3 billion. Exports to Israel between Januaryand October 2010 are valued at £1.1 billion, a 19 percent rise compared to the same period last year. Importsfrom Israel between January and October 2010 valued£1.3 billion, a 51 per cent rise compared to the sameperiod last year. Full figures for trade in goods andservices for the year 2010 are not yet available.

LebanonQuestions


To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessmentthey have made of the current political situation inLebanon and its impact on stability in the region;and what support they will provide to the governmentof Lebanon. [HL5937]

The Minister of State, Foreign and CommonwealthOffice (Lord Howell of Guildford): As my right honourablefriend the Foreign Secretary has said, the collapse ofNational Unity Government is an extremely seriousdevelopment which could have grave implications for

Lebanon and for regional stability. The UK has calledon all parties to work together for a peaceful resolutionof the crisis.


To ask Her Majesty’s Government what positionthey take on the publication of the findings of theUnited Nations Special Tribunal for Lebanon, whichis trying those charged with the assassination ofPrime Minister Rafik Hariri. [HL5938]

Lord Howell of Guildford: On 17 January 2011 theprosecutor for the Special Tribunal for Lebanon passeda draft indictment to the pre-trial judge for review. Thecontents of the indictment are confidential at thisstage.

This independent judicial process is working to endimpunity for political assassinations in Lebanon. It isimportant that the special tribunal be allowed to workfreely and we call on all sides to co-operate constructively,and not interfere with due process. The UK along withmany other countries will remain unwavering in oursupport for international justice.

Local Government: FinanceQuestions

Asked by Lord Beecham

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in light ofthe Local Government Finance Settlement announcedon 13 December, what is the size of the £85 millionof transitional grant to reduce the front loading ofgrant reductions as a percentage of total localauthority expenditure. [HL5301]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State,Department for Communities and Local Government(Baroness Hanham): The transitional grant ensuresthat no authority experiences a “revenue spendingpower” reduction in either 2011-12 or 2012-13 ofmore than 8.9 per cent. It protects those authoritieswho are very dependent on central government grantssuch as the working neighbourhood fund, as well asthe capacity of authorities to raise income locally. Itwas not introduced to change the overall annual profileof the spending plans up to 2014-15, which have beenset in order to ensure that the Government tackle therecord fiscal deficit. £85 million is to be paid in 2011-12and represents 0.07 per cent of the £121 billion totalnet current expenditure budgeted for 2010-11 by thoselocal authorities which receive formula grant. Thisexpenditure is as reported by local authorities on therevenue account (RA) forms submitted annually tothe Department for Communities and Local Government.Local authority budgeted expenditure for 2011-12 isnot yet available.


To ask Her Majesty’s Government whatrepresentations they have received from local authoritiesfollowing the Provisional Local Government FinanceSettlement. [HL5628]


Baroness Hanham: Ministers have received over 300representations on the proposals for the 2011-12 localgovernment finance settlement and have also had anumber of meetings with local authorities in theconsultation period that ended on 17 January 2011.

Mahmoud Abu RidehQuestion

Asked by Lord Laird

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what socialsecurity benefits were being paid to Mahmoud AbuRideh before his recent departure from the UnitedKingdom and his death in Afghanistan; when theyceased to be paid; and how much in total was paid.

[HL5641]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,DepartmentforWorkandPensions (LordFreud):Complete informationis not available.

The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter forthe Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus, Darra Singh. Ihave asked him to write to you separately by 4 February.

Music and Dance SchemeQuestion

Asked by Lord Hall of Birkenhead

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessmentthey have made of the impact of the Music andDance Scheme and its nine Centres for AdvancedTraining. [HL5783]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State forSchools (Lord Hill of Oareford): The Music and DanceScheme currently provides training for our most talentedchildren at eight specialist music and dance schoolsaround the country and through a network of 15 centresfor advanced training. We have not made a recentassessment of their impact. However, we believe thisfocus on excellent provision enables us to develop thenext generation of professional musicians and dancers,providing those with exceptional talent from allbackgrounds with the expert support which they require.Students at centres for advanced training now numberover 850 students.

National Assembly for Wales: ReferendumQuestion

Asked by Lord Roberts of Llandudno

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what effect ayes vote in the referendum on additional powers forthe National Assembly for Wales will have upon theWestminster Parliament. [HL5254]

The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallaceof Tankerness): Schedule 7 to the Government ofWales Act 2006 sets out the subjects which would bedevolved to the National Assembly for Wales in the

event of an affirmative vote in the referendum on3 March and the Assembly voting to commence thepowers in Part 4 of the Act. Parliament is currentlyresponsible for legislating on those subjects whichhave not been devolved to the Assembly in Acts ofParliament or through Legislative Competence Orders(LCOs).

National Defence Authorization ActQuestion

Asked by Lord Judd

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whatrepresentations they have made to the governmentof the United States about the recent NationalDefence Authorization Act and its implications forthe United Kingdom–United States relationship interms of commitments to human rights and therule of law. [HL5902]

The Minister of State, Foreign and CommonwealthOffice (Lord Howell of Guildford): No representationshave been made to the US government on this issue.

National Minimum WageQuestion

Asked by Lord Laird

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further tothe Written Answer by Baroness Neville-Jones on11 January (WA 438), whether tax-free paymentsunder Section 338 of the Income Tax (Earningsand Pensions) Act 2003 are included when determiningif a worker is paid the national minimum wage; andwhether this includes subsistence and accommodationpayments connected with attending a temporaryworkplace. [HL5961]

The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (LordSassoon): For pay reference periods starting on orafter 1 January 2011, payments from an employer to aworker for travelling expenses which are allowed asdeductions from earnings under Section 338 of theIncome Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (andany associated subsistence and accommodation payments)do not count overall when determining whether aworker is paid the national minimum wage.

North and South KoreaQuestion


To ask Her Majesty’s Government what practicalassistance they are able to give in encouraging andfacilitating peace talks between North and SouthKorea. [HL5872]

The Minister of State, Foreign and CommonwealthOffice (Lord Howell of Guildford): Progress towards alasting peace will depend on building trust and confidence


between the south and the north, with the involvementof concerned countries particularly the US and China.The six party talks are key to this. We support thatprocess, and regularly talk to all countries in theregion and use our embassy in North Korea to delivermessages. We have made clear that we would seriouslyconsider any request from the parties to provide practicalassistance.

Parliamentary SovereigntyQuestion

Asked by Lord Lester of Herne Hill

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether thedoctrine of parliamentary sovereignty derives fromrecognition by the courts of the legislative supremacyof Parliament; and, if not, what is the source of thedoctrine in British constitutional law. [HL5827]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (LordMcNally): The Government note that there are differingviews concerning the origin of the doctrine ofparliamentary sovereignty. They consider, however,that it is clear that the legal principle of parliamentarysovereignty is recognised and applied by the courts.

PensionsQuestions

Asked by Lord Laird

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is theaverage age of old age pensioners living in the UnitedKingdom and of those abroad in receipt of stateold age pensions in (a) Bangladesh, (b) the Republicof Ireland, (c) Spain, (d) Pakistan, and(e) the United States. [HL5740]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentfor Work and Pensions (Lord Freud): The informationis in the table

Average age of State Pension claimants in variouscountries

Gender of claimantCountries Female Male

Great Britain 71 73Pakistan 77 75Bangladesh 76 76Rep of Ireland 72 72Spain 68 71USA 74 75

SourceDWP Information Directorate: Work and Pensions

Longitudinal Study.Notes:1. Country code for abroad cases as recorded on the

department’s administrative systems has been used. This is notnecessarily the claimant’s permanent place of residence.

2. The median has been used as it is a better measure of“average” than arithmetic mean for skewed distributions. Half ofthe claimants in each group are younger than the median age andhalf are older.

3. Separate figures are given for males and females as the ageat which State Pension can be received has not yet beenequalised.

Asked by Lord Donoughue

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many ofthe pre-September 1992 “with profit” annuitants ofthe Equitable Life scheme of compensation selectedtarget bonus rates of return of 5–10 per cent inorder to set their starting pension. [HL5859]

The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (LordSassoon): The Government do not hold this information.With profits annuitants (WPAs) whose policiescommenced before 1 September 1992 did so beforeany maladministration could have affected their investmentdecisions. Accordingly, they did not suffer a loss inrespect of which they should be compensated.

Post Office: Credit UnionsQuestion


To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessmentthey have made of the development of strongerlinks between credit unions and the Post Office.

[HL5877]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentfor Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox):We were clear in the policy statement Securing the PostOfficeNetworkintheDigitalAge,publishedon9November2010, that we support a stronger link up between thePost Office and credit unions.

In addition to existing arrangements, Post OfficeLimited is working to extend its co-operation withcredit unions, including continued engagement withthe Association of British Credit Unions to exploreoptions to further expand services.

Prisons: Prison OfficersQuestion


To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is theirresponse to the finding that only 17 prison officersare in charge of more than 3,000 inmates on atypical night in open prisons. [HL5640]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (LordMcNally): The figures quoted did not accurately reflectthe total number of staff in open prisons on a typicalnight, and related to only a specific group of prisonsand not the whole open estate.

Staffing levels in all open prisons have been risk-assessedas appropriate for low risk offenders who are nearingthe end of their sentences.


Public ExpenditureQuestion

Asked by Lord Tebbit

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much(a) public expenditure, and (b) the public sectordeficit, has been cut since May 2010. [HL5676]

The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (LordSassoon): At the June Budget, the Government set out£5.2 billion of spending reductions and £2.8 billionof revenue raising measures to take effect in 2010-11.Overall, the Government set out over £8 billion ofmeasures to reduce public sector net borrowing for2010-11.

Roads: Fatal AccidentsQuestion

Asked by Lord Condon

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how manyfatal and serious road traffic accidents involvedpolice vehicles in 2009–10; and whether this representsan increase or decrease compared to the previousreporting year. [HL5780]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones): Figures collected by the Home Office show:

the number of road traffic collisions involvingpolice vehicles in emergency responses or pursuitand resulting in injuries to the police or membersof the public; andthe number of serious and fatal casualties resultingfrom these collisions.They are contained in the following table.The data provided here are a supplementary series

collected on behalf of and released with the approvalof Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC).These data are normally used for inspection purposesonly.

Number of road traffic collisions (RTCs) involvingpolice vehicles in immediate/emergency responseand police pursuits and resulting in injury; andNumber of fatal and serious casualties to thepolice and members of the public resulting fromthese collisions1,2,5

England and Wales

2008-09 2009-10

Per centchange

between08-09 and

09-10

RTCs 890 780 -12 percent

Casualties—fatal3 26 17 -35 percent

Casualties—serious4 85 88 4 per cent

Source: Home Office from returns (ref ADR 411)received from police forces.

1. Number of non-serious casualties relating from thesecollisions are not provided.

2. The following forces have not provided any data for thenumber of road traffic collisions involving police vehicles inemergency/ pursuit involving injury: Cambridgeshire, Dorset,Gloucestershire, Humberside, City of London and NorthYorkshire.

3. Death: refers to persons killed immediately or who diedwithin 30 days of the accident. This is the usual internationaldefinition and differs from that used in other contexts by theRegistrars General, whose published statistics cover all deaths onpublic roads, generally by date of registration.

4. Serious injury: An injury for which a person is detained inhospital as an ’in-patient’ or any of the following injurieswhether or not they are detained in hospital: fractures,concussion, internal injuries, crushings, burns (excluding frictionburns), severe cuts, severe general shock requiring medicaltreatment and injuries causing death 30 or more days after theaccident. An injured casualty is recorded as seriously or slightlyinjured by the police on the basis of information available withina short time of the accident. This generally will not reflect theresults of a medical examination, but may be influencedaccording to whether the casualty is hospitalised or not.Hospitalisation procedures will vary regionally.

5. These figures are provisional and have not been confirmedwith police forces.

Safety: StandardsQuestion

Asked by Lord Laird

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further tothe Written Answer by Baroness Wilcox on20 December 2010 (WA 265), whether Europeanstandard BS EN 60335-2-6:2003 for electric ovensand hobs, in its new Clause 7.10 on devices used tostop operational functions of electric ovens andhobs, means that manufacturers and retailers arenow required to provide both tactile and visualsigns of a switch being operated. [HL5893]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State,Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BaronessWilcox): The safety of electric ovens and hobs isregulated by the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations1994 (SI 1994/3260). European Harmonised standards,also published as British Standards, such as BS EN60335-2-6:2003 provide a presumption of conformityto the requirements of the regulations. However, thatpresumption is challengeable by an enforcement authorityby an argued safety case. The regulations do not makeit mandatory to comply with a standard, but productsmust comply with the regulations and be safe.

The standards set what are considered as ″State ofthe art, good engineering practice, extending of scientificknowledge, ability of engineering to produce solutions,reasonable expectations of consumers, and furtherrelevant aspects″. Compliance with a standard is agenerally easier route than complying directly with therequirements of the legislation.

It is for CEN/CENELEC and the national standardsbodies such as the British Standards Institute to keepthe standards up to date. Inputs into the nationalstandards bodies, such as through the British StandardsInstitute (BSI), and from European initiatives such asthat for the older person and persons with disabilities


take forward the understanding of what forms a safeproduct. The Government would only become involvedin extreme cases, e.g. where a product is removed fromthe market by Trading Standards.

Currently clause 7.9 of BS EN 60335-1:2002 requiresthat switches on electrical appliances which may giverise to a hazard when operated shall be marked orplaced so as to indicate clearly which part of theappliance they control. A revision to BS EN 60335-2-6:2003 will make it necessary for electric ovens andhobs to have either a tactile or audio-visual indicationfor switches. As time passes, expectations change andstate of the art advances these requirements can beexpected to change.

The Government are currently content with thestandardisation activity which is kept under review.Persons with strong views on current requirements ofstandards are free to directly approach the nationalstandards body—for the UK that would be BSI.

Schools: Male TeachersQuestion


To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further tothe Written Answer by Lord Hill of Oareford on29 November (WA 400–1) concerning increasingthe proportion of male teachers in state primaryschools from the current 15 per cent, what effect theimplementation of the Equality Act 2010 will haveon recruitment policies. [HL5102]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State forSchools (Lord Hill of Oareford): The Government arecontinuing to consider the wide range of issues aroundthe future of teacher training, and any proposals forchange will be consistent with the requirements of theEquality Act 2010.

Encouraging more men to train as primary schoolteachers would be permitted under the new provisionson recruitment positive action in the Equality Act2010, which are in place to encourage participation bycertain groups in employment where such participationis disproportionately low.

The appointment of teachers to schools will remaina local matter although employers should be aware ofthese new provisions when recruiting to vacant positions.

Schools: Secondary SchoolsQuestion


To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are theadvantages anticipated as a result of the new secondaryschool performance measures announced in theSchools White Paper. [HL5737]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State forSchools (Lord Hill of Oareford): The new schoolperformance measures will help to ensure that every

child has an entitlement to pursue a broad and balancedcurriculum and has a grasp of the basics. The introductionof the English Baccalaureate sends a message that wemust have higher expectations for all young people.We are reforming our school system by learning fromthe best in the world where a broad academic curriculumat age 16 is a matter of course and we are determinedthat our exam standards match the highest standardsaround the world, giving our young people the bestopportunity to go on to further learning and work.

Swine FluQuestion


To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plansthey have to ensure that all children under five willreceive a vaccination for swine flu. [HL5861]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Health (Earl Howe): This winter’s seasonal influenzavaccination offers protection against swine influenza(H1N1)andtwoothertypesof influenza.TheGovernment’spolicy on influenza vaccination is informed by theexpert advice of the Joint Committee on Vaccinationand Immunisation (JCVI). In its statement of 23 July,JCVI recommended that only those children with clinicalconditions which put them more at risk from theeffects of influenza should be offered the vaccine.JCVI does not recommend that children under the ageof five outside the at-risk groups should be vaccinated.JCVI met on 30 December to review the latest evidenceon this issue. The JCVI chairman subsequently assuredmethat thisadviceremainsappropriate,andrecommendedthat efforts be focused on maximising vaccine uptakeamong all those in the risk groups. As with all vaccinationprogrammes, JCVI will keep this matter under review.

SyriaQuestion


To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further tothe Written Answer by Lord Howell of Guildfordon 30 November 2010 (WA 446), whether they nowhave information concerning the whereabouts andwelfare of Ms Hassan; when she is to be brought totrial; and when the United Kingdom Ambassadorin Damascus last made representations to thegovernment of Syria over her case. [HL5671]

The Minister of State, Foreign and CommonwealthOffice (Lord Howell of Guildford): Our ambassadorlast made representations to the Syrian Governmenton the case of Ms Hassan on 19 October 2010. Wehave heard nothing further from the Syrian authoritiesconcerning Ms Hassan’s welfare, whereabouts or whenshe is to be brought to trial.

We continue to raise cases of human rights defenderswith the Syrian Government and call for the release ofall who have been imprisoned solely for seeking toexercise their right to peaceful freedom of expressionand freedom of association.


Taxation: AvoidanceQuestion

Asked by Lord Dykes

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what stepsthey are planning in addition to their campaign toensure that tax avoidance and evasion by high-incomegroups is reduced. [HL5913]

The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (LordSassoon): This Government are committed to tacklingavoidance wherever it occurs and will be building insustainable defences against avoidance opportunitieswhen undertaking policy reform. We announced anumber of changes on 6 December 2010 to tacklespecific tax avoidance risks and are reviewing areas ofthe tax system in which repeated changes have beennecessary to close loopholes. We have also commissioneda study, led by Graham Aaronson QC, to examine thecase for developing a General Anti Avoidance Rule(GAAR) for the UK.

Alongside this we will continue to use intelligenceobtained from the Disclosure of Tax Avoidance Schemesregime and other sources to detect avoidance schemesearly and we will challenge avoidance robustly wherewe find it.

We are also investing £900 million over the spendingreview period to transform HM Revenue & Customs’(HMRC) work against avoidance, evasion and criminalattack This includes a more robust criminal deterrentagainst tax evasion—HMRC will increase the numberof criminal prosecutions fivefold—and a crackdownon offshore evasion with the creation of a new dedicatedteam of investigators to catch those hiding moneyoffshore.

Taxation: Capital Gains TaxQuestion

Asked by Lord Marlesford

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is thecurrent level of exemption for capital gains tax onchattels under section 262 of the Taxation ofChargeable Gains Act 1992; when this was lastchanged; and what it would be if up-rated from (a)that date, and (b) since capital gains tax was introducedin 1965, to take account of inflation. [HL5778]

The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (LordSassoon): Under Section 262 of the Taxation ofChargeable Gains Act 1992, gains are exempt if theproceeds from disposing of a chattel are £6,000 or less.

The limit was increased to £6,000 for any disposalson or after 6 April 1989. Up-rating this limit to the2010-11 tax year using the retail prices index (RPI)leads to an approximate limit of £12,000.

The exemption limit when capital gains tax wasintroduced from 6 April 1965 was £1,000. Up-ratingthis limit using RPI to the 2010-11 tax year wouldresult in an approximate limit of £15,200.

Taxation: Code ErrorsQuestion


To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether theyplan to write off tax bills for pensioners who arevictims of tax code errors. [HL5813]

The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (LordSassoon): HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) is allowedunder Extra Statutory Concession A19 to forgo thecollection of tax in certain circumstances. The concessionis available where information has been provided toHMRC, HMRC has failed to act on it timeously, andthe customer could reasonably have believed their taxaffairs were in order.

The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury made astatement on 11 January 2011 (Hansard, 11 Januarycol. 9WS) about a certain category of pensionerswhere the terms of this concession would apply. Otherpensioners who have underpaid Pay As You Earn taxwho believe they meet these conditions will need tomake a claim to HMRC for concessionary treatment.

Taxation: Fuel DutyQuestion


To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether theyplan to cut fuel duty if the cost of fuel rises beyonda certain point. [HL5639]

The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (LordSassoon): In the June Budget the Government askedthe Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) to undertakean assessment of the effect of oil price fluctuations onthe public finances. The OBR published its report on14 September 2010.

The Chancellor keeps all taxes under review. TheGovernment are considering the OBR’s assessment aspart of the usual Budget process

Taxation: Income TaxQuestion


To ask Her Majesty’s Government what additionalrevenue would have been collected for the year2008–09 if the top rate of income tax had been(a) 50 per cent at a threshold of £150,000 of pre-taxincome, (b) 60 per cent at a threshold of £500,000,(c) 70 per cent at a threshold of £1 million, and (d)80 per cent at a threshold of £2 million. [HL5775]

The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (LordSassoon): The table below shows the estimated changeto income tax revenue under the four scenarios.


Change in toprate of income

tax Threshold

Estimatedchange in

income taxrevenue for

2008-09

a) 40% to 50% £150,000 Increase of£2,000 million

b) 40% to 60% £500,000 Increase of£300 million

c) 40% to 70% £1 million Decrease of£800 million

d) 40% to 80% £2 million Decrease of£1,000 million

The figures refer to accrued liabilities during 2008-09and do not reflect the timing of receipts.

Estimates take account of behavioural responses,such as changes in work effort, increased tax planning,avoidance or migration motivated by tax rate changes.These effects, and associated revenue costs, are highlyuncertain, in particular for the large changes in taxrates for high income individuals posed in this question.

Pre-behaviour estimates are based on the 2007-08Survey of Personal Incomes and are projected in linewith the Office for Budget Responsibility’s Autumn2010 forecast.

Taxation: Inheritance TaxQuestion


To ask Her Majesty’s Government on what date,and at what level, the current £250 exemption fromInheritance Tax for small gifts was first introduced;and what the level of the exemption would be ifadjusted for inflation from the date or its originalintroduction. [HL5839]

The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (LordSassoon): The small gift exemption from inheritancetax continues a similar relief existing in its predecessortaxes (estate duty and capital transfer tax). The capitaltransfer tax was introduced in 1974, with an annuallimit for small gifts of £100 per donee. This limitincreased in line with inflation to £250 from 6 April1980. Inheritance tax was introduced in 1986.

If the £250 figure had been uprated from 1980 inline with the retail prices index (RPI) it would currentlystand at £910.

If the £250 figure had been uprated from 1986 inline with the RPI it would currently stand at £560.

Taxation: VATQuestions


To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether therise in VAT to 20 per cent will be made permanent.

[HL5638]

The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (LordSassoon): The Budget assumed no further change tothe 20 per cent standard rate of VAT, which is astructural change to the tax system to deal with astructural deficit.

Asked by The Countess of Mar

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what wouldbe the cost to HM Treasury of reducing VAT tozero for (a) all charitable organisations, and (b)those charitable organisations that provide publicservices. [HL5652]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in light ofthe fact that local authorities and NHS providersare not required to pay VAT, what assessment theyhave made of the impact of continuing to requirecharitable organisations to pay VAT on their abilityto provide public services. [HL5653]

Lord Sassoon: Under longstanding agreements withour EU partners, we are permitted to retain our existingVAT zero rates, but not to apply any new ones orextend the scope of existing zero rates. For that reason,no estimate has been made of the cost of introducingadditional VAT zero rates.

Local authorities and NHS bodies do have to payVAT on goods and services. However, many of theiractivities are carried out under a statutory obligation,not by way of business, which means that, even wherethey make a charge for them, those bodies are notrequired to charge VAT. Ordinarily, if a body is notcharging for goods or services supplied in the courseof business, it is not allowed to reclaim as input taxany VAT it has incurred on goods or services boughtin to make that supply. However, to avoid suchirrecoverable VAT falling as an additional burden ontaxpayers, legislation exists to allow local authoritiesand NHS bodies to recover VAT charged to them onpurchases to fulfil their statutory obligations, subjectto certain conditions.

Charities are not subject to similar statutory obligations,and so their activities are covered by the normal VATrules. However, they do benefit from a range of taxreliefs which for 2009-10 the Government estimate areworth approximately £3 billion per annum. Theseinclude reliefs from VAT, for example: VAT zero-ratingon the sale of donated goods, medical and scientificequipment and, for qualifying charities, goods for useby disabled people. All zero rates are derogations fromthe normal EU VAT rules, and represent benefits notenjoyed by charities elsewhere in Europe.


To ask Her Majesty’s Government, prior to theVAT increase to 20 per cent on 4 January, whatconsideration was given to the earlier forecast fromthe Office of Budget Responsibility that such anincrease would reduce gross domestic product by0.3 per cent next year; and how the VAT increasewill affect the economic recovery. [HL5661]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether theyplan to restore VAT to its previous rate of 17.5 percent during their term of office should the economy


return to a position of strength; and, should adverseeconomic circumstances prevail, whether they wouldconsider further increases in VAT. [HL5662]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessmentthey have made of opinions which have criticisedthe impact of the VAT increase on the pooresthouseholds; and what measures of support theyplan to offer to those households. [HL5663]

Lord Sassoon: Decisive action taken by the Governmentin the spending review and June Budget, including theincrease in VAT, will put the public finances andspending on a sustainable footing. This is alreadyhelping to keep long-term interest rates low and encouragebusinesses to invest and grow.

The Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecastsshow that the Government’s plans will deliver sustainablegrowth for each of the next five years, with employmentrising by 1.1 million by 2015, and the deficit falling.These forecasts took full account of the VAT increase.

The Budget assumed no further change to the20 per cent standard rate of VAT, which is a structuralchange to the tax system to deal with a structuraldeficit.

The VAT increase is broadly progressive in terms ofhouseholds’ expenditure; and, overall, the Budget willhave no measurable negative impact on child povertyin the next two years.

The poorest will benefit from other measuresannounced in the Budget including the £1,000 increasein the income tax allowance, the increases in child taxcredit, and new triple-lock annual increases in thestate pension.

In addition, VAT on everyday essentials like foodand children’s clothing will remain zero-rated andhousehold energy will remain subject to the reducedrate.

Transfer of Undertakings (Protection ofEmployment) Regulations

Question

Asked by Lord Beecham

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether theTransfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment)Regulations will apply to primary care trust stafftransferring to posts under the proposed new systemof general practitioner commissioning. [HL5885]

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Departmentof Health (EarlHowe):Subject tothefactualcircumstancesin each case, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protectionof Employment) Regulations may apply to primarycare trust staff working in functions transferring to theproposednewsystemof generalpractitionercommissioning.



ALPHABETICAL INDEX TOWRITTEN STATEMENT

Col. No.Sudan: Referendum........................................................... 29

Col. No.


ALPHABETICAL INDEX TO WRITTEN ANSWERSCol. No.

Abortion............................................................................ 81

Agriculture: Organic Food................................................. 82

Armed Forces: Parachute Operations ................................ 84

Bahrain.............................................................................. 84

Banking ............................................................................. 85

Banking: Bonuses .............................................................. 85

Banking: Liability .............................................................. 86

Banking: Royal Bank of Scotland...................................... 86

Banking: Special Liquidity Scheme.................................... 87

Banks: Fees and Charges ................................................... 87

Banks: Lending.................................................................. 88

Births: Statistics ................................................................. 89

Bribery Act 2010................................................................ 90

Charities: VAT ................................................................... 90

China................................................................................. 92

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and MyalgicEncephalomyelitis.......................................................... 92

Commonwealth Countries: Accession to the Throne......... 93

Constitutional Convention ................................................ 93

Consular Services .............................................................. 94

Debt: Public Sector............................................................ 94

Economy: Double-dip Recession ....................................... 94

Education Maintenance Allowance ................................... 95

Education: Nurseries ......................................................... 95

Embryology ....................................................................... 96

Energy: Gas ....................................................................... 99

Energy: Light Bulbs........................................................... 99

Energy: Photovoltic Installations ..................................... 100

Col. No.EU: Businesses................................................................. 101

EU: UK National Sovereignty ......................................... 101

EU: UK Trade ................................................................. 102

Free Books....................................................................... 102

Fuel Prices ....................................................................... 102

Government Departments: Funding................................ 103

Government Departments: Staff ...................................... 103

Gross Domestic Product .................................................. 103

Health: Contaminated Blood Products ............................ 104

Health: Drugs .................................................................. 105

Health: Fertility ............................................................... 105

Health: General Practitioners .......................................... 106

Health: GP Commissioning Board .................................. 106

Health: Haemophilia ....................................................... 107

Health: Influenza ............................................................. 107

Health: Polio.................................................................... 108

Health: Spending Cuts ..................................................... 109

Homelessness................................................................... 109

House of Lords: Catering ................................................ 110

House of Lords: Website ................................................. 110

Houses of Parliament: Mail ............................................. 111

Housing ........................................................................... 111

Immigration..................................................................... 112

Immigration: Deportation ............................................... 112

Israel and Palestine: West Bank ....................................... 112

Israel: Trade..................................................................... 113

Lebanon .......................................................................... 113

Col. No.Local Government: Finance ............................................ 114

Mahmoud Abu Rideh...................................................... 115

Music and Dance Scheme ................................................ 115

National Assembly for Wales: Referendum...................... 115

National Defence Authorization Act ............................... 116

National Minimum Wage ................................................ 116

North and South Korea ................................................... 116

Parliamentary Sovereignty ............................................... 117

Pensions........................................................................... 117

Post Office: Credit Unions ............................................... 118

Prisons: Prison Officers.................................................... 118

Public Expenditure .......................................................... 119

Roads: Fatal Accidents .................................................... 119

Col. No.Safety: Standards ............................................................. 120

Schools: Male Teachers.................................................... 121

Schools: Secondary Schools............................................. 121

Swine Flu......................................................................... 122

Syria ................................................................................ 122

Taxation: Avoidance ........................................................ 123

Taxation: Capital Gains Tax ............................................ 123

Taxation: Code Errors ..................................................... 124

Taxation: Fuel Duty ........................................................ 124

Taxation: Income Tax ...................................................... 124

Taxation: Inheritance Tax ................................................ 125

Taxation: VAT ................................................................. 125

Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment)Regulations.................................................................. 128

NUMERICAL INDEX TO WRITTEN ANSWERSCol. No.

[HL5102] ......................................................................... 121

[HL5254] ......................................................................... 115

[HL5301] ......................................................................... 114

[HL5434] ........................................................................... 95

[HL5543] ......................................................................... 102

[HL5582] ........................................................................... 84

[HL5600] ........................................................................... 86

[HL5603] ........................................................................... 85

[HL5607] ........................................................................... 96

[HL5608] ........................................................................... 96

[HL5609] ........................................................................... 97

[HL5610] ........................................................................... 97

[HL5611] ........................................................................... 97

[HL5612] ........................................................................... 98

[HL5614] ........................................................................... 95

[HL5622] ......................................................................... 103

[HL5628] ......................................................................... 114

[HL5638] ......................................................................... 125

[HL5639] ......................................................................... 124

[HL5640] ......................................................................... 118

[HL5641] ......................................................................... 115

[HL5645] ........................................................................... 88

Col. No.[HL5646] ........................................................................... 88

[HL5652] ......................................................................... 126

[HL5653] ......................................................................... 126

[HL5661] ......................................................................... 126

[HL5662] ......................................................................... 127

[HL5663] ......................................................................... 127

[HL5665] ......................................................................... 109

[HL5671] ......................................................................... 122

[HL5673] ......................................................................... 104

[HL5675] ......................................................................... 101

[HL5676] ......................................................................... 119

[HL5689] ......................................................................... 102

[HL5691] ......................................................................... 101

[HL5705] ........................................................................... 81

[HL5707] ........................................................................... 81

[HL5715] ......................................................................... 110

[HL5716] ......................................................................... 110

[HL5717] ......................................................................... 110

[HL5719] ......................................................................... 104

[HL5726] ........................................................................... 87

[HL5730] ........................................................................... 82

[HL5731] ........................................................................... 83

Col. No.[HL5732] ........................................................................... 83

[HL5735] ......................................................................... 103

[HL5737] ......................................................................... 121

[HL5740] ......................................................................... 117

[HL5752] ........................................................................... 90

[HL5753] ........................................................................... 90

[HL5754] ........................................................................... 90

[HL5757] ......................................................................... 112

[HL5762] ......................................................................... 107

[HL5763] ........................................................................... 90

[HL5764] ........................................................................... 84

[HL5775] ......................................................................... 124

[HL5778] ......................................................................... 123

[HL5780] ......................................................................... 119

[HL5783] ......................................................................... 115

[HL5789] ......................................................................... 108

[HL5790] ......................................................................... 108

[HL5798] ......................................................................... 111

[HL5799] ......................................................................... 111

[HL5811] ......................................................................... 102

[HL5813] ......................................................................... 124

[HL5814] ........................................................................... 88

[HL5820] ........................................................................... 85

[HL5827] ......................................................................... 117

[HL5839] ......................................................................... 125

[HL5845] ........................................................................... 92

[HL5847] ........................................................................... 82

[HL5858] ........................................................................... 93

[HL5859] ......................................................................... 118

[HL5861] ......................................................................... 122

[HL5869] ........................................................................... 98

[HL5870] ........................................................................... 91

[HL5872] ......................................................................... 116

[HL5875] ........................................................................... 85

Col. No.[HL5877] ......................................................................... 118

[HL5880] ........................................................................... 91

[HL5882] ......................................................................... 105

[HL5883] ......................................................................... 109

[HL5885] ......................................................................... 128

[HL5893] ......................................................................... 120

[HL5901] ......................................................................... 100

[HL5902] ......................................................................... 116

[HL5904] ........................................................................... 88

[HL5905] ......................................................................... 107

[HL5906] ........................................................................... 94

[HL5913] ......................................................................... 123

[HL5921] ........................................................................... 87

[HL5932] ......................................................................... 103

[HL5935] ......................................................................... 113

[HL5937] ......................................................................... 113

[HL5938] ......................................................................... 114

[HL5940] ......................................................................... 108

[HL5942] ........................................................................... 99

[HL5945] ........................................................................... 94

[HL5947] ........................................................................... 86

[HL5948] ........................................................................... 94

[HL5949] ......................................................................... 111

[HL5950] ......................................................................... 110

[HL5954] ......................................................................... 106

[HL5956] ......................................................................... 106

[HL5960] ......................................................................... 112

[HL5961] ......................................................................... 116

[HL5966] ........................................................................... 99

[HL5968] ........................................................................... 93

[HL5970] ........................................................................... 92

[HL5971] ......................................................................... 113

[HL5990] ......................................................................... 105

[HL6074] ........................................................................... 89

Volume 724 MondayNo. 99 24 January 2011

CONTENTS


Introductions: Lord Dannatt, Lord Wigley, Lord Collins of Highbury ........................................................................ 671

QuestionsConstitutional Reform: Referendums ............................................................................................................................ 671Crime: Murder................................................................................................................................................................. 674Bill of Rights ................................................................................................................................................................... 676Bangladesh: Rapid Action Battalion ............................................................................................................................. 678

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies BillCommittee (12th day).................................................................................................................................................... 679

Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2010 ............................................................................................................. 744Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions) Amendments Order 2010

Motions to Annul ............................................................................................................................................................ 780

Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2010Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions) Amendments Order 2010

Motion to Resolve ........................................................................................................................................................... 780

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies BillCommittee (12th Day) (Continued) ............................................................................................................................ 781

City of London (Various Powers) Bill [HL]First Reading ................................................................................................................................................................... 836

Transport for LondonFirst Reading ................................................................................................................................................................... 836

Grand Committee

Energy Bill [HL]Committee (3rd Day) ............................................................................................................................................. GC 115

Written Statement .......................................................................................................................................................... WS 29

Written Answers.............................................................................................................................................................. WA 81

(HANSARD) HOUSE OF LORDS · BOUND VOLUMES OF DEBATES are issued periodically during the session....

Documents

Transcript of (HANSARD) HOUSE OF LORDS · BOUND VOLUMES OF DEBATES are issued periodically during the session....