My Lords, despite several years spent scrutinising legislation in your Lordships’ House—and, indeed, many bad years before that drafting amendments—I must confess that this is the first Bill that I will seek to lead through the House myself. It is a great privilege to do so, and I look forward to working with all your Lordships on it in the coming months. Looking at the speakers’ list, I see that I seem to be surrounded by people responsible for organising most of the successful and unsuccessful elections for the past 50 years, so I can be sure that your Lordships’ wisdom will have great weight.
The purpose of this legislation is straightforward and, in many ways, modest. Its central aim is to enable us to achieve the Government’s manifesto commitment of delivering updated and equal parliamentary constituencies, and to do so on the basis of there being 650 seats in the House of Commons. The Bill is about the composition of the elected Chamber, and it has been backed by the elected Chamber.
Noble Lords will surely agree that the updating of our constituency boundaries is long overdue. The last parliamentary boundary reviews to be implemented in the United Kingdom were based on data—that is, the numbers of electors—from the early 2000s. That may seem like yesterday to many of us here, but the sobering fact is that our youngest voters were not even born then. Our current constituencies reflect how the UK was almost two decades ago. In those two decades, our country has changed enormously, having undergone significant demographic and migratory change. We need updated boundaries to reflect that. We also need to get back on track with boundary reviews that happen and come into effect regularly, routinely and reliably. This Bill delivers that and, in so doing, makes a number of common-sense and technical changes to update the boundary review process and the rules under which the four Boundary Commissions operate.
We have engaged with stakeholders, including the parliamentary parties and electoral administrators, as the Bill has evolved, and the provisions reflect their input. I appreciate the conversations that I have already been able to have with a number of noble Lords.
It is important to say from the outset that this is amending legislation and there are many elements of the existing legislative framework for boundary reviews that it does not seek to alter. Those elements none the less remain of interest both here and in the other place, and I will today touch on the most significant of them, such as the rules relating to constituency size. However, let me start with the things the Bill does do—the common-sense, technical changes.
First, as I mentioned, the Bill provides that future boundary reviews will be conducted on the basis of there being 650 parliamentary constituencies. To make this measure effective, the Bill brings the 2018 boundary review, which would have been the first to be based on 600 constituencies, to a close, without being implemented. Noble Lords will remember that the decision to make that reduction to 600 was taken by the coalition Government a decade ago. Since the change was brought into law in 2011, the UK’s electorate has grown and there have been significant changes in demography. Members of Parliament are representing more constituents than ever before, and they are taking on the role of scrutinising legislation and overseeing areas of policy, such as trade and immigration, that have previously been the preserve of the European Parliament. Under these circumstances, the Government think it right that the current 650 constituencies are retained. The House of Commons has assented to that.
Connected to this, the Bill also removes an obligation on the Government to make arrangements to review the effects of reducing the UK constituencies to 600. As that has not taken place, it cannot meaningfully be analysed.
Moving on to the frequency of parliamentary boundary reviews, the Bill provides for future reviews—after the next one, due to start next spring—to take place every eight years, as opposed to every five years, as currently. This new timetable will allow constituency boundaries to be updated regularly but with less disruption to local communities and their MPs as a result of constituencies changing at every general election. Let me add that a parliamentary boundary review generally takes two years and 10 months from start to finish: it is a significant exercise. The Government believe that every eight years is appropriate for something of this scale, as did the stakeholders consulted.
Still on the subject of timing, the Bill enables the next boundary review—on a one-off basis—to follow a slightly shorter timetable of two years and seven months. The formal start of the review will be in December of this year and the Boundary Commissions must submit their final reports by
The Bill also makes a small number of changes to the boundary review process—the nuts and bolts of what happens during a review. First, there is a change to the timing of public hearings. Every boundary review, as your Lordships know, includes extensive public consultation arranged over three separate periods. This engagement with the public and with political parties takes a variety of forms. For example, proposals can generally be viewed online, and comments submitted to the Boundary Commissions via their websites or by letter. In addition, there are public hearings, events at which individuals can make representations in person to members of their Boundary Commission. The commissions for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland must hold between two and five public hearings in their respective nations. The Boundary Commission for England must hold between two and five in each of the English regions.
Under current legislation, public hearings take place early in the process, during the first of three consultation periods. This means that the Boundary Commissions need to decide locations and book venues before they are able to get a sense of where feeling about their proposals is strongest. During our engagement with stakeholders, we heard that this timing could be better. The Bill therefore makes provision for public hearings to take place later, during the second consultation period, allowing the commissions to consider the responses received during the initial consultation and assess where public hearings are most needed. To make this change effective, the length of the consultation periods is adjusted, allowing more time in the second period for the public hearings to occur.
Secondly, the Bill makes some practical changes in relation to the data that the Boundary Commissions use when developing their proposals. Boundary Commissions look at a variety of data sources. First and foremost, they look at numbers of electors so that they can devise constituencies that fit within the size range set by legislation. The Boundary Commissions draw information on elector numbers from the electoral register, generally deriving that data from the version of the register that exists on the
I hope noble Lords will see that the rationale here is that boundary reviews are based on the most up-to-date, robust and transparent information on elector numbers. This approach has been in place since the Boundary Commissions were created in 1944 and we do not seek to alter it. That said, the Bill makes one change in relation to electoral data for the next boundary review only; I hope that your Lordships will understand that it does so in direct response to Covid-19. Rather than being based on the electoral register of
Still on the topic of data, as well as elector numbers, Boundary Commissions will of course look to devise boundaries that reflect the other factors that they may take into account, including geographical features, local ties, existing parliamentary constituencies and local government boundaries.
The Bill introduces a change to the way in which the commissions take account of local government boundaries. Currently, the commissions can work only with local boundaries that have been fully brought into effect at an election before the start of a review. This means that, in places, a Boundary Commission may be looking back one, two or even three years to how the boundaries were at the time of the last local election in that area.
The Bill changes that. In future, Boundary Commissions will be able to take account of prospective local government boundaries—that is, boundaries that have been made by an order but not yet used in an election—at the review date: the
We now come to the end of the process: the point where the Boundary Commissions have done their work and submitted their final reports. Here, the Bill introduces what in the marvellous world of policy is described as “automaticity”. Automaticity is simply the idea that the recommendations of the Boundary Commissions, developed through the meticulous and consultative process I have described, should be implemented without political influence or interference. Recommendations will still be brought into effect by an Order in Council; however, the draft order will no longer require approval by Parliament prior to making. As part of this measure, the Government’s ability to amend the draft Order in Council if rejected by Parliament is also removed.
In the other place, there was a degree of misunderstanding about the intentions of this change. I assure your Lordships that the purpose of this measure is straightforward: to bring certainty and confidence to the citizen and the elector that updated constituencies will be implemented without interference and further delay. I suspect that I am not alone in remembering what delay and interference look like; I will not touch on anybody’s sensibilities by referring to episodes in this country’s recent history.
I am sure that others will have different interpretations of the ins and outs of why boundary reviews have been delayed in the past, but I hope we can all agree that there is a vulnerability in our current legislation in this regard, and yet also an urgent need for the next review to start in good order and deliver updated boundaries promptly and reliably. Automaticity is the answer to that conundrum, and we are not the only ones to think so. In moving to this system, we draw on the experience of countries such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand, where a similar approach is used.
We also heard support in the evidence sessions of the Public Bill Committee in the other place. Witness after witness spoke up for automaticity, including party representatives, the Electoral Reform Society and several academics. As they pointed out, the removal of Parliament from the end of the boundary review process in no way alters the fact that Parliament remains sovereign and continues to set the rules and parameters within which the Boundary Commissions operate. The contesting of a parliamentary constituency will always be about politics, but this Government believe firmly that the process by which that constituency is proposed, revised and implemented should never be.
I will finish by talking about aspects of the current legislation that the Bill does not fundamentally change. The key topic here is tolerance. Under existing law, the Boundary Commissions are required to propose constituencies that are within plus or minus 5% of the average UK constituency electorate, which is known as the electoral quota. This provision, which was introduced by the 2011 Act, ensures that constituencies across the United Kingdom are broadly equal in size, within a 10% range of the electoral quota. The Government are not changing this because we are committed to delivering not just updated constituencies but equal and updated ones. Both goals are crucial. Equal constituencies mean votes that carry equal weight. Our democracy relies on our electors having confidence that they are fairly represented, yet how can an elector in Milton Keynes South—one of 97,000—feel fairly represented when up the road in Northampton North, their fellow elector is one of only 59,000?
Within our broad ambition to achieve equal constituencies, we accept that there are a handful of locations in the British Isles whose unique geographies demand a greater degree of flexibility. The law therefore includes a limited number of exceptions to the tolerance rules. By and large, we are leaving these untouched. For example, the exception that exists for Northern Ireland remains in place, allowing in certain limited circumstances for a slightly wider tolerance to be applied. This recognises that nation’s small number of constituencies and the disproportionate impact that certain rounding effects that result from the allocation of constituencies to the four nations can have there.
Similarly, an exemption for very large, sparsely populated constituencies also remains in place, as do the four protected constituencies that were included in the 2011 legislation where the tolerance rules do not apply. Those four protected constituencies are Na h-Eileanan an Iar, Orkney and Shetland, and two constituencies on the Isle of Wight.
The one change we are making here, following an amendment supported by the Government, is to add a fifth protected constituency for Ynys Môn—Anglesey. This move addresses an anomaly and has been widely welcomed. All the protected constituencies are islands and Ynys Môn falls within the range they set in terms of both geographical and electoral size.
To conclude, we have before us a Bill whose core purpose is electoral equality and fairness, delivered through equal and updated parliamentary constituency boundaries. Debates and witness testimony in the other place have revealed a clear consensus that this goal needs to be met—and soon. We need constituencies that reflect the electorate as they are now, not as they were at the turn of the century.
The Bill makes sensible and supported improvements to the way boundary reviews operate. We are legislating for an appropriate number of seats, a better frequency of reviews, an improved set of review processes and a more certain method of implementation designed to enhance the independence of the impartial Boundary Commissions. The people of the UK deserve fair votes; they deserve effective representation; and they deserve to have trust and certainty in the boundary review process that delivers those things.
I commend the Bill to the House. I beg to move.
My Lords, I welcome the Minister introducing his first Bill and I welcome being able to say that I welcome it. Of course, it rectifies a bad mistake made by the coalition, which sought to reduce the size of Parliament without a corresponding reduction in the size of the Executive and which reduced the accountability of MPs to their constituencies by giving them larger electorates and by legislating for frequent re-boundarying, making it harder to build up the knowledge and contacts that make for effective representation.
Of course, these are matters more for the elected than for your Lordships’ House. But it was ironic that the reduction of the size of that House was to happen just as this one grew disproportionately by the addition of Members who were here for life and—like all of us —neither removable nor accountable. It was hard to understand the rationale for that, so I look forward to hearing former members of the coalition Government—particularly the seven Lib Dems due to speak today, of whom three are in the Chamber—who, as Hansard reminds me, voted against our amendment on this subject, to explain the conundrum. Regrettably, neither the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, nor the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who steered it though this House, is on the speakers’ list today. Anyway, it all means that we are of course delighted to see Clause 5, and to give it our wholehearted support.
Your Lordships would, however, expect us to look carefully at the rest of the Bill, to ensure that it achieves its objectives and to see whether there are amendments that we would like to table for consideration. Perhaps the major one is something that does affect us, because it is about the role of Parliament. Hitherto, as we have heard, Parliament has had to sign off the final proposals from the various boundary commissions. Indeed, it was, fortunately, because of this very power, and the then Government’s inability to get their proposals through the other House, that we do not now have a 600-seat Chamber at the other end of this building.
However, suddenly, in this Bill, without any prior consultation, that final backstop role of Parliament has vanished—and with it, any possibility for the Commons to pause the process. Instead, the Executive will simply, via an Order in Council, trigger the whole sweep of changes. The Government maintain that this is to keep the procedure completely free of any political input. But there will still be political input—from the Executive, who retain the ability of tabling or withholding that Order in Council, because that cannot be instigated by Parliament.
So, for the sake of argument, should the Government not like the outcome, and should they be planning an election—since they have also promised to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act—would it not be very convenient to hold back that trigger, with Parliament unable to act? The Minister will, I am sure, say that the Government could do the same now, by delaying a statutory instrument—but at least that would be Parliament’s business, and therefore open to question.
Perhaps more fundamental, however, is the idea that Parliament—or politics—is somehow a bit grubby, and should not be able to give its final approval to something of such democratic consequence. Leaving major constitutional decisions to officials, with no parliamentary oversight, is difficult to defend. So I look forward to hearing the Minister—steeped as he is in Parliament and its ways—argue why, in this unique decision, Parliament should be shut out.
My noble friend Lord Lennie, who knows a thing or two about this, will say rather more about the issue of variance later, and will explain why the very small figure of plus or minus 5% is too restrictive to enable the boundary commissions to respect communities and geography, and to minimise disruption.
I will simply say two things. First, just as, in this House last time—thanks to the Lord Speaker, I think—we respected the Isle of Wight’s geography, and this time, thanks to a Conservative MP, Ynys Môn, or Anglesey, has been preserved as a seat, so we should enable the boundary commissions to respect equally important geographical realities, particularly in Wales.
I lived in Anglesey, in Bodedern, for a time—albeit I was unable to vote for Cledwyn Hughes, later Baron Cledwyn of Penrhos, as in those bygone days the voting age was 21, which I had not yet attained. So I know the island, and I feel its identity and cohesion. But I also know this in and around my maternal home of Ystradgynlais. My noble friend Lady Gale will say more about the valleys and their identity, as well as their travel challenges, in due course—things that necessitate some extra leeway to preserve community ties.
That brings me to the second point on variance. In their determination to have numerically equal electorates per seat, the Government have forgotten that MPs represent communities, not just individuals. MPs’ understanding of their local companies and schools, the local authority, the swimming pools, the universities, the sports teams, the churches, the charities, the culture and local history, means that they are embedded in the lives of their constituencies in a way that pure numerical determination fails to understand. So we will ask the Government to think again about the degree of flexibility allowed to the boundary commissions.
There are just two other points to make. One, in the context of this attempt to reach exact figures in each seat, is to remind the Minister that some 9 million—perhaps 20%—of those entitled to vote are missing from the register. That is a rough average of 10,000 per constituency. Given how many are missing altogether, that makes the obsession with the last 3,500—that is, of course, a smaller number for the 5%, now that we have 650 seats rather than 600—a little hard to understand.
Equally important for the representation of people in the Commons is that many simply do not get the chance to vote. The Electoral Commission recommended automatic voter registration, and the Select Committee of your Lordships’ House on the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 recommended urgent action to tackle under-registration, including piloting automatic registration for attainers. So perhaps the Minister could respond to this proposal in advance of our tabling the relevant amendments.
Secondly, as we look to the future and to an election in, say, four years’ time—although the early date of the first boundary review makes me think the next election might be a little earlier—we have the space now to extend the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds, whose lives will be affected by decisions in the Commons. I urge the Government not to dismiss this call but to give very careful thought to the planet, and the country, that we will leave to them, and to whether it is right to give those 16 and 17 year-olds a say over who will take the decisions that shape their lives. But for the moment we welcome the Bill, which will rectify a bad mistake, and I look forward to the speeches that will follow today, as well as to our discussions in Committee.
My Lords, it is not my usual source for a wise text, but I shall begin with a quote from the Conservative manifesto of December 2019—significantly not repeated by the Minister this afternoon. We do believe that we should be
“making sure that every vote counts the same—a cornerstone of democracy.”
However, we remind the Government that any variance in the number of electors in UK constituencies pales into insignificance when compared with the way the first-past-the-post electoral system cheats voters. Some party supporters have to be hugely more numerous to secure representation than others. In December 2019, it took 33 times as many to secure an MP for one party when compared with another, so the worst ratio inequality was a staggering 33:1. We will have to return to this when we have a more comprehensive opportunity to make our system more fit for purpose, perhaps when the promised constitution, democracy and rights commission is up and running.
We can agree to some features of this Bill. The retention of the 650 MPs is now logical, and so too is the eight years between each review and redistribution; that is helpful. The base date for electoral registration totals is certainly sensible, and the overall emphasis on avoiding unnecessary, frequent and disruptive changes is very welcome indeed. That is the area which requires the most improvement in the Bill. For a start, Parliament must give a firm instruction to the Boundary Commissions to avoid, wherever practicable, crossing top-tier local authority boundaries. The classic case is the historic boundary that gives unrivalled integrity to Cornwall. The River Tamar provides a much better boundary with England than either Scotland or Wales currently enjoy. Even the Conservative MPs there now seem to have lost their enthusiasm for a “Devonwall” seat.
There are other examples. Crossing city boundaries to avoid splitting wards within them is manifestly absurd, encumbering MPs, the cities themselves and their citizens with totally avoidable confusion. MPs seem to have accepted that splitting large wards is preferable to creating constituencies that straddle more than one upper-tier local authority area, but the Bill must be totally explicit on this objective.
However, this gives added weight to the case for more realistic and flexible tolerances. As the independent academic evidence to the Commons Public Bill Committee from Dr David Rossiter and Professor Charles Pattie, drawing on the much-respected work of the late Professor Ron Johnston, made clear,
“Ward splitting certainly helped to reduce the amount of disruption, but in our estimates it did not reduce disruption anything like as much as widening the tolerances moderately.”
This is the core issue. Given that updated analysis shows that the previously alleged distortion between the electorates and voting in Conservative and Labour-held constituencies is now less significant and due more to registration levels, third-party activity and turnout as much as to any other factor, the disruption factor is all-important. Again, the academic evidence given to the Commons Public Bill Committee is absolutely explicit:
“Most of the bias that has caused comment and concern in recent years has come from other sources that are nothing to do with the constituency size issue.”
MPs on the Committee seemed to accept that and to be anxious to avoid massive pointless disruption.
I know from my own experience how important this is both for MPs and for their constituents. Between my first period in 1974 and my return in 1992, there was a massive change in Cornwall; only the long-suffering residents in the Bodmin area had to have me as their MP twice. Elementary arithmetic reveals that the tight 5% margins either side of the desirable electorate changes when—[Inaudible]—650 constituencies, compared with the 600 in the previous legislation. With a few hundred variables, the whole political geography can change. Several constituencies can experience a knock-on effect and established representation links can be arbitrarily destroyed. A 5% tolerance invites regular disruption and ever-present insecurity. No MP with integrity wants that.
For example, the proposed extension of the franchise to more UK citizens overseas, which is planned to take place while this review is under way, could distort many of the new proposals, given such narrow room for manoeuvre. As more people from the EU achieve UK citizenship, that too can alter local totals. We will want to examine meticulously the case for a 7.5%, 8% or 10% tolerance, and it looks like the Labour Party will support us in re-examining those tolerance levels. My noble friends would also have wished to have emphasised the need for greater effort to improve the completeness of the register and to bring it into closer alignment with the census. They will wish to examine the special geographical factors at work in Scotland and Wales.
This Bill is an improvement in a number of respects. However, it will succeed only if a realistic approach is adopted to prevent excessive disruption, to preserve consistency and to respect historic integrity. Ironically, in a different era, that would have been described as conservatism.
My Lords, first, I hope that I am correct in wishing the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, a happy birthday. Secondly, I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, about the sad death of Professor Ron Johnston, who would have given evidence to the committee in the other place had he not died so tragically only a few days before he was due to do so. He was a man of great and impartial expertise, to whom the political geography of redistribution came so naturally—and so charmingly to everyone he spoke to.
Given the brevity that we are required to maintain in the debate, at this stage I intend to speak on only one aspect of the Bill: Clause 5, on the number of Members of Parliament. No doubt I will return to other more contentious matters at a later stage, such as automaticity, quotas and the like, but I should add that I broadly support the other elements of the Bill as they stand.
We have too large a political class in this country. It has inflated beyond a level that is acceptable in a modern western democracy. I am therefore disappointed to see that we are moving away from 600 MPs, a number which, as far as I was concerned, was far too many. In his opening comments, the Minister justified moving back to 650 MPs in part because of Brexit. I would have sympathy with that argument were it not for the fact that when we went into the EU, no one suggested that we should reduce the number of Members of Parliament.
When we went into the EU, and when the last EU legislation was passed in 1986, we had only two elected bodies in the United Kingdom, one in Stormont and one in Westminster. The 1986 Act states:
“The number of constituencies in Great Britain shall not be substantially greater or less than 613.”
We currently have 19 more MPs than the Act recommended, and since 1986 we have added 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament, 60 Members of the Senedd Cymru, 12 more Members at Stormont, 25 Members of the GLA, 41 police and crime commissioners, and elected mayors in Merseyside, Manchester, Watford, Bedford, Teesside and the like. Then, of course, we have 792 Members of this House which, sadly, is just about to be heavily inflated, a decision that I greatly regret, particularly given that so many of the people who will be undertaking that process had said themselves that they wanted to reduce the burden of government on individuals.
Where I agree with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, is that if we have a certain number of Members of Parliament, we should also have control over the Executive. We have much larger Houses than most other democracies. If we reduce the number of MPs to what I believe to be an acceptable level, there should be some way of acknowledging the control of the Executive. That is the job of both these Houses. But at the same time as we have been adding elected bodies in one form or another, depending on how you make the calculations we currently have 120 Ministers and Whips, a not quite record 42 Parliamentary Private Secretaries, and 109 special advisers—a number that in itself is up from 27 in 1987, almost the same point at which the legislation was passed.
We should reduce the number of people who govern this country, not just stabilise the total at 650. Given that I read the Sunday Times yesterday, I hope that soon—possibly in Committee—we might have what one might describe as a Quentin Letts amendment. We should restrict the numbers in this place and the Commons.
[Inaudible]—proposal for the implementation of reports of Boundary Commissions with what has been described as automaticity, without the current parliamentary approval and, therefore, it is said, without the possibility of political influence or interference at that stage. In future, unless Parliament changes primary legislation at the time of a report’s publication, it will cease to have a role. It is said we are drawing on the experience of successful examples elsewhere, in New Zealand, Canada and Australia.
The consequence of this change must be to move the focus of any risk of political interference to the Boundary Commission, as the final decision will no longer be for Parliament. This means that any risk of interference may move to the commission and the process of appointing it. It is therefore essential that the commission is not only independent but seen to be independent and appointed independently.
As noble Lords know, commissions are chaired by the deputy chairman in each jurisdiction, who has to be a High Court judge. In Scotland the deputy chairman is appointed by the head of the judiciary, the Lord President, and in Northern Ireland by the head of the judiciary there, the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland. However, that is not the position in England and Wales. The appointment is not by the head of the judiciary, the Lord Chief Justice, but by the Lord Chancellor, a government Minister.
For England and Wales, this anomaly—which pre-dates the change to the position of the Lord Chancellor in 2005—must be changed, in my view, so that the deputy chairman is no longer appointed by a government Minister but, as in Scotland and Northern Ireland, by the head of the judiciary. Although, of course, the Lord Chancellor consults the Lord Chief Justice, in the light of the proposed change brought about by this Bill in effecting automaticity, that is no longer sufficient. That is because it is necessary to ensure that the independence of the judiciary is not undermined by any perception of partisanship or political influence in the appointment. It must be seen to be wholly independent of the political Minister that the Lord Chancellor now is.
At the same time it seems necessary to change the appointment of the two other commissioners. Professor Hazell and Dr Renwick of the Constitution Unit at University College London set out a number of alternatives in their evidence to the House of Commons Committee in June 2020. In agreement with them, I urge that the preference should be the appointment made by an independent committee, including the deputy chairman, as is present practice. That committee should then put forward a single name to the Minister, with a power to reject only if written reasons are given. That has proved a very effective mechanism for the independent appointment of judges.
If the commission’s decisions are, in effect, to be final and binding through automaticity and protected from political interference, the appointment process must be independent and therefore seen to be free of the risk of any perception of political interference and influence.
On the point from the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, about the size of the House of Commons, it has historically always had about 650 Members. A century ago, it was larger at 707 Members; it has come down in size over that period. I do not think it excessively large for exactly the reasons my noble friend gave: we have an unusually large Executive in this country, partly because we are a unitary state. We do not have devolved government in England. Maybe we should have a smaller Government than 100-odd members, but as long as such a large proportion of the governing party are members of the Executive—about a third of the Members of the governing party in the House of Commons are members of the Executive—I see no alternative to a House of Commons about the same size we have at the moment.
As for the House of Lords, I think the noble Lord’s memory is somewhat short. It was the last Labour Government who dramatically decreased the size of the House of Lords by removing most of the hereditary Peers. The House of Lords is now much smaller than it has been for most of recent history.
As for what the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said, I am a supporter of electoral reform. I support the mixed member system that Britain introduced into Germany after 1945 to get the best balance between directly elected constituency MPs and a proportional top-up—but we have had a referendum on that. We had a referendum in 2011, and whereas I was very open to exploring the results of the 2016 referendum, which was close and not on a precise proposition, the 2011 referendum on the alternative vote was on a very precise proposition and has been enacted by Parliament—and it was decisive; 69% voted against it.
My strong advice to my friends on the Lib Dem Benches is: do not go there. The way the progressive parties in this country will come to power in future is not by chimera ideas of electoral reform but by winning an election under the existing system. That is what we should devote our attention to doing.
My noble friend’s points were all well made and I agreed with them all. I amplify her final point about votes at 16. It is not clear to me what the Government’s policy is in respect of allowing the House of Commons a free vote; perhaps he could elucidate that for us in his reply. It looks as if on a free vote there probably is a majority now in the House of Commons for a voting age of 16.
Not only has the time clearly come for votes at 16— the group that wants representation and has a democratic right to it that is most unrepresented in our institutions at the moment is young people, particularly 16 and 17 year-olds—but it should go hand in hand with two other reforms. First, young people should be automatically registered at their place of study, which used to happen when I was a student. Then, all universities would automatically register all their students. The move towards individual registration has served to keep a lot of young people off the electoral roll. If we are to reduce the voting age to 16, the other change I would make is to have a polling station in every place of study—every school with a sixth form, every college and every university. The combination of those three reforms—votes at 16, automatic registration and a polling booth in every place of study—would transform the representation of young people and we would be a healthier society for it.
My Lords, the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 was the subject of the fiercest and longest debates I have witnessed in this House. At the time my party was seeking a route to change to the AV voting system through a referendum, while the Conservative Party was seeking to address what it wrongly considered to be a bias against it in the system. My party failed to persuade people to vote for its preferred option in that referendum, and the Conservative Party failed to persuade either House of Parliament to accept the proposals for new constituency boundaries in 2013 and knew it would fail again with those of 2018—so the 2011 Act must be replaced. But to say that this Bill has been approved by the other place means only that it has been approved by the Conservative Party.
The Bill before us is better than that of 2011 in that it retains 650 constituencies and proposes reviews every eight years, not every five, but the basis of it remains flawed in at least two major respects. First, we still have a hopelessly inadequate system of voter registration, which provides the building blocks for drawing boundaries. Secondly, as we can see from the last two aborted review processes, the tiny variation of just 5% permitted to the quota for electorates in each constituency will prevent the creation of sensible constituencies based on recognised communities and will result in major disruption to many constituency boundaries with every review.
In 2015 the Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee concluded that a variation of 7.5% or 8% would be consistent with the government aims and with avoiding these problems. We see from the 2013 and 2018 proposals how this inflexible figure of 5% results in great changes to many constituencies even though both sets of proposals were for the same number of seats. It was argued in the other place that splitting local government wards could limit this disruption, but an excellent and detailed note from the Boundary Commission for England explained very carefully and in detail why splitting wards is not practical on a widespread basis. This time we must properly address the problem of being unable to create sensible constituencies all within the 5% quota and which will otherwise often cross county and other local government boundaries and involve major disruption to boundaries, splitting up many constituencies every time a review is conducted.
I remind noble Lords of the advisory speaking time of three minutes. We must finish at 8.30 pm tonight and we have a 60-Member list, so we need to get on.
My Lords, one of the many privileges of being a Member of this place is having opportunities, such as we have this afternoon, to have a role in determining the structure and process of our democracy. As unelected Peers, this is even more of a privilege, and one that we must use with considerable care.
I welcome this Bill for many reasons, some of which have already been expressed. It seeks to learn the lessons of the ill-fated 2018 Boundary Commissions review. By streamlining the review process, not only will future reviews be concluded more efficiently, but the Boundary Commissions’ recommendations will be provided in a politically neutral pathway for implementation. Some noble Lords will find the idea of the recommendations being implemented by an Order in Council rather than by parliamentary procedure uncomfortable. However, I ask them to consider the result that party politics can have on this process, as we saw in the last Parliament. The Bill will not only allow the Boundary Commissions’ recommendations to be implemented but, as the Minister said, put us in line with our sister parliamentary democracies of Canada, Australia and New Zealand. I do not think that it will be easily argued that this process has undermined their democracies.
However, the main purpose of the Bill is not to steal good ideas from our overseas cousins, but to deliver for the British people up-to-date and equal parliamentary boundaries, as promised in the Government’s manifesto. The current parliamentary constituency boundaries are based on data that is two decades old. Given the increase in population and changing demographics experienced across the United Kingdom, we need a Parliament that reflects that change. The next review will use the latest electoral information and return the current number of constituencies, ensuring that we have a Parliament that reflects modern Britain, providing the electorate of the United Kingdom with equal and fair votes and representation, and delivering for the British people.
The Bill has two changes which I particularly welcome: first, that the Boundary Commissions are mandated to redraw the constituencies every eight years; and secondly, that future reviews allow prospective local government boundaries to be considered alongside existing ones, helping to minimise the lack of alignment of council wards with parliamentary boundaries.
The Bill was passed by the other place with only two government-backed amendments, one to make Ynys Môn a protected constituency and the other to ensure that the next review is based on electoral data taken in March this year. Otherwise, the Bill was passed without further amendment—by Members who were returned by the electorate of this country only a few months ago, in a historic election in which this Government won an 80-seat majority with a promise to modernise parliamentary boundaries as part of a manifesto which this Bill is designed to deliver.
I agree with the Minister that it would be absurd to fight the next election on boundaries that are a quarter of a century old, but let us not exaggerate the good that the Bill does. It will not give every citizen an equal say in the nation’s affairs. It cannot while we hang on to first past the post, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, reminded us, and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, reminded us, while we reject automatic registration, leaving off the register 9 million eligible people, primarily poorer, younger and from minority-ethnic communities. Automatic registration works elsewhere. Democracy demands it here.
My chief concern is the cohesion of the kingdom. We are told that Scotland will lose three seats and Wales will lose eight seats. Are we sure that statistical tidiness makes political sense? Right now, I oppose the 2011 Act, which would have culled six Scottish seats, so of course I welcome Clause 5, but it does not address the elephant in the room: the growing perception in Scotland, Wales, and now, strikingly, in Northern Ireland—because of the Johnson frontier in the Irish Sea—that the voices of the smaller nations go unheard. The Bill will not weaken and may slightly strengthen that perception.
If it were not against the spirit of the age, I would suggest that the Government reflect on the allocation of seats in the European Parliament, which has from the start favoured smaller member states, as has the Council’s voting systems. If it were not against their perceived party interests, the Government could have proposed amending Schedule 2 to the 1986 Act to allow the Boundary Commissions to consider the additional criterion of peripherality, and to take more account of sparsity of population. The more distant a constituency, the harder the job of representing it. To drive to the highland constituency represented for so long by Lord Maclennan of Rogart, whom we greatly miss, would take 12 hours; to drive across it would take two more hours. For distant rural seats, it would make sense to widen the permitted 5% variation. To do so makes sound strategic sense if we really think that our endangered union is precious.
“Magnanimity in politics is not seldom the truest wisdom”.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord True, knows his Burke.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, made some powerful points. Until now, the principle of constituency equalisation has been applied by the Boundary Commissions in a fair and sensible way, taking proper account of local views, community identity and geographical sparsity, instead of being rigidly straitjacketed, as this Bill requires, and damaging Wales more than anywhere else, as my noble friend Lady Hayter has said.
In no other nation or region of Britain, proportionate to the population, are there such large and remote areas and vast rural areas with many thousands more sheep than people and constituencies of many hundreds of square miles. Yet under this Bill, four existing geographically large constituencies across mid, west and north Wales could well become two monster ones of thousands of square miles each. The Prime Minister can drive across his constituency in five to 10 minutes, but it takes a couple of hours or more to drive from one corner of the current Brecon and Radnorshire constituency to another.
Moreover, before 2010, every Parliament and Boundary Commission understood and accepted an elementary verity about former coal-mining Welsh valleys: that you cannot communicate with the next valley by the shortest route, because that is over the top of the mountain. You must travel to the top or bottom and go around. Communities in each of these valleys have different histories and identities, including, importantly, on the Welsh language. Parliament first decided in an Act in 1944 —well over 70 years ago—that because of Wales’s uniqueness, there should be no fewer than 35 seats. This Bill will result in an arbitrary cut of fully a fifth, from 40 to 32 seats in Wales.
Most offensive is the way that the Bill sweeps away local democracy. For generations, constituency boundaries have been reviewed and adjusted by local agreement not central diktat. Local people have had the opportunity to object if community identities were threatened or unsuitable mergers with nearby towns or villages were proposed, but the Bill has unilaterally dumped this for a rigid formula, with Wales most punitively hit.
The original, fairer, more transparent and consensual boundary review system should be restored. Equalisation should not be applied in such a dogmatic, rigid and politically discriminatory fashion; then we could have a fair and democratic boundaries Bill, not this unfair one, which rides roughshod over local community views, especially in Wales.
My Lords, I welcome the Bill so ably introduced by my noble friend, even though the 1986 Act that it amends abolished the Ealing Acton constituency I represented for 23 years, making me politically homeless until the good voters of North West Hampshire offered me their hospitality.
The most controversial aspect of the Bill is its so-called automaticity. Some Peers do not like this because it goes too far; my concern is exactly the opposite —that it does not go far enough. The Government contend that this change will
“provide certainty that the recommendations of the independent and impartial boundary commissions will be implemented without political influence or interference from either government or Parliament”.
This is a worthy objective. Many noble Lords will remember—my noble friend Lady Pidding referred to it—how the Labour Party and the Lib Dems, here and in another place, joined up to postpone the boundary recommendations in 2013, even though they implemented legislation put on the statute book by Nick Clegg. Noble Lords with longer memories will recall, in 1969, Jim Callaghan laid the necessary order in the Commons and then invited his party to vote it down, described by Callaghan’s official biographer as a “a cynical partisan manoeuvre” and
“pragmatic delay, untrammelled by principle”.
He was said in later life to have regretted what he did.
Those two examples show the importance of insulating the Boundary Commission from political interference, but the Bill does not do this, because Clause 2 retains the words
“as soon as reasonably practicable”,
referring to the interval before the Government lays the Order in Council to give effect to the recommendations of the Boundary Commission. This was the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. Any Government could undermine the purpose of the Bill by simply not doing this.
We have a recent example of exactly this happening. The Boundary Commission submitted its last report in September 2018 and, under the law, Ministers should have laid the order “as soon as practicable”. It still has not been laid nearly two years later. No one could argue that it was not practicable to have done so, but there has been no legal challenge. What would prevent a future Government, who find the recommendations not to their liking, simply not laying the order?
I ask my noble friend whether he will look kindly on an amendment in Committee to replace the words “as soon as practicable” with a specific time limit to remove the possibility of gerrymandering and achieve the objective of the Bill, as set out in the quotation I referred to. That would thereby achieve objectives that I otherwise wholeheartedly support.
My Lords, I am not grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, for reminding noble Lords that it is my birthday, but I thank him for the commemoration anyway. At my age, I try to forget about it. I agree entirely with my noble friends Lord Tyler and Lord Rennard, so I will try not to repeat what they said. I have to say to the Labour Party that, if we want, we could spend the whole of the Bill refighting battles and arguments from 2011. I do not think that would be useful, because we need to co-operate to scrutinise carefully the legislation that the present Government are putting forward. That requires us to work together.
The 2011 legislation, the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act, was a shambles in almost every respect—while it was taking place, in this House and in the way it came out, on all sides. We should learn from that. It teaches a great deal of lessons that are not for today about how to work coalitions, should there ever be another one, and their internal workings. The shambles were a direct result of the internal structure of the coalition, which was far too top-down and dependent on negotiations and deals done between two people, who did not know much about many of the things they were dealing with.
The 5% is important. I have no problems with the Bill increasing the number of constituencies back to 650. I have no problems with 650, and could not understand why everybody was getting so worked up and agitated about the difference between 600 and 650. If people want to reduce it to 300 or 350, it would be something to talk about. I would not agree, but it would be an argument worth fighting if you did. This 600 to 650 is neither here nor there, nor worth talking about.
However, it will not help in Lancashire, where the two proposals were both very similar. People are restricted to 5% and, because they had to start somewhere—and they started on the coast and came inland—by the time they got to the Pennines, it was a complete botch-up. Since we will probably lose a seat because of the changes from present, I do not think it will make much difference. We can talk about that in Committee. I have used up my time. All I will say is: if we and the Labour Party want something sensible from the Bill, let us work together.
My Lords, I was a member of the Select Committee on the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013, which reported earlier this month. I intervene in this debate to underline that some of the key conclusions of that Select Committee report bear directly on the aims of the Bill.
As the Minister stated, the Government wish by the Bill to deliver their manifesto commitment to have
“updated and equal UK Parliamentary boundaries … making sure that every vote counts the same”.
The process to determine this level playing field that would achieve this depends crucially on the quality of the data used, in particular the completeness and accuracy of the electoral registers. The Government clearly recognise the importance of good data; as has been stated, it was one of the reasons for introducing this legislation and it led the Government to introduce the new Clause 8 in the Bill.
But the Government need to think about going further. They need to address the important finding of our committee report that much more should be done to ensure the completeness and accuracy of the electoral registers, the key data for future boundary reviews. In our committee hearings, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and other noble Lords, we heard in evidence that millions of eligible voters are missing from the registers. The UK lags behind other countries in addressing this issue. We heard that there are regional disparities and that underrepresentation was more likely among certain demographic groups, including the BAME community, the young and students, the disabled and those in care homes. The committee specifically drew attention to the serious implications of this on the work of reviewing parliamentary boundaries and achieving the level playing field we all want.
Talk of completeness and accuracy of electoral registers may sound esoteric to some, but it certainly goes to the heart of much of the wider political debate about trust in the democratic process, regional disparities, race and inequality. I urge the Minister to prioritise work to improve the electoral registration process and ensure that the wider aims of the Bill can be achieved in the longer term.
My Lords, there are many positive aspects to the Bill, but I will concentrate on a couple of points. First, with regard to who finally decides, we have a view in this country that if you appoint an outside body, everybody on it is therefore independent and impartial. The trouble with that is that they are not accountable; for better or ill, Members of the House of Commons are. It would be worth looking again at this proposal because, if a body is accountable, the political decision clearly lies there. We cannot push all our key decisions to third parties and not be prepared to take tough decisions ourselves. While there is, of course, self-interest in having the power to decide, that is what the House of Commons is there for. Members are elected to the House of Commons to take decisions, not to farm them out to somebody else.
There is an issue about flexibility. Having equal constituencies and votes of equal weight is an impossibility when you have already set aside special circumstances for geography, which I fully accept. It is an unachievable dream.
I would like the Minister to run over another issue. We have four boundary commissions. Why? We are talking about seats in the House of Commons—a UK-wide Parliament. Following the recent 2018 review of parliamentary boundaries, our Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland was taken to court and lost the case. It was said that it had fettered its discretion. We can achieve the same goal of having local input by having people from all four nations on a boundary commission. We did that recently with the formation of the agriculture commission. So we need to look at that. If people think that our boundary commission is so good at local knowledge, it came up with a constituency that looked like a sausage—it had neither shape nor make nor any coherence to it. So I am not convinced that having four outfits trying to do the job of one is necessarily the best way forward. Perhaps that is something we can look at in Committee.
In general I support the Second Reading, but there are some very good points to argue. Farming decisions out to third parties is not necessarily the best way to do things.
I am not sure that the reasons given to overturn the decision to reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600 are very convincing. There are many parliamentary democracies with larger populations but smaller numbers of elected representatives than is the case with our House of Commons here at Westminster.
A better reason for retaining 650 seats is that it should allow more existing constituencies to continue with their current boundaries, or with relatively minor changes. The continuing coherence of our parliamentary constituencies is more important than it is given credit for in most commentary on the Bill that I have read. The previous proposals under the Boundary Commission’s report of 2018 would have resulted in the boundaries of a large number of constituencies no longer corresponding precisely to local authorities’ boundaries. This would have been regrettable.
I have been president of the North East Hertfordshire Conservative Association for many years. Our members were not at all happy that the constituency was to be renamed Letchworth and Royston, because it was expected to incorporate small parts of both Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire. There are other towns in the constituency with their own characteristics, and very many electors did not identify with either Letchworth or Royston.
Most people still identify with their county. It was a pity that, under the 2018 plan, many constituencies would have had to drop the reference to their county from their new name. My Member of Parliament, my right honourable friend Sir Oliver Heald, at present has to deal with only Hertfordshire County Council and two district councils, North Hertfordshire and East Hertfordshire. Under the 2018 plans, he would also have had to deal with councils in both Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire.
I have some sympathy with those who believe that there should be slightly more flexibility than the maximum 5% deviation from the average electorate to ensure that there is a smaller number of incoherent constituencies crossing local authority boundaries. Indeed, one of the strongest arguments for the first past the post system, which I support, is that there is one Member representing all electors in one coherent single-Member constituency.
I ask my noble friend to confirm that, at present, the high sheriff of a county is the returning officer for all parliamentary constituencies in his or her county. Where a constituency will in future straddle two counties, who will decide which of the two high sheriffs will discharge this duty?
I am generally happy and agree with the Bill’s other provisions.
Like many who have spoken, I welcome the Bill. The first eight clauses are probably the meat of it. I will try to touch on a few points on Clauses 2, 4, 5 and 8.
Clause 2 touches on the need for the approval of both Houses. This is sensible, as can be clearly seen. If we had not had a system of the approval of both Houses when the previous discussions about the boundary changes and the move to 600 went through, the changes would already be in place. So needing the approval of both Houses is both sensible and a very good backstop.
I have a question on Clause 4 regarding public hearings, which I do not think has been touched on yet, and the move from the first to the second consultation. It is sensible for input on the public consultation to be in the second round. That will allow communities and parties to have sight of other proposals that are made. My concern would be with the boundary commission having more set plans and being less able to effect or bring forward changes if we have already gone through the first part of it. Most importantly, public consultations need to be fair, open and transparent.
I have another point on Clause 5 with regard to the voice of the smaller nations. I completely understand and get the idea of moving to constituencies of a similar size. The 5% plus or minus will make it very difficult to fit in more council boundaries, so looking to move that would be sensible. However, my point goes back to what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and my noble friend Lord Hain said about the nations. Currently, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have 117 constituencies, with London and the south-east having 156. These proposals will change it so that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will have 106 and London and the south-east will have 164. That will further endanger the unity of the union. Other considerations could be brought into the Bill with regard to rural constituencies that are distant from Westminster, et cetera, that would trump the size of the constituencies.
My Lords, I begin by adopting the observations made by my noble friends Lord Rennard and Lord Tyler. I will take up the issue on which the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, commented, in which he was dismissive of those of us who argue for proportional representation. I wonder whether he understands that it takes a Green MP 33 times the number of votes as an SNP MP to be elected to the House of Commons. Mr Farage’s party fought a general election and got 3.5 million votes, and yet it did not have a single representative in the Commons. How would the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, deal with that problem while we wait for the remarkable achievement of all the opposition parties coming together?
I certainly support voting for 16 and 17 year-olds in this context. If your Lordships have any doubt about that, accept one of those outreach engagements and go and talk to a class of 16 year-olds. You will find that they know just as much as anyone else about political issues and about the remedies which might be used to deal with them.
I am also of the view that the less influence that Parliament has, the better it will be for the system. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, referred a little earlier to something being grubby. Nothing has been grubbier than the fact that successive Governments of all colours, including the coalition, were willing to disregard the obvious way—the orthodox way—in which the reports of the Boundary Commission should be dealt with. In that respect, I am much attracted by the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, that the way in which to deal with the Order in Council is to make its laying subject to a time limit.
Finally, I come back to the issue of 650 constituencies rather than 600. The coalition Government took office back in 2010, and a great deal has happened in those 10 years. What has happened for Members of Parliament is that access to the internet has increased to an exponential degree among the public, and the contents of what we as MPs used to describe as our postbags has increased to a quite remarkable extent. That the demands are greater than they have ever been is reflected in the fact that IPSA has consistently raised the amount of money available to Members of Parliament for their staff. I favour some of the other parts of the Bill but I hope that we will have the opportunity to consider these issues later in Committee.
My Lords, the problem with a first past the post system is that there is no such thing as a fair constituency, let alone a fair constituency boundary. I am not a historian in these matters but, looking at the Second Reading of the Bill in the Commons and the mutual suspicion that arose during debate of what should surely be purely technical concerns, I can imagine that this mutual suspicion goes back through the ages.
I do not blame the Government that there is apprehension over the ruling party influencing the system; that is the nature of the system. PR would of course not just be hugely fairer but would mean less political interest in the problem of coherent constituencies, since it is the number of representatives for each polling district that is crucial, not the size of the electorate or the shape of the constituency. The tussle between 5%, 7.5% or 10% quota tolerances feels like another unnecessary battle, and under the present circumstances, this would be less so if all eligible voters were registered.
In Germany, everyone has to register—including, perhaps amazingly, if you are homeless—and that is the basis both of the electoral register and the calculation of the quota. In Britain, according to Electoral Commission research, 9.4 million people are missing from the electoral register—a whopping 17% of eligible voters, including the young, those who rent and those on low incomes. There is a lot of talk at the moment about how best to ensure that black and ethnic minorities are treated equally. I point out to the Minister that surely the best way to help those who are systemically disadvantaged is systemically, and that therefore we urgently need automatic voter registration.
I agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, about 16 year-olds. However, up to that point, boundaries should be based on census data to improve representation in areas with lower registration. In any case, MPs represent everyone in their constituency, whoever they are. What we do not require is forcing voters to provide photographic ID at polling stations, when voter fraud was committed by 0.000063% of the population, and 3.5 million people do not have photo ID.
On parliamentary oversight, I agree with the Constitution Unit when it says that allowing politicians any role in ratifying or blocking proposals runs counter to any democratic principle and that, irrespective of the voting system we currently have for general elections, we clearly need the boundaries reviewed and based on up-to-date data. However, it also says that
“automatic implementation is clearly appropriate only if the review process itself is genuinely independent of any improper interference.”
So there is yet another question of trust: how confident can we be that that will be the case? Again, that would be less of a problem with PR because the review process would be more straightforward, with less at stake politically, and, as a matter of course, no doubt, all sides would encourage frequent consultation with communities, and at an early stage in that process.
My Lords, I welcome this Bill to address the inconsistencies in the composition of constituencies. I shall keep my remarks as brief as I can in view of the inordinate length of the speakers’ list.
It is ridiculous that in a modern, vibrant democracy, we still operate elections to the House of Commons based on data from 2000, and 2001-03 in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Your Lordships will be aware that the attempts to address this in 2011 were postponed until 2013, and in 2013 until 2018, because it seemed unlikely that the other place would approve any changes both to the size of constituencies and, more importantly, to their overall number.
Of course, the electorate deserve not just to be properly but fairly represented. As with any rules, there are exceptions—such as the Isle of Wight, Orkney, the Shetlands and now Anglesey—to be taken into account, as the Bill quite rightly does. However, the differentials between seats have become too great over the passage of time, and it is quite clear that change has been resisted, particularly by Labour, to seek electoral advantage. I suppose that that is not as bad as trying to seek electoral advantage by altering the whole system in your favour, as the Lib Dems unsuccessfully tried to do—which seems neither liberal nor democratic, but I suppose one should not be too surprised about that.
The significant change in the Bill from the proposals made in 2011 and 2013 is of course the reversion from 600 to 650 seats. I have listened very carefully to the debate but I still have no idea what the right number should be. Perhaps one of the next 42 speakers will enlighten us. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that it is not exactly a revolutionary change, but it is clear to me that the Government have made this significant concession to ensure that the Bill is enacted and the electorate get the fairer representation they need. The Government have justified the change in that policy by citing the increase in the workloads of MPs following our departure from the EU. I hope that the Government recognise that that increase in work at one end of the Corridor will inevitably lead to an even greater increase in work in your Lordships’ House, which already habitually sits for longer hours and more days than the Commons—as evidenced by our sitting today while our honourable and right honourable friends frolic on the beaches.
I therefore hope that the Government will ignore the currently fashionable but woolly-headed idea that this House is too large. A House whose membership is largely part-time obviously requires more Members than a House of full-time Members if it is to fulfil its role, particularly if its workload is greater. That is just simple logic. However, I suspect that that change in the Government’s policy in relation to the size of the House of Commons may have had rather more to do with the realisation that turkeys do not vote for Christmas. Perhaps the Government will remember that when they turn their attention to the future of this House.
My Lords, I welcome to some extent the Bill before us today, as it is an improvement on the previous Act and keeps the 650 seats. However, I must say that, as far as Wales is concerned, it is not good news, reducing its Members from 40 to an estimated 32 seats.
The restrictive 5% quota will have a disproportionate impact on Wales. The geographical nature of Wales, with our beautiful and scenic mountains, our rural areas and the valleys of south Wales, with their close-knit communities, means that, under the 5% quota, there is a danger of splitting communities and creating very large constituencies. With the mountains and valleys dividing constituencies, the task of creating constituencies that make sense to the communities becomes very difficult. I urge the Minister to consider the impact that this one-size-fits-all approach to constituency boundaries would have on communities across Wales.
It is crucial that the boundary commissioners are given greater flexibility to take into account the unique geography of Wales. For example, the seats in sparsely populated areas that have a much larger acreage, such as Brecon and Radnorshire, Montgomeryshire and those in Carmarthenshire, are all rural areas with already very large constituencies. Contrast this with the geography of the south Wales valleys, with each valley tending to have its own constituency. Under the Bill, we will potentially see constituencies with more than one valley, and with a mountain range between them. Certain geographical features, such as those valleys, should be given extra consideration than the 5% variance when it comes to drawing up Welsh boundaries.
The Welsh language is a crucial cornerstone of Welsh identity, and the Boundary Commission should be given greater flexibility when drawing up boundaries around these communities. There is concern that the historic Welsh-speaking communities could be split up in the next boundary review, with no thought of the long-term implications for the Welsh language in those areas—I accept that the Welsh-speaking area of Ynys Môn is being protected, and that is a good thing.
There will always be a need for variance, and it is a question of striking a balance between having constituencies that are broadly equal and constituencies that represent community ties. The Labour Party supports drawing constituency boundaries that truly reflect the communities within them. I trust that the Minister will take note of this.
My Lords, this Bill is about the appropriate use of the various building blocks of our democracy. The first building block is the electoral register. I have been privileged to serve as chairman of your Lordships’ Select Committee on the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013. Committee members are very much aware that the register itself is the first building block, and we have been very concerned by its lack of completeness. The register is perhaps 80% to 85% complete, comparing very unfavourably with 96.4% in Canada. Completeness must be improved.
We are pleased that, following the rush to get on the register for the 2019 election, two-thirds of a million people registered on the last day. However, the extra registrations from those who just missed the deadline mean that March 2020 is the most accurate date for which we have numbers, and shows the radical reform that is much needed in register-making needs. In my view, the Bill’s requirement for all constituencies to be within 5% of a quota—somewhere in the region of 73,000 people—is too tight to achieve constituencies that have clear and understandably linked communities.
It is also important to note that although wards make significant building-blocks, they vary significantly in number. In North Yorkshire, there are wards of under 1,000 electors, but there are over 70,000 electors in both Leeds and Sheffield. Polling districts will often make better building-blocks in urban areas.
Let me give the House an example. In the borough of Calderdale, where I live, both constituencies, using the 2019 numbers, are near the quota: the Halifax constituency is about 3% under it, which is within the suggested 5%, but the Calder Valley is about 6% over it, and therefore outside the tolerance figure. The splitting of a ward and the transfer of three polling districts—which are themselves distinct communities—would meet the 5% objective. Either way, the Government could get a good result. I suspect that most people would prefer not to change. However, I have to say that, in our area, either of those results would be certainly far more suitable than any of the three ways put forward by the previous Boundary Commission. Happily, these were aborted, as they would have brought in three different areas from Bradford.
My Lords, it is surely presumptuous that this unelected Chamber should determine the electoral process. The need for democratic legitimacy in this Chamber is far greater than the need for the Bill.
The Bill starts from a false premise, regarding the UK as a homogenous unitary state. The devolved reality requires Westminster to move forward with a more federal approach, yet the Bill replaces the individual electoral quotas of the four nations with a single UK electoral quota.
I have always seen an MP as a representative, not a delegate. For 27 years, I represented Caernarfon, including 100 miles of coastline and the Snowdon summit. It had a huge variety of environmental, economic, cultural and sociological factors. It had 93 towns, villages and hamlets, and 28 community councils, all of which rightly expected me to visit regularly. I represented farmers and fishermen, slate quarrymen, factory workers and tourist operators, and a unique cultural heritage, where 80% of people spoke Welsh as their first language. To do justice to such a variety of electors required a far greater time commitment than twice the population within a few square miles would have.
Our voting system should aim to generate an equality of representation, not numerical uniformity, and that means flexibility in constituency size. The ultimate corollary of a strict numerical approach is compulsory voting by proportional representation and multi-Member seats. It is nonsense to say that every Member must represent the same number of voters and then allow their election on a 50% turnout, winning perhaps 30% of the vote, or just 15% of eligible voters.
The electoral registration process is woefully deficient and generates less accurate population figures than do the census and the ONS estimates. The Bill also fails to deal with the multiple registration of students and second homeowners, which causes fluctuating quota numbers through the year. Under the present system, we see economically deprived areas underrepresented. This Bill does nothing to put that right. Any one of us who has canvased in an election will know that the register has massive gaps, and these are often the very people who most need an MP’s support.
When constituents came to see me in my surgeries, I would never ask whether they were a registered elector; I would take up their case if their address was in my area. An MP’s workload is not related to electoral registration, and if we are to move to an arithmetically binding formula, we are moving away from the basic premise of Britain’s representative democracy. While I accept that there has to be improvement on the present system, the Bill does not necessarily deliver the changes needed.
I have two final points. I greatly regret the reduction of Wales’s voice from 40 to an implied 32 MPs, without an increase in the number of Senedd Members in Cardiff Bay, which will be needed to undertake the augmented legislative workload. However, I welcome that the Government have accepted Plaid Cymru’s proposal to protect Anglesey’s unique status as a community. Such a community-based approach should produce a very different pattern from that likely to come from the implementation of the Bill.
My Lords, what a pleasure it is to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, as always, and share in the pride he takes in his roots. I am not sure that he sufficiently emphasised one important point: that it is not possible to be fair to Welsh, or Irish, or Scottish voters without at the same time being fair to English voters too. It is that sense of balance between us that allows us to take strength in our differences and move forward.
The Bill comes against a long background of sordid party shenanigans, and that has been part of this issue for decades. I was first a voter in a general election in 1970. It was an election that the Labour Government tried to tweak, or fix, perhaps, by voting down its own Boundary Commission report. Who will forget the somersaults performed by the Liberal Democrats in the coalition who, having time and again promised voters their voice in a Brexit referendum, changed their minds only when it no longer suited them? So much for political virtue: “Dear Lord, may I be chaste and virtuous, but not just yet.”
We know that we need the Bill: it is long overdue. We will discuss the finer merits of 5%, 6% or 7.5% and dance on the head of a pin, although I think the Opposition need to do much better in identifying why their favoured target is better than 5%—which, of course, means 10%—because the further we get away from it, the less equal the outcome will be.
I say this about parliamentary oversight and automaticity. Frankly, it goes against all my instincts to hand over too much power to a quango, a Boundary Commission. You have only to witness the appalling record of the Electoral Commission for all doubts to magnify. Yet Parliament has shown that it is not up to the job of being both judge and jury. On the other hand, my caution about quangos still kicks in, particularly in an age of social media lynch mobs. Does the Minister have any plans to strengthen the independence and judgment of the Boundary Commissions and to protect them in their work?
This is a Bill that would have been welcomed by Chartists and suffragettes alike, and I hope that this unelected House will welcome it too.
My Lords, the Bill effectively supersedes the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 and, as such, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, is admitting, is an improvement, in that it does not force through an arbitrary reduction in the number of MPs to 600. There was no rationale whatsoever for the number 600, other than that advanced by the then Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that it was a big round number.
The Bill does, however, set the number 650 in legislation rather than allow the Boundary Commissions discretion to make recommendations that best deliver effective representation at constituency level. I welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, said about strengthening the role of the Boundary Commissions, because it is very important that they are able to exercise proper judgment about what is effective representation at local level. I am not worried if there is some slight variation around the 650 level, provided that the commissions’ recommendations make sense at local level in terms of the communities that our Members of Parliament are expected to represent. The essence of parliamentary democracy is that a local community elects an individual to represent it in the other place. For that to make sense at local level, the community and the boundaries should make sense for that locality.
The task the Boundary Commissions are set should not be so circumscribed that the boundaries are meaningless and represent no more than lines on a map to deliver a spurious mathematical equality. One of the elements of the 2011 Act was the requirement that the commissions were not allowed to deviate from the electoral quota by more than 5%. This reduced the flexibility that had been previously available and made it more difficult to deliver constituencies that made sense in terms of the localities on the ground. What is more, the commissions are merely permitted to consider local authority boundaries. The consequence is that far more parliamentary constituencies will straddle local council areas, and that is unhelpful. MPs need to be able to represent their constituents, and it makes sense therefore that the boundaries reflect the communities on the ground. They must recognise natural features and physical divisions in the area. None of this is easy, but it does not make sense for the commissions’ hands to be unnecessarily tied, and that is why an absolute fixed limit is unhelpful and the possibility of a larger than 5% leeway should be permitted.
The other issue is how frequently boundaries should be redrawn. The Bill substitutes an eight-year cycle for a five-year one. Five years was always far too short. No sooner had one set of boundaries been promulgated than the commission would have to start work on changing them. This in itself would undermine an MP’s relationship with those she or he represents. It would cause endless uncertainty and be destabilising for the work of Parliament, because MPs would not just have to face the electorate at the end of each Parliament but would have to spend much of the time in between defending the boundaries in their area. Eight years is better than five, but 10 years would be better and would still avoid boundaries and constituency sizes becoming too outdated.
My Lords, the Bill makes provision for the number of constituencies to remain at 650. I welcome that, as the previous recommendation for 600 seats was strongly opposed by my party colleagues. However, there should be an express provision in the legislation for a minimum of 18 seats in Northern Ireland. Concern has rightly been expressed that Northern Ireland could fluctuate up or down a seat, with a knock-on effect on the Northern Ireland Assembly, therefore causing significant unnecessary disruption to representation. Having such a safeguard is low risk but would provide certainty and stability in Northern Ireland.
Rule 7 is an important flexibility for Northern Ireland, and I welcome its retention in the Bill. Rule 7 of Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 provides for different arrangements for Northern Ireland if the commission considers that having to adhere to the maximum 5% deviation from electoral quotas in each constituency does not allow it to take account of special factors, such as geographical considerations or local ties. This discretion is vital to address our Province’s unique circumstances. Indeed, in the other place, my colleagues also supported a number of amendments to the Bill at Report, including new Clause 1, which would helpfully widen the permissible range in the constituency’s total electorate up to 7.5%, rather than 5%.
The loss of parliamentary approval—or, indeed, any parliamentary procedure—for the final proposals is, in my opinion, not acceptable. A democratic accountability mechanism is critical, and it is not appropriate for the Boundary Commissions to be given such sweeping power. The frequency of reviews in previous legislation was a concern, and I am therefore happy to see a longer, more sustainable timeframe for future reviews of eight years. The local government boundary review is something Northern Ireland will be embarking on, so this flexibility may be as relevant to us as on the mainland.
I therefore wish to give my support to the main thrust of the Bill.
My Lords, I welcome the Bill. It gives impetus to the long overdue process of revising the current constituency boundaries. MPs are representing constituencies that were drawn up on data that is now 20 years old. Election night and the incoming results show the consequences, as the different sizes of constituencies have such variable electorates.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, does not like to be reminded of his birthday, but I seem to remember that I was the Whip on a previous Bill in this House, which became the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011. Its flaws have been pointed out by many speakers before me, but to address the failings of the situation that arose, the Conservative Party manifesto in 2019 made a commitment to ensure
“updated and equal Parliamentary boundaries, making sure that every vote counts the same”.
The abortive 2018 Boundary Commission proposal is cancelled under this Bill as we revert to 650 constituencies, and it ensures an automatic system for the commission to implement its recommendation. It avoids further procrastination by the Government or Parliament after the commission has made its final report, and the final report is to the Speaker of the House of Commons. He is the agency for delivering the commission’s report into law, and the Secretary of State and Parliament lose—in my view, quite rightly—the ability to amend by Order in Council.
None the less, the commission has a challenging task. As so many noble Lords have pointed out, fitting community cohesion with the power that it will need for equal-value voting within a range no greater than 5% either way is what the Bill provides for, but that is a 10% variation in constituency size. That is why I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, about the importance of the independence of the Boundary Commission. That is why it is so vital to preserve its integrity.
The first target is to implement these changes by 2023. I support the creation of excluded status for the four constituencies, which will now include a fifth, Ynys Môn. My noble friend the Lord Speaker will be delighted to see two Members for the Isle of Wight at last.
My Lords, I have three areas of particular concern about the Bill: first, the failure to give equal value to every vote; secondly, the risk that the new directions to the Boundary Commission will further exacerbate the overrepresentation of the most affluent areas at the expense of the most deprived; and, thirdly, the need to view the system for determining representation in the House of Commons in the context of the lack of democratic accountability of this Chamber.
I will not dwell for too long on the disparity in the value of one person’s vote against another’s, which has distorted our politics for so long and which is maintained in this Bill; nor in decrying the Government’s obdurate attachment to first past the post, a system that leaves millions of voters feeling that their votes count for nothing while aiding and abetting the forces of nationalism and disunity—giving the SNP, for example, 48 times the number of MPs of the Green Party with just a 1.2% greater share of the vote. I will just note that the Bill certainly does not meet the Conservative manifesto commitment, already alluded to by my noble friend Lord Tyler, to
“making sure that every vote counts the same”.
The lack of proportionality is by no means the only flaw in the Bill. The constraints that it places on the tolerance that the Boundary Commissions can allow makes the number of registered electors an even more dominant factor than before. This risks natural communities being split in two but it also raises the question of whether eligible electors rather than registered ones would not be a better base for determining constituency boundaries. Given the millions of eligible voters not on the register, it is surely time to look at automatic voter registration so we can ensure that deprived areas, where registration tends to be lower, are not disenfranchised.
Lastly, we cannot view the arrangements for the election of Members of the House of Commons without reflecting on the lack of election to this House. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, in opening for the Labour Party, astonishingly asked Liberal Democrats to explain why this House continued to grow during the coalition while the original coalition proposal was that the number of Members of the Commons should reduce. I am not sure whether the noble Baroness has had a fit of amnesia, but let me help her and her party out: the proposal to reduce the number of constituencies in the Commons was part of the coalition agreement, which included the establishment of an elected House of Lords. If it had been honoured, we would have increased the number of elected representatives in Parliament as a whole and immeasurably improved the legitimacy of this House.
The establishment of an elected House of Lords, which had a massive majority at Second Reading in the Commons, was in the end torpedoed by the Labour and Conservative parties colluding to prevent it. It was a result of the Conservative Party reneging on its coalition agreement, with the assistance of the Labour Party, that led the Liberal Democrats in turn to reject the reduction in the size of the Commons, which was predicated on having elected representatives here. So if the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, wants to know why we continue to sit in a bloated and unelected second Chamber, she need look no further than her own party.
Having said that, my noble friend Lord Greaves is surely wise in his counsel that we should put these matters behind us and seek to work together to improve the Bill.
Having attended a number of boundary inquiries where issues of political advantage were quickly exposed, I want today to flag up the need to keep such issues in mind as we seek to amend existing legislation. Participants in these inquiries have a dilemma—political advantage or public interest. These can be difficult issues as there are pressures. Recommendations that offend the public interest may please some party activists but they undermine confidence in our electoral system.
This all came into focus when I retired after 22 years as a Member of Parliament. I will give an example. In 2007 the Boundary Commission came forward with its Cumbria recommendations. The commission’s original draft proposed a reorganisation of Copeland, my noble friend Lord Cunningham of Felling’s former seat. The seat had been under quota for a number of years and therefore faced inevitable reorganisation. The commission’s response was to propose a seat, the Copeland-Windermere constituency, which stretched from the west Cumberland coast all the way to Windermere, the other side of the Lake District—an extraordinary proposal. However, there was a problem: the drive from Whitehaven in the west to Windermere in the east meant journeying over the highest mountain pass in the United Kingdom, the Hardknott Pass at the heart of the Lake District, which can close in the inclement weather of winter. The proposal was ludicrous. The problem was that the parties had to take it all seriously and hassle over it.
There have been times in history when irregular boundary changes were acceptable as MPs had a very different relationship with constituencies in former times, but that has all changed. They are now closer, reflecting local loyalties and ties with more personal representation. The monthly visit staying in the local smart hotel is no longer acceptable. That is the new reality that the commission needs to consider. The Member for Copeland surely cannot represent the people of Windermere: the geography is wrong and one part of the constituency will lose out. MPs no longer just represent constituents in Parliament; they now offer a service.
The Copeland proposal was rightly rejected. However, I use it only as an example; I wonder whether that bad experience is replicated elsewhere. The Boundary Commission needs to be more sensitive to the local links and loyalties that stand at the heart of effective parliamentary representation. I hope the commission is listening, particularly to the speech of my noble friend Lady Gale, who talked of problems in the Welsh valleys. If not, I have wasted my time engaging in this debate. I really hope that the commission is listening today.
My Lords, some dozen years ago I gave David Cameron a paper entitled Reducing the Cost of Politics. I stand by most of it. It covered, for instance, the fact that there are too many councillors—often people cannot get people to stand in council seats—and too many spads, far too many researchers in the Commons hanging around Portcullis House, too many Ministers and far too many Peers.
With regard to the House of Lords, I suggested a retrospective time limit, say 17 or 22 years, which is not that far from the Burns report suggestion. Yet when I put forward the idea of retrospectivity in a debate on the Burns report, I noticed that it was not met with universal acclaim in your Lordships’ House. I also suggested a Commons of some 500 Members. I remember that David Cameron said to me that “Turkeys will never vote for Christmas”, but then, and perhaps I had some influence on this, he put in the 2010 manifesto a reduction down to 600.
The reason why that was not carried through under the coalition was that the Liberal Democrats reneged on the commitment. My memory is better than those of the noble Lords, Lord Rennard and Lord Oates: the commitment to fewer constituencies was linked to the PR vote, which they lost. The Bill was very eloquently introduced by Nick Clegg, as my noble friend Lord Young said. He then realised that his party might lose seats so he betrayed the coalition agreement. That did not actually help the Lib Dems, who went down to eight seats from 57-odd—eight too many, some would say, but I did win some money on the bet.
As a former MP of 23 years, and like my noble friend Lord Hayward, who has great experience of this matter and of psephology, I know that the arguments around Boundary Commission recommendations are based very often on personal interest or party-political interest; indeed, my noble friend Lord Dobbs referred to them as “sordid party shenanigans”. MPs are worried about their own seats and parties are worried about their chances of winning elections. We hear complete nonsense spouted about why some change or other should not happen.
After 23 years as an MP I dismiss the idea that an MP cannot deal with 100,000 constituents. Of course they can—easily. I do not claim to have been an especially brilliant MP—I am sure that nobody will be really surprised to hear that—but I never had any complaints about not dealing with constituents’ problems. Quite the opposite—although you might not always have liked my way of dealing with them. There are too many Members of the House of Commons and there are far too many Peers. They start all-party parliamentary groups because they have got to keep themselves busy somehow. I do not support the Government in keeping 650 MPs. There are too many politicians. Let us reduce the size of the Commons and the Lords, and the number of politicians all round, and the cost of politics. That might start in some way to restore the damaged faith of the British public in politics and its practitioners. We should do the right thing.
My Lords, in following the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, I have to provide one correction which I shall do with a hashtag: AVisnotPR.
I want to begin by thanking the Minister for his introduction and for meeting me in advance of this Second Reading to discuss the Bill. I particularly welcome his acknowledgement that our political system needs to be up to date. Of course, the only-two-decades-old demarcation of constituencies that this Bill updates is the newest element of our creaking, antique constitution, assembled by centuries of historical accident. Were I to be speaking now within your Lordships’ House, I would be gesturing to the roof and noting that the way in which it is falling down around our ears is truly representative of the state of our political framework. The very delay in the implementation of the review of constituency boundaries is a demonstration of the failure of the chief claim of the first past the post electoral system: namely, that it delivers strong, stable government.
The Minister also referred to democracy relying on people knowing that they are fairly represented. Of course, they cannot and will not be in the current system. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, noted that it robs voters—and of all the parliamentary parties, it is Green voters who are robbed the most, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, noted. However, that is not the primary reason why I am an advocate of proportional representation—which, as the noble Lord, Lord Oates, noted, it is the only way the Tory Party could deliver on its manifesto commitment. It is because it is the only way we can have a representative Parliament: one in which, as the campaign group Make Votes Matter says, the number of seats matches the number of votes. That is a democracy: Parliament reflecting the will of the people.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, referred to the missing 9 million people entitled to be on the electoral register who are not: around 10,000 per constituency. However, if in our current system you count all the people whose votes are not represented at all, because their preferred candidate does not win, and add in those who voted for a party that won more votes than it needed to win the seat, the votes of the majority of voters in every single seat have no impact. So it is no wonder we have such a problem with low turnout.
There are some quick, practical details which I will be taking up in Committee. The 5% variance will split communities and leave MPs representing hopelessly disparate areas with no community of interest. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, that it further weakens any claim to legitimacy for first past the post. It is surely time for automatic registration and no voter ID. Almost 5.5 million Britons—almost one-tenth of Britons—live overseas. What of their representation? France has separate constituencies for overseas voters. They have a community of interest.
Finally, we should have votes at 16. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, referred to her disappointment at being excluded from voting when she was under the then required age of 21. Last weekend, I was with young people in Sheffield on a climate strike. They were doing politics. They were sharing their passion and their engagement and trying to get involved, but they do not even have the very narrow power of the vote. They should have it.
My Lords, this Bill is far from a great piece of democratic reform—it does not start to tackle the real unfairness in our electoral system—but it has some useful measures. The population is increasing and Parliament is struggling with a huge Brexit legislative programme, compounded by emergency coronavirus-related measures—so maintaining MP numbers at 650 is sensible. However, current boundaries are now almost 20 years old and a review is needed. Reviews every five years would put constituency boundaries in a continuous state of flux, so eight years is better.
So far, so good—but I have some serious concerns. The Bill confirms a strict electoral quota for each seat, with a limit of variability of 5%. Only in a few protected constituencies is there any real consideration of rurality or local geographic features. In my home country, Wales, it takes well over an hour and a half to drive from end to end of the constituency of Brecon and Radnorshire. It is one of at least five geographically enormous rural Welsh constituencies, each of them with a relatively small electorate. Such constituencies should be given protected status, just as Ynys Môn has been. The formula shows that Wales could lose eight of its 40 seats. This is worrying, as the Senedd still has only 60 Members. As Lib Dems, we would like to see many more—but that is up to the Senedd itself.
I am worried about the balance of seats across the whole of the UK. Projections suggest six additional seats for south-east England and 10 for England overall. Both Houses of this Parliament are already too dominated by the interests of south-east England. The union is in a precarious state, and increased dominance by the south-east should be avoided. Lack of trust in government is higher in the north of England and in the south-west. I suggest that a variance of at least 10%, combined with instructions to the Boundary Commissions to take account of rurality, and county and local government boundaries, should be implemented. That will produce an electoral landscape much more sensitive to community needs.
Finally, boundary reviews are a pretty well-kept secret beyond political parties, and that is unacceptable, so public consultation procedures must be strengthened. Currently, 9.4 million people are missing from the electoral register, which is also unacceptable. The commissions should be given a responsibility to promote electoral registration as well as simply counting the numbers.
My Lords, I am amazed to hear that the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, can do from north to south in the Brecon and Radnorshire constituency, where I live, in an hour and a half. It takes me two hours, or perhaps one hour and 50 minutes if my wife is driving, so it is wonderful that she can do it so speedily, But—and here is the point—at the moment the Brecon and Radnorshire constituency has 53,000 electors. The quota under the new system will be 72,000: in other words, it will have to put on 19,000 electors. Where are they to be: north, south, west or across in another valley? It beggars belief that such a proposition could be seriously put before this Parliament.
I want to join the noble Lords, Lord Tyler and Lord Hayward, in regretting the recent death of my very good friend Ron Johnston, who was the great academic expert on all things boundaries. Without him, consideration of this Bill feels a bit like “Hamlet” without the prince. This Bill is “Hamlet” without the prince. It puts right a whole lot of things in the Bill that your Lordships’ House destroyed in 2011—except its worst feature: namely, the 5% plus or minus differential between the size of electorates. I could go—and no doubt in Committee may go—into the full details of the poverty of the arguments put in favour of that, but I want to make a political argument, because that is the only thing that ever convinces this Government, in my experience.
The previous boundary reform fell apart because Tory MPs found that their constituencies were being messed with and they had to fight the Tory MP in the next-door constituency to decide who should be the candidate, when they preferred to be fighting the Labour Party—and I can understand that. The Whips got fed up, so the Minister did not lay the orders and nothing changed. Although going from 600 to 650 helps, I can tell noble Lords that the same thing will happen this time. In three years, when the penny has dropped, Tory MPs will find themselves fighting each other for the new seats that have been formed out of chunks of their old seats—and that is going to happen every eight years, ad infinitum, unless something is done about it. Indeed, I look forward, with considerable anticipation, to the moment when the then-vulnerable noble Lord, Lord True, stands up before this House and does his Callaghan, proposing that we get rid of this Bill because we have to get rid of the 5% variation.
My Lords, the reason for introducing this Bill is to fulfil the pledge in the Conservative Party manifesto to have
“updated and equal Parliamentary boundaries, making sure that every vote counts”.
Each vote must carry the same weight. Therefore, it is important that each Member of Parliament represents an equal number of constituents, as far as possible. The number of parliamentary seats should remain at 650 and not be reduced to 600. It must be appreciated that, when we leave the European Union, the workload of MPs will increase. Therefore, they should not be asked to look after more constituents.
Our present constituencies are based on electorate numbers that are nearly 20 years old. Therefore, we need to undertake a review. The Boundary Commission’s report will be based on registered voters in all areas as at
I welcome the proposal to increase the period of boundary reviews from five years to eight years; by doing so, we can achieve the appropriate periodic changes and not cause disruption to Members of Parliament and local communities. I also welcome the proposal that the recommendation of the Boundary Commission will be put into effect without political interference from the Government or any Minister. This is in line with what happens in other countries, and I agree that that is how it should be in our country as it will enable the commission’s recommendations to be implemented without delays.
I also commend the Government for the proposal to hold public consultation during the second round of consultation, which would be more meaningful. Dividing the total number of voters by 650 will probably result in an electoral quota of over 72,000 per constituency.
There will be losers and gainers in certain regions, depending on the population in those areas. I agree that there should be a 5% variance rule and not one of 7.5%, as suggested by the Opposition in the other place. If you allow plus or minus 7.5%, the size of the electorate can differ by 15 percentage points between individual constituencies. If this happens, people’s votes will not count the same—as was pledged in our manifesto.
However, we need the variance to enable the commission to look at all factors, including geographical features, community ties, local government boundaries and existing boundaries. I conclude by saying that I support the Bill.
My Lords, when it comes to being in this House in 2011, when reforming electoral boundaries came up, a cold shiver runs down your spine. It was one of the messier periods I have seen in my 30-plus years here, and it is something we should try to get away from. For an analysis of it, I would take my noble friend Lord Oates’ description of what happened. You can stick bits around the outside of it, but I think he caught the spirit of it.
When we look at the Bill itself, the biggest hole is the automatic registration of voters. Until we get that, we have the problem of how many registered voters there should be. That is one of the major problems if you are going for this form of democratic representation; it is quite clearly a hole. There are lots of things we can do to improve this, but it is certainly a major hole.
When it comes to the other comments about what a constituency should look like, we all know that the constituency we happen to have an interest in should stay still. If we take it that that will be the default position of everybody else, the percentage variation will become important, as will what its variables are. Are they county lines or rivers? The Tamar has been mentioned.
If we are to go through this, can we have a better understanding of where the variations, be they of 5% or 10%, kick in? A better understanding of this—at least with local government lines we know what we are dealing with—will mean that we actually know what the arguments are about.
This has generally been a messy process that has left scars on everybody involved in it. Eight-year reviews are good; 10-year ones would be better. I look forward to what is coming in the Bill with a sort of masochistic pleasure running down me.
My Lords, I am sorry, the unmute button did not work for a minute there. I want to make just a few comments. Several times in the course of the Bill, the comment has been made that, being unelected, we should not give advice to the elected House. I suspect that the paradox is that we are not only unelected but we have no vote in the election of the Members of the elected House either.
One of the things that I recall from when I used to have a vote is that, from one election to the next, it never crossed my mind that the exact balance of the value of my vote was an essential component in comparing issues with people in other parts of the country. I can understand the broader argument for equality in voting, but it was never a fundamental issue. The fundamental issue was the quality of representation and the quality of how it was taken into effect in the House of Commons.
It is for these reasons that I have a lot of sympathy for the points made by my noble friends Lord Hain and Lady Gale and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. Many of the distinctive features of the constituencies in this country, which we reflect in other ways as well—in the Barnett formula and other mechanisms—relate to the complexity, size, cultural mix and geography of this country.
I can entirely see why it should be that, after any kind of decision has been taken by the Electoral Commission, Members of the House of Commons, in particular, will want to see whether it makes fundamental sense of the arrangements necessary to get effective representation. Certainly, procrastination can be prevented, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said. It seems to me that we could probably ensure that there are other sensitive mechanisms in this Bill, including ones that allow us slightly greater discretion than the 5%.
This would be valuable if we are to take full account of the geographical character—the distances, mountain ranges and so on. Without these considerations, it seems to me that we are inevitably going to leave people with a lower quality of representation than they would otherwise have. That should certainly be avoided in a Bill of this kind.
My Lords, I welcome the fact that the number of parliamentary constituencies will be kept at 650, not reduced to 600 as previously planned. With Covid-19, Brexit, economic recession and the deteriorating geopolitical situation, MPs will have a greater workload, not a lighter one. The UK’s growing population places additional strains on a society under pressure.
Like many noble Lords, I am concerned about removing Parliament’s role in approving any Boundary Commission changes before they are finalised. As has been said in the other place, the Bill would disproportionately and undemocratically concentrate the power to cut constituency sizes and amend boundaries in the hands of the Executive. It is welcome that the current ability of the Secretary of State to amend Orders in Council, if rejected by Parliament, would be removed, but that is not enough of a safeguard. Her Majesty’s Government argue that a similar system to the one proposed operates in Australia, New Zealand and Canada. That may be the case, but it means that such a system is unique to those three countries, out of 195 across the globe.
It may also be pointed out that we have a Prime Minister who has shown scant regard for parliamentary sovereignty, as witnessed by his latest plan to move your Lordships’ House to York after a cursory consultation. As the Lord Speaker recently pointed out, Parliament, not government, is sovereign in our democracy. A classically educated Prime Minister, steeped in ancient Greece as the cradle of democracy, should well understand that, but our PM acts more like an autocratic Slavonic Tsar, aided and abetted by his own delusional Rasputin. For that reason, the less he tampers with our parliamentary institutions the better.
My Lords, I welcome the Bill and the number remaining at 650. It is a sad reflection that the key element of our democracy was allowed to fester in the to-do tray during the Cameron coalition Government, and then the May Government. It is a terrible disgrace that today’s constituencies are based on data from 2000—20 years ago—since when there have been huge changes in population movement and net migration.
I particularly welcome the key element of the Bill on hearings. I remember going to hearings about boundary changes in Northampton, which were always taken at the first stage; it always seemed wrong to me and my advisers that it was not the second stage. I therefore welcome the part of the Bill which proposes that it will be the second stage, not least because that provides better provision for change, particularly in relation to local authority boundaries. I challenge the length of time that is being suggested, with boundary reviews being put up from every five years to eight. Whether we like it or not, we have a party-political electoral system. On my calculation, this means that the Government elected in 2025 will have an effective advantage of an extra three years.
I will look for a second or two at the case history of my own former seat, Northampton South. It first came into existence, as a seat, following the boundary reviews of the early 1970s. As colleagues may remember, the first election there was in February 1974. On the first count my majority was minus 203 but a few of the bundles appeared to have got mixed up in the wrong area and, on appeal, it ended up as 179. At an election that October, I got 141, at another one in 1979—a gap of six to seven years—it was 3,634. Then there was a boundary review and, all of a sudden, I had a huge constituency and I got a majority of over 15,000. That went on until 1992 and then, bang, I got another review in 1997 and lost by 744. There is something not right about going to eight years. If noble Lords want any personal encouragement, a Private Member’s Bill to give each Member of the upper House a vote where they live has had a Second Reading in your Lordships’ House. Most noble Lords are active where they live.
My Lords, as this House debates parliamentary boundaries, it is important to come back to the fact that democracy is more than just voting. It is about living together in harmony and fairness, with respect for other minority viewpoints and tolerance of the opinion of others. Democracy in Britain is under challenge today as never before. I think of the growth of social media. The noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, described this very graphically as “social media lynch mobs”; it is a truth, as well as a non-truth. There is an increasing feeling of alienation in many areas of this country. There is an emergence of anti-democratic, right-wing parties that are actually opposing democracy. We see that manifested in lower turnouts. I view the Bill against that background.
Living in Cumbria, I see—and agree with—the arguments advanced earlier by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. Physical boundaries, such as mountains and lack of road access, clearly need more stringent examination and should, generally, not be a factor where new constituencies emerge.
Democracy is a qualitative, as well as a quantitative, institution. I am, therefore, very much in favour of retaining 650 members. That allows citizens to feel more comfortable in their community and constituency. However, I am concerned about the strict 5% limit. It should be extended—certainly to 7.5% in extreme cases.
Lastly, our very constitution is based upon the supremacy and sovereignty of Parliament. Therefore, I am not exactly happy about removing Parliament’s final vote on the construction and position of parliamentary boundaries. It is a denial of our basic constitutional premise and I am not happy about it being passed to unelected officials.
My Lords, the last Conservative Party manifesto promised to make changes to parliamentary boundaries in order to make sure that
“every vote counts the same”,
but this Bill does nothing of the sort.
While the principle of MPs representing roughly the same number of constituents must be right—it was the major aim of the Chartists in the 19th century—the idea that every vote counts the same is incompatible with the system of constituencies electing a single MP. As long as we have first past the post with single-member constituencies, the rules for drawing up the boundaries for them must be fair and stable and based on two fundamental principles. First, we must ensure that, as far as possible, everyone entitled legally to be registered to vote should be included on electoral registers. Secondly, the boundaries should be drawn up with sufficient flexibility to ensure that they are not changed fundamentally every time they have to be revised. The Bill does not address either of those issues.
It is welcome that the boundary reviews will take part every eight years and not every five years as in the 2011 legislation, but when we considered that legislation, we were told that just about everyone who should be included on voting registers was included. However, both the Electoral Commission and the Cabinet Office have shown that millions of people are missing from registers and many millions more are incorrectly recorded. A disproportionate number of those missing from the registers are young people, private sector tenants and members of BAME communities—groups traditionally less likely to vote Conservative. So more constituencies will be created to represent the more Conservative areas where fewer of those demographic groups are resident.
It is a pretence to say that this legislation is about making every vote count the same. In reality, it is about creating even more Conservative seats in the House of Commons even if the numbers of votes do not justify that. Automaticity of this in-built bias is simply a perpetuation of a lack of democratic accountability, and we should oppose that very strongly in this House.
My Lords, I welcome the continuation of the current arrangements, as I believe the reduction proposed by the coalition Government would have been an impediment to fair and adequate representation and services to constituents and not in the best interests of the electorate.
Despite the debates today and within wider political bubbles and implied consultations, the consequences of these matters were not agreed by large swathes of our population—hitherto unrepresented groups—in any meaningful way. Specifically, I suggest that significant numbers of them are minority women and people with disabilities. They will rightly feel excluded.
I have two principal questions. If the Government are committed to every vote counting equally, how do they propose to address the glaring points raised by the Electoral Reform Society, which stated that 9.4 million eligible voters are currently missing from registers? These include 40% of minorities, thus further disfranchising already vulnerable citizens disproportionally impacted socially and politically. I therefore look forward to my noble friend Lady Hayter ensuring that the Bill leaves here with sufficient standing to strengthen parliamentary scrutiny and the backstop.
Will the Government ensure that any anomalies that discard 20% of our population, leaving them excluded and alienated from our democratic structures, will be redressed and that those structures will be made inclusive of groups systemically disadvantaged as a result of age, race, religion and socioeconomic position? Otherwise, we may face grave societal consequences from marginalised citizens and continued inequity and division in housing, education, employment, health and social care. They will not be counted and their views and needs not reflected in shaping our parliamentary democracy, and this surely cannot be right.
My Lords, I support maintaining 650 seats in the House of Commons, as opposed to 600; this will help to minimise disruption in boundary reviews. The case for reducing the number of MPs must be based on reducing the number of Ministers and increasing the devolution of power to nations and regions. Reducing the number of MPs while not reducing the number of Ministers would increase the power of the government payroll vote and, as recent events have shown, the executive branch of the Government is already too powerful compared with those of us seeking to hold it to account.
I also welcome reviews every eight as opposed to every five years. Many MPs will feel that they have worked hard to win their seats; changing the boundaries every five years will mean that nobody elected in a general election could be certain that the constituency they had won would still exist at the next general election.
I do not agree with removing Parliament’s power to have the final say—at least, not until such a time as the rules are based on fully including everyone entitled to be on the electoral register, not just the 85% or so who may be included now. Last year the Electoral Commission suggested that there may be as many as 9 million people who are entitled to be included on the electoral register but are not, or who are incorrectly registered.
The principle of each MP representing approximately the same number of people cannot be achieved until all the people who should be voters are included on the electoral rolls. The rules of drawing up the boundaries must be fair and must ensure that everyone entitled to vote is included on the electoral register, so that each MP represents the same number of people. An inadequate system of registration means that many of them will now fall off the electoral register or may not be registered, because of difficulties with the registration process caused by the Covid pandemic.
Unless the principle of including everyone entitled to vote on the electoral register is accepted, the Bill will ensure that fewer constituencies are created in areas where there are many young people, private sector tenants and people in black and ethnic minority communities. But more constituencies will be created where there are older, more middle-class, more white communities that are less likely to move around. Boundary reviews are supposed to be impartial. The commissioners may be impartial but if the rules discount millions of people who should be entitled to vote, then the rules are being drawn up to create more constituencies likely to be represented by Conservatives and fewer represented by their opponents. This will make the system less democratic, not more.
My Lords, with no disrespect to my really good friends in the Liberal Democrats or to the Greens, the Bill is not about proportional representation or alternative votes, which we have already dealt with. We had a referendum on it. Nevertheless, it is about an important matter as far as democracy is concerned. I strongly support the decision not to reduce the number of seats in the Commons to 600; it should remain at 650—or, as my noble friend Lord Harris said, thereabouts—particularly given the different landscape we have now in terms of the powers of Parliament, which we heard the Minister describe, and the increase in population. The noble Lord, Lord Robathan, may have had an easy time but with some 60,000 constituents and 800 square miles to get around, I certainly had to work very hard indeed as a Member of Parliament. Most Members of Parliament continue to work very hard.
As one of the many former MPs speaking today, I have experienced the trauma rather than the excitement of a boundary review. My first major boundary change came in my very first re-election to Parliament in 1983, and I survived. However, I know of other excellent MPs whose careers have been cut short by arbitrary decisions of the Boundary Commissions, based on making up numbers to remain within that strict arithmetic boundary of the plus or minus 5% electoral quota. We have ended up with artificial boundaries with no community coherence. I have seen time and again this obsession with arithmetic exactitude, which has been given preference over natural and community boundaries, as other colleagues have said. It produces results that are less sensible and more challenging than the previous boundaries. For instance, on some occasions one side of a road has been in one constituency and the other side in another. They were within different council boundaries but the wider natural boundaries were ignored, as my noble friend Lady Gale said. Mountains and hills have been ignored, as well as other important factors such as major highways.
Regrettably, the Government said in a statement earlier this year that they will not look to change the 5% quota. I hope that they will look at it again. While they recognise that they need
“the flexibility to take account of other factors, such as physical geographical features and local ties”,
the arithmetic criteria would still remain “the overriding principle”. I believe that they should be of equal force. Without proper consideration of wider natural, infrastructural and community factors, future changes principally based on an arithmetical quota will cause significant disruption to community boundaries.
The provisions in the Bill also include amending the review frequency—I agree that it should be eight years rather than five—and conducting with automaticity the implementation of boundary changes, which I completely oppose.
As always, I want briefly to speak up for Scotland, which, like Wales, faces losing several seats in the next review. This is wrong and needs to be looked at again. It does not take account of the fact that, for example, the land area of Scotland is one-third of that of the whole United Kingdom. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, said—[Inaudible]—similar factors ought to be taken account of.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, I say that we have four Boundary Commissions because they have been able to take account of specific factors, such as in Scotland and Wales. I hope that we will look at amendments in Committee and on Report to make special protection for the special interests of Wales and Scotland.
I am coming to the end.
I was pleased to see that in the Commons, David Linden, an SNP MP, said:
“I very much hope that when their lordships look at this Bill they will remove clause 2, which is an affront to democracy.”—[Official Report, Commons, 14/7/20; col. 1482.]
I welcome that and I agree. I also welcome the fact that he, as an SNP spokesperson, recognised the important role of this second Chamber as a revising House. That is a move in the right direction.
My Lords, I very much admire two of the speeches made since the tea break—those of the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, and the noble Lord, Lord Hussain—and their analysis of the structural nature of this problem, which has been excluded, of people being excluded from the register. I hope that the Minister can say a bit more about this in his reply. It ties up with many social problems at the moment. If people are not part of a society, they will not behave as members of a society. That is very important.
At the other end of the spectrum, we have people who are very much members of society and have greater economic weight because of greater educational opportunity. We have to look behind this issue at some of the fractures in British society, although perhaps not in this debate.
I will go off-piste, if I may, and rise to the bait, to mix a metaphor, about moving the House of Lords to York. I do so not because I think that it is anything other than a bit of rhetoric by the Prime Minister, but because he is pretty good at fingering an issue that he thinks will have resonance with people—even though Dominic Cummings probably does not know when he leaves Durham whether he ought to go south-west to Barnard Castle or north-east to Sunderland, where Nissan is going to close its factory because we are leaving the European Union. These socioeconomic questions are much more important to many people than the size of the constituency, as we know. There are so many problems for people, ranging from the Scottish question to those to do with all parts of Ireland, Wales and so on.
Having been born in south Lancashire, I could make the case that we really ought to think for the next 20 years ahead about what would be a balancing factor of another Chamber. The noble Lord, Lord Prescott, was always on to this. There are many possibilities. It would not just mean “electing the House of Lords”. I come from the trade union movement, where we had the social contract. It was the forces in society that had to make an agreement between them to make the economy work.
Perhaps those people who have just left the European Parliament on a regional ticket can give us a benchmark of some of the systems that operate in the countries of Europe—we have nothing to learn from them, of course—and that may be relevant to restructuring our politics so that we do not have the sense of relying just on rhetoric to talk about fractured Britain and the north-south divide. Of course, with the north-south divide, the more rhetoric, the worse it gets. That is not to say that the 70,000 people in constituencies around Lancashire—
My Lords, I speak as one who believes passionately in both Houses: this House for its capacity to scrutinise legislation and because it can never be a challenge to the supreme authority of the elected House. It is against that background that I will make a few remarks.
“As soon as reasonably practicable”.
The danger in this Bill is that it gives too much power to the Executive. I am a great believer in the theme of Dunning’s Motion, moved in 1780, when he said that
“the influence of the crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.”
I shall support, with amendments, those who talked about the 5% being too rigid. I was particularly persuaded by the arguments of colleagues from Wales, but the same applies to Scotland and to certain parts of England. Communities must not be broken up by artificial boundaries imposed from elsewhere. Constituencies must not be so impractical to negotiate that it is almost impossible adequately to represent them in the other place. We have to look at this very carefully. I shall certainly support amendments that seek to deal with the 5%.
I particularly feel, as a tremendous supporter of the union, that we must not do anything in these very difficult, parlous times, to jeopardise the union. Of course it is right that England inevitably has the largest number of Members of Parliament, but there ought to be, in a sense, disproportion in favour of Scotland and Wales and, to a degree, Northern Ireland, even though they have regional Parliaments and assemblies. This Bill will need a lot of scrutiny in your Lordships’ House. We must, of course, give it a safe passage, but I hope it will be a safe passage which improves it.
My Lords, there is much to welcome in this Bill. In particular, I strongly welcome the specified constituency proposed for Ynys Môn, which rectifies a mistake made previously and provides a consistency of principle across the UK that is entirely appropriate. However, I have some reservations about the Executive appearing to promote a principle of independence from politics in the decision-making around future Boundary Commission reviews. That additional power to the Executive contradicts that supposedly principled approach and needs to be investigated very carefully at the different stages of the Bill in this House.
Having listened to the debate, I will change my third point to a more substantial one. I worry that this is yet another piecemeal change to the governance of the United Kingdom. The Bill is largely welcome. I do not support the increase back to 650 MPs; we have too many politicians in this country. We should look to reform all our government structures to make sure that the representation of the people is more effective at different levels, rather than necessarily focusing on the number of MPs in the House of Commons. Frankly, if the number of MPs is to be increased again through legislation, it would be a very good time to decrease the numbers in your Lordships’ House by way of compensation. Perhaps that is something the Prime Minister might want to reflect on in the coming days, if rumours are to be believed.
More generally, we now have a number of elected mayors. Last week we discussed in your Lordships’ Chamber the new authority for part of Yorkshire. We have a constantly evolving devolution settlement in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. For example, in Northern Ireland, despite all the difficulties of the last few decades, the Executive have apparently outperformed the Governments of the other parts of the United Kingdom during this Covid emergency. That has been a tremendous success for their co-operation.
We also have a long-standing problem with the credibility and authority of your Lordships’ House. The matter of venue might be up for debate, but so should membership as part of any ongoing review of our governance structure. These kinds of changes—the independence of boundary review proposals and the number of Members in the House of Commons—should be made in a wider context that includes consideration of the second Chamber, of devolution that is happening to regions and city mayors, and of our relationship with the three devolved nations. While the Bill is very welcome, it is another piecemeal move, perhaps in the right direction, but which should have been part of a bigger picture. I hope it will be at some point soon.
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on introducing the Bill so ably. I should correct the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall. I understand that Nissan is not closing its plant in Sunderland. Perhaps my noble friend can verify that when he winds up.
I welcome the Bill, for a variety of reasons. Those of us who served in the other place will recognise that constituency boundaries are always a subject of great interest. I agree that the previous proposals to reduce the number of constituencies were well intentioned, but rather misguided. Those of us who have been MPs in recent years can attest to the fact that a combination of factors, not least huge technical changes, have resulted in a vastly increased workload. There is also a great expectation about what services MPs should now be able to provide. When I first entered Parliament in 1997, I did not have an email and the new wonders of the modern mobile phone were virtually unheard of.
I am afraid that I take issue with the rather throwaway comments of my noble friend Lord Mancroft. He does Members of the other place a disservice to imply, however light-heartedly, that they are frolicking on the beach now that the Commons is in recess. My experience is that the hard work of MPs and their hard-working staff does not cease just because the House of Commons is not sitting.
I was extremely lucky in that I represented a constituency that I had always lived and worked in. My house was virtually in the centre of the constituency, but as various boundary reviews have taken place I have found myself slipping towards the borders. However, for the vast majority of the electorate, boundaries are relatively unimportant. All they ask for is to have a readily available representative who they can contact and who will deal with their concerns as speedily as possible. If we increase the number of constituents, that service might inevitably suffer.
Another unintended consequence is that it might increase the possibility that constituencies will cover more local authorities and attendant public authorities. I always counted myself extremely lucky that, with a geographically small constituency, I did not have to deal with the myriad organisations that other less fortunate MPs have to deal with. In this, I agree entirely with the sentiments of my noble friend Lord Trenchard.
I agree with the Government that this change will provide certainty that the recommendations of the independent and impartial Boundary Commissions will be implemented without political interference, or interference from either government or Parliament. This is absolutely the way it should be conducted. I also welcome the provisions that deal with how Boundary Commission reports are implemented. However, I add my support to the comments of my noble friends Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Cormack, and of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, about tightening up the wording about laying Orders in Council, which currently states “as soon as possible”.
Time limitations mean that I will not speak about other measures in the Bill. Suffice it to say that I thoroughly support them and I look forward to its eventual arrival on the statute book. I wish it well.
My Lords, my contribution to this debate is based on more than 41 years representing the constituency of Aberavon, which was torn apart after 23 years by local government boundary changes, depriving me of my eastern wards and, to make up for it, granting me other delightful wards from the Neath constituency. Continuity of representation and specific association with local organisations is particularly important. I regret that there is no statutory steer to the Boundary Commissions on this aspect. It is quite hard, but satisfying, to build a new relationship. However, I was able to maintain a majority of more than 20,000 for most of my time.
My second experience is professionally representing as counsel before an assistant commissioner’s hearings, where much of the legwork is done, frequently by experienced QCs, who do invaluable work. I was representing the City and County of Cardiff. I called my star witness, a Mr Callaghan. Reading from my brief, I said, “Your full name is James Callaghan.” “No,” he said, “Leonard James Callaghan.” I should have known better, having read innumerable documents initialled “LJC”.
I welcome the damascene conversion from the coalition Government’s ill-fated proposals for 600 MPs. It is argued, properly, that 650 is a better number than 600, a number plucked from the sky without any basis and which would have caused massive disruption. The last time I spoke on this issue in the House was to oppose the massive reduction in representation from Wales proposed in the previous Bill. It would have been the greatest of all, from 40 Members to 30—a 25% cut—where traditionally it has hardly ever come below 35, a figure probably entrenched and understood by Boundary Commissions from 1918 onwards.
The survival of the union is assisted massively by strong numerical representation from the devolved nations. To ignore the present strains on the constitution is dangerous driving. The proposed cut in representation for Wales is almost as dramatic, because it would mean a cut from 40 to 32, which is much bigger than the loss in Scotland. I welcome the changes proposed for Ynys Môn.
The Bill ignores the difficulty of large geographical areas being split by valleys that run north to south, with substantial difficulties in communication east to west. I endorse the remarks of my noble friend Lord Hain. In all my years, I went only occasionally to the valleys to the left and to the right of my constituency; I kept to my own constituency, and this was the difficulty of travel from west to east or east to west.
This brings me to the most important objection to the Bill: the allowable variation in electoral quota of plus or minus 5%. A 7.5% variation would fundamentally cope with the difficulties of geography and continuity. To take away the role in this of the House of Commons and the House of Lords is an abdication of responsibility and undermines constitutional history.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord True, said that this was the first Bill he was taking through the House—well, welcome. It is also a Bill on which he will hear more special pleading, with, coincidentally, most of it being in the interests of the party making it.
I will start by reminding noble Lords of the historic cry for “Equal votes of equal value.” In this debate, we seem to have done a lot of asking for special favours to make votes less equal. Also, it is fine to talk about registering people, but we are doing so against the background that at least two, often three and sometimes more in every 10 voters do not vote at all. They are on the register, but they do not vote.
The next point that I would like to make is this. You can have your peculiar constituency anomalies and you can have fairness if you have the German system where there are two votes, one of which elects the party and the other elects the constituency representative. For at least 30 years, I have been a supporter of proportional representation, and the only Private Member’s Bill I have had debated in the House was on that subject. But I find it difficult to believe that we are living in a full democracy when the Greens are so badly underrepresented and the SNP is currently overrepresented —although for a time it, too, was underrepresented. Although this is a limited Bill, we should not lose sight of the wider principles that we are dealing with.
One area where I have sympathy with the changes being proposed in the Bill has been referred to by a number of noble Lords, although the first to do so was my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. We have to get to a position where, if the Boundary Commission is going to be independent of political interference, Clause 2 must be changed and the words
“As soon as reasonably practicable” replaced with a much firmer formula.
My final point is this. I have been through a lot of Boundary Commission decisions on the fringe in both the Labour and the Conservative parties. My experience has been that the Labour Party is much better at discipline, so I would counsel my party, the Conservatives: “Get your act together. Don’t get in the position that I was in, where one Conservative association was appealing against the Boundary Commission’s decision and it was being opposed by another Conservative association.” One of the reasons for losing out is when you do not think it out, and that is something which has to be done.
My Lords, I start by congratulating my noble friend the Minister on the clear and comprehensive manner in which he has introduced this important legislation. I wish him luck in steering his first Bill through your Lordships’ House, but given his experience of and in the House and his leadership in local government, its success will not be a matter of luck.
I welcome the Bill, which is certainly a great improvement and a step forward on its predecessor. Perhaps I may gently recommend to my noble friend the Minister the recent report of the Select Committee on Democracy and Digital Technologies, on which I was fortunate to serve under the excellent leadership of my friend the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. There may be much fertile ground for my noble friend within those pages.
Like others, I associate myself with the comments of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. If the Boundary Commission is to do its job in the manner in which it has been charged, it does indeed need to be insulated, so terms like “reasonably practicable” are nowhere near strong enough. Does my noble friend agree that a friendly amendment to tighten those words and put a time and date in would be an excellent improvement to the Bill? He as much as any of us knows that, in political parts, spring tends to come quite late, and often only when the leaves are truly browned off.
I want also to add my support to the protections to be granted quite correctly for Ynys Môn. Does my noble friend agree that, while no man is an island, it is certainly true that some constituencies are indeed just that?
My Lords, I have a special reason for welcoming this Bill. It puts the final nail in the coffin of the unlamented Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, which was passed by the coalition Government. It was the most fiercely opposed Bill in the House of Lords for the past decade, including at least one all-night sitting. It contained two distinct and unrelated measures. One provided for a referendum on the voting system and the other provided for a reduction of MPs from 650 to 600. The Conservatives wanted to reduce the number of MPs but did not want the referendum; the Lib Dems wanted the referendum but did not want to reduce the number of MPs. The history lesson is this: coalition deals affecting our constitution, made behind closed doors with no effective consultation, are castles built on sand, which deserve to collapse—as, thankfully, the 2011 Act now has.
I welcome the fact that the Bill maintains the size of the Commons at 650. That is particularly important at a time when there are huge and increasing demands on MPs from their constituents. If we reduce the number of MPs, we automatically increase the size of constituencies, which in turn increases the workload of MPs—not the workload of noble Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, seemed to think; he omitted the obvious point that Members of the Commons have constituents to represent. Also, as my noble friend Lord Adonis said, if we reduced the number of MPs without reducing the number of Ministers, there would be proportionately fewer Back-Benchers to hold the Government to account.
I also welcome another part of the Bill, which is another rejection of the 2011 Act. Clause 1(3) changes the frequency of reviews from every five years to every eight years. The five-year review was always ridiculous, coupled as it was with another failed piece of coalition Government constitutional meddling—namely, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, which decreed that general elections should take place every five years. That meant that there would be brand-new constituency boundaries at every general election: neither MPs nor their constituents would know who represented them from one general election to the next. Eight years seems to me a sensible compromise, ensuring that constituency electorates are kept reasonably up to date, and in normal times would operate for at least two general elections.
That brings me to a problem with the size of constituencies. There is an inherent contradiction in the Bill, which provides for five protected constituencies. I support that: inflexible, rigidly defined rules on population size do not make sense. Yet in the same Bill we are told that in no circumstances whatever must the remaining 645 constituencies deviate from the diktat of plus or minus 5%—leading to all the problems that various contributors to the debate have mentioned. I hope that the Minister—he knows a bit about fighting elections, and I am sure he would not like such changes to affect local government elections—will consider the 5% and increase it to at least 7.5%; I would prefer 10%.
These are all issues that we will deal with in Committee. My overall feeling is one of absolute relief that we are back to 650 MPs, and that the dreadful Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 is now dead and buried. If only the coalition Government of the time had listened to the arguments of those in opposition, so much time, money and energy would have been saved.
My Lords, those on the margins are the most affected by the changes. There could be new MPs’ constituencies, and perhaps new local authorities, crossing existing council boundaries —made by an order but not yet fully implemented. That was what I understood from a statement in the Minister’s speech. Residents are closer to, and more affected by, the policies and workings of their local authority than by those of a Parliament from which they often feel quite remote.
There are 650 MPs, and the Bill aims to provide the electorate with certainty and confidence on this subject, without further delay. I support that. As the noble Lord, Lord Hussain, said, all should have the right to vote. That is all very well, but a lot of people do not exercise the right. In countries like Australia, where I come from, people have the right to vote, but it is compulsory, and they are fined if they do not vote. People there cannot say, as I find that people here often do, “Oh, it’s a bit wet—or cold—tonight; I don’t think I’ll go out.” It has got to be either one thing or the other. Either it is all voluntary or, if it is obligatory, that is a different matter. Residents really will benefit from the Bill, and I strongly support it.
My Lords, I will make three points. First, I agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that Parliament should retain the right to approve or block recommendations of the Boundary Commission. Not to do this would put far too much power in the hands of the Executive and would be a further step in strengthening the Executive at the expense of Parliament—all against what the Brexiteers said Brexit was all about.
Secondly, I agree with my noble friends Lady Gale and Lord Foulkes, and other Scottish and Welsh colleagues, that it is a mistake, particularly at this moment, to reduce the representation of Scotland and Wales when the future of the union is almost hanging in the balance. If anything, the representation of the smaller nations should be increased. In the medium term, I favour a second Chamber with a balanced representation of the nations and regions of England, to offset the excessive power of London and the south-east.
As I am a Cumbria county councillor, my third point is a Cumbrian one: the case for greater flexibility in constituency size. At present we have six seats, with an average electorate of 66,500—some 7,000, or about 10%, below the quota. However, if we had only five seats in Cumbria, they would each have 79,000 voters, which is 10% above the quota. Therefore, on the criteria of the Bill, equal size means crossing the boundaries of the top-tier Cumbria County Council boundary. What is the position on this? Do the Government believe that that is the sensible thing to do? Also, think about Cumbria. If we go north, it is another country—Scotland. If we go east, we have the barrier of the Pennines, and to the south we have north Lancashire, where the Government, because of their thinking on local government reorganisation, reject the idea of Cumbria expanding south.
There is no logic in the argument that mathematically equal constituencies produce votes of equal value. Community is as important as this and should be valued, and it is particularly important in a county such as Cumbria, where the central bit is all mountains. If we want votes of equal value, we have to take seriously a move to proportional representation, which personally I favour. However, that is a separate issue for another day. To sacrifice community for the sake of some pursuit of mathematically equal constituencies is in my view wrong.
My Lords, first, I congratulate the Minister on introducing this, his first piece of legislation, and wish him very good luck.
It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, who, as always, came up with some valuable insights into the matter under discussion. As an unelected Member of an unelected House, I tread with some trepidation in discussing these matters. However, that said, they are important issues, and I follow other noble Lords in recognising that.
I support the measure in general terms—I think 650 constituencies feels about right, as does having a review every eight years. That seems appropriate. We should not apologise for having equalisation of constituency size as an aspiration and an aim. It is true that it cannot be achieved in any real sense, but clearly it is something that should underpin our thinking.
That said, when we look particularly at Wales, which I know something about, but at Scotland too and indeed large parts of rural England, there are challenges of geography and of rurality in having similar, let alone identical, sizes. That 5% margin in terms of seeking equalisation may need some adjustment. That said, clearly the Chartists’ aim of equal votes has some validity.
Along with other noble Lords, I certainly favour the protection of certain constituencies such as the islands that we have protected—the Western Isles, Orkney and Shetland, the Isle of Wight and now, appropriately and quite rightly, Ynys Môn. That is absolutely right. I would be tempted too to add Cornwall, to prevent any Devonwall constituency arising. That would be a mistake. Cornwall has its own identity and its own culture and language, and we should recognise that in the review of constituencies in this piece of legislation.
The Bill that we have will clearly change, and it should change as it goes through its stages in your Lordships’ House. There is much to recommend it but much to be concerned about in terms of strict equality of constituency size, which I certainly will want to look at very closely. I also share some concerns with my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham about possible political chicanery and actions leading to proposals ending up being put on ice and not being carried forward. I welcome the Minister’s thoughts on that and his reassurance that that is something he is seeking to address.
My Lords, anyone who has spent much time in one of the hearings on boundary reviews will know that it is possible to define community in a variety of contrary ways within a few minutes, from a few speakers. We all have our own definition of the communities that we live in, which is one of the problems. I am still waiting to hear from the Government why there is this desire to move away from the 600. The way that it was approached last time was not particularly clever, but if the proposal to reduce the number of MPs had been put to a referendum, it would have been overwhelmingly endorsed by the electorate.
It is certainly more than iniquitous that some Members of Parliament can represent 80,000 electors and some represent under 50,000 and yet be contrasted as if they were doing the same job. With today’s technology, that is simply not possible. The volume of work with such a big variation is hugely significant to the pressures on any individual, of whatever party or even of no party, representing that many people. I speak as someone who until recently represented 550 square miles, which is the size of Greater London, and 80,000 voters, plus many eastern Europeans who are not counted in that parliamentary arithmetic.
If there are to be further improvements, the question of electoral officers needs to be considered. My own experience is, very vividly, that a competent electoral officer will do a very different job. I recall one occasion when there was an excellent new officer and the number on the register went down significantly. It was explained to me that, even in places such as Bassetlaw, the dead do not vote, and they will no longer be on the register. To lose 2,000 at one go demonstrates the variation in systems, which is significant in all of this.
I would like to see two things. One is ward boundaries being sacrosanct. That is the kernel of local democracy and should be integral to any boundary review.
The second would be a much bigger change, but it is possible with technology. Where there is a mayor, as in London, there should be one integrated register. For London, Manchester and other areas with a mayor, having one register would lead the way in reducing anomalous situations, tidying up the register and eventually perhaps allowing people to vote in a variety of polling stations rather than just one. One register for a mayoral election would be a huge democratic step forward.
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on introducing the Bill most ably. I welcome the Bill and will make a couple of brief observations.
Times have changed dramatically since the early part of this year, let alone since 2000. The circumstances in which we now find ourselves are, at the very least, most challenging, and the future extremely unclear. Before Covid-19 hit, we had a vibrant jobs market with many and varied skill requirements. That meant a considerable movement of labour around the country, and demographics had already undergone much change in recent years. With the uncertainties of today and a jobs market under enormous negative pressure, it is highly likely that when we reach a new normal, those demographics will change even more, and even more often.
This situation, and the challenges of life outside the EU—of which I am a strong supporter—indicate that the voting public need more and better representation in Parliament. Consequently, their representatives will have an increased workload, so I support Her Majesty’s Government’s plans to maintain 650 constituencies and introduce an automatic system for implementing boundary changes recommended by the commission. Very little good came out of the coalition, but I am delighted to wish this Bill well.
My Lords, I am glad that the Government have decided to maintain the number of Members in the other place at 650. When I was a Member of the other place, I voted against that Bill and against the principle of reducing the number of seats to 600; 650 seems a sensible number to ensure that all parts of the UK are properly represented and maintains a link with all our diverse regions and communities, which would have been diminished if the number of seats had been reduced to 600.
However, I have some reservations about the Bill. The 5% variance rule between constituencies seems overly rigid and prescriptive. Indeed, the legislation recognises that this may not always be appropriate by increasing the number of protected constituencies from four to five. I also have concerns that the allocation of seats favours England at the expense of the other nations and regions of the UK. Northern Ireland maintains 18 constituencies but, under these proposals, Scotland loses three and Wales loses eight, while England gains 10. This seems a disproportionate shift of power towards the centre, which will embed “English votes for English laws” even more trenchantly. That is worrying, especially as devolution means that the democratic dynamic across these islands is moving in another direction. A locking clause to preserve seats in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland at their current numbers of 59, 40 and 18 respectively will help them to maintain their existing parliamentary influence.
Another concern is that the Bill concentrates too much on numbers and not enough on communities to protect constituencies for all discrete areas by virtue of the fact that they are islands. By definition, these seats are ordered on a “community first” approach. That approach should apply to constituencies in general, because of the nature of community cohesion. Finally, there must be parliamentary accountability for the final recommendations from the boundaries review. That cannot be left to unelected quangos or to be dealt with by Orders in Council.
My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, but I too congratulate my noble friend the Minister on introducing this excellent Bill, which I support. Last December, the general election was run with constituencies ranging from 60,000 to 99,000. No one can argue that that is fair or democratic, so we must have equally sized constituencies with no more than a 5% variation.
The Opposition want much larger variations, on the basis that they would keep special and unique local identities together. Those of us who have been through boundary changes have always used that argument to try to bend boundaries to maximise our political advantage. I have been at public inquiries here in Cumbria with my Labour and Liberal opponents, and we all argued for the most tortuous-shaped constituencies imaginable based on them conforming to local travel-to-work areas, social habits, local boundaries, communities, cultural norms, mountains and lakes, motorways, shopping habits or ancient history—such as the route followed by King Edward III when he invaded Scotland in 1356. They were all bogus arguments, as my noble friend Lord Robathan said. We were all after a constituency boundary with sufficient wards to give us a safe majority, but to give away enough of our supporters so that we could take the neighbouring seat for our party. Let no former MP now in this House deny that that was the game, because we all played it for political advantage.
Council boundaries are not nearly as important now as in the past. My former constituency of 1,500 square miles stretched from the Irish Sea to over the Pennines. I had one county council and three district councils. While all of it was in England, we had some Scottish postal codes, as well as Cumbrian pupils going to school in Northumberland. One boundary was a little stream between Cumbria and Northumberland, which ran right through the middle of the village of Gilsland.
There was no great difficulty dealing with those different authorities. Council boundaries are not sacrosanct. Politicians must not be allowed to shelve Boundary Commission reports or amend them. The more I heard Labour Members today asking for the right of Parliament to interfere, the more I became highly likely to support my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham in imposing a time limit for implementation. In 2012, we saw the disgraceful ploy by the Lib Dems to kick into touch the 2011 review. They are responsible for our boundaries being another eight years out of date. That follows the precedent of Jim Callaghan, who ditched the Boundary Commission proposals in 1969.
Boundary Commission reports must be approved automatically, in a tight timescale. There is a track record of the Labour and Lib Dem parties sabotaging them for political advantage. Some also want the December 2020 registers to be used, rather than those which we had on
My Lords, after two false starts and the current boundaries drawn on electoral data now 20 years old, this review is much needed. I welcome the return to 650 seats, the eight-year review and the consideration of pending local government reviews. However, on this latter point, can the Minister confirm in his response that the local boundary reviews that were delayed due to Covid-19 will be completed before the Westminster boundary review takes place?
Of the issues that I believe need to change, the first is the source data. The Bill ensures that every seat, with a few exceptions, has roughly the same numbers of voters within it so that, in the words of the Government,
“every vote counts the same”.
However, constituencies of equal size will not change some MPs being elected on fewer votes than other MPs, because turnouts always differ from seat to seat. The way to make every person count equally is to count seat boundaries not by the number of registered voters in a constituency but by the number of people. This is what most modern democracies do.
When a constituent asks a Member of Parliament for help, help is given whether or not they are registered to vote. Everyone who lives in the constituency is treated equally. Our boundary reviews should therefore treat people equally. For example, where I live, in Lewisham, the electoral roll figure in December 2019 was just over 223,000, but according to ONS figures, the population of Lewisham is over 303, 000—a difference of more than 80,000 people, and equivalent to an extra parliamentary constituency. Using population figures as the source data to draw Westminster seat boundaries, instead of the electoral roll, will mean that a heavy workload will not rest on too few shoulders and people can be represented equally. If the data source remains the electoral roll, we need to make sure that it is as complete and accurate as possible.
That leads me to my second point: the enumeration date. More than a million people registered to vote between December 2018 and December 2019. Given this huge increase, will the noble Lord expand on the reasoning behind deciding to use March 2020 as the enumeration date? Is the register at March 2020 more accurate and complete than it was in December 2019? If so, what is the difference in electoral numbers between the two dates?
Finally, the electoral quota is too narrow and hampers the commission’s ability to listen to sensible representations from the community. The commission needs flexibility to make sensible adjustments to seat boundaries to ensure that people in communities that have built up around, for example, geographic locations, transport hubs, university campuses, large factories, places of worship, community centres or housing estates are effectively represented. Effective representation should be as important to the commission as equalising seat numbers. I look forward to the noble Lord’s response on these three issues.
My Lords, there was much wisdom in my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s observations, but Members of Parliament do like to represent real communities; it gives them the opportunity to represent a distinctive voice. That is far better than being on a party list, where courage tends to increase the higher up the list you are. It has always been about balance between communities and the electoral quota. After 20 years, the numbers are simply out of kilter: at one extreme, there are 21,000 in a constituency, and at the upper extreme, 111,000. This is what happens when a review goes on for too long and the gap becomes too great.
The changes are simply a reflection of the changes in the population. If there is a fixed number of seats, there has to be an electoral quota. As the former Deputy Prime Minister said,
“it is patently obvious that individuals’ votes should carry the same weight, and if that means reforming the rules for drawing boundaries, that is what we must do.”—[
I may be the last Member of the clan to agree with Nick, but there is some sense in that.
There has been much talk of the 5%, but minus 5% or plus 5% means 10%. So, when we talk about 7.5%, we are really talking about 15%, or when we talk about 10%, we are really talking about 20%—and 20% is incompatible with fair votes. Of course, there will be movement in parliamentary seats, but that just reflects what is happening on the ground.
I have prepared many schemes for boundary reviews, submitted evidence and appeared before a local inquiry, and I do not have the slightest doubt that the Boundary Commission is scrupulously fair. Where we have seen dirty work at the crossroads, it has always been by the political system, be it hiding behind Parliament, the Government voting down their own recommendations, dubious challenges in the courts, or some in your Lordships’ House getting into a strop over the loss of the AV referendum. I therefore welcome the automatic nature of the acceptance of the Boundary Commission: to an extent, it removes much of the temptation to interfere, but in truth it simply raises the bar.
Although I am open-minded, I thought that my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham made a reasonable point about setting a time period for laying the recommendations. I look forward to hearing the Government’s considered response to this idea of a self-denying ordinance.
Finally, I congratulate my noble friend for the way in which he introduced the Bill. However, I thought that he made a mistake: he was far too eloquent, far too erudite and far too competent. I am afraid that he will find himself in very high demand in future.
My Lords, I reiterate what we from these Benches have said about this Bill: we welcome a number of its proposals; we have reservations about specific aspects, on which we will put down amendments; but we disagree fundamentally with its assumptions about the nature of fairness, equal votes and democracy, about which the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, made a powerful speech.
I remind the House of the historical justification for the United Kingdom’s single-member first past the post electoral system—a system now retained by only a small remnant of democratic countries, most notably the United States. It was that each Member of Parliament represented a recognisable community—a borough or part of a shire: a coherent community with its own sense of history and continuity, as Edmund Burke wanted.
The Conservative proposal to squeeze variation in constituency sizes down to 5% was based on the belief that differences in size between constituencies systematically favoured the Labour Party. Arguably it may have done, 20 years ago. But, as my noble friend Lord Tyler demonstrated, there is no evidence that it does so today. The Conservative Party does not need to distort constituency boundaries like this to protect its partisan interests, weakening further the link between historic communities and parliamentary seats. Lose the link with communities and you destroy the rationale for first past the post.
The Government recognised that the sense of community with regard to boundaries matters enough to make exceptions for the Isle of Wight and now Anglesey—but why not Cornwall? Why not Devon and Somerset? Common sense would suggest that we should, and the Minister will recall that the Prime Minister loves appealing to common sense, against expert advice or against prejudice. Common sense would also suggest that, if the Government were really concerned with fairness and equal votes, they would propose a different voting system.
The Government’s justification for maintaining 650 MPs—the loss of MEPs increasing their workload—is very weak. The workload of English MPs has increased in large part because the importance of local government and of local councillors has decreased. If we wish to restore public trust in democracy, we should start by rebuilding local democracy and devolving more powers from Westminster. The strongest argument against reducing the number of MPs was that it would increase the Government’s influence over the Commons, as several speakers have said, but perhaps the expanding role of special advisers that the Government are now pushing through means that we now need fewer junior Ministers in any event.
Unless the Government retreat from their manifesto pledge on extending voting rights to long-term overseas citizens—as they have just retreated on the promise of a constitutional commission, as the Telegraph reports—we may expect another million or more names to be added to the register soon after the new boundaries have been drawn up. If they are distributed evenly across the UK, it would add some 1,500 voters or more per seat—but of course the overseas voters are much more likely to be concentrated in urban seats, perhaps up to 5,000 or 6,000 more in our major cities. That is a strong further argument for relaxing the 5% limit that the Government want to introduce, which we will want to discuss further in Committee.
The Bill is about the rules of democratic engagement in the UK. As with all discussions on constitutional rules, Governments should be careful to carry cross-party opinion with them and avoid too narrow and obvious a concern with partisan advantage. Ministers should always ask themselves: would I be happy if a Government of a different persuasion wanted to use executive powers in the way that we are doing? We will discuss that, for example, on the question of parliamentary approval for Boundary Commission proposals.
The Government’s withdrawal of their promise of a commission on the constitution in favour of “expert panels” to look at curbing the powers of the judiciary, the functioning of prerogative powers and the relationship between government and Parliament raises wider issues about our constitutional democracy. I assume the experts for these panels will be chosen by Michael Gove and Dominic Cummings—not a basis for broader public consent and certainly not the manifesto’s promise of a
“look at the broader aspects of our constitution”.
After all, many speeches in this debate have argued that we now need to look at our constitutional arrangements as they interact, including with the devolved nations, not tackle different aspects of our constitution piecemeal as this Bill does.
I recommend to the Minister for his holiday reading the excellent new book by Anne Applebaum, Twilight of Democracy. She traces the way in which friends she and her husband used to regard as democratic conservatives in Britain, the United States, Poland and elsewhere have slid towards an acceptance of authoritarian populism, claiming that their party is “the real people’s party”—as the noble Lord, Lord True, said recently—and that it alone stands for the people, while dividing their countries and undermining their institutions and the rule of law.
There are those within the current Government who are clearly tempted by this betrayal of the Conservative constitutional tradition. I hope that in the consideration of this Bill and in wider discussions of judicial, parliamentary and executive reform, the Minister and his colleagues will stay true to the Burkean tradition and carefully resist efforts to weaken the conventions and rules that underpin our constitutional democracy.
My Lords, this is a welcome Bill and the noble Lord, Lord True, is to be congratulated on moving its Second Reading. It is certainly welcome compared with that which the Tory-led coalition Government proposed—but all things are relative. Then, the Tory Government proposed a reduction to 600 MPs while their coalition partner, the Liberal Democrats, had suggested in their 2010 manifesto that they would reduce the House of Commons by 150 Members. It is little wonder that they want to move on from their 2010 position, and that the Tories cannot resist the pressure from their own Back-Benchers and have torn up the proposals that would have seen the reduction to 600 Members.
The reduction to 600 Members by the Tory-led coalition would have happened just as we were preparing to leave the European Union and during—I hope—our post-Covid-19 phase. That we have been spared such a fate is a relief I share with my noble friend Lord Grocott. Had Parliament lost its right to have the final say, that would have been passed into law and done and dusted without a glance back by the then Government.
That said, as noble Lords have heard, there are still matters in this Bill with which we on the Labour Benches disagree that need to be considered in Committee and beyond. A 5% variance either way from the norm of about 72,000 electors leaves a little room for manoeuvre—something between 68,000 and 75,000 constituents—but a 5% variance causes the most disruption to seats, compared with either 10% or 7.5%. Academic studies of reviews in 2013 and 2018 show that this was the case. It was stated on both occasions that a wider margin would produce more coherent, fairer constituencies. Why do the Government not want to allow the Boundary Commission sufficient leeway to deal sympathetically with any circumstances it may find? We have heard from Wales, Scotland and England that it will find those circumstances. There are factors that the Government cannot wish away—mountains here, rivers there or motorways built. They divide or unite constituencies. Natural factors that combine constituencies can now cause separation.
Can the Minister explain why the Government want to maintain the narrow channel for manoeuvre with the plus or minus 5% tolerance level? It has been recognised, rightly, that there are particular circumstances in Orkney and Shetland, the Western Isles, the Isle of Wight and Ynys Môn but they are saying that there are no other places in the country that have similar or comparable circumstances. We disagree. There are other places in England and Wales that deserve more sensitive treatment than the Bill allows. My noble friend Lady Gale reminded us that, especially in Wales, valley and hills naturally separate constituencies and make communities feel a sense of belonging. The effect of this limitation would be to split more wards and make the coherence between local authority boundaries and constituency boundaries less than it is currently.
The fact that the Bill could vote down proposals and the loss of such power are indicative of the Executive’s hostility to accountability. Why do the Government not feel that Parliament is the appropriate body to have the final say on proposals? Currently it serves as the last resort, but that would be removed by the Bill. It is not as though Parliament has stood in the way of change. The Bill increases the power of the Executive over Parliament. The fact that Parliament will lose the power to vote down proposals is indicative of the Executive’s hostility to accountability in Parliament. In fact, the only time in recent history that might have happened was when the Tory-led coalition supported changes to reduce constituencies to 600. Why do the Government feel that the Order in Council is a better, preferable system than Parliament having the final say on proposals?
In summary, the Bill is a welcome improvement on the previous Tory-led attempts to reduce Parliament’s size, but it still has some way to go to become a good piece of legislation. The Labour Party will bring forward amendments for consideration in Committee and we will seek to serve that purpose.
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for what he said and I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, including those who have ventured to be kind about me. I have found in life that it is not the smile you get at the front door when you arrive that really counts but the curses you hear when the front door closes behind you when you go, so I will try to serve the House as well as I can.
There have been some incredibly important and thoughtful contributions. I shall not follow the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, and my noble friend Lord Naseby in pointing out that probably never so many wise contributions have been made on elections by people who do not have the right to vote in them. It has been fascinating.
If your Lordships will forgive me, I will concentrate on those areas that are in scope of the Bill. We heard a lot about, for example, PR. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, said that it is an argument for another day. I thought it was an argument that had already had its day. I hope that we can concentrate on some of the important issues that have been raised in the debate. I am pleased by the support voiced across the House for many of the key elements of the Bill—there have been doubters and how could there not be doubters in this great House?—in particular for maintaining the number of constituencies at 650. Although I noticed a small number of those voices on my side—I see my noble friend Lord Hayward in his place—I think the majority were for 650. I am also glad of the general support of the House for the new eight-year cycle and the addition of Ynys Môn as a protected constituency.
Let me come to the first issue which has been a matter of interest, to use a value-free word, to your Lordships’ House in debate, which is the so-called automaticity. I anticipated this in my opening remarks and that proved to be correct. My noble friends Lord Dobbs, Lord Mancroft, Lord Pickles, Lord Hayward, Lord Young of Cookham, Lady Pidding and many other noble Lords supported the changes to allow the automatic implementation of boundary review recommendations, as we propose. We believe that automaticity will give the public confidence and certainty that the boundaries recommended by the commissions will come into effect without risk of interference or further delay.
I note the opposition, ably expressed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter and Lady Barker, my noble friend Lord Empey, the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, and other noble Lords. However, the purpose here is to remove both Government and Parliament from the process, so that those finalised recommendations of the independent Boundary Commissions are brought into force promptly, with no opportunity for blocking or meddling of any kind. Under current legislation, the citizen does not have certainty that this will happen, and the boundaries of constituencies are now woefully out of date as a result. I repeat that other countries such as New Zealand, Canada and Australia have similar arrangements for implementing boundary reviews which do not involve the final approval of the legislature. I hope that, on reflection, your Lordships will come to see that that does not present the dangers that some fear.
Under the Bill, the Government will still be required to give effect to the recommendations of the Boundary Commissions. As now, an Order in Council will be used for this purpose. As noble Lords have said, the change, which some have objected to, will be that Parliament will not play a role in approving the draft order and Ministers will no longer be able to modify the proposals in the event that it was rejected by Parliament. We are reducing the role of both Parliament and government. However, Parliament does remain sovereign and can amend the primary legislation, providing the parameters for reviews as it sees fit.
My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, followed by other noble Lords, queried the possibility of future Governments delaying implementation of the Boundary Commission recommendations—as has happened before —by taking more time than is necessary to submit the draft Order in Council for making. I am conscious of the hour, but I will give a bit more detail, because I was asked to respond. The wording of this requirement has been modernised to reflect current drafting practice. As some noble Lords have pointed out, the current legislation says,
“as soon as may be”,
and the Bill includes the more common, up-to-date language of
“as soon as reasonably practicable”.
However, the meaning remains the same: any Government would be legally obliged to make the Order in Council promptly and without unreasonable delay.
My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, supported by my noble friend Lord Blencathra, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, and other noble Lords proposed that there should be a fixed time limit in which a Government should lay an Order in Council. We are not minded to go in that direction, purely in order to maintain some flexibility for the necessary work in preparing the draft boundary order and the associated order that designates the returning officer for each newly drawn constituency. Time would be needed to allow for this preparatory work, and setting hard time limits can cause practical difficulties down the line. I reassure the House that there would be little scope for undue—certainly not unreasonable—delay. Any Government who sought to drag their heels over the submission of a draft Order in Council would be at risk of legal challenge. With something as high profile as a boundary review, it seems likely that the move to challenge would be swift. We believe that to be an effective and appropriate safeguard against delay. However, I have no doubt that noble Lords will return to this in Committee. I assure the House that this Government’s firm and sole intention is to deliver the updated and equal constituencies that are now long overdue and to implement the recommendations made by the independent Boundary Commissions.
I do not wish to try the patience of noble Lords, but the other issue is tolerance and limits. During the Bill’s evidence sessions in the other place, witnesses pointed out that the setting of tolerance is a matter of judgment. The House has heard differing judgments today; some noble Lords have agreed with leaving it as it is now, which is plus or minus 5%. This is, effectively, a variation of 7,000 or more in the size of electorates, as pointed out by some noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Taylor of Holbeach, Lord Dobbs and Lord Sheikh, with whom I agree.
We believe that the current tolerance level strikes the right balance between achieving equal and fair boundaries and allowing the Boundary Commission the flexibility to take account of other factors. There are other factors and noble Lords have spoken about them, such as physical, geographical features and local ties. However, this is subject to the overriding principle of equality in constituency size. For something as critical as the right to choose the Government of the day, surely equity and equality must be the overriding principles. The fundamental principle of “one elector, one vote” should be upheld as nearly as possible. The same should be true in Bangor as it is in Blyth. We intend to uphold that principle. The elected Chamber voted on three separate occasions against amending the 5% variance. I urge noble Lords to consider this as the Bill progresses through the House.
Many noble Lords spoke up for the union and were concerned about the impact of this legislation on the union. There was particular mention in this context of rural constituencies with sparse populations. I understand where such noble Lords are coming from; I was particularly struck by the very powerful speech on this by the noble Baroness, Lady Gale. Our union of nations is the most successful in history. This Government are determined to sustain it and of course I share that desire to see it at its strongest. It is a matter of judgment, which we can test in Committee, but the Government believe that equal votes for all the electors of the union is an important part of maintaining its strength and the democracy at its heart. That is why the Bill does not change the tolerance level put in place by Parliament in 2011 with, at the time, very strong support from the Liberal Democrats. The purpose of the Bill is to achieve parity of representation for all electors across the union and within its constituent nations. Surely, wherever a vote is cast, it should have the same power in deciding who governs our country. That principle is a solid one and the Government continue to support it.
The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and my noble friend Lord Bourne, asked about Cornwall, mentioning the controversy caused by the 2018 review, when a constituency that crossed county boundaries was proposed. It is important to recognise that that review was based on 600 constituencies. While this will be a matter for the independent Boundary Commission, the changes under review are based on 650 constituencies and are likely to be less dramatic. I welcome the comments made about public hearings and the move to allow the public to come in later in the proceedings, although I take note of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McNicol of West Kilbride, that the Boundary Commission must be flexible.
On the question of the Boundary Commissions, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and my noble friends Lord Dobbs and Lord Taylor of Holbeach all raised the independence of the Boundary Commissions. The noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, referred to this as well. They all wondered how important this is in the light of automaticity. I agree—and the Government agree—that the commissions are independent and neutral; they must and will remain so however their recommendations are implemented. When Ministers formally appoint commissioners, it is done only after a rigorously fair and neutral recruitment process under the Governance Code on Public Appointments and overseen by the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments.
Finally, some noble Lords talked about the building blocks on which constituencies are based. No doubt we will return to this in Committee as well, particularly the question of whether or how the Boundary Commissions might split wards into smaller geographical units. Other noble Lords spoke about polling districts. I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, on the specific points she raised about the local government reviews. As far as the
The noble Lord, Lord Mann, spoke powerfully—as always—about community, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, and others. I recognise that that matters; I have spent most of my lifetime representing a ward and was proud to do so. Whether or not to divide wards is an issue for the independent Boundary Commissions when conducting their reviews. It is already within their power to do so if they judge it to be necessary, in their expert opinion, and after receiving representations. Political parties and individuals will be able to make representations.
A number of noble Lords returned to the issue of underregistration. This was a widely and properly expressed concern in the House. Online registration has made it easier, simpler and faster for people to register. It can take as little as five minutes and there are no significant boundaries, if you have access to a computer. But not everybody does, and it is vital that we get to the hard-to-reach people. We all want eligible electors to be registered, but we do not wish to compel people to register. That is a matter for the individual, not the state, and we are not tempted by the course referred to of compulsion. I have no doubt that we will have other discussions on this, not only on this legislation but later in the Parliament. Without going into it at length at the moment, there are a number of ways in which the Government are looking for ways to increase the level of registration.
In response to those who raised the possibility of using alternative data to estimate electors—for example, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, floated the issue of census data—again, we can perhaps get into the detail of this in Committee. However, the Government consider that the current process of using data from the electoral register represents the most robust and transparent picture of the electorate on which to base proposals. Boundary reviews have always been based on registered electors, and we believe that that approach should continue.
On votes at 16, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who I see is in his place—I owe him a reply, since he asked for it and is here—I have great respect for noble Lords who have long campaigned to lower the voting age in parliamentary elections to 16. However, the Government have no plans to do so and were indeed elected on a manifesto commitment to retain the current franchise at 18. We may differ on the principle—I see from the noble Lord’s expression that we do—but that is the position which the Government have adopted.
In summary, I am incredibly grateful to noble Lords for their excellent and constructive contributions. I have not been able to find an answer to my noble friend Lord Trenchard on high sheriffs, but I will write to him on that point. If I have not answered any of the points in the debate, I will try to make sure that a letter is made available to all those who have taken part covering points that, on reflection, I feel that I have not addressed. I realise that I will not have convinced everybody to withdraw from the positions they have taken up—positions that I respect. I look forward to discussing the Bill in greater detail in Committee, but I hope that I have made the Government’s position clear.
The provisions of the Bill have been endorsed by the elected Chamber, to which it relates. To be frank, our current boundaries are horribly out of date and we do not see a case for further delay. We believe that this legislation will help the Government to meet a manifesto commitment to deliver updated and equal parliamentary boundaries to ensure that every vote counts the same, and to do so on the basis of 650 constituencies. I urge noble Lords, on reflection, to support the Bill and I commend it to the House.
Bill read a second time and committed to a Grand Committee.
House adjourned at 8.05 pm.