Elections Bill (First sitting)

Chris Clarkson Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 15th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Order. Chris Clarkson.

[Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)]

Q Thank you, Ms Rees. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Councillor Golds, to pick up on what you said about that going on in other parts of the country, I can attest to that. In Rochdale there is a sitting councillor who, three years ago, accepted a caution for electoral fraud after being caught voting twice. He is still sitting there and did not lose the Labour Whip.

As an experienced election agent, do you think the relatively low level of detection of personation is down to the fact that it is so easy to do? I could pick up a copy of the marked register tomorrow, find out whether you vote routinely in elections, turn up to your polling place, claim to be Peter Golds and vote on your behalf. Or do you agree with Mr O’Hara that it is a solution looking for a problem? If you contest that, what would you describe as an acceptable level of electoral fraud?

Councillor Golds: I disagree with Mr O’Hara. When you have the marked register, if you get the proverbial Sid and Doris Bonkers who have never cast a vote in their life, and someone turns up at the polling station and says, “I am Sid Bonkers,” they are given a ballot paper. If Sid Bonkers does not turn up to say he is going to vote, nothing happens. I have to say that there are far too many instances.

I had one incident of a lady who lives in Woodseer Street, E1, who telephoned me to say that she had gone to vote. She knew that the people next door were off on holiday and furthermore that they were Jehovah’s Witnesses and never voted, but democracy had taken place on this particular occasion. When she was marked off on the electoral register, she saw that their names were marked off. She asked the presiding officer why they were marked off, and he said, “Because they voted.” That is an absolutely classic example. Somebody knew that these people were Jehovah’s Witnesses, somebody knew that they never voted, but democracy took place.

[Chris Clarkson]

Q So in your opinion, if I had to turn up with a piece of identification that said, “I am Peter Golds,” and I could not provide it, I should be issued a ballot paper.

Councillor Golds: Yes—[Laughter.] Sorry, I misunderstood what he said; my hearing is not terribly good.

[Chris Clarkson]

If I could not prove that I was you, should I be issued with a ballot paper?

Councillor Golds: No. If you go to collect a parcel without ID, you are not issued with a parcel. For example, if you go to select a Labour candidate, you have to take ID. We had a selection in 2019 of a Labour candidate, and her document to members of the Poplar and Limehouse constituency Labour party says not to forget to bring photo ID. To go to select Apsana Begum, you had to bring photo ID, but to elect her, or not elect her, anybody can be given a ballot paper.

[The Chair]

Thank you. Have the other witnesses anything to add to that, or can I move on?

Elections Bill (Second sitting)

Chris Clarkson Excerpts

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

[Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)]

[The Chair]

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Clarkson]

[Chris Clarkson]

[Chris Clarkson]

[Chris Clarkson]

[Fleur Anderson]

Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill

Chris Clarkson Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading
Monday 13th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Miller]

My right hon. Friend makes a really important point. New clause 1 deals with the particular issue of the election campaign itself, but there is also the additional period of time that we colloquially call the wash-up, which can last for days or weeks, and it feels like months sometimes. Such a body of work could look at not only what is prescribed in legislation, but more broadly. I will go on to some of the issues I think we face by having overly long campaigns, of which I do not think there has been sufficient scrutiny.

However, before I do that let me say—and I am struggling to remember when you were elected, Mr Deputy Speaker—that I was elected in May 2005, as I am sure you remember, and when that general election was held the total length of the campaign was 23 days. It felt a lot longer for some of the reasons pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke). At the last general election it was a total of 36 days, and indeed in 2015 it was 37 days, so almost two weeks longer than when I was elected. My right hon. Friend talked about some of the issues facing new candidates, who have perhaps had to give up their work and are not being paid. It is not without an impact, yet so little work has been done to consider what the impact is.

[Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)]

I was a new candidate at the last election, and I can absolutely attest that it was a wearying experience, as it is for the electorate. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that that piece of work also needs to study the effect on the likelihood of people to turn out to vote? I think Brenda from Bristol spoke for us all when she said, “Oh no, not another one”.

[Mrs Miller]

Of course, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. He has a wealth of knowledge on these issues, as I know from having served on a Bill Committee with him.

We are talking not only about the impact on people standing for election. By lengthening our campaigns by almost two weeks, a number of other issues start to come into play. There is two weeks less scrutiny of Government by this place, which is not an inconsiderable issue that we should look at, yet it is not part of a scheme of work to consider all of these different issues. There is the fact that purdah gets longer not just at national level, but at local level, so fewer decisions are being made by local government for longer, and in stifling decision making that also has an effect that is not being captured. There are not inconsiderable impacts on our economy with the potential risk to our economy, depending on the economic circumstances we face at the particular time. Indeed, there is the risk of an outside actor interfering in our democratic process. The length of elections matters to returning officers—that is for sure—but there are many other issues that we should be considering that it is not clear are being brought into play at the moment.

Health and Social Care

Chris Clarkson Excerpts

Tuesday 7th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The funding that we need on the scale that we need simply could not be raised in the way that the hon. Member describes or in the way that the Leader of the Opposition has vaguely indicated today; I do not think I heard a clear description of what he actually intends to do. But of course we want to make sure that people in the caring profession get the support and the investment that they need. That is why we are putting money into their training and into supporting carers, but also lifting their wages with the biggest ever increase in the national living wage. We will continue to support that.

[Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)]

I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on local government, in thanking my right hon. Friend for making the tough choices that he has today, rather than kicking the can down the road, as the Labour party did for 13 years when it had the opportunity to do something. As welcome as this injection of cash is, can I ask for an assurance that it is going to be met with the same rigorous reform that is necessary to make the system viable for years to come?

Afghanistan

Chris Clarkson Excerpts

Monday 6th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am sure that the whole House sympathises very much with what has happened to those individuals in Afghanistan that the hon. Gentleman describes. We are doing our level best to help people as fast as we can. I want the Government to focus on helping people with a single point of contact. That is why the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) is the person in question.

[Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)]

The men and women who serve in our armed forces are remarkable and make huge sacrifices, both personally and in their careers. Can my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister confirm that they will get the very best support and care when they return home, so that they know this nation is grateful for what they have done?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes. It is absolutely vital that those who have given so much and have served so bravely in Afghanistan, and indeed their families, should receive the lifelong support they deserve—and they will.

Voter ID

Chris Clarkson Excerpts

Tuesday 13th July 2021 Westminster Hall

[Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary, and to follow the hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins), although I have to politely disagree with some of her assertions.

In this country and most true democracies, the right to exercise the franchise is one of the most important symbols of the state as servant not master. Once every four or five years, voters go to the polls and give their verdict on the policies, commitments and ideals that they think will best suit their ambitions and hopes for where they live. It is a marvellous privilege, and we should not forget that there are still many places where people are denied that right.

Worst are those that go through the motions with an attempt to legitimise often ruthless, cruel and oppressive regimes through a veneer of respectability, in a charade of an election where every ballot box will be stuffed and every vote for the regime or junta in charge counted at least twice. That is why it is so important that our own democratic process is utterly unimpeachable. When we seek to bring the virtues of liberal open democracy to the rest of the world and promote our values, we cannot turn a blind eye to fraud and corruption at home. I do not need to look too far from my own constituency for examples of where that has already happened.

In Rochdale, a sitting Labour councillor who was serving as a member of the executive was caught voting twice in a local election. He accepted a caution from the police after claiming ignorance of the rules. This was a senior councillor who was still sitting on Rochdale Borough Council.

The rules should be clear and properly enforced. The idea of taking ID to the polling station is not a radical one. In fact, it is quite common around the world. Unless we are seriously saying in this debate that countries such as Germany, France and Canada are failed states or oppressive regimes, it could just be that we are the international outlier. I can speak only from my own experience, but on more than one occasion when I have been canvassing I have been asked by somebody whether they need to take their polling card with them to the polls, and on more than one occasion when I have been outside telling, I have been handed a polling card because people legitimately assume that they have to prove who they are when they go to vote. When told that they do not need to, many of them say, “You should probably do something about that.”

The idea is not even new to the UK. Voters in Northern Ireland have been providing proof of their identity since the 1980s, with no difficulty in the smooth running of elections. As long as there is access to a free recognisable form of photo identification that identifies that a person is eligible to vote and, more importantly, eligible to vote where they are attempting to, there should be no adverse effect on participation. It is even reasonable to assume that increased confidence in the integrity of our elections could encourage some of those who abstain to re-engage with the democratic process.

Voter suppression is a vile and unconscionable act, and accusations of it being levelled without a good faith basis are scurrilous and unbecoming. Voter fraud is sinister, and we have evidence of it already. A simple change requiring additional checks at the polls will go a long way to bolstering our political process, and we should, in short, welcome it.

Lobbying of Government Committee

Chris Clarkson Excerpts

Wednesday 14th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley).

I welcome the announcement of the review into Greensill Capital and its links to the former Prime Minister and civil servants. It is absolutely the right way forward to address legitimate concerns about lobbying and this firm’s interaction with the Government. I also welcome the appointment of Nigel Boardman—an independent legal expert with extensive experience in investigating Government procurement—to conduct this review. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for making it clear that the review will have full access to all the necessary documentation surrounding supply chain finance and full access to key decision makers during the process. For that reason, I have to say from the outset that I find the Opposition’s proposals today both troubling and typically opportunistic.

Important issues around standards and ethics in public life should not be subject to political committees packed with Labour MPs playing sixth-form politics. It is disappointing that the Opposition seem more interested in scoring political points than ensuring that Government engagement with business, charities and other organisations is conducted in an open and transparent way. There is very little point in replicating the work of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), which already has the mechanisms available to bring this issue to light. The plans put forward by the Opposition today are yet more tawdry politicking, rather than a genuine desire to improve standards in public life; I will not be supporting the motion.

It is troubling that the Opposition seem to be pre-empting the findings of the review, particularly as they spent 13 years in government and did not once act on concerns raised about lobbying. Indeed, they even voted against the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014, which required consultant lobbyists to register with a watchdog and placed restrictions on third-party campaigning groups; that is despite the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) demanding that the legislation be strengthened this morning on her tour of the studios—more positions than the “Kama Sutra”, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Lastly, I want to acknowledge what the Prime Minister said—that lessons must be learnt from this episode. In this House there are politicians from all political parties who, when they leave the House, will still want to contribute to public life; and they should be able to do so, as many of them have much to contribute, whether it is sitting on the courts of our great academic institutes, serving on boards of charities or, indeed, entering into businesses, either in an executive or non-executive capacity. The vast majority do this with the best of intentions, abiding by the rules on lobbying and engaging properly with the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments.

The Greensill affair is deeply disappointing, not least for those of us who admire the former Prime Minister and his work, but we should now focus on learning lessons from this, not teaching them.

Covid-19

Chris Clarkson Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am afraid that I must correct the hon. Gentleman’s figures. We are now testing more than any other country in Europe, and the median journey is, I think, about 5.8 miles. No journey is permitted to be more than 75 miles, so I do not recognise the figures that I have heard from him.

[Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)]

My constituency is one of several under local measures, and has been for several weeks, so I would like to pay tribute to my constituents—the businesses, individuals and families who have made great sacrifices to keep this country safe. In welcoming today’s statement, may I ask the Prime Minister for an assurance that this represents a circuit break and not a hard-wiring of policy, and that as it is reviewed we will follow all the scientific data to ensure that we get back to normal as soon as possible?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, the intention of these measures is collectively to depress the R but to keep the economy and education functioning. That is what we are trying to do.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Chris Clarkson Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Tommy Sheppard]

I think that people living in Scotland care that the priorities for spending on infrastructure in Scotland are determined by them and the representatives they elect, rather than by a Conservative majority Government who do not have a mandate in Scotland. That whole point considers that we even agree with the narrative that the proposals in clause 46 are simply a matter of replacing the allocation of structural funds, and that they are all about the shared prosperity fund. Actually, there is nothing in this Bill that qualifies it in that regard.

In fact, the Bill gives this place the power to take funding decisions about all manner of policy areas of Scotland, most of which are already within the devolution settlement and are the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. What, therefore, is being proposed, as far as I know, is that this place would be able to determine the spending priorities on health, education, transport and a whole range of other matters, and it would have the ability, through these provisions, to overturn any decisions of the Scottish Parliament. That is also a power grab.

I have wondered why these sledgehammers are being assembled to crack these very small nuts. Why is it that the devolution settlement is such an irritant to the current Government that they see the need to have this legislation and to roll back on the provisions of devolution? I have searched myself, and I cannot find a reasonable explanation save for one: the demise of the Conservative party in Scotland. A once great party is now reduced to a rump of six Members of Parliament, only one of whom has been in this Chamber for more than three years. That lack of experience and that lack of representation of the Conservative tradition in Scottish civic society in this place and in this Government are truly creating problems for them, but the situation is also creating big problems for the people of Scotland, because it is leading to ill-judged and ill-considered proposals, and I believe that the Government will rue the day that they were presented.

Let me finish by saying that there will be a reckoning to all of this. I know that the Government will railroad this through. They have an 80-seat majority, and the lobby fodder will go through and support it—most of them unaware of the nuances of the devolution settlement and perhaps not even caring about it. However, there will be consequences to that action, and the consequence will be that the people of Scotland will see clearly the contempt in which they are held by this Government. They will take umbrage at those decisions, and they will get their chance to express their view in a few short months’ time.

I end by referring to the comments from the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) at the very beginning of this debate. They were quite interesting, because he and others on the Labour Benches have made the point that they do not support Scottish independence or the SNP, but here is the conundrum that the House now has to face: it seems the intentions of the Government are such that the only way to protect the limited devolution and political capacity we have had in Scotland for 23 years is to take for ourselves the political power that comes with being an independent country and make sure that those powers are retained. That is why many people who used to be represented on the Labour Benches are now realising that the only way to defend the gains made through history is to have complete devolution, complete autonomy, become an independent nation state and secure the political capacity to make our own decisions, so that they will never again be subject to the whims and aspirations of Tories in No. 10.

[Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you chairmanship, Ms McDonagh.

This is one of the more difficult speeches I have had to deliver in my short time in the House, and that is not to say that I am conflicted; far from it—I will be supporting the Government and voting against the amendment. Rather my difficult is trying to understand the strident objection to the concept of more money coming to every part of this United Kingdom. In trying to understand this point of view, I have tried to distil the essence of the Bill, specifically the provisions in clauses 46 and 47, and the importance of the Bill to maintaining our internal market and by extension our Union. Article 6 of the Union with Ireland Act 1800 states that

“his Majesty’s subjects of Ireland shall have the same privileges and be on the same footing as his Majesty’s subjects of Great Britain.”

Explicitly stated in the Act that created our Union is the idea that all four home nations will be treated equally and fairly and on an equal footing. That principle has operated seamlessly for over 200 years, yet right now, because of the calculated actions of the European Union, that bond is in jeopardy.

I want hon. Members to consider what is at stake here: the very essence of who we are. We will be allowing a supranational entity to exercise power over a part of our nation and fellow UK citizens to be treated differently and potentially cutting them off from their own country’s markets. Step back and reflect for a moment: there are Members of this Parliament seriously arguing that we should allow that to happen if no deal is reached with the EU.

This will not come as a surprise to many in my constituency, or in towns such as Darlington, Accrington, Bury or Bishop Auckland, where they gave the Labour party its marching orders in December. Many of the faces that were straining every sinew to frustrate the 2016 referendum result are still on the Opposition Benches. In fact, the architect of Labour’s second referendum pledge is now the leader of its party. What better signal to send to people in seats such as mine that Labour does not share their values and does not care about their opinions, except for the fact I can only see four Labour Members in the Chamber—and one of them is leaving. The contempt that shows for red wall voters is clear. The Labour party does not take this seriously, does not want a sensible solution to Brexit, does not care about people in the north and midlands.

Of course, they are not on their own in their endeavours. The nationalist parties are salivating at the prospect of a scenario that separates a part of the United Kingdom from the rest. It is after all their raison d’être. It is a petty, divisive attitude that leads to the kind of double-think where they simultaneously carp on about a fictitious power grab while openly admitting they would hand over more powers to Brussels, including powers over our coastal waters and fisheries. So-called civic nationalism is a bit like clean coal: adding a friendly adjective does not make it any the less toxic or any more in need of phasing out.

The clauses being debated today have a distinct significance to communities such a mine. The forgotten towns of the north and midlands voted so overwhelmingly to leave the EU because it simply was not working for them. The UK would send vast sums of money to Brussels, which would then send some of it back, with instructions on what to build, what to fund and where to put a sign thanking them for their largesse. It is a bit like being mugged and then being forced to wear a T-shirt of your assailant.

That money never reached communities like mine, not in any meaningful sense. By taking charge of our finances, by building a shared prosperity fund, we will make sure that more of our money is spent in our communities, helping our people. I want people in Heywood, Middleton, Bamford, Castleton and Norden to have the same opportunities as people in London, Bristol and Cambridge. This Bill does that, in addition to the £2.5 billion for city and growth deals across the whole UK already on the table.

It genuinely saddens me that some people in this place, some of whom I have come to think of as friends and some of whom I greatly respect, are still fighting this battle. As well intentioned as they may be, I think history will find them on the wrong side of this debate, and I would like to quote to them a letter sent to me by my constituent, Prasana MacDonald from Middleton. She says: “Mr Barnier broke his word in good faith for all concerned. We should be a laughing stock in the eyes of good countries who will wonder what has happened to the British nation, in fact, placing ourselves in a position where we can be at the beck and call whenever they choose to do so. It is hardly attractive for any country wanting to do business with us. We will also be in a weaker position, negotiating with the wider world whilst tied to the EU’s apron strings.”

5 pm

Hon. Members should not underestimate the depth of feeling on this. In December, those who stood against the settled will of the British public reaped the whirlwind. The eyes of the nation that put extraordinary trust in this party, and this Government, are still watching. I will simply close by asking hon. Members to consider two questions when they vote tonight. First, which agreement is most important to them, the withdrawal agreement or the Good Friday agreement? Secondly, which union is more important to them, the European Union or the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? The choice should be clear.

[Sammy Wilson]

I do not know if there are too many people across the country today sitting in front of their TV screens, watching this debate: I doubt that many are likely to be doing so. But if there are, many of them will be bemused by our now having spent over three hours wrangling about whether it is a good thing that the Government are putting it into legislation that they are prepared to spend money across the United Kingdom on economic development, improving infrastructure, supporting cultural activities, supporting activities and programmes relating to sport, supporting international educational and training activities and supporting educational and training activities and exchanges within the United Kingdom. It is bizarre that we think this is in some way bad, and that the Government, by doing such a thing, are plotting, conniving and cynically trying to destroy parts of the United Kingdom and the devolution settlement.

The fact of the matter is that as far as England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are concerned, the devolved Administrations will still have significant spending powers over all those things. They will get their allocation under the Barnett formula, as they have always done. They will have the freedom to make the decisions to spend that money, and they will be able to set their own priorities. Even when it comes to the money that the Government will decide to spend centrally, does anybody really believe that some Minister in Westminster will look at, say, Northern Ireland and say, “There is something that the devolved Administration has never thought of, does not even have as a priority and has never even suggested, but by Jove we are going to spend money in Northern Ireland on that project.” It is totally bizarre to think that that is how money, which is hard raised in the first place, would ever be spent. Of course cognisance will have to be given to, first, what is in the national interest and, secondly, what local administrations believe is important to be delivered on the ground in their own areas.

One of the oddest arguments I have heard today was from the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), who is no longer in his place. I do not like talking about people who are not here, but as he has not stayed for my contribution, I must make the point. He wants clause 46 removed because he thinks it is in danger of bringing violence to Northern Ireland, it will break the peace agreement and it will tear up the Good Friday agreement. Somehow or other, the Government spending money on those things, or proposing to do so, will destroy the peace in Northern Ireland. I know that some people in this House have fairly thin arguments. When they have thin arguments, and especially when those arguments are anything to do with Brexit or the withdrawal agreement, they usually talk about violence in Northern Ireland, but this is taking it a bit far.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Chris Clarkson Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 14th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I am sure colleagues can see that there is a lot of time pressure in this debate. I urge Members to stick to a maximum of six minutes, rather than having me impose a time limit at this stage. If Members can do that, we will see how we get on.

[Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)]

First, I thank the Minister and her team for their hard work on this Bill. There are a select few of us in this House who can get excited about boundary reviews, and most of us are here today, and I thank her for indulging my psephological exuberance throughout.

I will speak about the merits of the Bill before turning to the amendments. At its heart, the Bill is about fairness; it is about recognising that everybody in this country should have an equal voice in our democratic process. Fundamentally, it is about saying that no one person’s vote should count more than another’s. There will be some in this Chamber who believe that that is the case already, and no doubt we will hear a series of eloquent speeches about that to one effect or another, but the crux of the matter is that there are some parts of the United Kingdom where just 56,000 people can send the same number of representatives as 100,000 in another.

Before this is hand-waved by Opposition Members as a ploy to make the electoral geography somehow better for one party or another, we need to understand the basic principle of electoral equality. This idea is not new; it was not cooked up in some trendy centre-right think-tank over on Millbank the other day. It started with the Chartists back in 1838, who, in the “People’s Charter”, called for this measure to be introduced as an essential cornerstone of our democracy.

As I mentioned in the Bill Committee, we do not need to look far for extreme examples of disparity. Greater Manchester, where I am an MP, has 27 MPs whose electorates range from 63,000 to 95,000. How can that be fair or right? My own seat, Heywood and Middleton, is around 111% of the electoral quota. Why should my constituents’ voices count for less than those of voters in Wirral West or Preston?

The issue is not just about apportionment within regions or counties, however—far from it. Using the December 2019 figures, we arrive at an electoral quota—the number of voters per seat—of about 72,431. That should be the average size of every seat in every region, but it is not. In Wales, it is a shade over 57,900; in the south-east, excluding the Isle of Wight, it is nearly 78,500. As a tenet of fundamental fairness, we simply cannot turn a blind eye to such disparity.

I accept that, historically, there are good reasons for that malapportionment—to ensure that the four nations of our Union could all have a voice in this place—but Scotland now has a Parliament that is the most powerful devolved legislature anywhere in the world, Wales has the Senedd and Northern Ireland has its Assembly. Outside London, there is a patchwork of uneven devolution settlements in certain counties and metropolitan areas, none of which comes close to those devolved legislatures.

[David Linden]

This is an argument I considered perhaps in response to the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson). What the hon. Gentleman is missing here, of course, is the fact that we have English votes for English laws in this House under Standing Order No. 83W. English votes for English laws rather negates the idea that the imbalance in terms of devolution can be worked out under the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Clarkson]

The hon. Gentleman makes an eloquent point, but I disagree with him fundamentally. At the end of the day, there is no devolved legislature for England. This is a temporary fix that could be addressed by introducing a level of electoral fairness. I am more than happy to have a discussion about constitutional reform with anybody, but that is not what this debate is about. I am a Unionist to the tips of my toes, but I do not think that the Union will be reinforced by giving unfair or special treatment to one country at the expense of another.

Turning to some of the new clauses and amendments that have been tabled, new clause 1 seeks to change the variants of the electoral quota to 7.5%. That is, in effect, 15% between the smallest seat and the largest. In practice, that is a difference of about 10,860 voters, give or take. The argument put forward in Committee was that it would lessen the disruption needed to bring 650 seats into quota. Of course, that entirely ignores the fact that there will be a high level of disruption regardless. By its very nature, correcting 20-year-old boundaries and ensuring a fair distribution of seats in every nation and in every region will result in some disruption. I demonstrated that in Committee by pointing out that of the 10 Conservative seats represented, just one would have remained unchanged with a 7.5% variance. In fact, so many electorates have now deviated from the mean, it seems improbable that there will be minimal change.

The other argument put forward was that a 7.5% variance would avoid splitting communities or needing unusual combinations of wards from multiple authorities. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke)—sadly, he cannot be with us today and has expressed his disappointment at not being able to—quite sensibly put it, that could be addressed by splitting wards. The Boundary Commissions for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland already do that. The Boundary Commission can do that in England, but it prefers not to for the sake of ease. This should not be about doing what is easiest, but what is best.

[James Grundy (Leigh) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the solution Labour proposes in new clause 1 is somewhat crude and inelegant? It does not properly address the concerns many Members have regarding the creation of coherent constituencies and it undermines the core principle of carrying out a boundary review—equalising electorates. Does he furthermore agree that a better model is the extant one used by the Boundary Commission for Scotland, which splits wards into their component communities where necessary to create coherent constituencies, rather than ones that merely meet the narrow requirement of electoral quotas?

[Chris Clarkson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, which is, as always, well-considered and eloquent. I completely agree with him. The Boundary Commission for Scotland has already demonstrated that it is perfectly capable of splitting wards using postcode data. There is nothing in the legislation that prevents the Boundary Commission from doing that; it is simply a choice not to act, and that cannot be a good enough foundation.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I totally agree with what my hon. Friend is saying. The absurdity of entire wards making constituencies that divide communities, particularly in places such as Greater London, where we have huge wards in my constituency of 10,000 or 12,000, means that changing that involves massive upheavals and breaking up communities, so he is absolutely right that the Boundary Commission must be more flexible on this point.

[Chris Clarkson]

Certainly, in some of the larger metropolitan boroughs, there is what I call the martini paradox, where three wards is not quite enough and four is too many.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

I am listening to the hon. Gentleman’s speech with great interest. I wonder if he agrees with me, as an advocate for democracy, that we should have automatic voter registration. That would genuinely ensure that everybody gets an equal voice.

[Chris Clarkson]

If the hon. Lady will bear with me, I will come to that point when I address new clause 3.

I do not support new clause 1; I think that it is intended to undermine the concept of electoral equality and that it would cause further exponential disruption in future reviews as seats get further and further away from the mean, exacerbated by the large deviation permitted

New clause 2 is unconscionable. Setting a minimum quota for each nation would ultimately lead to one of two outcomes: either the malapportionment that we currently have, whereby some votes count for nearly twice as much as others, or the situation that developed in Canada, which has minimum quotas for areas and where rafts of new seats had to be added to Parliament to ensure some level of electoral equality. Under that approach, if Wales were to maintain its 40 seats, Greater Manchester alone would have almost as many MPs and the south-east would have well over 100. When we have one eye on the overpopulation of the other place, it strikes me as frankly bizarre that our nationalist friends should seek to pack this one, too.

[David Linden]

The hon. Gentleman knows that I have a lot of time for him, but he will recognise that the rule in the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 was introduced under the Government of Margaret Thatcher. The number of seats in Scotland was then amended from 73 to 59, in recognition of devolution. It is a well- established process that the devolved nations have that protected constituency; indeed, it was a Tory Government who put it in place.

[Chris Clarkson]

The hon. Gentleman knows that I have a lot of time for him, too. I am not here to blindly say that I agree with everything that my party has ever done; I think that using an electoral quota is a much fairer way of doing it.

As I say, it strikes me as frankly bizarre that when we are concerned about the overpopulation of the other place, we should be trying to pack this place out. The hon. Gentleman played an extremely constructive role on the Bill Committee, with some very sensible proposals —he is one of us! [Interruption.] I mean an electoral geek, obviously. It is just a shame that his new clause 2 does not follow that lead, so I will give it “D minus —must try harder.”

Let me move on to new clause 3, which I think our Liberal Democrat friends might find a bit disappointing, too. Although on some level I have sympathy with the idea of including those who are not on the electoral register, we have to use the fairest and most consistent data available to us, which is the electoral register. If some people choose not to be on it, that is their choice. Similarly, some people will not qualify, and it is unfair to try to guess who those people might be. In either case, I do not think that adding additional people to the register will improve any electoral chances.

Lastly, I turn to the concept of automaticity, which is covered by amendment 1. I hardly need—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order.

[Chris Clarkson]

Shall I wind up, Madam Deputy Speaker?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Yes.

[Chris Clarkson]

Okay. Somebody else can deal with automaticity.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

We are not really doing very well so far, are we? We will have another go at trying to stick to six minutes. John Spellar, I am sure, will do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chloe Smith]

I absolutely agree on that, and it allows me to do something rarely allowed to a Minister in such proceedings, which is to pay tribute to one’s own constituency. Let me put on record how wonderful Norwich North is, with its parishes and towns, which in themselves are separate communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) made the point about how fiercely such things are argued, even within a constituency.

[Chris Clarkson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chloe Smith]

Not until I have managed to name all the parishes and towns in Norwich North, which are, of course, as anybody will know, the wonderful places of Hellesdon, which goes back to the Domesday Book—shades of my maiden speech coming on here—Old Catton, Sprowston and Thorpe St Andrew, and next to those the historic characteristics of more urban Norwich.

[Chris Clarkson]

They sound like lovely parishes. I could also mention Norden, Bamford, Castleton, Heywood and Middleton in my constituency, and just have. I wish to pay tribute to everybody who participated in the Bill Committee, because I think we have achieved a robust Bill. Obviously, we will see what their lordships send back to us and no doubt we will have further interesting and exciting psephological exuberance, as I said earlier. I also wish to put on record my thanks to the Clerks, all the House staff and all the Bill Committee members, and, of course, to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for being here tonight. I have to say how disappointed I am not to hear the hon. Member for Strangford speak—

[Jim Shannon]

Don’t go away.

[Chris Clarkson]

I will not.

[Chloe Smith]

May I close this unusual contribution to the end of a Bill’s proceedings by also noting how wonderful the constituencies are of our Whips, those of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) and—this may take us to the end of the alphabet, although I am subject to challenge—the hon. Member for Wolverhampton. [Interruption.] Oh goodness me, I meant my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes). I have got it wrong and I am going to face retribution for that—there will be letters written about the difference between those places. With that, I think I can now give way to a Whip to conclude tonight’s proceedings.