Parliamentary Constituencies bill (Second sitting)

(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 18th June 2020 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I hope that you enjoy today’s session, rather than endure it. If you introduce yourself for the record, we will then move on to questions, starting with Chloe Smith.

Roger Pratt: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I am Roger Pratt, the boundary review director for the Conservative party.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)]

Q55 Thank you for joining us today, Roger. I will turn to the use of data, after the more general questions we had this morning. Can you give your view on the robustness of the sources from which we take data for the review? They have for some time and for a number of reasons been based on electoral registration data, compared with, for example, census data or other sources, and they are usually based on the canvass as the point in the year. Can you offer any comment on why that is a sensible approach?

Roger Pratt: Thank you very much. I fully support the use of electoral registers as the basis. They are likely to be the most up-to-date information that one has—they are conducted on an annual basis and electorates have always been the basis for parliamentary boundary reviews. In fact, it was the Labour Government in 1948 who brought forward the use of electorates, following a unanimous recommendation from the Speaker’s conference of 1944 that the electorate be used, and it has been used ever since—I think that is absolutely right.

On the data that might be used, I think it absolutely right, under the very strange circumstances that we have, that the 2 March 2020 data be used rather than the December 2020 electorates, which clearly would normally be used. I thought that might be worthwhile to look at. I know there have been suggestions that one should look at either the general election figures or the December ’19 figures, but I do not think that those are robust because the December ’19 figures—the figures published recently on the Boundary Commission website and by the Office for National Statistics—and the general election electorate data, which are publicly available, differ very markedly. The difference is about half a million electors between those two figures—that is a dramatic difference, but it is not all one way.

Three hundred and eighty-eight seats were actually larger at the general election than on 1 December, but 261 seats were smaller at the general election, so it went both ways. I do not think that either the general election or December ’19 figures are robust, and I am sure that the March figures, when they can be properly checked and cross-checked by the Boundary Commission, will be much more robust and that, in my view, will be the right data to use.

[Chloe Smith]

Q Thank you very much. I am sure that when we think in terms of robust data, we all know the definitions of completeness and accuracy, which are the two terms that we use in this arena. It is not necessarily the case, as people argue, that a larger register from general elections is in itself a good thing. Would you agree that what we are looking for is completeness and accuracy? Would your view be that there is a good chance of that from the March figures and, more long term, that there is the best chance of that from the canvass data every year?

Roger Pratt: Absolutely. Completeness and accuracy are absolutely the right words, and the best opportunity of that is to get it normally at the annual canvass and, in those special circumstances, on 2 March.

[Chloe Smith]

I have a final question to round off that set. Obviously, we all want to see as many people who are eligible to be registered as possible—and that, I trust, would be the view of the Conservative party.

Roger Pratt: Absolutely. Every effort to drive up registration, to make sure everyone is registered, is a goal we all support.

[The Chair]

We will now make our way around the group leaders, unless I signal otherwise. If anyone else wishes to speak, just catch my eye.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We now move to our second witness this afternoon. We will hear from Tom Adams. Tom is the acting director of data and targeting for the Labour party. And we will have until 3 am for—[Hon. Members: “Three am?”] Sorry, I knew there was something wrong there.

Tom, we have until 3 pm with you today. I will go round the Front-Bench spokespeople first and then other Members, as they signal, will ask you questions.

[Chloe Smith]

Q Thank you for coming to join us today, Tom; it is much appreciated. I also thank all the political parties who we have before us today for some of their technical engagement with the Cabinet Office in preparing the Bill.

Tom, may I invite you to talk about the automaticity provisions in the Bill? By that, I mean the measure that we are proposing whereby the review’s recommendations should come into effect automatically, without the possibility of political influence either from the Government or from Parliament. What is your view on those provisions?

Tom Adams: Broadly, I think there should still be some parliamentary scrutiny of the review’s recommendations at the end. Fundamentally, while the commissions are obviously independent, the advice and instructions given to them by the Government are obviously given by the Government of the day. And given that there is still some scope for whoever is in Government at that time to influence the process in some way, I think it is right that the review’s recommendations come back to Parliament.

Fundamentally, the Government have obviously now decided, rightly in my view, that there should be 650 seats and not 600, but obviously the previous reviews—two of them on 600 seats—would have been implemented automatically if these new rules had been in place at that time, which Parliament might later have come to regret if it has since changed its mind. And obviously at those times, there was no parliamentary majority for implementing the change to 600 seats, but Parliament would not have been able to do anything about it at the time.

So I think that Parliament offers a last stop-gap, and it is right that Parliament gets the final say on these matters, just as an important principle of parliamentary sovereignty on this material.

[Chloe Smith]

Q Thank you very much. You said that the Government would have the ability to influence the instructions given to the Boundary Commissions. Could you point to where that is in the Bill?

Tom Adams: Sorry—what I mean is that obviously the Government, by proposing the Bill and passing it, will be able to set things such as the 5% threshold. That is obviously something that the Government have decided upon and Labour has taken a different position on that. That is what I mean—the Government are deciding that that is the threshold to be used. Therefore, given that the Government have some ability to influence this process—it is not completely and utterly independent, because fundamentally the commissions have to work within the guidelines that the Government have given them—I think it is right that the proposals that come back should be agreed by Parliament at the end of the process.

[Chloe Smith]

Q There is a final question in my set of questions. Indeed, we all believe in parliamentary sovereignty, but is it not Parliament that sets those rules rather than the Government?

Tom Adams: That is true, but if a Labour Government were proposing this Bill, there might be slightly different thresholds, for example, so clearly the Government still have quite a lot of influence over what is put in the Bill in terms of these boundaries, which obviously will persist for at least—possibly—two general elections. That is why I think it is right that it does come back to Parliament at the end.

[Cat Smith]

Q Tom, thank you so much for coming to give evidence this afternoon. In the session so far, there have been quite a lot of contributions from members of the Committee about the balance between having constituencies as equal as possible and maintaining community ties. Members have given examples from their own areas about different ward sizes making it more challenging in some areas to do that without splitting wards than in others. I just wonder what you think, having overseen this on a more national level for the Labour party, about where the balance should lie. I suppose my question is this. Can you foresee specific circumstances in which in order to avoid splitting a ward, it would be preferable to have some level of exceptional flexibility on the 5% in relation to the quota? For example, if a handful of seats across the country were at 6%, would that be preferable to having wards that were split between different constituencies?

Tom Adams: Broadly, yes, having a constituency that varies by 5.5% from the quota makes more sense than having a split ward or, indeed, an orphan ward added to a constituency, where you have one ward from a different local authority. I think that makes more sense from the perspective of maintaining community ties and having constituencies that the public understand and have trust in. It is a question of having some flexibility in specific areas. Obviously, some wards in the country are very, very large in terms of electors, particularly in the west midlands, where some wards in Birmingham have 20,000. That obviously makes it very hard, in those areas, to come up with arrangements, so having additional flexibility on the 5% figure would make that easier. The same applies to some bits of Wales, for example, where the geography obviously makes it much more challenging.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Excellent; we can hear you too, which is great. Dave, you are very welcome. Could you introduce yourself for the record? I will then call Chloe Smith to ask the first series of questions.

Dave McCobb: Thanks very much. My name is Dave McCobb. I am the deputy director of campaigns and elections—covering the whole of the UK—for the Liberal Democrats.

[Chloe Smith]

Q Thank you very much for joining us today, Dave; it is great to have you. Thanks to you and many others on the Parliamentary Parties Panel who have also taken part in technical engagement on the Bill behind the scenes. I am using these questions to work through the major headings and themes of the Bill and, if I may, I would like to talk about the number of constituencies. Do you support the shift to 650 constituencies in this legislation?

Dave McCobb: Yes, we support the retention of 650 constituencies in this iteration of the proposals. We certainly do not believe that there should be a reduction in the number of MPs unless there is a corresponding increased level of devolution across the UK that would enable us to reduce the number of Ministers. So while there is not further devolution across the UK, we support the retention of 650 constituencies.

[Chloe Smith]

Thank you very much. I am happy to leave that line of questioning there and allow other colleagues to come in.

[Cat Smith]

Q Thank you so much for joining us, Mr McCobb. Given that we do not have a Liberal Democrat member of the Committee, could you outline any concerns about the content of the Bill?

Dave McCobb: Thanks very much. Our primary concern is about the restrictiveness of the 5% threshold in terms of equalising the electorates in constituencies. There have been widespread reports of the degree of under-registration of electors in many parts of the country and of the number of people who are not correctly registered. Setting a very restrictive threshold at 5% reduces the commission’s flexibility to recognise that significant under-registration is likely in some parts of the country.

It also means that constituencies could be constructed incredibly arbitrarily. In the previous round of the review —the proposals that were ultimately never implemented— many constituencies were constructed that really bore no reference to identifiable communities with which people who lived there would identify. That impacted cities in England particularly, where, due to the size of local government wards, the number of wards that needed to be added together could not be done within local authority boundaries. So very arbitrary constituencies were constructed including chunks of some local authorities, and they really bore no reference to communities that people would identify with. That could be eliminated by having a higher threshold of 10%, for example. That would be the No. 1 concern about the proposals as they are currently outlined.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Thank you, Scott. It is nice of you to join us. We will start with the Minister, Chloe Smith.

[Chloe Smith]

Q Thank you for joining us, Scott. It is a great pleasure to have you with us. Thank you for some of the prior work that your party did as part of technical engagement. Given that in Scotland there are two of the protected characteristics—I mean protected constituencies; I make that mistake all the time, as I have the Equality Act in my head—and given, too, the rule on geographical area, can you tell us a little more about what that looks like in practice? Also, what considerations have to go into the review under those headings?

Scott Martin: I think that the considerations in Scotland are the same rules that are applied elsewhere in the UK, as far as local ties. Obviously it will be perhaps a slightly easier exercise this time round, in so far as there may be fewer constituencies that need to be changed, but certainly a reduction of either two or three will mean some changes that are significant—rather less than the last time round; but clearly the Highland North constituency, or whatever it may be called after the next review, is one that any parliamentarian would clearly find it difficult to represent, given its vast area.

[Chloe Smith]

Q Would you be able to give us a little more colour around perhaps the reasons why constituencies might be protected?

Scott Martin: Clearly the two protected constituencies are there for fairly obvious geographical reasons. Highland North, or whatever you want to call it, is not as it were a protected constituency. It is just a constituency that comes up to the 12,000 sq km and 13,000 sq km rule.

[Chloe Smith]

Q Finally, aside from those reasons, would you take a view on whether there should be equal treatment across the nations of the United Kingdom?

Scott Martin: I think there is a logic that says if one is reverting from a model of 600 to a model of 650, the existing distribution of constituencies between the nations of the United Kingdom should be retained. Of course, the position of the Scottish National party is that there should be zero Westminster constituencies in Scotland.

[Chloe Smith]

Thank you, Scott. I am looking forward to talking much more about that with David Linden, as the Committee goes on.

[The Chair]

Talk about getting your retaliation in last, there, Scott.

Scott Martin: I am sure Mr Linden will be invited to the celebration of his unemployment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

You are very welcome here. Minister, could we start with you?

[Chloe Smith]

Q Thank you, Geraint, for joining us today—it is great to have you here. Thank you for your participation and that of your party.

Can we talk a little about how political parties, large and small—I hope you do not mind my acknowledging that Plaid Cymru is one of the smaller ones in terms of parliamentary representation—respond to the boundary commissions? Will you talk a little about how easy parties find it to interact with the boundary commissions, and how we can encourage members of the public to interact with the boundary commissions through the consultation stages?

Geraint Day: The boundary commissions should be praised for the way they approach their interaction with political parties and the public. On the whole, they are very open—they are available online and by phone, as well as through the more formal public hearings. I would reiterate something that one of the previous contributors said: the commissions are very open to alternative suggestions—I certainly agree with that.

Political parties start from the size of the electorate—the snapshot of the electorate. In Wales, which is the only area I feel competent to talk about, we have to start by looking at Ynys Môn. There is only one way you can go from Ynys Môn apart from the Irish sea, and that is across into Gwynedd. All boundary changes therefore start there and expand out. That has a knock-on effect—somebody referred to a domino effect earlier, and that is very true. If we decide to go one way on a proposal, it has a knock-on effect in a subsequent constituency. In the case of Wales, which is bordered on three sides by sea, with the English border on the other side, that leads to certain pressures, especially in mid-Wales, where the population is more sparse, vis-à-vis the more populous north and southern Wales.

[Chloe Smith]

Q Thank you very much. Just to be absolutely clear, the reason you start at the corner of Ynys Môn, as it were, rather than in south Wales, is that it is an island—or is it that south Wales is more populous? Can you be explicit on that point for the record?

Geraint Day: Ynys Môn has been mentioned a number of times already today—I have been following the Committee online. It is a unique constituency. In Plaid Cymru’s view, it should be a protected constituency. It first got its franchise during the Acts of Union in 1536, and its representation has continued ever since, except during the Barebones Parliament in the English civil war. We certainly support and call for the protection of that constituency.

In previous reviews where that has not been the case and you start in the south, if you are limited by the percentage variance, you end up getting to Ynys Môn and suddenly realising that you cannot fit the remainder of the constituency within the variance that is left over, as you cross the Menai. Then you have to start again. Realistically, the only place to start when doing a boundary review in Wales is Ynys Môn. You then work your way east and south from there. You cannot go anywhere else; there is no alternative constituency. Only one constituency borders it, and that is Arfon.

[Chloe Smith]

Thank you very much.

[Cat Smith]

Q Other witnesses today have indicated that Wales looks set to lose more seats than any other nation of the United Kingdom. The figure of eight seats has been suggested. Some of that is inevitable, due to population changes over the past two decades, but it does look like Wales will have quite a big overhaul in its Westminster parliamentary representation. Do you have an opinion on the introduction of some kind of protected status for Wales?

Geraint Day: We do not believe that Wales should lose any MPs. The previous review, which would have reduced the number to 600, has in effect been scrapped, and the number has gone back to 650, yet Wales is losing Members of Parliament and England is gaining Members of Parliament. That seems like a strange place to be. It will appear very strange to the Welsh electorate when they look at this and say, “Where is the UK headed? Is it becoming more and more England-dominant?” We believe that would be incorrect, and that Wales should keep the same level of representation.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear from Professor Richard Wyn Jones of the Wales Governance Centre. Professor Wyn Jones, you are very welcome. We will go round the table, starting with the Minister.

[Chloe Smith]

Thank you very much indeed, Richard, for joining us this afternoon. It is really valuable to have your insights.

Professor Wyn Jones: It’s a pleasure.

[Chloe Smith]

Q I have been trying in my questions to touch on all the Bill’s major issues; I wonder if I might return to the need to get the job done and the need for updated constituencies. I know that you have a great academic interest in devolved politics and, naturally, in topics that connect to that for Wales. Would you care to dwell on the length of time since we have had updated boundaries—broadly, around 20 years across the different Boundary Commissions—and on how much political change there has been in that time in Wales?

Professor Wyn Jones: I have to say that I have had cause to make myself unpopular with Welsh MPs when appearing in front of various Committees over the past few years, because I have argued consistently that there is no real justification for the level of Welsh over-representation in particular.

I think that there is a real issue with the boundaries being so out of date. For those who are interested in such things, there is a historical precedent going back to the first world war, when boundaries were very much out of date. That finally changed, which unleashed a period of Labour domination of Welsh politics that continued, but that was basically what people in Wales wanted and still want, to a very large extent. That is fine, but I do think that there is a real problem with rumbling on with boundaries that are clearly outdated.

There is also a real problem because there is no in-principle argument in favour of Welsh over-representation. It was never anybody’s intention, as far as I can make out; it is an unintended consequence of the rules that were put in place for the other Boundary Commission. We have ended up with a situation that was never justified beforehand, as far as I can see, and for which it is very hard to retrofit a justification now. Even though I love having lots of Welsh MPs, because it makes my life more interesting, it is hard—in fact, in my view it is impossible—to justify the current position, the current stasis and the apparent inability to move forward.

[Chloe Smith]

Q Thank you very much for putting that on the record. Can you give us your view of the provisions in the Bill?

Professor Wyn Jones: These kinds of things are always a difficult balance. My general view is that equality of constituency sizes makes sense. I cannot see any particular reason for ensuring that the different constituent territories of the UK are over-represented here. There are different arrangements in place for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Frankly, the fact that Wales has 6% rather than 5% of MPs—I think that is right—does not make a blind bit of difference.

In terms of general principle, I think equality, with a relatively small margin of difference, is fine. I also support in principle the decision that the changes should be enacted without a further vote. It is probably better that MPs set the terms of the exercise for the Boundary Commission behind a veil of ignorance, if you like, without knowing exactly what the particular outcomes would be for them as individual MPs. It is probably preferable—I think definitely preferable—that they vote behind the veil of ignorance and set the parameters of the exercise, and then allow the exercise to play out in the way we are now used to.

[Chloe Smith]

Q Just dwelling on that last point, are you saying that essentially the process should be free of political inference and it would be wrong for MPs to mark their own homework?

Professor Wyn Jones: You choose a particular way of phrasing it that I might not choose. It is human nature that MPs will look at any list of redrawn constituency boundaries and think, “Hang on, where do I fit in in this particular structure?” That may well colour how they then vote or agitate before the thing gets voted on, which I know happened quite a lot with the last review.

We need democratic involvement that is appropriate, in terms of setting the terms of the exercise, such as deciding how many seats there should be in the House of Commons, if you want rough and ready equality or if you want to be very precise in terms of equal constituency sizes. Those are all appropriate decisions for Members of Parliament to be involved in, and I think they should be involved in those.

However, there are in-principle advantages of allowing the Boundary Commission to get on with it, with all the safeguards that remain in place around process. The appointment of commissioners is then incredibly important, but, assuming all those things are done properly, it is better that MPs are not given the final opportunity to undermine the whole thing if they do not like the results.

[Chloe Smith]

Q Thank you for that insight. Turning to the independence of the commissions, they are judge-led and there is an extremely high standard required for those appointments. I am sure everyone here would agree that they would want that to be upheld.

Professor Wyn Jones: I was not implying that that was not the case. I am saying that those safeguards become even more important in a context in which that final vote is removed. That was my sole point. You are absolutely right that the commissions have a very high reputation, deservedly so at present.

[Chloe Smith]

Q Yes, indeed. I suspect between our words we have made the point I was going to invite you to make, so thank you for that. For completeness, were you also in favour of there being 650 seats and there being the tolerance level that we have in the Bill?

Professor Wyn Jones: I have no particularly strong view as to 600 versus 625 versus 650, so I do not have a particularly strong view about that, but a reasonably narrow tolerance is absolutely fine. If you are going to will the ends of relatively equal constituency sizes, you have to will the means. If I am going to be consistent in saying that that seems to be the appropriate, fair thing to do in a modern democracy, so be it. We have to will the means to allow that to happen.

[Chloe Smith]

I salute the crystal clarity of your thinking and the way you have put it to us. Thank you.

[Cat Smith]

My question is about devolution, which looks very different in different parts of the United Kingdom. It looks a certain way in Wales and, even within England, there are huge variations. To what extent do you think that the Senedd boundaries should be taken into consideration, as opposed to ward boundaries? What do you think makes the best building blocks for Welsh constituencies that truly represent the communities and keep the communities together, while obviously striving to have constituencies as equal as practically possible?

Professor Wyn Jones: Thank you for the question. One of the things we tend to focus on, especially in these kinds of conversations, is the relative number of MPs from each of the constituent nations, but I think it is important to point out that within Wales, the boundaries are now so out of date that we have very large differences in constituency sizes in Wales.

If you take Arfon at one end of the spectrum and Cardiff South and Penarth at the other, there are very large differences in terms of size. To the extent that the boundaries of the Senedd, or parts of the Senedd electoral system, remain tied to those of Westminster, having relatively equal constituency sizes for Westminster will probably make the Senedd electoral system a little bit fairer, too. We miss the fact that the differences within Wales are now very substantial indeed.

If you will permit me to widen the optic a bit, you are right to say that we have distinct dispensations for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. They now look more alike than they did in 1999, but they are still different. England has an incredibly complex—I would say pathologically complex—internal devolution system. My view is that that should be separated out from the issue of representation in Westminster.

There is room, I think, for variation within the state, but in terms of representation in the House of Commons, it seems to make sense to have a kind of equality, not least because I have never heard a good justification for the level of variation that we have. As I said earlier, why should Wales have 6% of MPs when we have 5% of the population? Why not 8% or 10%? There is no obvious logic to the current system. Equality makes more sense.