I will give the hon. Gentleman the answer, having appeared at inquiries in the past. The justification is that the job will be done by an independent set of boundary commissions, which are no more or less likely to treat people and arguments fairly by receiving representations in writing than in oral evidence. Often, the main argument at public inquiries has been not among real people about their communities, but among political parties' paid officers.
One argument that has been made is that we cannot reform one part of the constitution without reforming the others. I say gently to colleagues in the Labour party that unlike them, we will secure a predominantly elected House of Lords, which they did not do. Unlike them, we have on our agenda a reduction of the number of Ministers in future. [Hon. Members: ““No you don't.””] Yes, we do. We have it on the agenda—[Interruption.]
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Simon Hughes
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 2 November 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
517 c885 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 13:25:52 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_676023
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_676023
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_676023