Member

Secondly, the argument is made that we need to ensure that the House meets an arbitrary size. That size depends on the size of the other place—600, 650, 635 or whatever it might be—but there is no argument made from first principles of what the truly effective and efficient size of this Chamber might be to ensure that every committee is staffed, that every argument is heard and that every voice is valued. My view of this House and of every institution is that it is not the size that matters but what you do with it, and, critically, that this House is shown to be vigorous in welcoming debate, energetic in challenging legislation and determined in ensuring that a variety of voices are raised. Seeking arbitrarily to control the numbers in the hope that we can somehow win approval is a pre-emptive cringe. This House should be defending itself on the quality of the arguments made, on the contributions that it makes to improving legislation, on how it enhances scrutiny of what the Executive do and on how debate overall is improved. Simply arguing about the numbers is displacement activity and is surrendering to those whose aim is not to improve this House but to neuter it or to laugh it into oblivion.