Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 8th September 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, might also refer to what happened when he left in 1992, when the then Conservative Government more or less doubled expenditure on the Boundary Commissions in order to expedite the process and to try to bring forward a review earlier than might otherwise have been the case in an attempt to save their skins. People might say that it did them a fat lot of good in 1997 but it was an attempt by a then Conservative Government to alter the process.

I am inclined to disagree with these amendments in principle, but I may be willing to support them if the same kinds of flaws remain in the Bill as were contained in the previous legislation from 2011. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, that it was with the aim of preventing gerrymandering and because of these flaws that I was one of the movers of the crucial amendment in the House of Lords that halted the boundary review in 2013. A cross-party group in the House won approval for our amendment and this then achieved a clear majority in the Commons, which had the effect of blocking the implementation of that review. I have no regrets at all about that.

The Bill before us now is better in many respects than the one introduced at the beginning of the coalition. The plan for 600 MPs was a bad one when the so-called payroll vote remained so large. Reducing the number of MPs, while maintaining the same number of Ministers, Whips and PPSs, would have given greater power to the Executive and weakened the legislature when we should be moving in the opposite direction. That problem is addressed by retaining the number of MPs at 650. This change will also reduce—at least marginally —the disruption involved with boundary reorganisation and which is proposed to be every eight years, as opposed to every five, although perhaps 10 would be better.

However, two significant problems remain with the Bill and they are relevant to these amendments. If not addressed, I think that Parliament should still be given the final say over implementation. The first problem relates to electoral registration. The Electoral Commission has reported that 9 million people may be missing from, or inaccurately included on, the electoral registers. This is a very high proportion given that the registers contain around 47 million names. The potential figure of perhaps 6 million people completely missing from the registers is far higher than was suggested to Parliament when it approved the 2011 legislation, and the missing millions obviously greatly distort the work of drawing up boundaries properly. I await with interest the Government’s response to the discussion on Amendments 11 and 24 relating to automatic voter registration.

The second major flaw with the process proposed is that it is unnecessarily disruptive. Whether inadvertently or otherwise, it will allow for small population changes in one constituency to trigger massive changes in many others throughout the remainder of the relevant English region, or in Scotland, or Wales, not just in neighbouring constituencies. This problem can be addressed, as the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee concluded in its excellent report in March 2015, by allowing perhaps 7.5% or 8% flexibility. A little more flexibility in the 5% margin allowed for variation to the quota for each constituency would enable more natural constituencies with sensible boundaries to be created, with fewer constituencies proposed that cross county boundaries, for example. Perhaps more importantly, more flexibility would help ensure that the entire map of constituencies is not ripped up whenever a review takes place. The Government should note that the Liberal Democrats are not under the same constraints as in 2011 to support aspects of the Bill such as the principle of 5%—which was very nearly changed to 10% to secure the passage of the Bill, but the compromise was not made.

A good process, with fair rules, using independent commissioners, should not be halted, varied, or expedited according to the whim of the party which can control a parliamentary majority. However, when so many people are not included properly in the electoral registers and there is the likelihood that the process will be unnecessarily disruptive in a way that would particularly disappoint many good constituency MPs, the case remains for Parliament having the final say.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on automaticity. It has been a very interesting debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lords, Lord Lennie and Lord Grocott, for tabling the amendments that have helped us have this debate.

I need not remind the Committee of the shape and purpose of the amendments—it is well aware of those. It has been explicitly stated that the amendments seek to retain the present position where Parliament can intervene and frustrate the intention of the Government and, indeed, the intention of the House of Commons, as resolved on examination of this legislation, to go for automaticity.

I note that most noble Lords who spoke against the proposals were from the Opposition. I was not persuaded by many of the reasons that they put forward. I note and welcome the support of the Liberal Democrats who spoke in favour of automaticity, although I note—as I was asked to by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard—that this is conditional. They support this principle now, but they might change their minds by Report. I will be interested to understand how they turn on its head the fundamental principle that there should not be political interference with the electoral process. I hope—I am sure—that they will continue to support the principle of automaticity.

Noble Lords have raised other important issues in this debate, some of which we will discuss later today and some on subsequent occasions. I assure the Committee that I will be listening carefully to all the points that come forward.

I support the principle of automaticity. I hope it is recognised that I am a staunch supporter of Parliament and its role—and your Lordships’ role—in scrutinising and agreeing the laws by which we live. I suppose my gut instinct is that Parliament gives up so much. Some have said, “Is it not a good thing that Parliament should be involved?”, that we parliamentarians always have a right to reject. While it perhaps goes against my instinctive grain to let go of that opportunity, in this instance I believe that we should not follow those instincts and that there is more to be gained for the citizen by us letting go, as was movingly expounded by my noble friend Lady Seccombe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, as I made clear in the debate on the first group of amendments, we do not support the automaticity of Boundary Commission recommendations becoming law with no parliamentary intervention. In an ideal world, Clause 2 would not be in the Bill. Nevertheless, we share in the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and other speakers, and the worry that some decision is still left with the Executive while none is with Parliament. If this clause is to be in the Bill, clearly, these amendments are very welcome.

This is important not simply for parliamentarians but for Boundary Commissioners. In knowing that they rather than Parliament are making law, it will be important for them to be confident as they assume this new responsibility that the Government will not play games with any delay—should, for example, an early election be on the cards, given that we hear that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act is to be removed, thus leaving the calling of an election back in the hands of the Prime Minister. Incidentally, my noble friend Lord McNicol is, like me, not a former MP, but along with others, we have been involved from a party position. As he said, if we can remove Parliament’s ability to discuss, we should remove the Executive’s ability to delay.

The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said that we need to curb the ultimate power of the Executive. Hear, hear to that. Six weeks sounds better to me. If it is going to be automatic, then automatic it should be. Furthermore, if the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, says that it is doable within a time limit, my judgment is that it is doable within a time limit. He knows whereof he speaks, along with the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, my noble friend Lord McNicol, and other former Chief and Deputy Chief Whips.

I confess that my eyebrows rose just a little at the protestations of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, as to the pristine, impeccable holiness of the Conservative Party. Maybe he needs reminding about Dame Shirley Porter and Westminster. I will go no further, but I think he overegged that particular pudding. If we are to have automaticity, clearly this delay must not be in the hands of the Government.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am troubled that my body language should be coming under examination, particularly since most of my family are saying that I am getting so grotesquely fat, it should never be examined in any circumstances. Perhaps that is an argument to reinforce the case that a number of noble Lords have put and with which I personally profoundly agree: there is great merit in our proceedings being in the Chamber, where body language can be examined, as it cannot with these glass screens.

For accuracy, I should say that there have been a number of strictures about this discussion taking place in Grand Committee. All your Lordships will understand the exigencies of the present situation. We are all chafing against the limitations placed on us, but the reference to Grand Committee was agreed in the usual channels and supported by the other political parties. The conduct of our business by the usual channels is traditional. It is not reasonable, in the circumstances, to impugn the Government, or indeed the House authorities, on that point. I add to what others have said about the great work that has been done in putting this Room together.

This is a very important debate, body language or no. The amendments have been very skilfully spoken to by all noble Lords, from my noble friend Lord Cormack onwards. Noble Lords have largely said the same thing so it would be invidious to pick out anybody, but obviously the now poacher, my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, made a very powerful case to the Committee.

A six-month figure has been suggested, as has three months. I regret to say that both those deadlines could bring problems to the closing stages of a boundary review. I will return briefly to that point, but I start by explaining why the Bill is as it is. It is drafted to give some flexibility, but it demands that the Secretary of State submits the boundary order:

“As soon as reasonably practicable”.


This terminology is widespread in legislation and in this case it allows for some small degree of flexibility in the scheduling and completion of the work needed to prepare and submit the boundary order and the associated orders. However, it is only a small degree because, as has been pointed out, any Government who unreasonably delayed a piece of work as high-profile as this would likely come in for swift legal challenge, so there is not, in a sense, an untrammelled power, as my noble friend Lord Cormack contended. None the less, many parliamentarians would agree that leaving resource to the courts is not always the best or most agreeable way of conducting our proceedings. I will return to this point later.