A footnote to my letter to Lord Falconer

Although Lord Falconer has not yet replied to my letter to him over his attempt to claim that the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill is ‘hybrid’, it’s good to see from Hansard that both Lord Rennard and Lord Tyler raised the issue:

Lord Rennard: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord help the House by explaining the difference between the Bill that we are due to consider today and, say, the Scotland Bill that was introduced in 1998? That Bill, which was brought in by the previous Government and provided for the creation of the Scottish Parliament, also contained measures to change the boundaries of constituencies in Scotland, and in particular to create separate constituencies for Orkney and the Shetland Islands. That Bill, introduced by a Labour Government, was never considered to be hybrid. Can he explain why this Bill should be?…

Lord Tyler: Can my noble friend confirm that, whenever any legislation has referred to the Orkney and Shetland constituency, although that constituency has never been considered to be part of the United Kingdom as a conventional constituency, the legislation has never been treated as hybrid?

No convincing response came from Lord Falconer. But there was this twist from Lord Strathclyde who pointed out,

My Lords, not only is my noble friend, like my noble friend Lord Rennard, right, but this relates to a Bill on which the former Lord Chancellor advised. The Scotland Act 1998 – legislation of a Labour Government – made provision for Orkney and Shetland each to be a separate constituency in the Scottish Parliament and not to be part of any future Boundary Commission review. The noble and learned Lord raised no question of hybridity then.