Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Labour) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 9 February 2011. It occurred during Debate on bill on Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill.


Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

My Lords, we have had a very good and a very short debate. I support entirely the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. We moved an amendment at an earlier stage in these proceedings proposing 10 per cent in exceptional circumstances. As the noble Lord has described, the Government, through a variety of Ministers, raised a number of reasons why a succession of amendments would not work. In relation to each of the problems raised by the Government, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, produced a sensible solution. At the heart of what the noble Lord is suggesting is acceptance of the principle of much greater equality, but there will be exceptional cases where it is necessary to give effect to an exception based on geography or local ties where a small bit of procrustean flexibility is sensible. That is a classically common-sense amendment which should be considered on its merits. With the greatest of respect to the well known legal expert, the noble Lord, Lord King—a much respected figure in the House—I suggest that noble Lords look at the matter on the basis of the merits of the argument being advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. They should ignore views about the conduct over this Bill, ignore what the position may be in the future and ask themselves, ““If we, as a House, agree this amendment to the Bill, will people outside this House think well of us and think that we improved the Bill in a way that gave a sensible degree of flexibility?””. Almost the most powerful speech that we have heard in the course of the debate came from the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, who said that this should be an object lesson in how this House should operate. That is, the power of the argument on the merits should succeed. Of course, I am parti pris and therefore not in a position to give an argument that would be regarded as anything other than subjective but, my goodness, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has done the work, which nobody else has done in relation to this debate. I commend his amendment to the House.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
725 c242 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Access Disability Boundary commissions Constituency size Constituencies Alternative vote Administration Absent voting Cornwall Inquiries Isles of Scilly Referendums Ministers Polling stations Reviews Ynys Môn South Lanarkshire Brecon and Radnorshire
Legislation
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk