Parliamentary Constituencies Bill (Fifth sitting)

Cat Smith Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 25th June 2020 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Thank you, Mrs Miller. I thought that that was the point that Mr Spellar was going to make. It is an important one. We have asked for the evidence to be delivered here by 29 June, which is Monday, so you will have time on Tuesday and Thursday next week not only to consider it but to appeal it.

Clause 1

Reports of the Boundary Commissions

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out subsection (2).

This is a paving amendment for Amendment 5, with the aim of maintaining the status quo of parliamentary oversight within the boundary review process.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 3, in clause 1, page 1, line 14, leave out subsection (4).

This is a paving amendment for Amendment 5, with the aim of maintaining the status quo of parliamentary oversight within the boundary review process.

Amendment 4, in clause 1, page 2, line 16, leave out subsection (7).

This is a paving amendment for Amendment 5, with the aim of maintaining the status quo of parliamentary oversight within the boundary review process.

Clause stand part.

Clause 2 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cat Smith]

I shall start by putting on the record the Labour party’s support for the boundary review. We do not seek to cause any difficulty with the passage of the Bill. Our amendments and new clauses are intended genuinely to improve the Bill for the good of the democratic process.

We want the best possible outcome in the review. After all, every Member of the Committee represents a constituency that has been drawn up on electoral data that is now nearly two decades old, and communities have changed dramatically in the past 20 years. The Labour party is clear that the boundary changes must happen before the next general election and welcomes the Government’s reversal of the previous decision to base the exercise on 600 constituencies, and their decision to revise the number to 650.

Amendments 2 to 4 are paving amendments intended to maintain the status quo of parliamentary oversight in the boundary review process. They relate to clause 1, but have some implications for clause 2. However, I shall do my best not to stray into that territory. The Labour party fundamentally rejects the Government’s decision to end parliamentary involvement in the boundary review process. The process requiring MPs to vote on the final report from the commission is an important safety net without which we MPs would number just 600 today. We believe that the change is a dangerous step that would by definition grant any Government with a majority in the Commons unequal and undue influence over the boundary review process. It comes down to simple maths.

A Government with a majority have power to shape and manipulate the rules that govern the boundary review process. Fundamentally, while the commissions are independent, they are given advice and instructions by the Government of the day.

[The Chair]

Order. You should know that you should also be speaking to clause 2 at this point, Ms Smith. It is in the group, so you are entitled to speak to it.

[Cat Smith]

Thank you for that clarification, Mr Paisley. It is helpful.

As I was saying, the Government of the day have the power to define the parameters of the boundary review. The question of a 600-seat or 650-seat Parliament is an example of how the Executive can determine the outcome of the process, so there is already some political engagement in it.

We believe that bringing the review to Parliament for a vote of Members is an important safety net, so that parliamentary scrutiny can ensure that the outcome will work for the whole country. For example, the Government knew at the last review that the 600-seat review would probably be rejected by a cross-party majority of MPs in Parliament. The Labour party has big concerns that, with the changes the Bill will make to the way reviews are done, bad reviews could in future be enforced, and there would be no safety net by way of scrutiny in the House to catch them.

In his oral evidence to the Committee, Sir John Curtice said it would be

“perfectly possible for a future House of Commons”,

if an Administration did not like the boundary recommendations,

“to introduce a quick piece of primary legislation”.––[Official Report, Parliamentary Constituencies Public Bill Committee, 23 June 2020; c. 94, Q176.]

Such legislation could delay the boundary review again. In short, the Bill removes power from Parliament and hands it to the Executive. For those reasons, we have tabled the amendments and new clauses in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is a great pleasure to see you back in the Chair and in charge, Mr Paisley. I repeat on the record the remarks that I made on Second Reading regarding the view of the Scottish National party. We would prefer not to be represented in this place at all, but for so long as the constitutional requirement is that Scotland remains tied to the United Kingdom, Scotland should have no fewer than the 59 seats that we have in this place.

I echo much of what the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood said regarding parliamentary approval. Our fundamental position is that we did not vote against the Bill on Second Reading because we wanted to see it come to Committee. I genuinely believe that the Minister is a thoughtful person, who will consider arguments on their merits. I hope that in the course of today’s sitting and the two sittings next week, she will take on board the amendments tabled not just by the SNP and Plaid Cymru but by the Labour party, which have been tabled with a view to making the Bill better, and making it work for our democratic process.

The hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood is right about parliamentary approval. I have difficulty with the proposal. I listened to Professor Hazell and Dr Renwick give evidence, and I have genuinely wrestled with where we should end up on parliamentary approval. I am afraid that I probably still maintain my position on Second Reading: I am uncomfortable with a process wherein Parliament does not have the final say, because of what we saw in the last Parliament, during which the Government decided that they would try to plough ahead with 600 seats. They lost their majority over the course of that Parliament, but the whole process underlined the need for Parliament to have the final say, and I wish to put that on record.