Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Alec Shelbrooke
Tuesday 15th February 2011

(13 years, 9 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alec Shelbrooke Portrait Alec Shelbrooke
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Absolutely. That makes my point entirely. When considering special circumstances and local ties, would not Sherburn in Elmet, part of the Celtic kingdom of Elmet, become part of a constituency incorporating Elmet? Would that not come under special interests and considerations? Would not precedent be brought forward in the courts in terms of representing that seat? The amendment is absolute nonsense which leads to grey areas in the Bill.

I want to talk about the 5% barrier. In the Leeds area, Elmet and Rothwell has 78,000 electors, and perhaps this point did not occur to the Opposition when they put their proposal together, but their variations on 76,000, the figure in the Bill, take us perilously close to the 68,000 electors in Leeds North East, a Labour seat; to the 65,000 electors in Leeds East, also held by Labour; and to the 65,000 electors in Leeds Central—Labour. The only exceptions are Morley and Outwood, which has 74,000 electors, although I believe the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) would need only a 1.5% swing to lose the seat; and Pudsey, which has 69,000 electors. The 5% barrier is fine; it allows us not to go down the path of dividing villages or streets. The idea of trying to increase the percentage is just an attempt to preserve the Labour party’s in-built advantage.

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Portrait Mrs Laing
- Hansard - -

The amendment cannot stand: first, it is unclear, and it would be wrong for this House to make laws that are unclear; and secondly, it is unfair.