Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

David Linden Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 2nd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith]

A huge chunk of what the hon. Gentleman proposes is out of the scope of the Bill, but in terms of what is in scope, I hope therefore that he will reject the Labour party’s amendment, which goes against equalising the size of constituencies by arguing against the tolerance quota. I am sure he will consider that as he comes to vote tonight.

Let me pre-empt a question that might legitimately be asked: why are we doing this now, given the other challenges that are presented by the coronavirus? Of course, we absolutely rely on the electors of the UK to cast their vote and choose the Government of the day, and fundamental to that is the idea that each vote carries the same weight. We can achieve those equal votes only through a robust system of boundary reviews. They should be regular, thorough and impartial, and it is those reviews that provide us with updated and equal constituencies.

The last implemented update of Westminster constituencies was based on electoral data from the very early 2000s. That means that our current constituencies take no account of our youngest voters, and nor do they reflect nearly two decades of demographic shift, house building and migration. That cannot be right. The purpose of the Bill is to update those rules. It needs to do that so that the next review, which is due to start in early 2021, can proceed promptly and deliver, with some certainty, the updated and equal constituencies that the electorate deserves.

I will run through the main elements of the Bill. With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me say at the outset that in doing this I have engaged extensively with interested parties, including representatives of the parliamentary parties and electoral administrators, to ensure that these proposals are as good as they can be.

As I mentioned at the start, the Bill will amend the existing legislation to ensure that we continue to have 650 parliamentary constituencies in the UK, as we do now. In order to achieve that, the Bill brings to a close the 2018 boundary review, without implementation. It removes the Government’s obligation to bring those recommendations of the 2018 review into effect, because those proposals would take us down to 600 constituencies.

This is a change of policy from that adopted under the coalition Government. We have listened to views expressed across the House, including that of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and I am pleased that Opposition Members have stated their support for retaining 650 constituencies. We believe that the decision to move to 600 seats is no longer the right choice for the British public because circumstances have changed. In the past decade, the population has grown and we have, of course, left the European Union, which means that significant areas of policy and law making are coming back to all the legislatures of the Union, including the UK Parliament.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Although I welcome this damascene conversion to having 650 seats, the Minister will recall that it was not that long ago in the Committee of the Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill 2017-19—which was sponsored by the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan)—that she denied that argument about powers coming back from Brussels. What has changed?

[Chloe Smith]

It is only a shame that we are not spending yet more time in that particular Bill Committee. I have particularly regretted the hours not spent in the company of the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan), who is sadly not in his place; we could have continued those most enjoyable conversations. In any case, a conversion on the road somewhere near Damascus is better than none, and it is right that we maintain that 650 constituencies. This will ensure effective representation for a growing population in the new era of self-government.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I am glad to see that the Lord President of the Council is back in his place, because I want to put this on the record in relation to this afternoon’s conduct. We were told we were coming back to the House so that we would have more time for parliamentary and legislative scrutiny, but rather ironically the time we have for this debate has been curtailed by chewing up the best part of two hours to vote. I want to let the Leader of the House reflect on that.

Coming into the Chamber today gave me a sense of déjà vu. That is not because it is the first time I have been back in Parliament since lockdown started, but because I feel that we have been debating boundaries for many years now.

It is genuinely a delight to be Front-Benching today alongside the Minister and the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), because in the last Parliament the three of us spent what felt like a huge portion of our lives on the Public Bill Committee that considered the Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill, which was brought forward by the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan). I would be willing to wager that it is the only Bill in parliamentary history where all three Front Benchers went away and had children during the consideration of the Bill. However, little Rosamund, Eli and Jessica now have the dubious title of being children of the Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill.

While the Bill of the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton fell during not one, but two Prorogations—one of which was deemed unlawful—it was certainly helpful in setting down a marker for where we are at today. His Bill sought valiantly to fight off plans from the Government to reduce the number of seats in this House from 650 to 600. As many of us argued back then, reducing the number of MPs, particularly with new legislative powers coming back from Brussels, would have been a bonkers proposal and flies in the face of the argument about cutting the cost of politics, particularly given the ever-expanding House of peers along the corridor.

I genuinely welcome the U-turn made by the Government to stick to 650 seats, although I say again to the Government that if they are genuinely interested in constitutional reform and want to slim down the size of the UK legislature, some of us would be very glad to see 59 fewer seats in the House when Scotland becomes independent.

I am glad that the Government have seen sense and abandoned the proposal to cut the number of MPs with the implementation of new boundaries. The boundaries do need reviewing and on that the Minister will find cross-party support. Indeed, my current constituency boundaries have been in place since I was 15 years old, and the constituency has seen significant house building since then. One street in my constituency—Sword Street—has three Members of Parliament. Like the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood, I disagree profusely with elements of the Bill, and for that reason the SNP will support the reasoned amendment in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer).

My first and immediate concern with the Bill relates to Scottish representation in the House. As I alluded to earlier, Scotland currently is entitled to 59 seats in Parliament. Although many of us would not wish to see Scotland being governed from London at all, that is the current constitutional reality for now. Based on the proposed electoral quotas, we would probably see Scotland going down by two or three seats to the advantage of England, which strikes me as being wholly unfair.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the electoral quotas proposed in the Bill risk reducing representation in rural Scotland even further, particularly in the highlands? I already face a 110-mile round trip to conduct my advice surgeries. My colleagues have to travel on small boats and go to overnight stays to conduct their duties in their constituencies. The quota proposals are a real risk for the representation of people in Scotland, particularly in rural areas.

[David Linden]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. He has put that on record, and it rather serves to reinforce the view that when legislation is drafted up in the Cabinet Office by Ministers, they take no cognizance at all of the situation in rural Scotland, from where Members of Parliament, such as him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), have had to travel for probably the best part of a day to get here—some of that just within their own constituencies. It is a point well made and something that the Government would do well to reflect upon.

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

When the hon. Gentleman speaks about constituencies and large areas, he will obviously be aware of the Scottish Parliament, where regional Members in the Highlands and Islands represent 44% of the landmass of Scotland, which is bigger than Belgium. The Parliament he is so keen that all Scottish representatives should go to currently has a system that is represented by MSPs covering large geographical areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden]

I am afraid that on this one the hon. Gentleman is at risk of comparing not just apples and oranges, but apples and avocados. He knows quite well that the Scottish Parliament has a system whereby there are constituency Members of the Scottish Parliament and regional Members of the Scottish Parliament. I am afraid that he is conflating two issues, and perhaps doing so deliberately.

As I say, based on the current electoral quotas, we would probably see Scotland going down by two or three seats. That would be to the advantage of other parts of the UK, which seems wholly unfair. It certainly does not ring true with what people in Scotland were told in 2014, during the independence referendum. Back then, we were told that we should lead the United Kingdom in the event of a no vote. On the contrary, we have probably never felt more excluded, more isolated and ignored in the UK, as has certainly been highlighted by the Brexit process.

To be clear to the Minister, we must remain with 59 seats in Scotland. I think any Member of Parliament who represents Scotland in this House should be getting behind that argument, regardless of party. However, the Government are not guaranteeing that at the moment, so I will seek to push this by way of amendment when the Bill goes upstairs to the Committee corridor.

Secondly, I want to turn to clause 7 of the Bill, and in particular the enumeration date, which causes difficulties for us. The registration numbers are clearly a little off at the moment, and I would expect registration in Scotland to increase next year as we approach a Scottish Parliament election, so I am concerned about the cut-off date of December 2020. I appreciate what the Minister has said about going back and reviewing that. We will certainly hold the Government’s feet to the fire on that in the Public Bill Committee.

Thirdly and finally, I am deeply concerned about the provision in clause 2(3), which I believe is a power grab, removing the role of both Houses of Parliament. It was not that long ago that Ministers, including the Lord President of the Council, spent huge amounts of time talking about the sovereignty of Parliament, saying that Parliament is sovereign and Parliament has taken back control, yet clause 2(3) specifically removes the role of both Houses of Parliament. Frankly, it is alarming to see the Executive trying to grab power over boundaries, which has led in places such as America to nonsensical partisan electoral maps. Any Members who want to do a bit more research on that should just look at the 4th congressional district of Illinois, which is frankly gerrymandering on steroids.

The Government’s explanatory notes for the Bill gloss over the fact that boundaries will

“no longer be subject to any parliamentary procedure or approval”,

instead being in the gift of the Cabinet Office and its Ministers. That is fundamentally an Executive power grab.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

I am listening carefully to the points the hon. Gentleman is making powerfully, but does he not accept that with our parliamentary system, in which the governing party will normally have an overall majority, this is the reverse of that? It is moving power away from the Government-controlled House of Commons and giving it to an independent Boundary Commission. Personally, I have confidence in it: I have not had problems with its proposals in the past, even when they have disadvantaged my party.

[David Linden]

The one flaw in that argument is that in the last Parliament the Government started with a majority, and the majority disappeared. I do not think it happens to be a bad thing that we put things in front of Parliament, and if Parliament does not want them, it rejects them. I think all of us who served in the last Parliament remember the inconvenience of that and the stress that it caused the Government. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman, who I understand is a Brexiteer, cannot have his cake and eat it. He cannot say that Parliament is sovereign and Parliament should be taking back control, and then bring forward legislation that removes the role of Parliament. That, I am afraid, is a massive contradiction.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way once again. Under these proposals, the reviews will only be carried out every eight years. That would take no account of cities such as Inverness, which I represent, where we have had exponential growth in the estimated total of population. It is now sitting at 64,000, and only today it has been highlighted in The Inverness Courier as the fastest growing city in Scotland. If that is given away, there is no ability to adjust those things.

[David Linden]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Again, the Government must go back and look at this matter.

I want to come back to that point about the size of constituencies, because the Bill does not address the fact that it still allows for constituencies of up to 12,000 square kilometres. That is about eight times the size of Greater London, which has 73 MPs, with much more challenging transport links. We will seek to amend that in Committee. I hope the Government will not just use their majority to ram the Bill through, because a majority in Parliament does not mean a monopoly on wisdom.

This Second Reading debate provides an opportunity to comment on the principles of the Bill, which I have now dealt with, but, while we are on this topic, I want to speak more broadly about electoral reform. We have the opportunity now to look again at some of the injustices within our political and electoral system—perhaps we could even call it levelling things up. A new Parliament means another opportunity to test the will of the House on votes at 16, leaving behind the broken first-past-the-post voting system, which, although it has benefited me, is morally wrong and something that we need to look at again. We also need to look at abolishing the tainted House of Lords. These are issues that fall within the remit of the Minister at the Dispatch Box, for whom I have great personal respect. Although we have had disagreements about the merits of reducing the number of seats from 650 to 600, I genuinely believe that she is someone who listens and considers an argument on merit. When she had clearly done that, she came back to the House with a revised number of 650 seats.

Although I accept that the Bill will probably pass Second Reading, I very much hope that, when it goes upstairs to Committee, we can make the necessary changes to ensure that Scotland has proper representation and sensible, up-to-date boundaries that are fit for purpose for so long as we need to be here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson). I rise to speak on behalf of the people of Moray. I am very attached to my constituency, which is coterminous currently with the Moray Council boundary, which is a council that I represented originally from 2007 until 2017 and then subsequently for three more years on my election to this place. I also accept that two decades is a long time to go without any discussion, debate or consultation on the boundary of Moray and the other 649 seats represented in this Parliament. The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) said that he was 15 when the last boundary changes were made in his seat. While I was not 15, I was not old enough to vote in Moray the last time the boundaries were changed, so I think this is important. We have heard so far in this debate, and I am sure we will continue to hear, cross-party support for the need to look at the boundaries.

I listened intently, and I will look at amendments tabled by the hon. Gentleman in the Bill Committee on maintaining the 59 seats in Scotland, but we cannot ignore the fact that the average Scottish constituency has 67,200 electors, which is 5,000 fewer than the average English constituency has. It is important that there is equality across the whole of the United Kingdom—

[David Linden]

rose—

[Douglas Ross]

The hon. Gentleman wants to come in, and I will allow the intervention but will not use the time that is added on for me.

[David Linden]

The hon. Gentleman will know that there are particular constituencies in Scotland, namely Orkney and Shetland, and the Western Isles, where there is a reason why there are smaller numbers. The figure he has quoted is therefore perhaps inaccurate; it is artificially different because of those island constituencies.

[Douglas Ross]

I accept that point, and it is therefore important that the Government proposal respects the two constituencies that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned—Orkney and Shetland, and Na h-Eileanan an Iar. In supporting this Bill on Second Reading and throughout the process, it is important that we recognise the geographical implications of those island communities that are represented here.

However, since the hon. Gentleman makes the point of comparing constituencies, I add that his Glasgow East constituency has an electorate of just over 67,000, yet my Moray constituency has an electorate of over 71,000, so there are variances in constituencies within Scotland as well, and it is important that we look at that going forward.

I welcome the fact that these boundaries will be reviewed on an eight-yearly basis. As I have said, the last review was two decades ago, which is a long time. Given my own circumstances in the past seven days and my own movement throughout politics in this Chamber and in this Government, I have come to consider the phrase “a week is a long time in politics” a lot; if a week is a long time in politics, two decades—20 years—is a lifetime, and I do not think it is right that we continue to represent constituencies that were made up before I could vote and certainly before the hon. Member for Glasgow East could.

I want to praise a group of people who are often unsung heroes in each of our constituencies: our local election staff. They do a power of work, and not just on elections—and sometimes elections that are not timed at the best time of year for many people. In Moray, we have an outstanding team, with our returning officer Denise Whitworth and our elections team headed up by Moira Patrick and Alison Davidson. They work all year round to ensure that the democratic decision of people in Moray and in constituencies across the country is heard. It is right that we recognise that they put in a lot of work not just during an election campaign and the count, which is always important to us, but all year round. Whether in by-elections, in updating registers, or in ensuring that people have a voice and continue to be heard, the work they do is crucial.

I was encouraged to hear the point made by the Minister—who has done an outstanding job on the Bill so far, and I am sure will continue to do so—about the improved timing of the public hearings. I have been involved in public hearings for boundary commissions, and they may not be the sexiest thing for people to go along to, but people are engaged; they are very connected with their local constituencies. Whether it is a constituency’s name, a constituency’s boundaries or the fact that a line drawn somewhere pleases some and displeases others, it is right that they have the opportunity to express their views. While they may not be happy with the final outcome, they feel franchised and involved in the process up to that point.

I welcome the cross-party support we have heard so far during the debate, but I am left confused by the Labour position. Although the shadow Minister made a good speech, having listened to it I am unsure what the Opposition are calling for in the reasoned amendment they will be pressing to a Division. Are they calling for 7.5% tolerance, because that is in the private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone)? In response to an intervention, the shadow Minister could not tell us if that was the Labour party position. The 7.5% figure has been proposed from the Dispatch Box but they are not saying whether that is the Labour party position. I hope that during the course of the debate, and perhaps in summing up, we get more information on that, because whether it is 5% or 7.5%, or, as others have said, the international standard of 10%, we are always drawing a line somewhere and people will not be happy just over or under one side of that line. It is important that we have that clarification from the Opposition, because that point was left hanging in the opening remarks.

I was keen to get involved in this debate because it was another opportunity to mention Moray. In some way or another, Moray will continue after the next boundary change. It is important that we can all take this Bill forward and support it on Second Reading, and I look forward to seeing its future progress through the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)]

May I begin by thanking all hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed, particularly the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), for opening the debate? It is a pleasure to wind up. I also apologise to the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) for missing part of her speech because I had to go out for other Government business.

This is a key Bill, which will update and equalise parliamentary boundaries, and ensure that every vote counts the same on the basis of 650 constituencies. I am pleased that there has been widespread support from across the House for key elements of the Bill, including from the Opposition, although that does not mean that they are not opposed to some elements of it. There was also support for improvements of the review process, such as changing the times of public hearing and consultation periods.

I am particularly grateful for the support from my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), the Father of the House, who said that it was very hard for the House to be judge in its own interest, which is a fundamental point. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), who thanked local election staff and agreed with our proposal for eight-yearly reviews.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) emphasised the equality of votes and thought that the 5% leeway was plenty. My right hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) reminded us all of the enormous personal affection that we have for our constituencies. It is always true of boundary changes that, however much we recognise that the general principle is right, when a village or street is suggested to be excised from our constituency, we always find it disagreeable. That is one of the key reasons that the Boundary Commission has to be so independent.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour, the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), who told us that we should all be hedgehogs. I am not sure that I am that prickly, but his point that fairness is at the heart of this matter is a fundamental one. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey) quoted the Chartists, and I thought I saw Opposition Members blush. Perhaps my spectacles need cleaning, but I thought that they must have blushed at that point because the Chartists, of course, were all in favour of equalising electorates.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) rather splendidly warned that she might be abolishing herself, which I hope turns out not to be the case, and made a spirited defence of the Bill on that basis, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett), who I am glad to say gave his wholehearted support to the measures.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), I am sorry to say, rather dangerously made points that I made when I was a Back Bencher and the legislation was going through the first time in 2010-11, but which are not necessarily Government policy nowadays. I am afraid that I have repented the errors of my ways, but sadly he has not yet repented his, although I hope that that will come.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Marco Longhi) spoke about the importance of communities, and that is a general point. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) spoke about smaller units and, of course, there being a seat for Gibraltar, which he has said in the House once or twice before. The Boundary Commission has the power to look at smaller units. That is something people can raise as it goes through its processes and is an important safeguard.

My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams) said that his seat has existed since 1542. I am very jealous, because mine has only existed since 2010, and I like seats with a long continuity and history. He made a very fair point about large rural seats, which I am aware of.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) made the point so clearly that she summed up the debate in her opening sentence, when she said that her seat has 83,000 voters within it, and the seat of the Member who spoke before her, the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), has 61,000. There is an obvious unfairness in that, which is being put right.

My hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), who is slightly subject to speaking as if he were on “Just a Minute”, managed to make the key point about variations being too big, which is being addressed by the Bill.

I am very grateful for all the points that have been made in support of the Bill, but I am sorry about the reasoned amendment put down by the Opposition. I ought to point out to the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), who said that he was going to support the Bill by voting for the reasoned amendment, that that is not how reasoned amendments work. Reasoned amendments are only orderly and selectable if they are fatal to the passage of the Bill, so anybody who votes for the amendment is voting against the whole Bill and cannot cover the nakedness of what they are doing by saying that they are supporting the Bill. [Interruption.] I am not going to give way, partly because I gave way so many times earlier on in the day, but also because time is short.

The changes should give people confidence. I must confess that the hon. Members for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) and for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) really did get it wrong on the matter of automaticity. In the 1832 Reform Bill, every single constituency that was being changed was listed in an annex to the Bill, if I remember rightly, and that was decided by Parliament—it decided what the size of each constituency would be. We have increasingly handed that over to make it more independent because of the fundamental point that nobody should be a judge in his own cause, and we should not be a judge in our own cause. We should allow it to be done by an independent body.

The hon. Member Dulwich and West Norwood said that the Government make legislation. No, they do not—Parliament makes the legislation, which is then implemented. It is implemented in such a way that there is no ability for the Government to alter the recommendations of the Boundary Commission and they have a duty to present it to the Privy Council for its approval by the sovereign. Automaticity means what it says. It is automatic, without the Executive having the ability to stop it, the House of Commons having the ability to stop it or, even worse, the House of Lords having the ability to stop it undemocratically because they do not like the results and are worried about what might happen. Automaticity improves impartiality and the fairness and independence of this proposal. Although Parliament will not play a role in making the order, nor will Her Majesty’s Government.

Another key point made in the debate was on the Union. We heard from a number of Members about the impact of the tolerance level and equalisation on parts of the Union. The Bill does not change the tolerance level, which was put in place by Parliament in 2011. We must bear in mind that it is plus or minus 5%, so it is effectively a total of 10%. It is about 7,000 voters, if we take the total swathe from the central point. That means that the independent boundary commissioners will give a fair review, and it is worth noting that the two specific protected seats which are very small are Scottish seats. I am very glad that one of them is Na h-Eileanan an Iar, because I think the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) is a national treasure, and it would be a great pity if he did not maintain his seat. That is being done to benefit the Union.

[David Linden]

Will the Leader of the House give way?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is too late, I am sorry to say.

That is to the benefit of the Union, and it is fair that every vote across our United Kingdom should have the same weight. That is the fundamental point. That underpins everything that is being done. Eight years is the right amount of time. It means that communities can be reasonably stable. It means that communities can carry on. It means that MPs can build up that association with their communities, so I urge Members to support the Bill and reject the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Parliamentary Constituencies bill (First sitting)

David Linden Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 18th June 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Cat Smith]

Q In areas where electoral wards are much larger—some cities, certainly in England, have wards of almost 10,000 electors—would those communities be seen as more difficult to fit into the 5% without splitting wards?

Tony Bellringer: Yes is the short answer. As you say, particularly in England we work or we have traditionally worked on the basis of using wards as our building blocks—I am sure there will be some discussion about that in due course. But as you say, a number of wards, particularly in urban authorities in England, are larger than the entire possible range that you are permitted—the difference, I should say—so by moving one ward, you will move from being too big as a constituency to being too small, with nothing in between, so you then have to start looking at splitting the wards, which becomes more problematic for us, for reasons that I am sure we will get on to.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Q It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I have perhaps three or four questions that I would like to ask Ms Drummond-Murray. First, most of us here are quite pleased that the Government have decided to change their position and let us remain at 650 seats, but I understand that even with the protection of 650 seats for the UK Parliament, Scotland would lose seats under this review. Is that a point that you can clarify, and what would be the reduction for Scotland?

Isabel Drummond-Murray: It is not possible to give an answer to that until we have the electorate data that the review will be based on. I think, informally, we did look at the December ’19 register, and if that were the one being used, it did suggest a reduction in seats in Scotland. Clearly, the Bill as drafted suggests the December ’20 register. Until we get those figures published, from whichever data is finally proposed by the Bill, we cannot tell you exactly how many seats there would be. We would have to run the formula that Tony referred to, and that would allocate between the four countries.

[David Linden]

Q I also want to ask a question that I appreciate may be slightly more technical, but pretty much all of us on this Committee are probably minded that way. I understand that there are limits on how often hearings can be conducted for the Boundary Commission, and I think that at one point Scotland was limited to four or five hearings. I know that in evidence to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Professor Henderson said that that was problematic for the Boundary Commission in Scotland. Is it still the view of the Boundary Commission that the limit on hearings is problematic?

Isabel Drummond-Murray: It was problematic in the last review, because the public hearings were held during the initial consultation and that meant that you were trying to guess in advance where there was likely to be particular interest. You were trying to cover the geography and population of Scotland with five hearings, so if you held one in Edinburgh and one in Glasgow, you then had a large area to cover with the three remaining ones. The Bill proposes holding public hearings and a secondary consultation, which will help, because we will then have an idea of whether to hold the ones outwith the central belt in, for example, Inverness or Hawick. You just cannot tell. There is still an element of guessing, from the responses received, as to where people really want to come along and discuss in public what we propose, but yes, that will help. I think six also helps, geographically.

[David Linden]

Q Continuing on that theme of geography, which is obviously a challenge in rural Scotland, quite a number of us, regardless of what party we are in, were quite alarmed at the size of the proposal for what would be a Highland North constituency. Can you tell the Committee a little bit about how you go about drawing up constituencies in that part of the world, particularly in relation to the 12,000 sq km or 13,000 sq km size, as is the case with one constituency in Scotland at the moment?

Isabel Drummond-Murray: We start the review by allocating loose groupings—they are not set out in legislation, but they enable us to divide up the country. As a preliminary step, we always look at the highlands first, because of the rule that an area bigger than 12,000 sq km can go below the minus 5% threshold. However, because of the way the legislation is worded, you would only need to go below that 5% if you could not reasonably construct a constituency otherwise, but we could. We found in the 2018 review that it was possible to stick within that plus or minus 5%, despite its being a very large constituency. I think Highlands North was the only constituency proposed in the 2018 review that was above 12,000 sq km, which is obviously geographically very large.

[David Linden]

Q It would be very difficult for Members to cover as well. My final question is on the idea of building constituencies not necessarily based on ward boundaries but on polling districts. Do you have a view on that, and how that would work in Scotland?

Isabel Drummond-Murray: We do not use polling districts, in part because there has not been an available Scotland-wide, up-to-date dataset that we could access. We create our own postcode datasets, so when we come down to split below ward level, if necessary, we do it on the basis of postcodes. We have always been able to split wards in Scotland, if necessary.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

Q Can I ask both witnesses how they prioritise the various different factors, for example, the numbers and the tolerance, the geography and the communities of interest? How do you weight each of those, and what process do you use to draw those up?

Tony Bellringer: In essence, there are two categories. One is mandatory—the plus or minus 5%—which we have to stick to and is obviously our primary factor. About half a dozen other statutory factors are set out in schedule 2 of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986. We do not prioritise any of them formally. I guess we would look first at the rule about having regard to existing constituencies. So far as possible, we actually start off by asking how many constituencies that are currently there already fit the plus or minus 5% and whether we can start by not changing those. We then look at those that are not within the plus or minus 5% and think, “Okay; that is going to have to change, and that is going to have to change”. That is why you often find, unfortunately, that you may be sitting as an MP in a constituency that perfectly meets the plus or minus 5%, but your constituency changes because some of the neighbouring ones have to change and have to take in some of yours, or vice versa.

        As I say, we do not have a firm ranking, but we then probably look at local ties. To a certain extent, you would expect existing constituencies to have already respected local ties, which is why it is not higher, because local ties are generally what people feel most strongly about—in fact, probably more than the numbers, to be honest. They accept the principle of electorate parity, but if you ask most people on the ground, they are more concerned about their local communities being split off from each other in the drawing of the lines. That is what the vast majority of responses to our consultation are about, so we do look at whether we are breaking local ties.

There is also the obvious map factor of physical geography and what are termed significant geographical features. River estuaries, mountain ranges and motorways are fairly obvious bits of physical geography that can have quite a significant impact on how you would want to look at drawing a constituency. Is that enough for you?

Parliamentary Constituencies bill (Second sitting)

David Linden Excerpts

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

[Cat Smith]

My final question. We have the representative of the Conservative and Unionist party before us, and you have acknowledged that Wales looks set to take a hit. It looks to be the most badly affected of all the nations of the United Kingdom in the review. What assessment do you make about the integrity of the Union in terms of the consequences of this boundary review and Welsh voices in this place?

Roger Pratt: I think the Union is intact. The whole of the Union will have the same quota. It is absolutely right that everywhere in the United Kingdom has a quota and so every person in the United Kingdom has the same representation. The difference in Scotland and Wales is that they have a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Parliament. They still have equal representation in the UK Parliament, which I think is absolutely right, but clearly the Members for Glasgow East and Ceredigion do not have responsibility in this place for health and education, whereas all the other Members on the Committee do.

Scotland has a slight advantage over the rest of the United Kingdom, quite rightly in terms of the Western Isles and Orkney and Shetland. I fully support that. However, it means that—slightly—Scotland has an advantage over the rest of the United Kingdom because those are very small seats. I do not object to that in any way. The Union is intact because everybody’s vote counts equally whatever part of the United Kingdom they come from.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Q I want to follow on from the last question. On the issue of equality within the United Kingdom, it was the view of the Conservative party for quite some time that the number of seats should be reduced to 600. Am I right in thinking that your view is now in line with the Government’s—that it should be 650?

Roger Pratt: Correct, yes. I am fully supportive of 650.

[David Linden]

Q You are very honest about the fact that, in your words, “Wales will take a hit” as a result of the legislation—I think that is on the record. Are you also willing to place on the record that Scotland, too, will lose seats as a result of that? If so, can you say how many seats Scotland will lose?

Roger Pratt: I cannot say how many seats Scotland will lose because we do not yet have the figures from 2 March. When we have those figures, we will know, but on certain calculations they lose two and on others they lose three. I expect it to be either two or three seats. Wales is likely to lose eight, but we will have to see.

I think it is right that Scotland and Wales do that. Scotland’s electorate has not gone up as fast as England’s. It had to use the English quota previously and now that has not caught up because England’s electorate has gone up more. In terms of Scotland, your own seat is one of the larger seats in Glasgow, but there are four smaller seats in Glasgow, one of which is 57,000. I do not believe it is right that a seat in Glasgow should have only 57,000 and two other members of this Committee in the south-east of England both have well over 80,000. It is right there is an equal quota throughout the United Kingdom.

[David Linden]

Q Of course, your research will show that my seat is spread over two local authorities as well. I am the only MP in Glasgow whose constituency is not coterminous with the city of Glasgow.

I want to ask you specifically about the idea of the size of constituencies. You have hit the nail on the head in terms of some island communities, which are protected; Na h-Eileanan an Iar is a good example of that. There is also what was proposed as the Highland North constituency, which is probably the size of a country like Belgium or Luxembourg. Do you have a view on the limit of 12,000 to 13,000 sq km being the provision for a constituency? Is it the Conservative party’s view that that is a manageable size of constituency for a Member to deal with?

Roger Pratt: Of course, your parliamentary leader represents a constituency that currently is the largest in the United Kingdom, and that is 12,000 sq km. I could not find a more accurate figure than 12,000, but it is 12,000, so I think that was why that figure was brought into the Bill as the constituency that was of that size. That is right in terms of 12,000. It cannot go beyond 13,000, but above 12,000 gives the Boundary Commission in Scotland discretion if it so wishes between 12,000 and 13,000.

There is discretion if the commission wishes to use it if a constituency is over 12,000. It is up to the Scottish commission, but that is the right balance. It is currently the largest constituency in the UK Parliament, and the Boundary Commission has discretion up to 13,000.

[David Linden]

Okay, can I finish off with one question going back to the equality of the United Kingdom? You said yourself that Scotland stands to lose two or three seats. How would you, as a representative of the Conservative and Unionist party, reconcile that with what people in Scotland were told in 2014—how we were better together and we should be a United Kingdom?

Roger Pratt: I still think you are better together, obviously. I do not think the fact that you will lose two or three seats affects that in any way. You will still have the same equal representation; actually, slightly larger because of the Western Isles—I apologise, but I cannot pronounce it in the way you did—and Orkney and Shetland, so there is a slight advantage there for Scotland. But I think it is right that it should have the same equal quota as the rest of the United Kingdom.

It is just right that Scotland should have the same quota. I do not think it means that the whole of the UK is an equal and fair place. I noticed that in the Bill brought before the House by the Member for Manchester, Gorton, there was no change in either Scotland or Wales; they would have been exactly the same. There was a change in the Bill to Northern Ireland, but no change as far as Scotland and Wales are concerned. That is absolutely right and I support that part—not others—of the Khan Bill.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

If it helps, Mr Pratt, I believe the correct pronunciation is Na h-Eileanan an Iar.

Roger Pratt: I am not going to try!

--- Later in debate ---

[Cat Smith]

Q Finally, with regard to the register that is used to draw up the boundaries, the Government have tabled an amendment to the Bill to use the March 2020 register. What are your thoughts on that, and do you have any concerns about the accuracy of that register?

Tom Adams: I very much welcome the move from December 2020 to March 2020. Obviously, the Minister will be aware that we have raised significant concerns about this, in the earlier engagement with political parties. We still have some concerns about the impact of people dropping off the register even between 12 December 2019 and March. Obviously that will be less significant compared with December 2020, but just in our rough estimations looking at it now, it does look likely that a few hundred thousand people will have dropped off the register in that time, because obviously there are areas where people move a lot and there is high turnover of population.

On 12 December there was a general election, so that register will be the most complete a register is going to be. To my mind, it makes sense to use that one, although obviously I strongly welcome the use of 2 March as compared with December 2020, when I think the impact on the annual canvass of coronavirus will have been quite significant. I think the 12 December one would be better: it will be more complete and a better representation of the actual electorates in these places. But 2 March is certainly preferred to December 2020.

[David Linden]

Q Mr Adams, you are director of data and targeting. I think we all know that a lot of what you do is probably running numbers through spreadsheets. Have you run a number through your spreadsheet as to how many seats Scotland and Wales would lose under these proposals?

Tom Adams: Obviously, the commissions did publish the numbers on this, but broadly, there is likely to be a loss of three seats for Scotland and a loss of eight seats for Wales. Obviously, that might change slightly, depending on exactly which register you use, but it is going to be in that region of change.

[David Linden]

That is very helpful; thank you.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

Q Will you elaborate on whether you think the allocation of seats between the nations of the UK is appropriate, and on whether your party has any views on the status of Ynys Môn?

Tom Adams: That raises an important question, particularly when it comes to Wales, because Wales is due to lose such a significant number of seats; it is quite a drastic overhaul of the number of Wales’s constituencies. While there clearly needs to be some decrease to equalise the electorate sizes in constituencies, it seems slightly odd that Wales has no protected constituencies at all, yet there will be two constituencies on the Isle of Wight, the electorates of which will be roughly the size of an average Welsh constituency. The introduction of protected constituencies in certain places in Wales is one possible way of achieving that, and Ynys Môn would be a good example.

This big drop of eight in one go is quite significant, and we should be mindful of the impact that it will have on representation in Wales. Having additional protected constituencies—Scotland obviously has several and the Isle of Wight has two guaranteed, whereas Wales does not have any—is perhaps something to look at.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[David Linden]

Q Thank you very much for coming before the Committee, Mr McCobb. As I have asked other representatives, because you guys tend to be the kind of folk who run numbers through spreadsheets, have you run these numbers through the spreadsheet and found the seats per nation? The reason I ask is that Scotland, for example, currently has 59 seats in the UK Parliament. Have you run the numbers to see how many seats Scotland would have under these proposals?

Dave McCobb: I have not personally, no. That would be done by a colleague who is not currently in work. In terms of the overall distribution of seats between the four nations, that is something that I would not want to comment on until we actually see the registered totals that will be published for the electoral register that will be used for this.

I would like to bring it back to the 5% threshold. When I have been involved in cross-party talks on this, colleagues from the SNP have rightly raised concerns that the 5% threshold would require the creation of some geographically enormous constituencies in the highlands of Scotland and potentially in other parts of rural England and Wales.

Anyone who knows otherwise may correct me if I am wrong, but someone once told me that the constituency of Brecon and Radnorshire is larger than Luxembourg. It would require a constituency that is already that geographically large—the same applies to parts of the highlands of Scotland, too—to be 25-30% bigger to meet the 5% threshold. That is likely to make it very difficult to represent or campaign in a constituency on that scale.

[David Linden]

Q In the evidence we have heard so far, colleagues from the Labour party and the Conservative party have broadly agreed that we could be looking at losing two or three seats in Scotland. Do the Liberal Democrats have a view on whether Scotland should remain at 59 seats?

Dave McCobb: As I say, I reserve judgment on the balance of seats between the four nations until we have seen the exact numbers on the proposed electoral rolls.

[David Linden]

Okay, thank you.

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

Q Thank you so much for giving evidence. I want to probe further on the issue of automaticity in the Bill. We are currently working on boundaries that are decades out of date. Much of the reason for that and for problems in the past has been the way in which political parties in Parliament have blocked changes to boundaries. As a party, do you support automaticity, because of the ability to have automatic changes?

Dave McCobb: We support the principle that the proposals that come from the Boundary Commission should be subject to minimal potential political interference, or a majority party could use its majority to impose boundaries on other people. The critical issue is how far the whole process is as divorced from partisan political control as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cat Smith]

Q On a slightly different issue, are there circumstances where the electoral quota could be relaxed to avoid ward splitting? The Committee has been exploring that throughout the day. For example, could you imagine it making more sense for a constituency to have a 5.5% variance than to split wards? Would that be preferable?

Scott Martin: I certainly think that work could be done on changing the variance, which is effectively half the gains I talked about as a permissible departure in relation to the Venice Commission “Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters”. The question of wards is rather different in Scotland than in England. Parliamentary constituencies in Scotland are based on wards, with no ward splitting. Of course, before the 2007 Scottish Parliament and local government elections in Scotland, we moved to three or four-member wards. The consequence is that you cannot get sensible constituencies without splitting wards, particularly with the hard limit put in place as a result of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. It is a rather different situation in Scotland, for practical reasons, as a consequence of the size of wards we have.

[David Linden]

Q I think I put on record on Second Reading that my preference was for either a minimum of 59 seats in Scotland, or zero with independence. Certainly the latter would be my preference, but I appreciate that we are not quite at that moment, though I am sure it is coming soon.

I want to ask about parliamentary approval. You will note that in the Bill, Parliament’s approval role is being removed. Can you share your view on that?

Scott Martin: That is, in a sense, a highly political question. Do you want politicised districting—everyone has difficulty with that word—or independent districting? Do you want the model they have in the United States, where the word “gerrymander” comes from? The logic is that if you have an independent commission model, which we have had here since the commissions were put on a permanent footing, the ability for political interference is minimised. Automaticity, as it has been described, is a sensible approach to take on that—although clearly, as we have seen from a variety of reviews, including the last two, ultimately, if Parliament wants to stop a review, or wants to proceed or another basis, that can happen, but unless we move to having a written constitution, which I would obviously support, that is not something that we can legislate for.

[David Linden]

Q Debate has sprung up today on the idea of building constituencies not on wards, but on polling districts. That issue is of interest to other members of the Committee too. Could you elaborate on that?

Scott Martin: Yes. In Scotland, there is the Improvement Service, and if you go to www.spatialhub.scot, you will find a polling district map of Scotland. Not all of it is up to date—some of it was updated just before the general election, and some of it is a little bit older—but there is now a complete polling district map of Scotland. Where that data is available, polling districts are a sensible way of drawing boundaries.

The reason why the Boundary Commission for Scotland has had to take a postcode approach is because it cannot use wards, and it did not have the polling districts. I appreciate that there is a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation here, in that polling districts are supposed to be divisions of parliamentary constituencies, rather than being used the other way round, but thinking back to the first Scottish Parliament boundary review, I recall that the Boundary Commission, after its first review, was prepared to take representations from Edinburgh on realigning everything with existing polling districts. Electoral administrators and campaigners in Scotland have practical issues as a result of there being non-coterminous boundaries—it means they have some very strange polling districts—but those issues would certainly be removed if everything was built from one set of polling districts.

[David Linden]

Q If I could presume on Mr Paisley’s indulgence ever so slightly, I have a final question. You touched on the much-discussed proposal for a Highland North constituency, which raised a few eyebrows after the last review. You touched on the fact that it would be almost impossible for a Member to conduct parliamentary business in that constituency without a helicopter. Do you have any ideas or proposals for ensuring slightly more manageable and sensible constituencies that do not take up a space that, in certain parts of England, would be represented by 73 Members?

Scott Martin: There is obviously the 12,000 and 13,000 number there, and certainly some thought could be given to reducing it. My understanding was that that number was effectively taken from the size of Ross, Skye and Lochaber. Clearly we could look at reducing that.

[David Linden]

Thank you, Mr Martin.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cat Smith]

Q Finally, this question might stray beyond what you have considered, but what challenges do you foresee for the Welsh boundary commissioners in delivering a boundary review?

Professor Wyn Jones: I think we all recognise that commissioners always have a terribly difficult job to do, because there will be particular communities that feel a sense of association with some communities and less so with others.

Assuming this legislation reaches the statute book, the challenge for the Welsh commissioners is particularly daunting, because Wales would see the biggest level of change. That will be an enormous challenge, and there will be communities in Wales that feel that the changes being imposed are unwelcome; there is no doubt about that. I am an Anglesey boy, an Ynys Môn boy—I can well foresee that people at home will be extremely unhappy. I am sure that there will be different valleys and different communities thinking, “Well, we don’t really have much in common with the people over the other side of the ridge”, and so on and so forth.

So the challenge will be substantial. I think that my predecessor on this call, Geraint Day, pointed to a recent example around Ceredigion, where people felt that the commissioners had got it wrong, and fair play to the commissioners—they went back and changed things in a way that was regarded as being more acceptable. And I have no doubt that there will be lots of that.

[David Linden]

Q Thank you, Professor, for appearing before the Committee. Before the election, which obviously conjured up a very good result for the Conservative party, the Government were absolutely resolute in their view that they wanted to have 600 seats, and then they made quite a sudden change after the election to go for 650 seats. Why do you think that was?

Professor Wyn Jones: I do not really have that level of insight into the minds of the people involved. All I would say is that I spoke to Conservative MPs in Wales about this—I spoke to many of them because, as you probably have guessed, my views about this issue are not always particularly popular among Welsh MPs, and several of them were very keen to put me right. But it was very clear from a very early point that the reduction from 650 was not politically viable and that the Conservatives would have real issues, in terms of whipping their own MPs to support it.

It was certainly made clear to me very early on that, in all likelihood, the last attempt at reform would fail and that we would be coming back to this issue, and that we would be coming back to it with 650 MPs as the aim. And the people who I spoke to at that time were correct.

[David Linden]

Q Do you think it is particularly courageous on the part of the Government and the Conservative party, having gone from having six Conservative Welsh MPs in the 2017-19 Parliament to now having 14, to propose to remove eight seats from Wales?

Professor Wyn Jones: I would not describe it as “particularly courageous”. The issue is that we have boundaries that are terribly out of date; I do not think that there is any argument about that. And we have a real issue, in terms of some constituencies being, by orders of magnitude, larger than others. Wales is a particularly egregious example of that, because we are over-represented to an extent that no other constituent nation is.

So the issue is that if you are going to try and redo the boundaries, on what basis do you do that? As I have said, and I apologise for repeating myself, I have never heard a good in-principle argument for Wales having, for example, 6% of MPs when it has 5% of the electorate. I have never heard an argument that makes any sense of that.

Equality seems to be a reasonable principle, and that means that the biggest impact of any change is felt in Wales. What precisely it means for continuing Conservative representation in Wales in four-and-a-half years’ time, if that is when the next election is held—you are a better man than I am if you can guess that, not least because we do not know what the new boundaries will look like—I do not know. However, that will have an impact on all the political parties; which one it impacts worst, I genuinely do not know.

[David Linden]

Q Thank you. I have one final question. You are fairly clearly on record as saying that you think that the level of representation that exists at the moment in respect of Welsh MPs is too high. Would you accept, however, that, regardless of that point, constitutionally, the relationship at the moment between Cardiff, Edinburgh, London and to a certain extent Belfast, is in quite a fractured state? What do you think these proposals would do in terms of the integrity and harmony of the Union?

Professor Wyn Jones: I agree that there are very serious tensions across the states, but I genuinely doubt that the relative numbers of MPs from the different constituent units will make much of a difference there. I would concentrate on trying to improve intergovernmental relations between Edinburgh, Cardiff, London and Belfast. That is much more likely to make a difference than having 31 Welsh MPs as opposed to 40. I am afraid that there are fundamental issues around constitutional design and the attitude of the UK Government to the devolved Governments. That is where the action needs to be. Whether we have 31 Welsh MPs or 32 as opposed to the current 40 will not make any difference in terms of dealing with the big issues.

[Ben Lake]

Q Diolch i chi, Athro Wyn Jones, am ymuno gyda ni y prynhawn yma. [Translation: Thank you, Professor Wyn Jones, for joining us this afternoon.]

This is a very interesting debate about representation and what we actually mean by it. You asked, Professor, what sort of logic could be applied and I suppose, if I were a Conservative and Unionist MP, I would have a particular logic of maintaining the voice of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom.

If you will indulge me for a moment, on that line of logic, Wales’s population is set to peak in 2023 and in the next 20 years, England’s population alone is estimated to increase by about 8 million. If we are to continue with the logic about seats, in 20 years’ time, Wales might have even fewer seats and the relative voice at Westminster would be significantly diminished. In the light of the fact that we are no longer members of the European Union, and so more decisions are now taken at Westminster that have a direct effect on Wales, do you think that we might be embarking here on a set of developments that could—down the line, if not immediately—cause quite considerable tension for the Union?

Professor Wyn Jones: Diolch yn fawr iawn am y cwestiwn. Diddorol iawn. [Translation: Thank you very much for the question. Very interesting.]

You make an interesting point. The difficulty with thinking through the logic is what is the pay-off, in terms of an alternative arrangement? In many multinational internally differentiated states, the second Chamber is often used as a way of trying to balance territorial representation and, as I know you are very well aware, there are proposals for changing the House of Lords and making it more territorially representative in terms of its membership and in enhancing that role of its activities too. That would potentially be one way forward. There, you could follow an American Senate-style logic of giving each of the constituent territories equal representation—an idea that was promoted by Carwyn Jones, the former First Minister in Wales. That was an idea that he put forward.

However, in terms of the House of Commons, I really struggle to see the logic of how that plays out in terms of the relative numbers of MPs for each territory. Equality at the UK level—dealing with those issues that are reserved or that are not captured by English votes for English laws—seems to be a relatively straightforward way of proceeding, if you are going to maintain the Union, but then, of course, you would have potentially differentiated devolution settlements for different territories, reflecting the differences of those devolved territories, and perhaps doing something with a second Chamber. Those are probably better ways of dealing with the problem you highlight than coming up with arbitrary numbers for the different representation of the different constituent units of the UK in the House of Commons. Sorry, that was a slightly long-winded response.

Parliamentary Constituencies bill (Third sitting)

David Linden Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 23rd June 2020 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Order. We have three people wanting to ask questions and three minutes left. Mr Linden?

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Q I would like to ask a question about the situation in New Zealand. I was struck by the fact that you said the whole process takes no longer than six months and by what the hon. Member for City of Chester said about safeguards. Clearly, we did not get this right in the legislation to move from 650 to 600. Can you outline any concerns you have about the associated speed, in terms of automaticity and the fact that we are trying to wrap this up within six months? Surely, if we try and ram this through very quickly it is not going to result in good proposals.

[The Chair]

Before that is answered, can we finally have Jane Hunt’s question as well, please?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Miller]

Q Thank you very much, Sir David. I thank Mr Williams for coming to give evidence today; it is incredibly helpful to hear from a wide range of political parties. I note that in your introduction, you said you would cover issues in England and Wales, and I thought I detected a slight accent—I do not know whether you come from Wales. I wanted to press you a little further on that, because there are four protected constituencies in the Bill: two constituencies that will be the Isle of Wight, a single constituency in Orkney and the Shetland Islands, and the constituency formerly known as the Western Isles. Do you feel there is an argument to be made for protected constituencies in Wales? Other than Northern Ireland, which I think has its own set of issues, it is the only part of the United Kingdom that does not have protected constituencies.

Chris Williams: There is an argument to be made, particularly around Ynys Môn. I am worried about how all this is going to be perceived in Wales, with a drop of about 20% in the number of MPs, and I think it would be a softener if they see they have been treated equally with England and Scotland, with Ynys Môn seen as a protected constituency. There is an argument about taking into account other geographical features when protecting constituencies, but if you start to look at mountains or rivers, you then start to look at the height or width of mountain ranges, and you get in a complete mess. Certainly, there is a sea in the way between Ynys Môn and the mainland, which is exactly the same criterion that is being used for the Isle of Wight, the Western Isles and Orkney and Shetland. I think it should be applied in Wales as well; otherwise there would be a rightful feeling of wrongdoing to Wales.

[David Linden]

Q Can I ask you specifically what the Green party’s view is on the distribution of seats that will result from this Bill? It is my understanding—the Committee has been told this previously—that Scotland stands to lose seats, and you have spoken about the 20% drop in Wales. Does the Green party of England and Wales have a view on whether or not that is appropriate, and what that does for the integrity of the Union?

Chris Williams: Our Scottish Green colleagues will have a similar position to you on the Union. I guess we come from a perspective of wanting every vote to have the same weight and potentially the same impact on an election, in terms of determining the future Government. The difficulty we have is that whatever we do with the process and with first past the post, there is always going to be some inequity between the constituencies, even if we have no tolerance or variance limit at all. By the time they come in, the numbers will still be different, because the data is always historical and never accurate enough. If we are going to go down the line of every vote being pretty much equal, and trying to make that as equal as possible within the system, it is very hard to argue for a great deal of difference between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I would say that a vote in Hartlepool is as equal as one in Ogmore but, at the same time, I can see that this might well bring greater arguments for further devolution.

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

Q On the same theme, Wales has roughly the same sized electorate as Greater Manchester, where I am an MP, but we have 27 MPs and Wales has 40, which means that their average electoral quota is 64,546, to 71,780 in Greater Manchester. Why do you think that 30% fewer electors are required to elect an MP in Wales?

Chris Williams: I guess I argue that there should not be that inequity, except for protected constituencies. Every vote should be as equal as possible in terms of being able to influence the future make-up of the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Order. I am slightly embarrassed, but I have to share with the Committee that the Bill available in the room is the wrong Bill. Quite how that has happened, I do not know. The Clerks will make sure that the right Bill is available for the next sitting. I was completely unaware of that, and unfortunately there is nothing I can do about it, I am afraid. It is a pity. Professor McLean, one of the Committee members will get the right Bill; it is on its way, and everyone will have the copies.

[David Linden]

On a point of order, the Bill that I am working from is the one we used for the Second Reading debate. That is not the Bill in the Committee Room. I do not know if I am the only person in the Committee using the Bill from Second Reading. Will you clarify that, Sir David?

[The Chair]

The ones that were on the table at the side of the room were wrong, but Bills from elsewhere are accurate. I am very sorry about that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Miller]

Q We have had some powerful evidence that parliamentary boundaries are to a greater or lesser extent an artificial construct, although rules are put in place to try to acknowledge issues, which should be taken into account. I want to probe further something that Sir John talked about earlier. Because we are dealing with boundaries that are 20 years out of date, this will be a disruptive redistribution.

What comments can be made about trying to future-proof any proposals, to take into account any proposed developments and house building, while noting that those cannot be taken into any analysis of the quota? Do our experts have any views on whether that should be taken into account with regards to the geographical boundaries, so as to avoid unnecessary disruption in the future?

Professor Sir John Curtice: There is a difference between the rules of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England and the parliamentary boundary commissions. The local government boundary commissions are permitted to take into account anticipated housing developments. I have had the occasional private conversation with people about this. You may want to quiz the Local Government Boundary Commission for England. The question that arises is how accurate the forecasts of house building and demolition activity are and the extent to which that ensure that the local government ward boundaries do not get out of date.

The answer to you is that it is certainly possible—see the rules of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England—but regarding the extent to which it is effective, you should ask the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, because I am not certain. There is a difference and you could anticipate doing a degree of that.

Professor McLean: May I add to that? It is rather unfortunate that there are two sets of boundary commissions with different operating rules. Although it is not in the Bill, I do not understand why there needs to be a separate local government boundary commission, in particular one that operates under different rules, as John has just highlighted, from those used by the parliamentary boundary commission.

If one had to choose between these sets of rules—the Local Government Boundary Commission for England permitting evidence about future housing developments and the rules currently before you not permitting them —I would go with the rules that are in front of you, for the same reason that I gave in an earlier answer. One person’s likely housing development, which may just happen to favour that political party could be countered by another person’s likely future housing development, which may favour another party. I feel for the poor inspector, who is, by construction, not a specialist in the area, and is faced with claims that are very hard to adjudicate. You can adjudicate numbers, but future housing development is much more difficult.

[David Linden]

Q Thank you to our witnesses for their evidence thus far. Professor Curtice was probably right to say that we should focus on things in the Bill. The two major things are going from 600 seats to 650, and parliamentary approval. To take the first issue in a question to both witnesses, why do you think that the Government changed their position, going from 600 seats to 650?

Professor Sir John Curtice: That is not difficult. Turkeys were persuaded to put Christmas in the calendar in 2011 but, when Christmas eve came along, they decided to abandon it. There was always going to be a question mark about the willingness of MPs to vote for their own demise.

The reason why we were to have the cuts in the first place is that in 2010 both parties in the coalition proposed reductions in the size of the House of Commons. That was a populist response to the MPs’ expenses scandal. In the end, the cut to 600 that they introduced was less than those in the two parties’ manifestos. Then, of course, implementing it became a victim in 2013 of the spat within the coalition over the failure to reform the House of Lords, and in 2018 of the anticipated inability of the then Conservative Administration to get the provisions through—because they were asking turkeys to vote for Christmas. I am indicating that that is a classic case of how, at the end of the day, it is difficult to persuade Members of the House of Commons to engage in a radical reform that will make their lives difficult.

By the way, given that you have asked this question, let me expand its scope slightly. This is an aspect of the Bill that matters, and this is the question of the attempt at automaticity. To make it clear, there is an issue about automaticity—that is, the ability of Parliament to intervene. Parliament intervened in 2013 and stopped the boundary commissioners working—that was the work of Labour and the Liberal Democrats together—and in 2018 the Conservative Government failed to push the provisions through. Back in the late 1960s, the then Labour Government got their MPs to vote down the provisions. To that extent, there is clearly an issue. Although we have a process of neutral boundary proposals operating under rules set by the House of Commons, in effect the Commons has on three occasions, under different Administrations, ended up not implementing the rule, so there is an automaticity question.

My concern, however, is that although the Bill might make it more difficult for that to happen again, it will not stop it happening again. Given that in clause 8 the Bill stops implementation of the 2018 review, going on to have provisions that supposedly make it impossible for Parliament to overturn things in future, the truth is that the same is perfectly possible for a future House of Commons—a boundary review comes along, the current Administration does not like it, saying, “Actually, we should delay it”, and all they need to do is to introduce a quick piece of primary legislation to overturn it.

As we saw with the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, it is very difficult to introduce provisions that discipline the House of Commons to keep to a set of constitutional rules, given that we do not have an entrenched constitution. Although all of us would laud the fact that the provisions of the Bill are an improvement, reducing the ability of Parliament to stop things, we should not fool ourselves into thinking that it will necessarily stop Parliament, not least because even within the terms of the Bill an order has to be laid—instead of

“as soon as is reasonably practicable”

at the moment—under the new provisions,

“as soon as may be reasonably practicable”.

I am not a lawyer, but the distinction between those two things still strikes me as rather fine on whether or not we could still be left in the situation that we had in the last Parliament, when the provisions were simply were not put before the House of Commons in a timely fashion. That could be repeated.

Professor McLean: I have very little to add. The automaticity may look worrying to some, because it removes the rule from Parliament, but parliamentary supremacy is mentioned in the explanatory notes and of course the Bill could be enacted and then repealed by a future Parliament. That is the nature of parliamentary supremacy. It would be very embarrassing—the mother of Parliaments, one of the oldest parliamentary democracies and so on: it is already very embarrassing that it is operating on the basis of 20-year-old boundaries and therefore we did not have equal suffrage in the 2019 general election, to put it at its most blunt. I would concur with John that Parliament could do it again. It would be embarrassing, and I rather hope it does not.

[The Chair]

We have just 15 minutes left, but you wanted to come back, Mr Linden.

[David Linden]

Q Of all the things that are embarrassing about the mother of Parliaments I do not think that is the one that would come top of my list. Can I ask specifically about the distribution of seats, and the idea that based on what is before us there would be a reduction in the number of seats for Scotland and Wales? Professor Curtice mentioned that it was a destructive process. Would you go so far as to say that that would impact on the harmony of the Union?

Professor McLean: It was bound to be disruptive once a uniform electoral quota was introduced for the four nations of the UK. John, the Minister, or others can correct me, but I think that that was done by the 2011 Act. The fact that, as has already been mentioned, the two instances of review that should have happened under the 2011 Act have not yet happened, means that that bomb, as it seems to some in Scotland and in Wales, was primed in 2011. It has not yet exploded, but it will with the implementation of this Bill; but that is a necessary consequence, as all Members know, of a uniform electoral quota for the United Kingdom. I cannot say any more than that.

Professor Sir John Curtice: Can we go back a bit on the history of this? The truth, as Iain will explain much more eloquently than me, is that he original over-representation of Scotland and Wales was entirely the product of accident rather than design. When the Scottish Parliament was introduced in 1999 by the Labour Administration one of the things that was done as a result was indeed to reduce the size of Scotland’s representation in the House of Commons—although it was done in a manner that was arguably technically deficient, and did not necessarily deal with the possibility that there would be future disparities between the growth in population in Scotland and that in England.

The principle of basically saying that Scotland’s representation should be proportionate to England’s representation was already embodied by the Labour party and Labour Administration at the beginning of the century. The same thing was not done for Wales because of course when the then Welsh Assembly was first created it had only secondary legislative powers, and it was therefore felt that the devolution was not on a scale that justified the reduction in the number of Welsh MPs. Given that we now have a Welsh Senedd that has primary legislative powers that are not commensurate with, but not that dissimilar from, those of the Scottish Parliament, as it were, what has already been done for Scotland seems to be relevant for Wales.

As to the actual effect, now we are talking about a 650 Parliament: by my calculation, which is based on the electorates as of the election—but, given we are now going to do the electorate on 1 March it will be slightly different, but will not be very different—Scotland is probably going to lose three seats. It is the last seat, I think, at the moment, that is tight between Scotland and England. At worst Scotland loses three seats. Effectively, Scotland is affected at the edges but not fundamentally, and the fact that Scotland’s political system and political representation is now very different from that in England and Wales is still likely to be heavily reflected in any new House.

This is essentially a redistribution from Wales to England, and then within England it is a redistribution really from a line from East Anglia southwards—as opposed to the northern parts of England. Of course one of the ironies of the situation we are now in is that because the Conservative party gained so many seats—they had the so-called red wall seats in the north of England and so on—actually the disparity in the size of the electorate between constituencies that are represented by the Labour party and those represented by the Conservatives is smaller than it has been at any point during these current set of constituencies. In other words, changes in electoral geography are changing the politics of redistribution.  London is one of the places that will benefit; it is now a Labour city. The north-east of England, which now has a non-trivial number of Conservative MPs, will lose out heavily. Therefore, actually the redistributive consequences politically are perhaps not quite as toxic as we might have imagined 10 or 15 years ago.

Parliamentary Constituencies bill (Fourth sitting)

David Linden Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 23rd June 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Chris Clarkson]

Q Setting aside what we would prefer the system to be, do you agree that, for the current system, more equalised electorates would be fairer?

Darren Hughes: Yes, provided that we are talking about things such as the electoral register being more accurate and complete by taking proactive measures, for example automatic voter registration. Keeping the number of seats at 650 adds to that argument. So yes, but with the important caveat that you mentioned: this is not a system that we would choose if it were over the last—[Inaudible.]

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Q I am very grateful to you, Mr Hughes, for your appearance before the Committee today. One of the things in which the Electoral Reform Society is interested is, essentially, the health of British democracy. Can you expand a little on your thoughts about the distribution of seats between the four nations of the UK, commenting specifically on the fact that under these proposals both Scotland and Wales would have less representation in the House of Commons?

Darren Hughes: These questions on the Union are very interesting. In our three most recent general election reports, we have been tracking the movement between the nations at elections. In addition to some of the class voting changes that Professor Curtice talked about this morning, we think that those issues of the politics and the psephology of the nations of the UK are certainly worth more attention than they probably get.

The most obvious point with respect to the Bill is that it makes a bad situation slightly better, in the sense that at once stage Wales would have fallen to 28 seats from its current 40 under the cut to 600 seats. I guess that it is important to recognise the effects of the Bill in that regard. Even so, the impact on Scotland is not exactly clear, but it would certainly be a reduction, maybe in the order of two or three seats, while in Wales, it would be more like eight. That becomes quite a significant proportion of the representation.

One thought that we have had about that, though, comes back to the previous answer that I gave to Chris Clarkson about the electoral register and making sure that more people are on it in areas where there might be under-registration or non-registration, in order to boost the entitlement to more constituencies.

[David Linden]

Q My final question follows on from what the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton said about the size of constituencies. You may have seen from some of the questions that I have asked in previous sittings of this Committee that a lot of people in Scotland were frankly outraged at the proposal for a Highland North constituency, which would have been utterly unmanageable for any MP; I mean, the current Ross, Skye and Lochaber constituency is already far, far too big. Does the ERS have any views about reducing the current 12,000 sq km guideline to try to ensure slightly more manageable constituencies and a slightly closer relationship between the electors and their MP?

Darren Hughes: I think that is exactly right. These processes give us the opportunity to say, “What would the rules be and how would they apply in the majority of cases?”, and then, “Where are the outliers, whereby if we did apply the rules we could congratulate ourselves on the consistency?”, but actually we are creating a brand new representation injury, by making politics and representation so distant from people.

As we were discussing with the last set of questions, if we had multi-Member wards, these things could be addressed. Obviously, you cannot change the geographic challenges of some areas—they simply cannot be addressed by any system—but you can make decisions to make the situation worse, and sometimes that is what tends to happen.

If there was a multi-Member system, that would be of assistance, but it is also important to carve out the ability for the commissioners to look at a particular constituency and say, “This just doesn’t make sense.” Equally, you could not make a decision based on those examples and then necessarily apply it to the rest of the UK, because that would create further injustices as well. Until we know more about the effect of the new regime, given that by the time we get to the next election it will be nearly a quarter of a century since the 2000 dataset that is being used, that needs to be part of the consideration. But you point to examples or rules that you could use that would minimise that.

[Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)]

Q Thank you, Darren, for giving evidence to us.

One of the things we heard this morning was that US congressional districts had close to zero margin of deviation around population size, and one of the points that you made was that when people buy a house, or look on Zoopla, they are not given information about their political constituency, but they are given other very local information, for example school proximity. I just wondered whether there was any sort of empirical basis that you had in mind when you said that you thought that the 5% range, if I can call it that, was not sufficient.

Darren Hughes: Sure. The American examples are obviously the extreme ones, but they are ones to bear in mind, because they are examples of what can happen if you set hard and fast rules, so they apply everywhere no matter what, and then you also allow for a rampant politicisation of the process.

There is an author called David Daley who has written a couple of books, which are incredibly readable and accessible, about how the boundary system in American got to the state it is in. Unfortunately, one of them has such a colourful title that you will need to google it; I could not possibly say it in this forum.

However, regarding your point about the 5% versus the 10% range, these are the areas where you can go round in a lot of circles, because there are arguments in favour of each range. I just feel that if you could offer reasonable flexibility to the commission, what you would hope is that the practice would develop and that it gives them an extra tool when a particular geographic situation confronts them, as opposed to just starting out by saying, “We’ll flex our muscles wherever we can.” The thinking on that was that they are the final line in the arguments, but because you are not having that final parliamentary vote and you are not getting the commissions to do the work, it might make sense to offer them those tools.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cat Smith]

Q Finally, is there anything else in the Bill that the DUP has any concerns about?

Gavin Robinson: I believe it is wrong to move away from parliamentary approval. I see the proposal is to remove the ministerial ability for amendment and to remove the ability for Parliament ultimately to approve the proposals. Parliamentary approval is an important constitutional dimension that should be retained. It is a bulwark against proposals that do not rest well with our body politic, and I do not think the removal from Ministers of the ability to amend is in any way commensurate with the removal of Parliament’s ability to approve the proposals. The Minister will know better than I, but I am unaware of any fundamental use of the Minister’s ability to amend. We are all aware, however, of Parliament’s ability to inject itself and determine one way or another whether proposals should proceed. So we are concerned about the loss of parliamentary approval in the process.

[David Linden]

Q I am grateful to Mr Robinson for appearing before the Committee. He is obviously a Unionist, and I am not, but can he see the fundamental problem that people in Scotland and Wales may have in seeing Northern Ireland getting to keep its 18 seats while they get lesser representation in the House of Commons, from a Unionist point of view?

Gavin Robinson: Arguments can be made for solidifying the number of constituencies in other parts of the United Kingdom, but I do not think there should be any rationale that precludes me from advancing an argument that is important for Northern Ireland on our political context and make-up. On our number of electors, at this moment in time we have sufficient electors for 17.63 constituencies, leading to the 18 constituencies, and we have that additional flexibility on rule 7.

Mr Linden, you are more than capable of advancing arguments that are important for Scotland, as indeed is Mr Lake for Wales. I think it is appropriate that the concerns highlighted about a cyclical reduction that could potentially arise through future reviews—a cyclical reduction or increase of parliamentary boundaries, and the knock-on consequence that would have for devolved Administrations—should be considered more generally, but I will advance the argument on Northern Ireland’s behalf.

[David Linden]

Q Can I draw your attention to new clause 7, which I have tabled? I appreciate that you may not have it in front of you. That new clause seeks to initiate a bit of debate about the application of rule 7, not just in Northern Ireland but other constituencies. Is there any circumstance in which you could envisage the application of rule 7 being helpful for other parts of the UK, not just Northern Ireland?

    Gavin Robinson: I am sure it could be. Again, that is an argument that could and should be advanced, and I would not hinder someone in making that argument. When we went through the process within the past two years, with the various iterations of Boundary Commission proposals for Northern Ireland, the rationale for using rule 7 was incredibly clear. The Boundary Commission’s initial draft proposals brought forward constituencies that were not in any way consistent with geographical localities, urban dimensions or local ties, and were outwith the legislative framework that I believe the commission had in its process. They commenced with a false premise, and ended up with a real mishmash of parliamentary boundaries.

        I was pleased that they invoked rule 7. I mentioned the chill effect earlier: that use of rule 7 was struck down by the Court of Appeal within the past month in the case of Patrick Lynch. It was not struck down because rule 7 was used inappropriately, but because the Boundary Commission simply failed to articulate the rationale for using it. It has been proven to be an incredibly important tool to ensure the fundamentals of achieving good boundaries within Northern Ireland were attained in the last process.

[David Linden]

Q One final question if I may, which is perhaps slightly mischievous. Obviously, in the last Parliament, the Government had a very different view on how many seats there should be in the House of Commons, namely that there should be 600. It is well known and on record that the DUP was opposed to that, and was part of a confidence and supply agreement. Did the DUP and the Government ever discuss those proposals, and is that perhaps why Orders in Council did not come forward in the last Parliament?

        Gavin Robinson: I think you imbue me with greater knowledge, Mr Linden, and considerably more power than the circumstances merit.

[David Linden]

Thank you, Mr Robinson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bim Afolami]

Q That is interesting. Out of interest—I could go and check this now, but I do not have it in front of me—on the 2018 review, which obviously did not happen, for various reasons that we have discussed already, what percentage of seats underwent what you would consider major revision?

Dr Rossiter: I do not have that figure to hand. One of the problems is that this affects different parts of the country differently, so, for example, during the 2018 review, the south-east of England was little affected because it was set to lose only one seat during that review. Now that we go back to 650 seats, because of the growth in the south-east of England, the south-east will gain seven seats. Gaining seven seats inevitably results in a huge amount of change.

So, it can be helpful to look at what happened in 2013 and 2018 as exemplars of what results from this, but this is the problem: the devil is always in the detail. It is always in the specific geography of the area. It is always in the specific number of electors—whether a county, for example, has an integer entitlement or a non-integer entitlement. I have near me the example of East Sussex. East Sussex at the moment is entitled to eight and a half seats. With a 5% tolerance either way, that will mean that the East Sussex boundary has to be bridged. Kent is perfectly okay. West Sussex is perfectly okay. Therefore, in sorting out the problem in East Sussex—this is all provisional on 2019 data not changing an awful lot—we will need to see something that goes across the county boundary in one way or another.

Until we know the final figures, we will not be able to be absolutely certain on any of these issues. At least half of seats were changed during the 2013 and 2018 reviews, and when I say that the forthcoming review would be between two thirds and 75%, that is simply a reflection of the fact that it is trying to deal with that extra amount of time. What seems surprising is that maintaining 650 seats does not necessarily help a huge amount. It helps slightly, but not a great deal, in minimising the disruption that is going to happen. I hope that that is helpful.

[David Linden]

Q Thank you very much, Professor Pattie and Dr Rossiter, for coming before the Committee. I have a couple of questions that I want to explore with you. You may have seen in previous oral evidence there has been some discussion of the idea of the building blocks for constituencies, whether those are used by polling districts or wards. Can you offer a view on that? Perhaps Professor Pattie would start off.

Professor Pattie: This is an interesting issue, isn’t it? The issue here again is obviously over, partially, the practice of splitting wards—which clearly can be done—and partially the pragmatics, if you like. I know you have had lots of evidence already about data sources, software availability, etc. I will leave that to people who are more expert in handling those data systems, but clearly that causes an issue. I think I would raise just two points, here. First of all, harking back to our 2014 McDougall Trust report, we did try there to estimate the relative effects on disruption of playing around with the tolerances versus playing around with ward splitting. Ward splitting certainly helped to reduce the amount of disruption, but in our estimates it did not reduce disruption anything like as much as widening the tolerances moderately. The second thing you have to bear in mind here is that we are talking about disruption to communities. Remember how the Boundary Commission’s local government wards operate. It tends to be quite strong on the idea that, in building the ward suggestions, it is trying to represent people, so when you split a ward, arguably you are splitting a community—you are doing the very thing that you are trying to avoid, to avoid the thing that you are trying to avoid, if that makes sense. You end up in a strange circular process in which you disrupt a community to save a community. Where the white line is on that is anyone’s guess, but ward splitting is neither technically a global panacea, nor conceptually a panacea, precisely because in splitting a ward, you might well be splitting a community.

[David Linden]

Q Continuing the theme of geography, although I appreciate that you will not necessarily have the amendment paper in front of you, I have tabled new clause 5, which looks specifically at the highland constituencies and that limit of 12,000 sq km. I have asked this question of other witnesses before the Committee. Can you offer any thoughts on ways in which to manage constituencies so that they are slightly more manageable for Members? I think that most people would agree that having a constituency of 12,000 sq km is somewhat unsustainable. In my name, I have tabled a new clause to say that it should be 9,000 sq km, for example. Do either of you have a view of that, in terms of the management of constituencies?

Professor Pattie: At the risk of sounding flippant, the Durack division in Western Australia is 1.63 million sq km. The north highlands is large, but there are much larger seats out there. It is how you strike the balance, I guess, but where it is can be tricky. I would not want to minimise the workload of an MP, in particular working in any area as large as the north highlands. Where one draws that line is a judgment call. I do not think that you will find an easy answer. To use a phrase much bandied about at the moment, I do not think that this is an area where one can defer to the science, because there is no clear science to this.

[Chris Clarkson]

Q This is for both our witnesses, but I will start with Dr Rossiter. Do you agree that reaching electoral equality is important not just between regions but within regions? I will take the example of between regions first.

At the moment, Wales has an electoral quota of about 54,500, as opposed to about 72,000 in the north-west. Within Greater Manchester, where I am an MP, the number ranges from about 63,000 to 95,000. To take the concept that you just put forward of not splitting communities, in my borough are two seats that are prettily evenly divided: mine is Heywood and Middleton, and the neighbouring one is called Rochdale. From the sound of things, they are self-contained communities, but, in reality, I represent about a third of Rochdale. If you were not to split the communities, my neighbour would represent 103,000 people to my 57,000. Taking that to the logical extreme, do you not accept that, at some point, you will have to split some communities in order to achieve electoral equality?

Beyond that, talking about disruption in future reviews, would you accept that, to a degree, splitting wards would minimise that, reducing the amount of absolute disruption? Most of the disruption that will come from this review relies on the fact that the electoral figures we are using are 20 years out of date.

Dr Rossiter: If I take your second point first, I do not think that the difficulties that are going to come with the current review will be of such a scale that anything really can be read into them—too much should not be read into that, if you see what I mean. To take your first point, the commissions have always been capable of producing constituencies that are very close to quota. The problem you are identifying—these large differences in constituencies—has largely come not because of an observance of local ties, but from demographic change within and between regions. I am totally comfortable with the concept of trying to achieve equally populated constituencies—I have always thought that should be aimed for. My concern is the unintended consequences of a set of rules, which I think is the territory we have entered.

In terms of principles, absolutely every person’s vote should be treated as equal in so far as that can be achieved in a constituency-based system. There is no reason why either between or within areas that should not be achievable. Where local authority boundaries have to be crossed to achieve that, I have no problem with that. I remember writing a paper back in the 1980s about how we needed to look at crossing London borough boundaries, which were being observed as almost sacrosanct at the time, causing quite significant difficulties and an over-representation effect.

What I think we are looking at is how you strike the right balance. I do not disagree at all with where you are coming from and what you are trying to achieve; it is just that by placing in a rule as strict as 5%, you are removing a degree of discretion that will not benefit anybody either politically or in their sense of connection with a constituency and their MP.

Professor Pattie: To add to that, the point I was trying to make earlier was not that one must never split communities. That is going to happen, and it always has happened under the boundary review process; there have always been communities split. My point is to recognise that splitting wards in itself is not a solution, because that may involve another form of community split. But we must also remember—Iain put this nicely this morning when he described the different directions in which community can run, depending on how it serves different people’s interests—that community is very much in the eye of the beholder. I am sure we all recognise, even in areas that we know well, that we could quite quickly generate quite a few different views of what a local community really was. They are often genuinely held. So, one should not be too—how can I put this?—precious about community versus size. I think David is absolutely right: the issue is where to strike the balance and how one achieves that as relatively painlessly as possible.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill (Fifth sitting)

David Linden Excerpts

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

[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.

[Mrs Miller]

Reference keeps being made to the shift to 600 seats from 650. That decision was made by Parliament; it was not the result of a boundary commission review that Parliament then ratified. Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that, as Parliament made that decision, today we are discussing Parliament changing it back?

[David Linden]

I am immensely grateful to the right hon. Lady for that intervention. It is fair of her to put that on record, but the issue is the change in policy by the Conservative party. She is right that the 2011 legislation to reduce the number of seats to 600 was introduced by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition Government. I think a number of us on the Committee—some of us tried to tease this out in the evidence hearings—find it rather strange that, after the Conservative party had a very good election in December, all of a sudden its position changed from wanting to have 600 seats to wanting to have 650.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden]

If the right hon. Member for Basingstoke wants to intervene again and explain to me why the Conservative party decided to U-turn on that position, I will happily give way to her, but in the absence of that I will give way to the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I can quickly answer the two questions that the hon. Gentleman raises. First, a commitment to 650 seats was in our manifesto, on which we were elected. Secondly, it was in our manifesto because we have left the European Union and have lost 70 MEPs, so there is now a bigger workload. I hope that that clarifies for him why the position was changed. It was in the manifesto before we got a big majority.

[David Linden]

I put two points to the right hon. Gentleman. Why, if we have lost 73 MEPs, are we not going up to 673 seats in this House? Secondly, if he is talking about the increased workload for Members of Parliament, why is his party trying to reduce the number of seats for Scotland, which presumably also has less representation, in the Bill?

[Alec Shelbrooke]

To be cheeky to the hon. Gentleman, we could go to 700 seats, which would give us a lot more Conservative seats, because ours are generally bigger than the Labour ones.

[David Linden]

I would never wish to suggest that the motivations behind this Bill are to ensure that there are more Conservative seats. That would, of course, be disorderly.

[John Spellar]

I say this in no way disparagingly, but the hon. Gentleman, who represents a seat in Scotland, may not be aware of the enormous changes that have taken place in the electoral register in England. Contrary to the old situation—this shows that the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell is living in the past a bit—more than half of the largest 10 or 20 seats are urban seats in conurbations. He gave a very dated view, but I am not surprised.

[David Linden]

I am grateful to right the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I would miss these Bill Committees.

At the risk of going down a large rabbit hole, I will confine my remarks on this group to one other point relating to line 11 of clause 1 and evidence received from Professor Curtice. I refer the Committee to our evidence hearing on Tuesday, particularly question 181, which was asked by the hon. Member for City of Chester. I want to probe the Minister on this point. I know it came in the afternoon, when hon. Members were probably feeling a bit tiresome.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify which question number he is referring to?

[David Linden]

I am happy to clarify. I am referring to question 181, which can be found on the last page of Hansard for the public sitting on Tuesday 23 June.

I want to ask the Minister to comment on a point made by Professor Curtice, who said:

“I am concerned that there is some political consideration going on here. Nobody has raised the point that the next review under this is supposed to end in July 2023 rather than in October 2023. No justification is given for that in the Cabinet Office memo or in the explanatory notes. The only explanation that I can think of—maybe I am being unfair—is that somebody is wanting to pave the way to make it possible to hold a general election in autumn 2023 rather than in spring 2024. Certainly, somebody needs to explain why the next procedure is going to be foreshortened by three months for a set of boundaries that are then going to be in place for another eight years, and this is not going to happen thereafter. There is no justification so far, and I encourage the Committee to inquire further.”––[Official Report, Parliamentary Constituencies Public Bill Committee, 23 June 2020; c. 98, Q181.]

On that basis, I put that point to the Minister. I hope that in the course of her remarks she will clarify that particular point in relation to line 11 of clause 1.

[Mrs Miller]

I am very pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley, and to speak to amendments 2 to 4 and that clauses 1 and 2 should stand part of the Bill. This gives us an opportunity to explore some of the important principles within this Bill to deliver fair and equal-sized constituencies for our country.

We like to pride ourselves on being a strong democracy. We stand in the mother of all Parliaments. Yet the current provisions do not give us the absolute certainty that each of our constituencies are of the same size. Our constituents do not each have the same power to elect somebody to represent them. Some seats require a larger population—for example, I have 83,000 constituents —and others require up to 30,000 or 40,000 fewer constituents within their constituency boundaries.

I want to put on record my absolute support for the Bill and the hard work that my hon. Friend the Minister has put into it. It delivers, as has been said, on an important manifesto commitment to remove the current flaws in the system. I am somewhat perplexed as to why the Labour party has tabled amendments that would surgically remove one of the important principles in the Bill, which is fairness in the way that the recommendation from the boundary commission is dealt with.

I am not the only one expressing surprise. We heard from some eminent constitutional experts in our evidence session that the current system is worse than flawed. In particular, we heard from Professor Hazell and Dr Renwick from the constitutional unit at University College London, who said in their written evidence that

“the independence of the UK’s process is currently violated at the final step”—

“violated” is quite a strong term coming from an academic—

“when parliament’s approval is required to implement the Boundary Commissions’ proposals.”

Quite simply, with its amendments, the Labour party is choosing to ignore the advice of constitutional experts by continuing to support and promote a system that violates the independence of the approval process, which fundamentally undermines what the Bill seeks to achieve. That evidence goes on:

“Parliament’s current approval role has allowed inappropriate political interference to occur three times.”

I am quite astonished that the Opposition would want to be on the record as ignoring that advice and evidence, and fundamentally changing what the Bill would achieve.

If that evidence is not enough, the OSCE report, which was cited during an evidence session, makes it very clear that when reviewing and reforming a system of legislative processes, there must be fairly and equally sized constituencies. It is not just academics in this country who say that we need to change our system, but an internationally recognised institution, which says that, if reforming, we should be trying to put in place protocols and safety clauses to ensure that constituencies are as equal as they can be.

I hope that the Opposition will provide a stronger reason for wanting to change the Bill than the reasons that they have already given. Otherwise, we run the risk of continuing with a system whereby Parliament, when it chooses, stops reviews going through. At the moment, we are dealing with boundaries based on data that is 20 years out of date. That is not just unfair to individual constituencies but, as we heard in evidence, it fundamentally undermines our democratic process.

I hope that hon. Members, regardless of party affiliation, can see the inadequacies of the amendments and will reject them, as I will, because they are fundamentally wrong for our democracy. It is wrong that the votes of voters in my constituency have less impact that those of voters in other constituencies. I urge the Opposition to withdraw the amendments, which would so badly undermine not only the Bill but our democratic system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christian Matheson]

Then I apologise to the coiner of that term. We learn something new every day in Committee, and “automaticity” is another term that I might try to slip into speeches from now on.

I rise to speak in favour of the amendments tabled in my name and, in particular, that of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood. I am instinctively unhappy about anything that takes Parliament out of the review process. The buck has to stop with Parliament. I remind the Committee that not only would the House of Commons have to approve the legislation, but the House of Lords would have to do so too, so there is no self-interest there.

It is essential that we do not remove Parliament from the consideration of our democracy. Bluntly, nobody is more focused on the quality of our democracy than those of us in this House. That is seen as a negative, but I think it is absolutely a positive to be reminded that at some point, within a maximum of five years, we are going to have to go back to our electorate. To have that sword of Damocles dangling over us is always very important. When I was first elected to this place, I had a majority of 93, and my God, didn’t I know it. That makes us take our electorate and our voters seriously, because they are our ultimate employers. Removing Parliament from that consideration is something I am instinctively unhappy with.

[David Linden]

At the risk of comparing majorities, when I was first elected it was with a majority of 75. The hon. Gentleman is right to touch on this point about the need for parliamentary approval. Does he, as I do, find it a little strange that the Conservative party—largely now made up of Brexiteers—spent the whole Brexit referendum talking about Parliament taking back control and Parliament being sovereign, but now, all of a sudden, it wants to give away control and Parliament not to have approval?

[Christian Matheson]

What an excellent point. I was not going to mention that, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: Parliament is not taking back control. I am afraid this is one of a number of examples where that was a somewhat bogus phrase, albeit very successful at the job it was employed to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I do not know him particularly well, but he strikes me as a Member who cares about his community and has built that up. I took on the seat of Elmet and Rothwell in 2010, a newly formed seat with a Labour majority of 6,000. My majority at the last election was 17,353.

I have worked that seat, day-in and day-out, with each of my constituents, not because I am trying to secure my job, but because I love my community and working for my constituents. I have lived in my constituency my whole adult life. There is, therefore, an emotional tug on a seat that has 81,000 people and would absolutely have to change with these boundaries. Even if the later amendment of 7.5% went through, the seat would still have to change.

I doubt there is an hon. Member in this room who wants to give up part of their constituency. As the hon. Member for City of Chester says, we do care. We are in it for the right reasons. We want to represent our communities. Many of us—like myself—have lived in our communities throughout our adult life, and it is a matter of pride and honour that we represent them.

I get great joy—not for any narcissistic reasons—from the fact that when I am shopping in my local town, about 5 miles from where I live in my constituency, people come up to me all the time and ask me things. That is not narcissism; it is the fact that I am their representative, and I always wanted to be somebody who they could come up to and speak to.

[David Linden]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful speech, talking about the conflict of interest faced by Members of the House of Commons. Does he intend to touch on the fact that their lordships also have a degree of approval, and do not have that conflict of interest? If we go ahead with automaticity, their lordships will not have parliamentary approval either.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

The hon. Gentleman is a very thoughtful man: he has got on to my very next sentence. Perhaps controversially, I would do away with the House of Lords as it stands anyway, because I hate the place. We are a modern democracy, but it is an absolute disgrace that only two Chambers in the world—those of Iran and China—have more unelected clerics than we do, or more unelected legislators. We do not keep great company in that sense.

[David Linden]

To clarify, I believe the Isle of Man also has unelected clerics, so we are not in completely bad company. That is a constitutional history point.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I said the size—the number.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of amendment 10, which I tabled. He is speaking powerfully about the importance of the boundary commission’s work, in particular its hearings, so will he support amendment 10, which would lift the limit on the number of hearings that could take place?

[Shaun Bailey]

I say to the hon. Gentleman that I am in the process of considering how my support will go; I will not pin my colours to the mast right now.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill (Sixth sitting)

David Linden Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 25th June 2020 Public Bill Committees

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is a great pleasure to see you in the chair, Sir David—welcome to our deliberations. I certainly do not wish to detain the Committee long, not least because I see that the Minister is chewing a sweetie, and if I sit down quickly, I will put her in a difficult position. Amendment 10, which is supported by the hon. Member for Ceredigion, was tabled with a view to making the lives of the boundary commissioners a little easier by giving them some room for manoeuvre.

As the Committee will recall, during the evidence session on 19 June, Ms Drummond-Murray of the Boundary Commission for Scottish, in response to question 6, spoke of things being “problematic” in the last review because of the restrictions in the number of hearings set out in statute. She made it clear that covering a country the size of Scotland, and doing so with only five hearings, was problematic. The amendment would remove that restriction.

As I was gently discussing this with the hon. Member for West Bromwich West earlier, something that came through from the evidence sessions and over the course of this morning’s sitting was a respect for the boundary commissions and a desire to try to make their lives as easy as possible. The amendment would not alter the fundamental principles of the Bill; it seeks merely to give the commissioners the flexibility to undertake the public engagement that is welcomed—and not just by the hon. Member for West Bromwich West, but by us all in our communities. It seeks to give that flexibility to commissioners to undertake public engagement. I hope that the Government will support my amendment, and I look forward to hearing her thoughts on the proposal.

[Chloe Smith]

I will address both clause 4 and the amendment in one breath. As currently drafted, the rules governing the boundary reviews provide that there should be between two and five public hearings in each of Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the nine English regions. The amendment would make the number of public hearings a matter of judgment for each of the boundary commissions. I am confident that I understand the argument that the hon. Gentleman made, and I am grateful to him for tabling the amendment in the spirit of improving and prioritising public consultation of the existing framework, which is very important.

My reservation about the amendment is that we need to give the boundary commissions clear rules that are in themselves unimpeachable. As we discussed this morning, there is of course great interest in getting the result right so that it can carry trust and command confidence. To that end, a clear and unambiguous framework is helpful; it would allow the boundary commissions to better preserve both their actual and perceived independence.

By mandating a particular number of hearings, we are saying that the commissions are able to deploy their technical expertise in a legally certain environment in which their independence could not be challenged for the wrong reasons—for example, on the grounds of process, or on grounds such as, “You didn’t do enough hearings here,” “You did too many hearings there,” or, “You didn’t give us a fair voice here and gave somebody else an overly large voice over there.”

I would put the argument at that level: instead of removing it entirely, it is right to maintain that set of guidelines for how many hearings there ought to be, because it allows for there to be a greater degree of public trust around the fairness of the process of the hearings. I hope that argument is enough to engage the interest of the hon. Member for Glasgow East, and to persuade him and the hon. Member for Ceredigion not to press the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I point out to the Committee that any vote on amendment 10 will be later in our proceedings. If the hon. Member for Glasgow East wishes to press the amendment to a Division, it will be later in our proceedings.

[David Linden]

I thank the Minister and the hon. Members for Lancaster and Fleetwood, for City of Chester, for Eltham, and for Ceredigion for their considered remarks. During our discussions I reflected that perhaps this morning, we dealt with one of the more controversial aspects of the Bill with automaticity, but we have now moved to discussing hearings and where they should take place, so I am glad to have brought the temperature down, if not physically.

I detected from the Minister, particularly in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion, that the measure is something the Government are willing to consider if there is a way that we could work together to try to table an amendment on Report. The Minister will be aware that the amendment was in no way motivated by party politics. It is about trying to assist the commissions, so I propose to withdraw the amendment on the understanding that the Government discuss with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion some form of amendment that could perhaps be tabled on Report to address the issues that I still think are outstanding and that have been put on the record by Ms Drummond-Murray. On that basis, I will not press amendment 10 to a vote.

[The Chair]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his advance warning that that is what he will do. It will be helpful as far as the administration of the Bill is concerned.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Number of parliamentary constituencies

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Spellar]

Briefly, several of the factors that the Minister outlined were blindingly obviously after 2015 as well. The population in this country was going up and there had been a referendum to leave the European Union. Was it not, frankly, the shallowness of David Cameron and the stubbornness of the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) that meant that the Government have had to make the change now that they could have made before? We would then have been here representing different constituencies. There is no shame in saying that the former leadership of the party—it is probably unwise to attack the current leadership—got it wrong and that is why they have done a U-turn.

[David Linden]

Can I say what a pleasure it is to see clause 5 in the Bill? I spent about 30 sittings of my life in the last Parliament on the Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill Committee, brought forward by the wonderful hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan). On that Committee were me, the Minister, the hon. Member for Coventry North East, the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood and the hon. Member for City of Chester, with whom I have grown incredibly close over this issue and through the armed forces parliamentary scheme. It is a genuine delight to be on the Committee.

I used to trot along the corridor every Wednesday morning to come and argue that there should be 650 seats. At the time, the Minister, only six months ago, was resolutely opposed to that. So it is with a degree of glee that I hear her talk about that 5% population growth. I know that, on the Committee, I, the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood and the Minister have had children, but I can safely say that we have not contributed 5% population growth in the last six months. Therefore, the U-turn is quite remarkable.

There is also an argument based on Britain leaving the European Union. I accept that. It will be a travesty and bad for Scotland, which is probably why people in Scotland voted against it, but if we follow to its logical conclusion the argument about losing 73 MEPs who used to go to Brussels and debate and legislate on our behalf, and all those laws coming back to the UK Parliament—by and large they are coming back to it as a result of a power grab by the UK Government who are not devolving the powers on to institutions such as the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament—presumably we should increase the number of seats, commensurately with MPs’ increased workload. Like the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood I am perplexed that the number remains at 650.

I want to pick up on the Minister’s point about cutting the cost of politics. One of the things that I tried to bring up in those enlightening Wednesday morning Committee sittings—with more ease some weeks than others—was that the Government’s argument that they are cutting the cost of politics is problematic because of the other place.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Hear, hear!

[David Linden]

I am grateful that that revolutionary from Yorkshire, the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell, agrees that we should abolish their lordships. The Government need to be consistent if they make the argument about cutting costs. Even this week we hear that the Prime Minister’s chief aide Eddie Lister is off to join the House of Lords, with £305 a day tax-free for the rest of his life, without ever being subject to a vote.

The House of Lords is an utterly undemocratic institution. There are only two places in the world where hereditary chieftains retain the right to make law. One is the United Kingdom and other is Lesotho. There are only three parts of the world where clerics retain the right to legislate. We have 26 bishops, the Lords Spiritual, who legislate by virtue of their religion. The other countries, of course, are Iran and the Isle of Man. If the Minister, therefore, wants, as she has said today, to talk about cutting the cost of politics, may I gently suggest that in the previous Parliament the Bill was starting at the wrong end, with the election of MPs? Perhaps if we want to cut the cost of politics we should end the circus down the other side of the building.

[Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman picks up where I was cut off by the time limit in my Second Reading speech, and I could not agree with him more. When I was preparing my Second Reading speech I looked at the Hansard report of the debate from the late 1990s on reform of the House of Lords under Tony Blair. I was struck to see such familiar names as Ted Heath. Giants of the British political scene made arguments that we make in exactly the same form today. I looked into the cost of the House of Lords, and it is not the same as the cost of House of Commons, but it is not far off. There is no right of removal, and we avert our eyes from what is inappropriately still a hereditary principle, when we all know that is not a good enough reason for anyone to hold status in public life any more. I hope that a bold, reforming one nation Government will have, at some point in the next five to 10 years, an eye on that, because it is the elephant in the Palace.

[David Linden]

I have watched the hon. Lady in the last couple of weeks in the Chamber and she has been incredibly thoughtful. I suspect that the Government Whip is probably wincing slightly but the House is all the richer for people who are willing to stand up and say, “If we are going to talk about the future of the UK constitution we need to address the fact that in 2020 we still have people who have been there many years and have never been subject to a vote.” She is right to say that.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

As the hon. Gentleman has picked up, there is quite a lot of agreement about the other place. However, I do not think it is particularly fair on the Minister to be talking about it when we are trying to deal with a constitutional Bill on the House of Commons, and on how we vote. I say to him gently that I understand the arguments that he makes, and there is merit in them. He has some cross-party agreement. Voting on the other place has always tended to be a free vote, and it has always fallen at the last hurdle. I would be more than happy to have discussions with the hon. Gentleman if he could find positive ways to move forward on the subject. I am just not sure today is the right moment.

[The Chair]

Order. I have been biding by time about when to intervene. We have now had two interventions that were long speeches. Can we stick to the Bill? The Bill has nothing to do with reform of the House of Lords.

[David Linden]

Thank you very much, Sir David. I do not want to challenge the establishment too much when you are in the Chair, so I will avoid being taken down the path that these unruly Conservatives would have me go down—of course, I was so much in order. Perhaps my remarks in the last few minutes have been slightly cheekie-chappie, but I want to say that I am delighted to see the clause in the Bill. It would be remiss of us not to put on the record our thanks to the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, who tried to keep this issue alive in the previous Parliament and, as a result, we find ourselves with a Bill that is by no means perfect, but the clause is one of the better things in it. With that, and I am sure to everyone’s relief, I bring my remarks to a close.

[Clive Efford]

The Bill gets more and more curious. The Minister argued consistently on previous clauses for a position that would have prevented us from getting to the clause, had we been in that position of automaticity and the previous boundary reviews had gone through. If it were not for Parliament’s ability to have a second look at what had been set in train, we would not have the clause to have 650 MPs.

It is curious for the Minister to stand up and say that is the right decision and what we should do when she has also argued for something that would have prevented us from getting to this position. That is the argument in favour of Parliament giving the final approval on whatever the boundary commission proposes. It is clear that going down to 600 MPs was a schism imposed on us by two ambitious young politicians who got together in a rose garden and completely fell in love. It was the wrong decision, and when Parliament got the chance to take a second look, it came to a conclusion that both sides of the House support. With the situation we are in, which we have been in for a long time—MPs represent greater numbers of constituents than ever before, and in some of our inner-city areas that involves many people who cannot go on the electoral register—it has been obvious that we should not cut the number of MPs. We are where we are, but that highlights how the Government are arguing for a position that would have resulted in us making a huge error, had it been in place at the time of the last boundary review.

[Christian Matheson]

I will speak only briefly. In fact, I only sought to catch your eye, Sir David, after my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley gave advice to the Minister, based on his years of experience, that she was entitled to criticise previous leaders who may no longer be with us. I thought I would therefore take the opportunity to do what I promised earlier and compliment the Minister on changing her position. I said how she would prove to be flexible, and this is what I was talking about. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood said, the reversion to 650 is the right decision, and I very much welcome it. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham just said, is it not great that we are in a position to do that, because automaticity was not in the Bill? I will leave it at that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

Taking account of local government boundaries

[David Linden]

I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 6, page 4, line 35, before “for” insert “(a)”

This is linked to amendment 9.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 9, in clause 6, page 4, line 37, at end insert—

‘, and

(b) after paragraph (c), insert—

“(ca) boundaries of polling districts, where useable data is available;”’.

Polling District mapping is available in standard GIS formats in many areas. This allows the data to be used by the Boundary Commissions if they think fit.

New clause 9—Completeness of the Electoral Register—

‘(1) The 1986 Act is amended as follows.

(2) In rule 5(1) of Schedule 2 to the 1986 Act, at end insert—

“(f) data from the Department for Work and Pensions about non-registered voters eligible to vote.’.

[David Linden]

I shall speak to amendment 9. During Second Reading, I was struck by the thoughtful approach of the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell, who made a plea—often repeated during the evidence sessions—for commissioners to move away from using wards as the building blocks for drawing up constituencies, and instead to break it down and use more manageable and flexible building blocks. That point was also pressed many times by the right hon. Member for Basingstoke.

In evidence from Ms Drummond-Murray during the evidence session of June 18—referring specifically to Question 8 of that session—the Committee will have noted that Scotland can break it down by postcode, if necessary, rather than using the more clunky ward building blocks. Furthermore, evidence given by Mr Scott Martin, solicitor at the SNP, drew the attention of Members to spatialhub.scot and the technology that is in play north of the border, in response to Question 102 at the Bill’s evidence session of June 18.

Polling districts are usually natural communities on their own, and are good building blocks for constituencies when wards cannot be used. Drawing constituencies using polling districts also makes the constituencies much easier to implement for the electoral administrators. They just need to reallocate the constituency that applies to each polling district, rather than allocating each individual elector. It also means that voters will not need to be allocated to different polling places when boundaries are redrawn. The parties referred to by Sir David should also be borne in mind here. Political parties that select their candidates on the basis of their members’ vote are the first users of constituency boundary data. Reallocating polling districts rather than drawing new boundaries makes it easier for political parties to ballot their members, which they may wish to do before the new boundaries are effective on the electoral registers. I remind the Committee that amendment 9 seeks to add to the tool box for the boundary commission. Rule 5(1) lists factors that a boundary commission “may take into account” to such an extent as it sees “fit”. Amendment 9 also recognises that a polling district’s data may not always be usable, clearly ensuring that it stays as set out and that the data is only used by the relevant boundary commission satisfied that a particular area and data are properly usable. Amendment 9 merely supplements clause 6 and allows boundary commissioners to draw upon technology as set out in the Bill’s explanatory notes.

I am keen to hear the Government’s thoughts on the amendment, and if they plan to object I would like to hear the reason; I will make a judgement on that before I decide whether to press the matter to a vote. I have outlined the rationale behind the amendment, and I look forward to the Minister’s feedback.

[Mrs Miller]

I wanted to make a couple of short comments on amendments 8 and 9, and commend the hon. Member for Glasgow East—he confesses to being a “cheeky chappie”—for tabling them. The amendments may be probing amendments, as I do not necessarily think they would apply in his neck of the woods, but they would certainly apply in England and Wales. I can see why he has tabled them, following our discussions, because they would put on the face of the Bill a requirement that polling district mapping be available for use. It became clear in our evidence that that was not the case; that is why evidence sessions are so useful. I am sure that hon. Members will, like me, be paying quite particular attention to their constituency information, and indeed their polling district information, not least because we are often asked to comment on where polling stations are, and our in-depth knowledge of our constituencies is an important part of our job. We know where the polling stations are and where the polling district boundaries are.

I was quite blown away by some of the responses to the questions I put to Mr Bellringer from the English boundary commission. Returning to amendment 9 before I go into exactly what he said, I understand why the hon. Member for Glasgow East tabled it. If we are going to really do what the Bill requires, which is to create equal-sized constituencies, going to a sub-ward level, whether that is, as he suggested, through polling districts, or—as in my line of questioning to the boundary commission—through postcodes, as in the part of the United Kingdom from which the hon. Member for Glasgow East comes, we need to be able to manipulate the data and the constituency information we have on a very refined level. It seemed odd that that has not been explored in the detail that hon. Members might have expected.

Sir Iain McLean, when he gave evidence, talked about the tension between getting equal-sized constituencies and the issues around local ties, which we discussed in earlier strings of amendments. The importance of equal size is clearly pre-eminent in the Bill and the amendment we are talking about now is important to deliver that important strategic focus of the legislation.

I was perplexed first by the inconsistent approach to the use of sub-ward level data in England, Scotland and Wales, and the fact that postcode data is used in Scotland and Wales but not in England. When I pressed that with Mr Bellringer, he very clearly said on the record that that information was very difficult for the boundary commission to come by; it would take a long time to access the data in the detail required. I was then perplexed by my further lines of questioning to Mr Bellringer, which made me think that, frankly, sub-ward level data had been put into the box marked “too difficult” and it was not necessarily going to be revisited. I would like to send a clear message from the Committee: that that must be revisited.

Although I am not sure I would necessarily support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow East at this point, not least because we are still waiting for a note from the boundary commission on how it might handle this, I hope it is listening to the debate to hear the strength of feeling on the matter. For postcodes, Mr Bellringer said,

“we do not have the postcode areas in England. We would have to create them; they could be created, but it would take an awfully long time to do.”—[Official Report, Parliamentary Constituencies Public Bill Committee, 18 June 2020; c. 12, Q14.]

We can wait until that data is ready, if it takes six months or 12 months. The boundary commission needs to start setting the bar a little higher than it has to date on the sort of information it has to hand. Sir Iain McLean suggested that the boundary commission should invest in geographical information systems. I do not profess to be an expert in that and I do not know whether that is what is needed. However, if it is, it should be forthcoming because it is important that we deliver the heart of the Bill, which is about equal constituencies. At the moment, I am unclear about how the boundary commission in England is going to do that. I hope the paper it sends us will edify me on that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

The stand part debate is separate. I am also in some difficulty, because this is all being organised remotely and the person who has organised it is not physically present. The right hon. Lady is quite right that it will be taken later in our proceedings.

I will say to the Clerks that, for future sittings, they may want to think about that a bit more carefully, inasmuch as Committee members are right to be confused about the order of our proceedings. As this is more or less a new Parliament; there are some hon. Members who have never served in Committee before. I will send that message so we can be more helpful in future sittings.

[David Linden]

Further to that point of order, Sir David. I wonder whether it might helpful for the Committee to suspend proceedings for a minute or two, until we understand exactly what is happening. I confess that in the last minute or so I have become more confused.

[Ben Lake]

Further to that point of order, Sir David. I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow East.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chloe Smith]

Here we go on the discussion of the franchise, which is a very large discussion, and I think, Sir David, you would rightly suggest we stay off it and remain within the matter in hand; but my right hon. Friend makes the point well that there are a number of different franchises in operation in this country, and there are a number of arguments for other groups to be added to the franchise. There are common arguments that those under 18, or European Union electors, should be added, but they are not in the scope of the Bill before the Committee, and in my opinion that is right. We have the correct data set, identified under the 1986 Act, as amended, and upheld in the Bill .

I hope that hon. Members will agree that the requirement that the new clause would put on the Department for Work and Pensions would not be technically correct or proportionate to its aim. I might add—although it is perhaps unwise as it might reopen the debate that we had about how the boundary commissions use data—that there is a further step that needs to be thought through, about how any such data could be used by the commissions. To use an example that I know hon. Members will appreciate, DWP records are not broken down by electoral ward—the very thing that we just spent some time discussing as the primary building block for parliamentary constituencies. A quite complex matching process would be required. That would take some time and of course doing it would have a price tag attached.

That is not the principal subject that the Committee is considering. I welcome the interest of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood in how to include all people in our democratic process—the process represented in the Bill. She is coming from an admirable, principled place in tabling the new clause, and I have great sympathy with it, because I, like her, want as many people as possible to be registered to vote and take part, and to be counted within the purview of the Bill. However, I do not think that the new clause is a correct or proportionate way to achieve the goal.

[David Linden]

I think that some time has elapsed, and the conversation has moved on somewhat, since I spoke to amendments 8 and 9. I referred to myself as a cheeky chappie, and the Minister referred to me as an agent provocateur, and of course the right hon. Member for Basingstoke is right: I do not have any skin in the game in this debate, because the situation is different north of the border. However, I was genuinely interested in what came up in the course of the evidence sittings. The point brought out a degree of interest in the Committee, and I tabled amendments 8 and 9 on that basis. I think most Members will have guessed by now that they are probing amendments. I am relatively satisfied that they fulfilled the objective of stimulating debate and thought in the Government, and on that basis I thank the Committee for the discussion, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[David Linden]

I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 6, page 4, line 36, leave out

‘which exist, or are prospective, on the review date’.

This amendment removes the restriction on the local government boundaries the Boundary Commissions may take into account, rather than fixing them at a technical level as at the start of the review.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 7, in clause 6, page 4, line 38, leave out subsections (3) and (4).

This is linked to amendment 6 and removes the detailed definition of a “prospective” local government boundary.

[David Linden]

I rise to speak to amendments 6 and 7, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion. I do not wish to detain the Committee for long, so I will be brief in explaining the rationale behind these probing amendments. One of the clearest themes throughout our evidence hearings, particularly with boundary commissioners, was a request to leave them with as much latitude and flexibility as possible and not to tie their hands. The amendments seek to remove the restriction on local government boundaries that the boundary commission may take into account, rather than fixing them at a technical level as at the start of the review.

The use of modern technologies should give the boundary commissions the ability to adapt to local authority reviews during the course of their reviews in a way not envisaged when the original legislation was put in place in 1944. There are also likely to be local authority ward reviews all but completed at the start of the review but for which orders had not been laid to give effect to them. I am all for giving the boundary commissions the flexibility they need to get on with the job, and I hope that the Government are with me on that. The Bill helps in allowing prospective boundaries to be taken into account, but they are all fixed at the start of the review, and I am for further flexibility.

As I indicated, this is a probing amendment, so I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on the merit of the suggestion and whether the Government feel that such flexibility for the boundary commission would be of use. I am happy to resume my seat and hear what the Minister has to say.

[Ben Lake]

I do not wish to detain the Committee for long. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East explained the rationale behind the amendments and how we want to probe for a bit of debate. This gives me an opportunity to make history, potentially, because I will urge caution about accepting the amendment that I support, in the light of written evidence from Councillor Dick Cole of Cornwall Council, submitted to the Committee after the oral evidence sessions concluded. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on his letter, and particularly on the rights of Cornwall as a historic nation. Sir David, you were kind to allow me to tread on unfamiliar territory during the evidence sessions in asking about feelings about a cross-Tamar constituency. Having studied the matter further, I understand that people in Cornwall feel strongly about it, and rightly so.

The Committee’s attention should be drawn in particular to a decision made by the UK Government in 2014, where they recognised the Cornish people through the framework convention for the protection of national minorities. One part of the convention seeks to protect the political integrity of territories associated with groups such as the Cornish people. When the Minister sums up, could she say whether anything can be done as part of the Bill to address such concerns? I note there are a few calls for a boundary commission for Cornwall to be set up. I would be interested in hearing what is possible, because Councillor Cole has raised valid concerns that we should at least look at.

--- Later in debate ---

With that, Sir David, I hope I have adequately explained what clause 6 sets out to do. Forgive me if I have come on to “stand part” territory, but I hope I have been helpful, and that I have offered some thoughtful reasons as to why amendments 6 and 7 do not achieve precisely what the hon. Members hoped for. None the less, I acknowledge what Committee members have said this afternoon about the importance of community identity and the way in which it often relates to local government boundaries. Historic counties are one example, and of course I cannot rest without putting Norfolk on the record; admittedly, we have not yet fought a war over boundaries with Suffolk, but we are just waiting for a smoking gun. These things are important to our communities and the citizens for whom we are doing all this. I therefore invite the hon. Member for Glasgow East to withdraw amendments 6 and 7.

[David Linden]

My intention with amendments 6 and 7 was certainly not to declare war between Norfolk and Suffolk. As I outlined in my remarks, they are probing amendments; my intention was to stimulate discussion, and I am content that that has happened. At one stage, I was almost getting ready to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion to move over and let the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell come over and join the Celtic alliance.

More seriously, I think these amendments have informed the Committee’s debates, which was their objective. I am grateful for having had the opportunity to discuss them, and on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)]

On a point of order, Sir David. I think we have had a very productive day so far, and our intention was to conclude proceedings at 4.45 pm.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Eddie Hughes.)

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill (Eighth sitting)

David Linden Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 8th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 30th June 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Bim Afolami]

I was about to agree with the right hon. Gentleman. However, the point of our system is that in response to arguments, the boundary commission changes what it has proposed. Members can correct me if I am wrong, but I think that during either the 2013 review or the 2018 one—as we all know, those reviews were abandoned because the House failed to approve them—almost 50% of the changes that were made were changed in response to submissions, both from Members who were in the House at the time and from other interested parties, including members of the public.

I have no doubt that the boundary commission will make mistakes, but I trust the ingenuity of those people who will be able to challenge it: not just Members, but political parties, members of the public and random geeks who do this sort of thing for fun. I trust that the boundary commission will listen to reasonable representations—particularly those regarding local ties and linguistic points, which the hon. Member for Ceredigion spoke about earlier—and that we can get this right. We need to get the margin of appreciation as tight as possible so that the votes of all members of the public in this country can count equally. That is a very important principle, and one that I support.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I am listening very closely to the hon. Gentleman. The Committee has talked at great length about the importance of voters having an equal say. Does he accept, however, that until people in this House are willing to be grown up enough to address the inadequacies of the first-past-the-post system, we are—I do not want to say “unable to pee and chew gum”—putting our effort in the wrong place? Quite rightly, we are saying that we want to have equal voting in constituencies, but we are unwilling to talk about the inadequacies of first past the post.

[Bim Afolami]

At the risk of straying from the measures covered by this new clause, we can have that debate. I happen to support the first-past-the-post system, but I understand that there are very good reasons for not doing so. However, that is not the place of this Bill. If people wanted another referendum on the voting system, I think first past the post would win, as it did several years ago, but I am perfectly happy to have that debate.

In relation to the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow East about the inadequacies of first past the post, those who do not like that system need to accept that if one is going to respect local ties and local communities and regard them as important, one cannot at the same time support moving to a system that involves much bigger regions, such as a single transferable vote system, or proportional representation generally. That would negate the original point. There are a lot of things that people say they like about the first-past-the-post system. I am not saying that they like every aspect. For example, there are people in my constituency who vote Green, and it is unlikely that the Greens would ever win in my constituency—although, of course, strange things happen in politics. Those who vote Green might say, “I never get a chance for my vote to count.” I appreciate that, but one aspect that people do like about the first-past-the-post system is the fact that community ties are respected and they feel that their Member of Parliament to some degree represents what they feel their community to be like.

We have talked about the difficulties of this. Of course the boundary commission gets it wrong sometimes, but it is up to us, members of the public, political parties and the geeks who do this stuff for fun to try to ensure that the constituencies make sense, because that, I think, is the core of the legitimacy of the first-past-the-post system. And if—this, I suppose, is a warning to the Government or, indeed, anybody else—this whole process were mismanaged and the boundary commission ended up not listening to members of the public, constituencies, Members of Parliament and so on and not making sure that the constituencies did pee and chew gum at the same time, we would get delegitimisation of the first-past-the-post system, because people would not be feeling that they would be voting for a particular Member who represented their community. Therefore I think that it is a point well made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christian Matheson]

I absolutely agree, which is why, to develop my argument and to answer the right hon. Lady directly, the new clause in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood does not seek to maintain the current number of constituencies in Wales. We accept—as we accepted, incidentally, with regard to the previous new clause that we talked about—that there has to be some level of equalisation of constituencies.

That means that Wales and Scotland will lose seats, but in order to manage the different pressures between getting equalisation and maintaining the integrity and strength of the Union and the diverse voices within it, the new clause seeks to maintain a balance by specifying a number of constituencies that is fewer, for example, than Wales has now, but more than it would have if absolute equalisation took place. We are therefore addressing some of the points that the right hon. Lady mentioned, and trying to strike a balance that puts the interests of the Union at the heart of the Bill.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I am listening to the hon. Member very carefully. It will come as no surprise to the Committee that for me, as a Scottish nationalist, the strength and harmony of the Union is not something that generally keeps me awake at night; it often helps me to get to sleep. However, there is a point here. I do not want to conduct a debate with the right hon. Member for Basingstoke and the hon. Member for City of Chester, but it is very important for members of the Committee to reflect on the fact that this is not the first chipping away of the strength and harmony of the Union in this place.

The right hon. Lady talked about powers being devolved to Scotland and to Cardiff Bay, but let us not forget that this Conservative Government has introduced such things as English votes for English laws. That in itself has been a way of ensuring that Members of Parliament representing constituencies in England can have their say and has, in many respects, already opened up a second-class or second-tier Member of Parliament. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the issue the Committee is considering at the moment is not the first time that we have seen the integrity and harmony of the Union being chipped away, albeit inadvertently, by this Government.

[Christian Matheson]

The hon. Gentleman makes a salient point. I would suggest that we have English devolution, and if we were logical in these arguments, we would reduce the number of constituencies available in those parts of England where there has been devolution but not in the parts where there has not been. In my own area, for example, we do not have an elected mayor, whereas Greater Manchester—I see the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton is present—does have an elected mayor.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Lake]

I thank the hon. Member for City of Chester for such a thought-provoking speech. I have thoroughly enjoyed our debate and I am perfectly willing to accept the charge of being a constitutional geek. We have debated a range of issues that really get to the heart of democracy and the questions of representation and what that entails. What the hon. Gentleman touched upon just now is something that we have not had an opportunity to discuss too much in Committee: the different challenges that an urban Member of Parliament might face compared with a Member of Parliament in a more rural constituency. I do not downplay the challenges of either; I simply say that there are different considerations and challenges. Although we might not be able to address some of those challenges in this Bill, I am sure the House authorities will have to do so in future. In the same way that it is unfair for a Member to try to represent a constituency of 100,000 electors, it is quite a behemoth task for a Member to do justice to a constituency that is more than 90 miles wide with a continuous population throughout it.

My point in relation to amendment (a) to new clause 3 —I am also willing to admit the charge of being a cheeky chappie in proposing the amendment—is purely to spark a bit of a debate around how we go about allocating seats between the four nations of the United Kingdom, and more specifically the appropriateness or otherwise of a single UK-wide electoral quota. I am here for the debate. I have my own set of views, which Members have probably already guessed, but the amendment is worth probing and it is worth having a discussion about some of the reasoning behind the single UK quota and, as my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester also illustrated in some detail, the possible unintended consequences.

There has been a common theme in not only the evidence sessions but in Committee discussions about the question of Wales: the elephant in the room. We cannot deny the fact that Wales, in terms of registered electors, is over-represented in this place. If we take a single UK-wide electoral quota, there is no argument. What I am trying to probe is whether we should apply a single UK electoral quota across the four nations. Points have already been made about the differential nature of devolution across the UK. The hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton correctly pointed out the fact that it has been piecemeal. To quote a famous Labour colleague in Wales, devolution has very much been,

“a process, not an event”.

I am glad to get that on the record.

Something that was raised in the first evidence session stuck with me; it was presented by the representative of the Liberal Democrats. He used the line of “no reduction, no further devolution.” It made me think about the rationale behind approaching a single UK electoral quota. If I were a Unionist, I would be quite concerned and would stay up at night worrying about the potential consequences of the provisions in the Bill for future boundary reviews, given that they are based on registered electors, when demographics and population change.

The differences in population between England and Wales are illustrative of how things might transpire or are likely to transpire. Between 2001—not quite the precise time of the last register—and the mid-year estimate of 2018, the population of Wales grew by 200,000. That is not a great deal in the broader scheme of things, but it is still an increase in the electorate. I know the point is that population growth in Wales is slower than in other parts of the UK, and it is likely to remain the case that Wales will not grow as quickly as other areas. The consequence of that, should the measures in the Bill be implemented, is that we will be talking about yet a further reduction in the number of Welsh seats at the next boundary review. That is based on the projections provided by the Office for National Statistics—it is a very real likelihood. I hope things will change, but unless we see some drastic changes in demographic trends and migration within the UK, Wales is unlikely to catch up with the pace of population growth.

What does that leave us with? It leaves us with a situation in which the number of representatives who are sent from Wales to this place will initially reduce by about eight—that is the figure that is commonly agreed on for this review. A further one or two seats will then be lost at each subsequent review every eight years or so, such is the disparity in the population growth figures. I am suggesting that, in maintaining 40 Members of Parliament, we focus on what we do about the nations. How do we tackle this constitutional problem? We are a Union of four nations. Although I completely empathise with and understand the arguments made for maintaining electoral quality as far as possible, I am very conscious of the fact that, to all intents and purposes, we have a unicameral system of elected representation. Yes, the House of Lords could be a vehicle to try to top up the territorial representation side of things, but that is not an issue that is being discussed at the moment in any great detail.

[David Linden]

At the risk of having a bash-the-House-of-Lords session, which I am sure the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell would enjoy, is there not a case for looking at the situation in the House of Lords—ironically—where certain demographics are protected? For example, there are 92 hereditary peers and 26 clerics. If we can protect particular demographics in the House of Lords, such as clerics and hereditary peers, why can we not do it for the four nations?

[Ben Lake]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and my views on House of Lords reform are well known. Should we be serious about trying to make the best possible use of a second Chamber, many countries across the world have shown how a second Chamber can be used to top up geographical or territorial concerns. I would like to see the House of Lords reformed in that kind of direction.

I would also be quite happy to explore further whether we need to have some sort of an agreement at this point in time about the disparities between the number of seats for each of the four nations. It is already the case that should there be anything that agitates a lot of popular sentiment in England only, there is a very good chance that it will come to pass and that a majority decision in its favour will happen in this place. That is not necessarily the case for Wales or for the other two devolved nations of the United Kingdom. Although it is unlikely that we will manage to address the issue in the Bill, it is nevertheless something to which we need to give active consideration—I say that as somebody of a particular political persuasion.

The situation in Wales is perhaps slightly different from that in Northern Ireland. The devolution settlement is not as developed and deep as the one in Scotland, or indeed the one in Northern Ireland. There are certain important spheres of policy—policing and the judiciary, for example—that are reserved to Westminster and apply to Wales. That is not the case for my colleagues and friends from Scotland, so there are plenty of arguments why there is still a special case to be made for Wales within an unreformed Parliament. When I say “unreformed”, I mean the House of Lords continuing in its current constitutional position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shaun Bailey]

I am saying that we have to take a pragmatic approach to how we view our United Kingdom; as a Unionist, I would never say that the role that the hon. Gentleman speaks of is diminished. It would be remiss not to recognise that voters, particularly in the devolved nations, understand the differences I mentioned. We talk about reducing the number of constituencies in areas of the UK; in a way, we have to balance that with the democratic structures that now exist there.

[David Linden]

The hon. Gentleman makes a thoughtful argument, but I rather feel that he is trying to square a circle. I follow where he is going with his point on the different legislatures that are available. My constituents have a Member of the UK Parliament, a local councillor and a Member of the Scottish Parliament. The problem with his argument is that until fairly recently, they also had a Member of the European Parliament. We are leaving the European Union—certainly not a change that I approve of—and legislative powers are, by and large, coming back from Brussels to Westminster. Under the Bill, those legislative powers will remain in Westminster, and representation for people in Scotland, including in my constituency, is diminished as a result. Can he not see that he is trying to square a circle in respect of Europe’s legislative powers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Christian Matheson]

I do not want to take too long, but both interventions were correct. The point is that some powers will go straight to the devolved Assemblies and Parliaments, but others will remain here. We are where we are.

Let me deal with the Unionist point of view first. When England play football, rugby or cricket, I support England, but I am also British and I am proud to be so. I have a sense of identity that tells me I am British. I do worry that the Union will be weakened under the Bill, because people will feel, in the nations other than England, that their voices are being diminished. That bothers me.

The Minister is right: there is a broader constitutional issue here. We are not trying to fix the constitutional issue, but we are trying not to damage it further. I do not want this to become an English Parliament. The hon. Member for Glasgow East talks about English votes for English laws, which, let’s face it, is a hotch-potch even now. There is a danger that this becomes an English Parliament and is seen as an English Parliament in the nations that are not England. That is my concern.

[David Linden]

I am immensely grateful to the hon. Member for City of Chester for giving way. It is just interesting to note that the issue of English votes for English laws might have passed hon. Members by. That particular Standing Order has been suspended during the proceedings of the virtual Parliament. I will leave it to the Committee to ponder whether it might be a good idea to bring that back when virtual proceedings end. A lot of people, regardless of whether they are Unionists or nationalists, would think that English votes for English laws is a pretty silly policy in this place.

[Christian Matheson]

I had not noticed that. You learn something new every day in this Committee. I think the Minister was unfair to characterise this idea as we think we know better. It is not that; it is simply that we are proposing to do the process differently to bring in balance. That is something that I have talked about on this clause and other clauses, and that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood has talked about. We are trying to find a balance between community and numbers and geography and numbers. It is difficult and we have different opinions on it, but it is a genuine attempt to create a balance between the different areas.

It is right that this House and Parliament give instructions to the boundary commissions to go away and do their jobs, and the new clause is about trying to make sure that those instructions are balanced. It was a helpful debate with positive contributions, for which I am grateful. In the light of that, it is not my intention or that of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood to press the new clause to a vote, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

Definition of “electorate”

‘(1) The 1986 Act is amended as follows.

(2) In rule 9(2) of Schedule 2 to the 1986 Act, omit the words from “the version that is required” to the end and insert “the electoral register as on the date of the last General Election before the review date.”’—(Cat Smith.)

For the purposes of future reviews, this new clause would define the electorate as being those on the electoral register at the last General Election prior to the review.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[David Linden]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I am acutely aware of the time and the willingness on the part of all hon. Members to try to get through the remainder of the new clauses in this sitting, so I will not seek to detain the Committee. I appreciate that some Committee members, including me, do not represent a constituency that totals 12,000 sq km, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) does.

New clause 5 seeks to initiate some thought in Government about the size of some of the proposed constituencies. In drafting the new clause, I was thinking specifically about the Highland North constituency in the last set of proposals by the Boundary Commission for Scotland. As Mr Martin of the Scottish National party set out during our evidence session, there is provision within the rules for a constituency up to that kind of size, but put simply, such constituencies are increasingly unmanageable. The clause, which is very much a probing amendment, seeks to spark a debate about the size of constituencies we expect Members to serve while providing an efficient service to their constituents. I found myself chuckling in the last debate at the thought of people being outraged at the idea of having a constituency that was only 90 miles long.

As I mentioned earlier, the largest constituency set out by the Boundary Commission for Scotland proposals was Highland North at 12,985 sq km. That is 16.66% or a sixth of Scotland, 65% of the size of Wales, 92% of the size of Northern Ireland, about the size of Yorkshire, 8.25 times the size of Greater London, five times the size of Luxembourg and larger than Cyprus and Luxembourg put together. Indeed, the three largest proposed constituencies, Highland North, Argyll, Bute and Lochaber, and Inverness and Skye, would cover 33,282 sq km.

To put that in context, those three constituencies would cover 42.7% of the area of Scotland, which is an area larger than Belgium. The two constituencies of Highland North and Argyll, Bute and Lochaber would cover an area larger than Slovenia. Those large constituencies would also include several island areas, which makes MP travel across constituencies even harder. My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) already has five airports in his constituency.

So I have outlined, to some extent, the challenges faced by colleagues in Scotland, which is the motivation for new clause 5.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden]

I am grateful. This issue genuinely plays on the mind of quite a lot of Members in Scotland, so I am grateful for the opportunity to bring it to this Bill Committee so that people can consider it. At this stage, I will not press the new clause, but I will be giving further thought to it when we come to remaining stages on the Floor of the House. I am convinced that the matter is at least on the Minister’s radar. The very fact that she has stood up and shown a degree of understanding of the challenges faced by Members in Scotland is a source of at least some comfort—but perhaps I will bring something back in the remaining stages. On that basis, I will withdraw the new clause for now, but I suspect that we might see it at a later stage of the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 7

Constituency Groupings

“(1) Rule 7 of Schedule 2 to the 1986 Act (Northern Ireland) is amended as below.

(2) In the heading for ‘Northern Ireland’ substitute ‘Constituency Groupings’.

(3) In rule 7(1) for ‘Northern Ireland’ substitute ‘any grouping of five or more constituencies being considered by a Boundary Commission”.

(4) In rule 7(1)(a)(i) for ‘Northern Ireland’ substitute ‘the area being considered’.

(5) In rule 7(1)(a)(ii) and rule 7(2) for ‘in Northern Ireland (determined by rule 8)’ substitute ‘being considered for the area’.

(6) In rule 7(1)(b) for ‘Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland’ substitute ‘relevant Boundary Commission’.

(7) In rule 7(2) for ‘the electorate of Northern Ireland’ substitute ‘the electorate of the area’.”—(David Linden.)

The current Rule 7 is a special rule for Northern Ireland which recognises that with the small number of constituencies allocated, there may be difficulties in using the UK Electoral Quota, which may vary considerably from the “Northern Ireland Quota”, calculated by dividing the Northern Ireland electorate by the number of constituencies allocated. This problem exists when drawing constituencies in any grouping involving a small number of seats. It is an arithmetical issue, not one connected with any special Northern Ireland considerations. This amendment therefore extends the potential application of the rule to any constituency grouping of five or more constituencies, with the same conditions as currently apply to the design of constituencies in Northern Ireland.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[David Linden]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I hope that Members’ heads have not been hurting too much in trying to understand this new clause, which gives a discretionary power in certain circumstances to all boundary commissions, when considering a grouping of constituencies, that currently applies only to the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland when considering those constituencies as a whole.

Boundary commissions have always worked by grouping areas together and designing constituencies within those areas. For parliamentary reviews, areas will be formed by grouping local authorities. Sometimes the initial set of groupings does not work and other things are considered. The Boundary Commission for Scotland helpfully publishes all its minutes at the start of the initial consultation period and, indeed, makes available maps of its rejected proposals as well, so that people can see exactly how it has come to its conclusions.

Let us say that we are designing 10 constituencies in an area with an electorate roughly equal to the UK electoral quota multiplied by 10. We would be able to use the plus or minus 5% variation to its full throughout the area to design our 10 constituencies. A problem arises when the electorate of the 10 constituencies combined represents somewhere between 95% and 105% of the UK electoral quota multiplied by 10, because the scope for variation then becomes very limited, meaning that, to retain the grouping, constituencies will have to be designed with very little scope for numerical variation. That can often lead to what looks like logical groupings being abandoned unnecessarily.

The problem was recognised in Northern Ireland, which was allocated 16 and then 17 seats in the two reviews under the current legislation. Current rule 7 allows the use of a Northern Ireland quota in defined circumstances. The Northern Ireland quota is simply the number of electors in Northern Ireland divided by the number of constituencies allocated. Use of that quota means the full plus or minus 5% variation for constituencies is then effectively reinstated.

To pre-empt what the Minister might say, there was an obscure issue in Northern Ireland in the last review around the point at which the decision to apply the rule was made, which resulted in litigation. I stress that that was very much a procedural issue, which was not relevant to the essential utility of the rule. The problem in Northern Ireland was a numerical one. It is not one in special recognition of the politics there. The numerical problem applies throughout the United Kingdom when we group constituencies, as all boundary commissions do.

I therefore look forward to hearing the Minister’s position and her explanation of why what is good for Northern Ireland is not good for all the other boundary commissions when faced with the identical issue. On that basis, I will draw my remarks to a close and listen to what the Minister has to say on new clause 7.

[Chloe Smith]

Sir David, may I invite the hon. Gentleman to say what his amendment does?

[David Linden]

I am grateful to the Minister for that. Essentially, I am looking to give as much flexibility as possible to the boundary commissions. That is the idea behind looking at whether we can apply rule 7 to other parts of the United Kingdom. I hope that that gives the Minister a bit of a steer about what I am looking to do with new clause 7.

[Chloe Smith]

I will do my best. What is puzzling me is why it might be a grouping of five, but if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to speak generally, I can, or perhaps he would like to articulate why it is five.

[David Linden]

I am happy to allow the Minister to deliberate more generally and look into the numbering. This is a probing amendment.

[Chloe Smith]

Okay. I will give it my best shot. My understanding is that the hon. Gentleman is trying to extend the rule that works in Northern Ireland and to apply it to the whole of the UK by saying that we could take a grouping of five or more constituencies, whose combined electorate meets a certain mathematical criterion.

I have said it before and I will say it again: the Government are committed to delivering equal and updated constituencies for the UK. We can do that only if the rules set for the boundary commissions allow them to propose constituencies that are equal or as equal as possible. That loops back to many of the nuances and balances that we have spoken about throughout the Committee. I fear the new clause goes in the opposite direction and, in doing so, raises a couple of problems, which I will try to draw out.

Let me start with what rule 7 is for. It exists because of a specific issue arising in Northern Ireland. Of the four nations, it has the smallest discrete group of constituencies. At the beginning of a boundary review, as I referred to earlier, numbers of constituencies are allocated to each nation using the Sainte-Laguë method. As each nation must have a whole number of constituencies, there is inevitably either a rounding up or a rounding down at the moment. For Northern Ireland, that has been likely to mean—and will still be likely to mean—either a rounding up to 18 or a rounding down to 17. The effects of that can be quite significant when you have only a double-digit number like that.

Rule 7 first applies a mathematical formula to assess the significance of the rounding effects. If, as a result of the rounding down, the overall electorate in Northern Ireland is significantly more than might be expected, by taking the UK electoral quota and multiplying by 17—the number of Northern Ireland seats—then rule 7 may come into play if the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland judges that is necessary in order for it to adequately perform a boundary review. In those circumstances, rule 7 then allows the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland to apply a more generous electoral quota variance range, that range being ascertained through a second mathematical formula. I apologise for the level of detail, but I wanted to set out what rule 7 does before going any further.

--- Later in debate ---

I thank hon. Gentleman for tabling the new clause, which has elicited an interesting exchange, and I hope that my response has done it justice, but I urge him to withdraw it, and the rest of the Committee may feel the same way.

[David Linden]

While I am tempted to try to give everyone on the Committee a migraine, I probably will not press the new clause to a vote, but I am glad for the opportunity to have this debate and to explore some of the issues.

I have heard Committee members talk often about equal votes and equal constituencies but, as I said in response to an hon. Member whose name and constituency escape me, we are perhaps having that debate in a silo, because we are having it without cognisance of the unfairness of the first-past-the-post system. The Minister just mentioned equal votes and equal constituencies, but look at the constituency of the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth). He has the largest majority in the House. He took 80.8% of the vote and has a majority of 39,924. That is great for him. I suspect he goes to his count and watches his votes being weighed. It makes the point that if we are going to have a conversation about equal votes and equal constituencies, I do not know if we are starting at the wrong end.

Coming back to my new clause 7, it was an opportunity to try and kick a bit of debate about, but it is probably best not to do that at about ten to five in the evening, when we have already done five or six hours in Committee. I am glad we had that opportunity but I will not put the new clause to a vote. I will consider whether I want to go down that slippery slope when we come to the next stage of our proceedings, although I suspect the appetite for that will be fairly small.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 8

Boundary Re-alignment

“(1) Where—

(a) existing parliamentary boundaries when originally recommended by the relevant Boundary Commission contained an element of alignment with a local authority area boundary; but

(b) as a consequence of a local authority area boundary review these boundaries have ceased to be aligned; and

(c) the number of registered electors affected by the local authority area boundary change was not more than 1,000;

the relevant Boundary Commission may submit a report recommending the re-alignment of the parliamentary constituencies affected to the new local authority area boundary.

(2) The procedure in Section 4 applies to orders following a recommendation under subsection (1), as it applies to orders following reports of the Boundary Commission under Section 3, with any necessary modifications.”—(David Linden.)

Local authority area reviews typically happen when a new housing development is built on an existing local authority boundary. The review might mean that a whole development is moved in to one authority, or other aligning changes. Without a parliamentary boundary change, this can mean a small number of electors from one local authority being in a constituency otherwise wholly within another local authority. This amendment gives a power to re-align parliamentary boundaries with the new local authority boundary where no more than 1,000 electors are affected. If there are more than 1,000 electors, then the boundary would be for consideration at the next periodical review. As the local area boundary would itself have been subject to local consultation, a further statutory public consultation in relation to the parliamentary boundary is not proposed. The relevant Boundary Commission could carry out such informal consultation as it considered necessary.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[David Linden]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This new clause is slightly easier to understand. It seeks to deal with a specific situation that arises when local authority areas are redrawn and relates not to wards but to other electoral divisions within those local authority areas. Members will see that I have listed a registered interest as the Member for Glasgow East, and I will explain why as I develop my speech.

Unlike wards, local authority areas are not periodically reviewed. The justification for a local authority area review is usually when new houses have been built over a local authority boundary, although there can be other triggers. For example, the construction of the Edinburgh bypass resulted in one farm moving from Edinburgh into West Lothian.

Sometimes areas are redrawn without any voters being affected. I understand that principal area boundary reviews elsewhere are similarly unusual and not conducted on a periodic basis. The local government boundary commission for Scotland has only carried out 10 local authority area reviews since we moved to unitary authorities in 1995. As luck would have it, two of those reviews, conducted in 2010 and 2019, affected my own constituency, and it is for that reason that I registered a specific interest in relation to this new clause.

Constituencies where there are a small number of electors in one local authority area present additional difficulties for returning officers in co-ordinating elections. They also cause issues in relation to representation. If a constituency is equally divided between two local authorities, the MP will be able to maintain a good working relationship between both sets of local authority officials and, importantly, so will their staff. If only a very small number of constituents are from one local authority, those relationships will not be established in the same way. I reflect on that particularly as someone who represents both Glasgow and North Lanarkshire.

The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, combined with the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, anticipated a world where we would have elections every five years and boundaries reviewed before each election. I think some us probably wonder what on earth happened to that. With a model of the five-year elections and reviews every election in mind, the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act abolished the idea of interim reviews. In the past, interim reviews of UK parliamentary constituencies were a check on whether more minor changes should be made to constituencies between the major periodical reviews. With constituencies being reviewed before each election, that process essentially became unnecessary.

The Bill looks to having reviews every two Parliaments or so. We never know when the next general election will happen—with this Government, that is fairly clear as they are looking to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. Therefore, that brings back on the agenda the need to be able to set out the consequences of local authority area reviews.

My Scottish Parliament colleagues will have their constituency boundaries revised in time for the elections next year because Boundaries Scotland, as it is being renamed, retains an ability to conduct interim reviews. The 300 electors affected by the last local government area review in my constituency will move into a different Scottish Parliament constituency in May ’21. The electors affected by the earlier review were already in their correct constituency. The new clause does not attempt to bring back interim reviews, but to ensure that in those rare instances where there has been a local authority boundary change that can be reflected in the UK Parliament constituency, as it can be in the Scottish Parliament constituency as a result of the powers exercised by Boundaries Scotland.

The new clause contains a tightly drawn power that can only be used where a limited number of electors are affected by an area review. I would be happy to discuss further with the Minister the appropriate number, but in practice most area reviews involve considerably fewer electors. I hope the Minister therefore appreciates that the new clause is confined to very specific circumstances and is not an attempt to reintroduce interim reviews, and that on that basis the Government will support it.

[Chloe Smith]

I appreciate the way that the hon. Member for Glasgow East has framed the new clause—that it is not quite the same as the old policy of interim reviews but is a new policy for our times. I appreciate the way he put that. I understand the arguments he makes, but I argue that the new clause is not needed, and I will begin by looking back at what the old policy of interim reviews actually did, just to give us that context.

As I understand it, the new clause would give a boundary commission discretion to submit a report in between boundary reviews that recommends the realignment of existing parliamentary constituencies with a local authority area boundary that has ceased to be aligned with those constituencies owing to a local authority boundary change. The hon. Gentleman has been careful to try to temper that discretion by saying that it should only apply to 1,000 electors and, in effect, try to tackle the problem of orphaned electors who perhaps find themselves in a neighbouring constituency to the one they had expected to belong to. I think that the effect of this change would remain quite close to that of interim reviews and, for comparison, I will set out what those used to do.

Before the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, the boundary commissions had discretion to carry out interim reviews of particular constituency boundaries. They could, for example, take into account intervening changes to local authority boundaries or to a number of registered electors that affecting the boundaries of existing parliamentary constituencies in a particular area. Provision for this was removed under the 2011 Act. It was thought unnecessary because, as the hon. Gentleman outlined, general reviews would then be held every five years.

Under the Bill, reviews will be held every eight years, so I argue—as the Committee accepts—that boundaries will be reviewed and updated regularly. That is sufficiently regular to make interim reviews not needed, so we have no need to return to that old policy. I have concerns about both the policy of interim reviews and the proposed policy which, even though the hon. Gentleman has tried to minimise disruption, would still be fundamentally disruptive, hitting local communities and their relationship with their representation in this place.

We should also accept the fundamental truth that the different governmental boundaries that criss-cross our country will never be fully aligned; it will inherently be a moving picture, and it will never be possible to align all of them at any one time. It is hard to put in place a policy that tries to align a small bit of that while acknowledging that the rest keeps evolving. Boundaries change all the time, owing to population shifts and the growth of new housing settlements. The point of a boundary review is to try to control for that by taking a snapshot in time, once every eight years, and saying that that is the point at which there will be changes—there will not be ongoing, perpetual change, but change at a key point in time.

I also do not think it cost-effective to keep going for that perpetual change. I appreciate the arguments that have been made, including the minimisation argument inherent in what the hon. Gentleman has tabled. However, there is a practical argument against asking the boundary commissions to effectively chase their tail and go after something that could move perpetually between those eight years or something that does not always come to fruition. The point has occasionally been made in the Committee about how to treat housing developments. That certainly ought to be accommodated in boundary reviews—that is the point of regular enough ones to do that—but it is also the case that sometimes housing developments do not come to fruition. Had that policy wrongly predicted a settlement, ultimately public money would have been wasted in getting the boundary commission to look at it.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that is a helpful reflection on the new clause of the hon. Member for Glasgow East. I have taken it seriously enough to try to distinguish it from the previous policy of interim review, and to take it on its merits. I wonder whether I might be able to persuade the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the last new clause of the day.

[David Linden]

I have never felt so powerful as I do right now. I am grateful for the Minister’s response. This was a probing new clause. The issue has dominated my email inbox since I was elected in 2017—there is a lovely little area in my constituency called Stepps, by Cardowan, where the good people vote highly for the SNP actually, but that is by the bye. I was keen to spark some thought in Government, but when drafting the new clause, I feared that putting the number at 1,000 electors would frighten the Government off a little. I will reflect on what the Minister has said.

At one minute past 5 o’clock, I will allow the opportunity for the hard-working Clerks and Hansard staff to get some respite. As this is the last opportunity I will have to say anything in Committee, I also thank you, Sir David, and Mr Paisley for your forbearance in what have been long-drawn-out proceedings. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 10

Protected constituencies

‘(1) Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 is amended as follows.

(2) In rule 6(2), after paragraph (b) insert “;

(c) a constituency named Ynys Môn, comprising the area of the Isle of Anglesey County Council”.

(3) In rule 8(5)—

(a) in paragraph (b), for “6(2)” substitute “6(2)(a) and (b)”, and

(b) after paragraph (b) insert “;

“(c) the electorate of Wales shall be treated for the purposes of this rule as reduced by the electorate of the constituency mentioned in rule (6)(2)(c)”.

(4) In rule 9(7)—

(a) after “6” insert “(2)(a) or (b)”, and

(b) after “2011” insert “, and the reference in rule 6(2)(c) to the area of the Isle of Anglesey County Council is to the area as it existed on the coming into force of the Schedule to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 2020”.’—(Mrs Miller.)

This new clause adds the parliamentary constituency of Ynys Môn to the list of protected constituencies in the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 and makes other consequential changes to that Act.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

[Chloe Smith]

I thank you, Sir David, and Mr Paisley for all of your work in chairing this Committee. We have all appreciated your clear chairmanship and good humour. I also thank the Clerks and all House staff who have made it possible to do a Bill Committee in these new circumstances. They have been most diligent. Also, many thanks to the witnesses who joined us and gave helpful evidence on our journey in Committee.

Finally, I thank all our colleagues in this room. I will pick on my two silent Friends who do not normally get a great deal to say in Committee, but I say it for them, so I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Walsall North and for Loughborough for their contributions. I thank all the parties represented here for the excellent quality of their debate and for the probing discussions we have had—in the witness sessions, as well, when we heard from other parties.

We have covered all the issues in the Bill comprehensively, with ample time to do so. I am pleased that we found common ground on the need to provide equal and updated boundaries for the representation of all the communities in our land.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

David Linden Excerpts

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

[Alun Cairns]

I am grateful for the right hon. Member’s intervention. I looked through Hansard to see what the standing of the Labour party on this debate was, and it took a considerable time to find that the predecessor of my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn, Albert Owen—a friend of the right hon Member and a friend of mine—did raise it, but it was quite a long time before that became a debate, so I think the right hon. Member overstates his support of the argument.

We should recognise that not only is Anglesey—Ynys Môn—an island and its own constituency, but it also has its own local authority. When local government boundaries were being considered as part of the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994, the case for Ynys Môn was recognised, creating Ynys Môn as its own authority in its own right, in spite of the challenges of having a smaller population than others. Clearly the responsibility to meet all the obligations of all local authorities would be challenging for such a small community. The 1994 Act recognised the importance of the island’s make-up, which is further recognised in the Bill before us. The amendment that the Minister has accepted recognises that too.

As I mentioned, there is cross-party support for this amendment. I recognise the strong case that my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn has made for its status, and I also recognise that her predecessor, Albert Owen, made a similar case at a late stage of the Bill. The Bill goes to the heart of fairness in representation and will ensure that communities are respected. Accepting and responding to calls from my hon. Friend shows that. I commend the Minister for the way she has responded to the debate and to the case made by my hon. Friend and welcome her acceptance of the amendment.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns). I have to say, I found it quite strange hearing a man whose job in the last Government was to stand up for Wales in the Cabinet give such full-throated support to a Bill that will see Wales lose eight seats. Someone whose job in Cabinet was to be the voice of Wales has just stood up and said that he is quite content to see Wales lose seats, but that is a matter for him.

I rise to speak to new clause 2, which is in my name and those of my hon. and right hon. Friends. I want to start by thanking again all Members with whom I served on the Bill Committee, which I admit I probably took an unhealthy amount of joy and pleasure from. I suspect that I was not the only one—the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson) had a “Rain Man” effect on some of us quite a few times. It was a meeting of minds for parliamentary geeks and psephologists, and in my view, it did not last long enough. All members of the Committee were thoughtful, engaging and good-natured. In particular, I enjoyed my exchanges with the Minister and the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), who led for the Opposition. Remarkably, this is the first time that all three of us have managed to get out of a boundaries Bill Committee without gaining extra offspring—that said, the Bill has not had Royal Assent yet, so we will not count our chickens.

On Second Reading, I made it clear that the Scottish National party will not oppose the Bill, not because it was in any way perfect—far from it. However, we genuinely welcomed the Government’s U-turn on cutting the number of constituencies from 650 to 600. I was delighted to see clause 5 in the Bill, and I was probably the only Member who spoke to it with such enthusiasm in Committee. I think that some Conservative Members found it quite difficult to speak in support of clause 5, which reversed what they had enshrined in law through the 2011 Act.

I wholeheartedly agree with the Minister that our exit from the European Union means that there will be more legislative work for hon. Members to undertake, and therefore, cutting the number of MPs would be a very silly move, but I will return to that point later.

Before I turn to my concerns about the Bill, I want to welcome the amendment that we passed in Committee in respect of Ynys Môn, which will finally be a protected constituency, joining the Isle of Wight, Orkney and Shetland, and Na h-Eileanan an Iar. Anglesey, on which I have certainly enjoyed a holiday, was first established as a constituency in 1536—probably around the point when the current Leader of the House was colouring in “Erskine May” as an enthusiastic toddler. In all seriousness, there was unanimous support in Committee for the proposal to protect Ynys Môn and I am glad that we achieved at least one change in our deliberations on the Committee Corridor. However, I bitterly regret the fact that the Government did not compromise on more issues because, as I said on Second Reading, the Government might have a majority in this House, but they certainly have no monopoly on wisdom. There are still aspects of this Bill, even as amended, that trouble me deeply, and I will outline them now.

First, there has rightly been much discussion about the controversial issue of automaticity. I was remarking to my friend the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood earlier this week that we do not actually know whether automaticity is a word, but it was certainly coined and used over and over again in Committee. We heard lots of evidence on both sides of the argument concerning Parliament’s role in having oversight of the Boundary Commission’s recommendations. While many of the points made by witnesses and Government members of the Committee were thoughtful and sincere, I am still not persuaded of the merits of this provision. We were repeatedly told during the Brexit process that Parliament is taking back control and that Parliament is sovereign. In my view, this move does exactly the opposite, with Parliament ceding its role of parliamentary oversight. Clause 2 of the Bill would enshrine this blatant power grab in statute, and therefore my party will support amendment 1 if my friend the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood chooses to divide the House.

Secondly, I am in favour of Labour’s new clause 1, which deals with the electoral quota. The Scottish National party supports a wider tolerance and we feel that moving to 7.5% is a reasonable compromise that would give boundary commissioners more flexibility in drawing up more manageable constituencies, which would be welcome. Certainly, the evidence we heard in Committee is that they are looking for as much flexibility as possible, and I think that it is incumbent upon us to respond to that. If my pal from Lancaster and Fleetwood puts new clause 1 to the vote, we will support Labour on that as well.

Thirdly—this is the nub of the matter for me—the Bill is absolutely rotten for the devolved nations, which is why I and my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) have tabled new clause 2, which we will seek to divide the House on. I want to outline to hon. Members precisely why we have chosen to focus on new clause 2 on Report and why I feel so passionately about this, but, more importantly, why I believe that others should too.

As I made clear on Second Reading and in Committee, bluntly, I do not want to see any Scottish seats in this House. Constitutionally, I do not want Scotland to be a part of the United Kingdom at all, because Scotland is a nation, and nations are best served when they govern themselves. However, I am a democrat and I accept that until the people of Scotland vote by a majority for independence in a referendum, we must continue to participate with diligence in the proceedings of this House and give Scotland a strong voice in accordance with the mandate delivered by our constituents, regardless of which party we represent.

As I have said repeatedly, Scotland’s current representation in this House, and indeed that of Wales, must not be diminished or reduced in any boundary reform. However, the reality of the Bill is that Scotland will lose three seats and Wales will lose eight. That is far from the Westminster respect agenda that people in Scotland were promised in the wake of our 2014 referendum result. Indeed, it is a democratic outrage and it is not one that we will stand for.

It is not just nationalists in this House who should be concerned about diminished representation in the House of Commons for the devolved nations. Surely every Union flag-waving, “Rule Britannia” singing Member in the Scottish Conservatives should be able to see that Scotland’s voice being diminished in Westminster is bad for the harmony and integrity of their precious, precious Union. What we see in the Bill is a blatant power grab of seats from the devolved nations, with them being given directly to England—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan seems to suggest that he is unhappy about that. He can challenge it if he wants to, but that is the reality in the Bill. It is a power grab of seats from the devolved nations—the devolved nations that he was meant to stand up for in Cabinet. They are being taken away from countries such as Wales and given to England. That is a fact, and if he cannot stand up and refute that, I am afraid that it is on the record.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the primary purpose of this legislation is to ensure that votes have equal weight, and if he does accept that will he therefore also accept that his amendment would drive a coach and horses through that basic principle, because votes will count for far more in Wales and Scotland than in rest of the United Kingdom?

[David Linden]

I would make two points on that. First, the primary purpose of this Bill is, I suspect, to reverse the mess made by the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, which sought to reduce the number of seats in this House from 650 to 600. That is the whole point behind clause 5, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman has read assiduously. Secondly, if Members want to talk about fairness in the voting system, we should start by looking at the broken first-past-the-post electoral system, where we have Members who have majorities of nearly 40,000. So if the hon. Gentleman wants to talk to me about equal voting, we can absolutely do that, but we must not ignore the elephant in the room that is the broken first-past-the-post system.

One thing that is even more illogical about this is the fact that legislation once made in Brussels is soon coming back to Westminster as a result of our exit from the European Union. Scotland, which used to have six Members of the European Parliament, has lost that representation, and it is now expected to lose further representation in this place when legislative powers return from Europe. That is wrong; even Unionist Members in this House must recognise that.

So when the Division bell rings tonight and hon. Members decide how to cast their vote on new clause 2, they must ask themselves if they still believe that Scotland should lead the United Kingdom, as we were told in 2014, or was that in fact just hollow words in the heat of a referendum campaign to pull the wool over the eyes of the people of Scotland? Voting to affirm reduced or diminished representation for the devolved nations in this place is an unforgivable act, which will only seek to reinforce the view that Westminster does not care what the devolved nations think and we might just be better with independence after all.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[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]

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—

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bowie]

I would never suggest that anybody who was in Parliament for all those years was in any way acting ridiculously, and I do not think that it was ridiculous, but it was quite clear that none of the commission’s reports would ever be implemented. The parliamentary arithmetic prevented them from being implemented, whenever it was attempted to do so.

[David Linden]

Part of the point that the hon. Gentleman is missing is that it is not just Members of Parliament who have that oversight; it is also their noble lordships in the other place. Is he aware of that?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden]

I echo the comments made by my colleagues on the Front-Bench about our thanks to those who presided over the Committee and to all the Members who took part. I regret that new clause 2, which sought to protect Scotland with 59 constituencies, was not passed. I think history will judge that vote harshly in the years to come, but that is a story for another day. I was speaking with a friend earlier this week about some of my favourite music and we were reflecting on a shared love of Green Day. I was reminded of their song “Wake Me Up When September Ends”, because when September ends we will have Lords amendments and I very much hope that when their lordships look at this Bill they will remove clause 2, which is an affront to democracy.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call Gavin Robinson.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

David Linden Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Tuesday 10th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Yes; my hon. Friend has momentarily pre-empted me, because that is exactly what I was about to do. The whole House has noted our hon. Friend’s positive approach to the challenge that prevents her from being here today. She is a wonderfully popular and singularly effective Minister, and I know that Members across the House wish her the speediest of recoveries. None the less, she is continuing to work very hard, and I have therefore had the opportunity to discuss the Bill with her. I am pleased to report to the House that she is delighted, as am I, that the principle of updated and equal constituencies is shared by both Houses and across parties. That is in no small part down to the efforts of my noble Friends Lord True and Baroness Scott of Bybrook, and I extend our thanks for their sterling efforts in taking the Bill through the other place.

It is of course right that this short but important Bill has enjoyed extensive debate and scrutiny in both Houses, and we will always welcome the thoughts of their lordships, but it is important to remember that this is a Commons Bill about the composition of the House of Commons based on the mandate of the elected Government. This is an area in which I have taken a great interest during my years as a Member of Parliament, so it is with a spirit of gusto that I now roll up my sleeves and prepare to delve into the detail of their lordships’ amendments. I will speak to each amendment in turn.

Lords amendments 1 and 2 provide that a boundary review would be carried out every 10 years. This is a significant change from the current legal requirement for a review every five years. The Government’s approach, as in the Bill before it was amended, is to mandate a boundary review every eight years. The Government’s aim, as set out in our manifesto, is to ensure that parliamentary constituencies are updated regularly, but without the disruption to local communities and their representatives that might occur with the current five-year reviews.

While developing this Bill, my hon. Friend the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution discussed the Government’s proposal for an eight-year cycle with parliamentary parties and electoral administrators and shared with them our broad plans for the Bill. Concerns were expressed about the importance of up-to-date data—particularly local government boundary data, hence clause 8—but the Labour, Liberal Democrat, Plaid Cymru and Scottish National party representatives from the parliamentary parties panel were among those content with our approach.

If reviews were to happen only every 10 years, as these amendments propose, the data used in boundary reviews would be older and less reflective of current local government boundaries and demographic change. That would also create an unfair situation for electors, because where boundaries were not regularly updated to ensure that they more accurately represented changing demographics, there is a risk that some would feel that their vote was not of equal value to the votes cast in a neighbouring constituency. We believe that the middle ground of eight-year cycles, as proposed in the unamended Bill, is the right way forward. It removes the disruption of a review happening roughly each time an election occurs, but as not too much time will pass between reviews, it also delivers boundaries that are up to date and fair. I therefore trust that the House will disagree with these Lords amendments.

Under Lords amendment 6, members of the Boundary Commission would be chosen using a bespoke appointments procedure that would sit entirely outside the existing public appointments process. The Bill as originally drafted did not make changes to the current processes, and there has been no dispute or controversy to date with the manner in which the commissioners have been appointed. The automatic implementation of the boundary commissioners’ final recommendations is crucial to achieving regular and effective boundary reviews.

Automatic implementation also shines a light on the boundary commissioners themselves. As parliamentary scrutiny is not involved in the process, we must be able to trust that the commissions are effective and independent. We need to be able to satisfy ourselves that the process of appointing all Boundary Commission members is thorough, independent and fair and that there is no room for any undue influence of any kind. I can reassure the House that our current processes fulfil all those criteria. Let me first outline how the deputy chairman and the ordinary members of the commission are appointed at present and then look at how the amendment would change the status quo.

The deputy chairman position in each Boundary Commission must be filled by a High Court judge. The amendment is unnecessary for two reasons. First, the judges appointed to the Boundary Commission have already undergone a rigorous recruitment procedure that gives reassurance that they are able to act independently and impartially. Secondly, the Lord Chancellor consults the Lord Chief Justice over these appointments in any case. This provides the views of the head of the English and Welsh judiciary. The appointment of ordinary members of the Boundary Commissions are public appointments. The four commissions are listed alongside many other public bodies and independent offices in the Public Appointments Order in Council 2019. The order is the legal basis for the governance code on public appointments and the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments, who regulates appointments processes.

The governance code and oversight of the commissioner ensure that appointments are made openly, fairly and on merit to the Boundary Commission and many hundreds of other public bodies. The governance code includes robust safeguards to ensure the political impartiality of the two ordinary members of the Boundary Commissions. These members are appointed by Ministers, having been assessed by an advisory assessment panel that includes a representative of the organisation in question. For Boundary Commissions, the representative is the deputy chairman or an ordinary member if the deputy chairman cannot attend. It is the job of the panel to assess which candidates are appointable, so that Ministers may make an informed and appropriate decision. At the application stage, all candidates are asked to declare political activity over the previous five years. Future advisory assessment panel decisions should not be prejudged, but it would seem likely that recent significant political activity would present a degree of conflict that would be incompatible with the panel finding a candidate appointable as a boundary commissioner.

The Bill, as amended, creates a bespoke system for Boundary Commission appointments in primary legislation. There are three main reasons to oppose that amendment. First, the existing public appointments system has secured dedicated and expert members for the Boundary Commission for decades; in simple terms, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Secondly, a separate appointments regime could cast doubt on those appointed to public office under the current system. That doubt would be unjustified, as the current system is independently regulated and ensures that talented individuals with the right skills and experience are appointed to many hundreds of bodies across government to carry out vital public work. We should use it wherever possible and resist the urge to create new, niche systems.

Thirdly, I have already mentioned that the deputy chairman’s previous appointment as a High Court judge will have been sufficiently robust to ensure their ability to act impartially. The Government are also unconvinced by the argument that the Lord Chancellor cannot be trusted to act impartially when making such appointments. The role of the Lord Chancellor—the Lord High Chancellor—occupies a unique and significant position in our constitutional firmament, defending the judiciary and its independence through a duty to rise above party politics where required.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

rose—

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am spoilt for choice. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman because I heard him marginally earlier, probably because of the distance factor.

[David Linden]

The right hon. Gentleman speaks about how independent the Lord Chancellor has been of late. Given the attacks on the judiciary by this Government and the attempts to break international law, does he really think that stands up to scrutiny?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think it is of fundamental importance; the Lord Chancellor is there to say to Ministers that they should not criticise judges. That is one of his roles, to ensure that proper application of the separation of powers. The current Lord Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend, carries out his job with absolute aplomb, but he is not alone in this; Labour Lord Chancellors have done exactly the same.

--- Later in debate ---

There has been much deliberation of the Bill in the other place because it is an important set of changes. Hon. Members will find it particularly interesting to see members of the House of Lords paying such close attention to how democratic elections work. Of course, many of them have expertise in standing for election and I hope that that is something about which they will think more in the future. Let us be clear. This debate relates to a manifesto pledge of the Government. Less than 12 months ago, we on the Government Benches stood on a platform to update our constitutional legislation to ensure that we have equal boundaries so that every vote counts the same in each constituency, with some important exceptions.

[David Linden]

The right hon. Lady talks about manifesto commitments. It was not that long ago that there was a manifesto commitment to have 600 seats in the House of Commons. What changed for the Government? [Interruption]

[Mrs Miller]

As one of my hon. Friends says from a sedentary position, it was a different manifesto. Even more importantly, one fundamental change that the hon. Gentleman will know more about is that we are choosing to leave the EU and, as a result, Members will have more work to do.

[David Linden]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs Miller]

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me not to give way, this is not a debate between the two of us. The Leader of the House has set out important responses to these amendments which deserve a great deal of consideration. He has given a comprehensive analysis of these Lords amendments. Taking into account the fact that the Government have accepted amendments 3, 4 and 5 already, I would like to confine my comments to amendment 7 but also join him in agreeing that all the other amendments are manifestly unnecessary. Indeed, the Committee considered those issues in detail and found that the Bill should remain as it is.

Amendment 7 would undermine the essence of the Bill because it increases, not reduces, the opportunity for differences between constituencies. I referred to Basingstoke during my intervention on the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood. Currently we have almost 83,000 voters in Basingstoke, whereas a constituency such as Rhondda has just over 50,000. That shows starkly the necessity for change and for us to take this opportunity to make that change work as well as it can. It is as much to do with the way the current system works, in terms of Parliament being able to intervene in these measures. The difference between those constituencies is stark. But it is incumbent on us to ensure that any changes we put in place do not build another raft of problems for the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Miller]

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not want to be the person from the Labour Benches to tell the people of Ynys Môn that Labour does not believe that theirs should be a unique constituency.

Thank you so much for the opportunity to contribute to the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker and I hope the Leader of the House can answer my questions.

[David Linden]

It is a pleasure, as always, to follow the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller).

I start by sending my best wishes to the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), who has been a formidable but good-natured opponent on the Bill. Naturally, there is much for me to disagree about when it comes to my dealings with Britain’s Constitution Minister, but personal health always transcends politics, and I know I speak for us all when I wish her all the very best for her treatment in the coming weeks and months. I look forward to seeing her back at the Dispatch Box.

I also welcome the Leader of the House to our proceedings on the Bill. He is always incredibly entertaining and I have certainly enjoyed watching his transition from a robust and consistent Back Bencher to a member of the Cabinet having to participate in the parliamentary gymnastics of Government U-turns that have become a hallmark of this Government.

The particular U-turn that this Bill legislates for is in reference to clause 5. That undoes the 2011 legislation, which I think the right hon. Gentleman voted for and which would have reduced the number of constituencies in the House from 650 to 600. With new legislative powers coming back from Brussels post Brexit, it would surely have been bonkers to reduce the number of MPs while increasing the legislative power of the Executive. Let me respond to the point of the right hon. Member for Basingstoke. I know that she did not want to have a debate about it, but her point was that the Government changed their position as a result of Britain’s exit from the European Union. In actual fact, as someone who served on the Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill Committee, a Bill brought forward by the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan), I know that, until December last year, the Government opposed that Bill every single way by withholding the money resolution. By that point, Britain was already leaving the European Union, so I am afraid that the right hon. Lady’s argument does not stand up to scrutiny on that part.

The fact that, under new calculations, Scotland will lose out on two to three constituency seats is making a mockery of the promises made after the 2014 independence referendum. In fact, it seems that all the devolved nations will now stand to lose out on constituency seats under the new calculations. The nation, of course, that is due to lose the most seats under these proposals is Wales, with all witnesses in Committee, including the CCHQ representative, Mr Pratt, saying that Wales would, in his own words, “take a hit”. I am sure that Welsh Conservative MPs were delighted about that being placed in Hansard. Again, it has been widely acknowledged that, under the current formula, Wales would lose seats to the benefit of the south-east of England. But this is not the only UK nation that stands to have diminished representation in the House of Commons.

Scotland is currently represented by 59 MPs and although I continue to work every single day of the week to ensure that Scotland is no longer governed by Westminster, until that day comes, I will fight to ensure that Scotland’s voice is fairly heard in this Chamber. Based on the proposed electoral quotas, we would see Scotland losing two or three seats to the advantage of England, which strikes me as being wholly unfair and flies in the face of the rallying calls that Scotland should lead the United Kingdom, rather than leave it. After the 2014 referendum, Scotland was promised that it would be considered an equal partner in this Union. However, the fact that Scotland is now set to lose three constituency seats should continue to highlight the promises made post 2014 that have been proven to be empty again.

I welcome all the amendments made in the House of Lords and commit my party to voting for them when the Division bells ring tonight, but there were some real missed opportunities for their lordships to dramatically improve the Bill. First, I am bitterly disappointed that their lordships did not remove the provisions of clause 2, which deals with the issue of automaticity or parliamentary approval of commission recommendations. Too often in earlier debates, the Government got away with suggesting that MPs should not be marking their own homework when it came to the approval of new boundaries, but I am genuinely surprised that the other House, which has a role in approving recommendations as well, has also relinquished that right. When it comes to Scottish peers—most if not all of them have never been elected—there was a hugely missed opportunity to try to protect the voices of devolved nations in future Parliaments. It should have been a priority for Members of the House of Lords to protect Scotland’s 59 seats in this Parliament and to protect our ability to represent our constituents and not to diminish Scotland’s voice. I see that some Conservative Members look quite perplexed at this idea of protecting seats, but of course it was 1980s legislation under Margaret Thatcher that protected Scotland initially at 73 seats and then they were reduced to 59 under devolution. Therefore, for those who look a bit perplexed about this, it was actually something that was advocated by a Conservative Government.

Having set out our position in the Bill, I will confine my remarks to the amendments for consideration from the other place. I turn to amendments 1 and 2. My party supports the amendments to review the boundaries every 10 years, as opposed to the shorter timeframe of eight years, mainly due to the increased certainty that it gives to constituents and representatives alike. Moving from eight to 10 years does not strike me as being an unreasonable compromise and I am therefore content to offer my party’s support for the amendment being made permanent to the Bill.

On amendment 6, I also support the change to have an independent appointment process. Earlier in my remarks, I made reference to authenticity and the Government’s argument that MPs should not have a role in approving the commissioner’s recommendations. If we follow the logic of the argument about removing perceived self-interest, then the same is surely true for Ministers—in this case, the Lord Chancellor appointing boundary commissioners. Amendment 6 would see the power to appoint commissioners transferred from a politician to the Lord Chief Justice. That would, in effect, stop future Tory Ministers from appointing their chums to the Boundary Commission. By keeping clause 2(2) in the Bill but voting against Lords amendment 6, the Government would, in effect, be having their cake and eating it, and be charged with rank hypocrisy. I know the Leader of the House is a good man, and I am sure he would not want to be portrayed as a hypocrite by voting for such a fundamentally contradictory proposition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bowie]

rose—

[David Linden]

I am happy to give way to my hon. Friend.

[Andrew Bowie]

I thank my hon. Friend—and he is a friend. Does he not agree that what we are trying to achieve is ensuring that each vote in this country is, as far as possible, equal to the next one? The more that we increase the tolerance, the less equal everybody’s vote becomes, and so we move further and further away from what we are trying to achieve by going through this process in the first place.

[David Linden]

What I am trying to make sure is that I and my hon. Friend are made unemployed fairly soon—but that is a separate matter. The point is that it was previously enshrined in legislation that Scotland would have 73 seats and then it would rightly be reduced to 59 in the light of devolution. Government Members cannot have their cake and eat it; in one respect they are enshrining in legislation a certain number of seats, but locking that down in legislation means that there will be a degree of difference. However, I have a huge amount of respect for my hon. Friend, and he has put his point on the record.

I return to the point made by Mr Bellringer in the evidence session that there is a need to move towards a tolerance rate of, say, 7.5%. That is why I urge the Government to increase it to give commissioners the wider discretion that they asked for when they gave us that evidence. I know that the Government are not particularly fond of listening to experts these days, but I am very hopeful that this afternoon they could just make a wee exception for the Boundary Commission for England.

Finally, I want to make reference to Lords amendment 8. Before doing so, I offer my sincere condolences, on behalf of my party, to the family of Lord Shutt, who, as we have heard, passed away only in the past couple of weeks, but was responsible for securing this amendment in the other place. By using the electoral registers as the data source to draw parliamentary constituencies, the Bill also seeks to disadvantage young people, as the data is less likely to include the names of young people than it is older people, since young people are often not registered to vote. Registration rates for eligible 16 and 17-year-olds were estimated to be 25% in 2018—a drop from 45% in 2015. In contrast, 94% of those aged 65-plus were estimated to be registered. The SNP therefore supports this amendment, which requires the Government to bring forward proposals to improve the completeness of the electoral register in relation to attainers. Only then can we ensure that we are not disadvantaging young people in the electoral process.

The Leader of the House has spent the majority of his time in this House on the Back Benches advocating Brexit and talking about Parliament taking back control from an all-powerful Executive—something this Bill makes worse. I therefore want to finish by paraphrasing something a wise man once said in this House many years ago about standing up for democracy:

 “’Stiffen your sinews, summon up the blood and imitate the action of a tiger, for that is how you should behave towards our European partners, not like Bagpuss.’” —[Official Report, 24 October 2011; Vol. 534, c. 109.]

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I would like to start by commenting on Lords amendment 7 and the flexibility. We keep hearing this mathematical argument, but we seem to be getting away from the overarching principle. Already this afternoon, we have heard that it is difficult to keep local communities together unless we move to a tolerance of 7.5%, which strikes me as odd when it would mean going from a difference of roughly 7,500 voters to one of 11,000. Many electoral wards in this country have fewer than 7,500 voters, so are we now making the argument that wards themselves split communities and that they are wrong as well? There is a fundamental principle: if we went to 7.5%, one vote could be worth one 67,000th and another could be worth one 77,000th. That is quite a significant difference.

I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden). I very much enjoyed working with him in Committee and having the debates that we had, and I have a huge amount of respect for him. He made a very important point about equal representation. He said that by losing seats, Scotland will not have equal representation. I would argue that the exact opposite is true: it is equal representation—and of course there are two protected seats in Scotland; recognition has been made of the geographical reasons why the Outer Hebrides and Orkney and Shetland are separate. It is not fair to say that Scotland is getting less representation and that it needs to be equally represented, because there will be equal United Kingdom representation. That is what this is about: the United Kingdom’s Government.

The hon. Gentleman and I are never going to agree on his nationalistic views and my Union views—that is why I sit on the Conservative Benches and he sits on the SNP Benches—but we just seem to be plucking figures out of the air for the 7.5% and the 5%. Again, I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) and I have a huge deal of respect for her. She made an argument about the 600 seats and how that changed the number of voters when dealing with the 5%. However, away from the numbers, the fundamental principle must be to get as close as possible.

I made the point in intervening on my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House about trying to get as close to the quota as possible. It should be possible to do that if the Boundary Commission for England, especially, takes the approach that the Boundary Commission for Scotland takes and decides that it does not have to draw some very strange shapes and lines using ward boundaries, but that it can work with smaller electoral segments.

We heard the argument in Committee that polling districts can be changed by local authorities and can lose that representation—that they could be gerrymandered —but of course there will come a point when the Electoral Commission looks at where they are today. It has already said that it will go on where they are today; it is using the March 2020 register and those units as they exist today. If, in eight years’ time, there have been changes to those polling districts, for whatever reason, that can be taken into account at that time, and the Electoral Commission is an independent body.

I will happily support the Government in disagreeing with Lords amendment 7. Fundamentally, we cannot lose sight of the fact that we are trying to give equality of vote. In my mind, the tolerance is there not to try to draw the most convenient shape using wards, but purely to allow the flexibility for which a need will inevitably build up over the eight years, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, with new housing developments and so on. My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) has made the point many times that development, especially in certain parts of the country, is huge, and it leads to such housing developments. That is what the tolerance should be about; it should not be about trying to draw the shapes to have one just creeping in at the bottom end and one just meeting the higher end. The flexibility should allow a 5% tolerance of the share of that vote over the eight years; it should not get there straight away. If a constituency is made at the higher end, within eight years, it will almost certainly be above that number and we will be back in the same situation.

My constituency of Elmet and Rothwell has 79,316 electors. The neighbouring constituency of Leeds East has 65,693. The neighbouring constituency to that of Leeds Central has 82,211. It simply cannot be right to have such variation within less than 10 miles as the crow flies.

My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) is in his place and cannot speak in the debate. [Interruption.] I can still smell and taste; it’s all right. He and I have represented Leeds electors since the early 2000s. We have seen great differences in the city and how it is set up. His constituency is on the higher side of the number of electors in Leeds. My voters are getting almost one 80,000th of a vote, whereas in the neighbouring seat they are getting one 65,000th of a vote. It is right to reject Lords amendment 7 simply because we should see it not as a way to fill the gap and make constituencies work, but purely as a way to give people a vote that will change plus or minus 5% over the eight-year period to try to keep things roughly similar.

Lords amendment 1 is about moving from eight to 10 years. The reality is that that means we would probably go through three general elections on those boundaries. We have heard a lot in these debates about how big the boundary changes are probably going to be when they come through, but that is because nothing has happened for a quarter of a century. The changes will be of that size; they will be disruptive.

It is better to go in a cycle of two general elections so that, hopefully, from this point on, with the Government amendments to try to make the whole system more robust and far less open to political shenanigans in the House, we will not see such major changes in future. It is better that the system can be, for want of a better word, tinkered with to make sure that we get back to roughly within those tolerances. We all accept that there will be demographic change and housing change. Big things are happening, including the ambition to build so many houses, which will cause change.

What seems like a small amendment would have a huge impact. Very large changes would have to be made simply by adding those two years and getting into a three-general-election cycle.

Lords amendment 8 is about registrations. It is a fundamental right of people in this country to choose whether they want to register for a vote or not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Randall]

May I add my good wishes to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith)?

In life, theory and practice can often be two separate things, and in my relatively short time in Parliament I have found that to be the case. In theory, all Members of Parliament are equal and have the same basic duties, and while I accept that some Members of the House are perhaps more equal than others, it is a reasonable assumption that we ought to have some of the same basic responsibilities, including the number of constituents we represent. I appreciate that there will be certain geographical challenges to that, such as with island constituencies, but I believe that general principle should hold firm. I suggest that the existing system does not do that. To give an extreme example, Milton Keynes South has 97,000 electors, compared with Newcastle upon Tyne Central’s 54,000.

As originally drafted, the Bill would ensure a broad equality, subject to some tolerance, in the number of electors in each constituency, so that they are more or less of equal weight. Equality and fairness ought to be an overriding principle on a matter such as this.

[David Linden]

I agree that we need equality. On that basis, and given that all Members should be equal in this House, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the system of English votes for English laws is currently suspended. Will he call on the Government to ensure that that system does not come back, so that his hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) can cast his vote in exact same way as him in a Division?

[Andrew Bowie]

Well said!

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

Absolutely. My right hon. Friend has made strong points on that issue. I suggest that people look at the excellent House of Commons Library briefing on this issue that sets out all the information clearly.

[David Linden]

Just to clarify, the Conservatives are saying that it is okay to break that law in a very “specific and limited” way.

[Stephen Doughty]

I am not going to put assertions in the mouth of the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell—that would not be right for me to do—but the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) has made his point.

Let me turn briefly to Wales, which will lose out in terms of the number of constituencies. We all support the principle of bringing greater equality among constituencies, but the point about Wales is really important. I think the Leader of the House misinterprets the guidance from the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe. I have read it and it is clear that departure from the specified point should seldom be 10% and definitely should not be over 15%. We are talking about 7.5%.

Evidence has been heard not only in respect of this Bill—I looked at that—but in previous Committee hearings in the House. For example, in 2014-15 the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee was clear on this issue, as was the evidence from the Boundary Commission for England itself about the difficulties for the boundary commissioners. I put on the record my thanks to all the staff who are involved in what is a very difficult process. They do an excellent job that is not easy—it is extremely complex and complicated—and I praise them for the work that they do.

There are specific issues in relation to Wales and geography, as indeed there are in certain other parts of the UK. It is absolutely right that distinct geographical exemptions are made for Ynys Môn, the Isle of Wight and Na h-Eileanan an Iar—I do not know whether I have pronounced that correctly; my Welsh pronunciation is a lot better than my Gaelic—because of water boundaries and islands, but distinctions also need to be made in relation to, for example, valley boundaries and mountains, which really do split constituencies.

We can end up with some very odd circumstances. We are not saying that the tolerances should be used as a matter course, just that the allowance should be there when it is a common-sense decision for the benefit and integrity of communities. I think of the circumstance in my own constituency in respect of the boundary review that was not put into place: the Cardiff bay barrage was split between three constituencies, thereby splitting apart the docks communities of Cardiff bay that sit together. A person would literally have passed through three communities as they walked along the barrage, which is only about 1 km long. It was absurd. We have to allow the boundary commissioners to take such things into account.

I have made the points that I wanted to make on the Lords amendments, so let me return to what President-elect Biden said:

“Democracy is the root of our society, the wellspring of our power, and the source of our renewal. It strengthens and amplifies our leadership to keep us safe in the world. It is the engine of our ingenuity that drives our economic prosperity.”

Those are words that I completely endorse and that we should have in our minds as we consider these important matters relating to our democracy. I support the position that we are taking on the Lords amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

Lords amendment 7 is an example of that other species of amendment—the partisan. We rejected a similar Opposition amendment in Committee, and we articulated quite properly the reason that 5% variance from the mean was appropriate, fair and practical. I reiterate the belief among Government Members that splitting wards in England, as the commission in Scotland does there, will address the challenges around the larger ward sizes in metropolitan boroughs—what I have called the martini paradox. I encourage the English commission to prepare postcode-level data to enable this as a matter of priority.

[David Linden]

Does the hon. Gentleman therefore regret that the amendment that I tabled in Committee to that very effect was not supported by his own Government?

[Chris Clarkson]

I will stand to be corrected by the hon. Gentleman, but was that not a probing amendment, which he withdrew?

[David Linden]

The hon. Gentleman is right, but the Minister said that it was not something that the Government were willing to entertain. The fundamental point is that the Conservative Government do not support that principle.

[Chris Clarkson]

The hon. Gentleman can find out my views over a glass of wine once the Smoking Room reopens.

I am afraid that the argument that a wider variance will minimise disruption is entirely specious. We know that regions will differ in the number of seats necessitating significant change across the piece, and I demonstrated in Committee that even if there had been a 15% variance—the maximum allowed under the Venice Commission—my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and I would still have been representing seats outwith the permitted tolerance. Such is the outdated nature of the current constituencies that I was not eligible to vote when the boundaries of my seat were last approved.

That brings me neatly to Lords amendment 8. There is a marvellous American expression: “Decisions are made by the people who show up.” However well-intentioned this amendment might be, I fear that it misses the point. We would all like to see greater participation in our democracy, but the right way to do that is not simply to add everyone’s name to the register. Individual electoral registration was brought in to combat electoral fraud, and I fully support that. I appreciate Opposition Members say that there have only been nine instances of fraud, but that is nine too many.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)]

Like many hon. Members I send my best wishes to my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith). She has been a friend for many years and I know that the thoughts of the whole House are with her and wishing for her swift recovery.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and my hon Friends the Members for Gedling (Tom Randall), Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke), Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson), and West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) have all made excellent points, echoing many of the points that I wish to make. On Lords amendment 1, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton. I cannot understand, when we are seeing huge population growth and massive development in some constituencies, why one would want to have 10 years rather than eight. When I stood for the council in Tower Hamlets in 2008, I remember looking at the huge differences in population growth in east London that had occurred as a result of massive regeneration. That threw out not only council wards but some parliamentary constituencies by tens of thousands.

Most of my comments today relate to Lords amendment 7—or, for reasons that will become self-evident, what I call the Borat amendment. As the Venice Commission outlines in its core principle, the equality of voting power is a crucial standard of the concept of electoral integrity. That is important. There has been much talk about tolerance today, but it is a tolerance around a mean. Seven and a half per cent on either side makes a difference of 15% and that is a significant change from 10%. Page 21 of the Venice Commission’s 2017 report highlights two nations. One is Malta, whose constitution allows no more than 5% departure on either side of the average in order to take account of geographical vicinity. However, Kazakhstan allows 15% tolerance. Britain is in exactly the right place when it is more aligned to Maltese rules on different constituency sizes than it is to Kazakhstan’s rules.

What we all want is simple: equal representation as far as possible, but taking into account reasonable geographical changes.

[David Linden]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Holden]

I am speaking only briefly, so I am afraid not. Finally, I am glad that the Government have accepted Lords amendment 3, because we all know what happened in the late 1960s when Harold Wilson delayed and delayed in an attempt to deny democracy and hold Britain back in the 1950s—it did not serve him well. I am glad the Government are moving forwards and I urge all hon. Members to support the Government tonight.

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne), and I join Members from all around the House in sending my best wishes to the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith). She is not only a fantastic Minister, but an exceptionally kind Member of the House, and she has been very kind to lots of new Members in particular.

Tragically, I was not on the Bill Committee, but the Whips have seen me right on the Order Paper tonight, as I will be on the Joint Committee on the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, in which I look forward to engaging with the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar), who is not in his place, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller). However, like the Bill Committee, I have spent the last few weeks studying maps with arbitrary boundaries, straight lines cutting through the middle of cities, districts drawn in extraordinary shapes and parts of marginal areas split up by huge lakes. At the end of all that, we do seem to have a clear result, so I warmly congratulate President-elect Joe Biden and Vice-President-elect Kamala Harris on their triumph and achievement, and particularly Kamala Harris’s achievement as the first woman and first woman of colour to succeed to the vice-presidency.

I do not make this point just as a joke, but because the present US experience demonstrates some of the real concerns about legislating in this area and the politicisation of boundaries and electoral arrangements. Politicising these things undermines the independence of the process. It undermines its integrity, transparency and fairness and, as we have regrettably seen in the States, it also tends to undermine the acceptance of the result, which is absolutely fundamental to any democracy.

Here in the UK we have much to be proud of, but we should not be self-satisfied, because the boundaries on which I, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) and many others were elected were set in 2006 for England, and that was based on data that was even older than that. When I was elected last December, the boundaries were already 13 years out of date. Two subsequent reviews have had to be abandoned. The first was abandoned, very clearly, on political grounds, I regret to say—not that it did the Liberal Democrats much good, but there we go.

I strongly welcome the Bill. I particularly welcome its automaticity and Lords amendments 3, 4 and 5, which strengthen that automaticity. I hope that this will be the last time that I need to debate these matters in the Chamber. Parliament is ultimately sovereign and it needs to lay out a framework for elections for parliamentary constituencies, but once we have a framework, I think that process should proceed by clockwork. There should be no parliamentary vote to stop the process that has been put in place.

I shall briefly speak to a couple of amendments with which I and the Government disagree. Amendments 1 and 2 are about the number of years. I think that eight years is a reasonable cycle length, for the reasons that many of my hon. Friends have given today, and it also means that there should be no need for interim reviews. They are a complication of the process that I do not think we need, but given the population growth that we are seeing, eight years allows us to get reviews on a reasonable cycle length.

So many Members have spoken to amendment 7, on tolerance. I am a tolerant man, but I think that 7,000 votes is more than enough tolerance between the smallest and largest constituencies in the country. An 11,000 difference when we have the opportunity to make it less than that seems over the top to me. I fundamentally believe in equal voting power for all Members in this place, as far as possible.

I will try to be brief—I also disagree with the other Lords amendments but I will not elaborate on the reasons why; they are basically the reasons that the Leader of the House set out in his excellent opening speech. Finally, just to reiterate my points on automaticity, let this Bill be the last time for a very long time that this House needs to legislate on these matters. The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) said that this is our last chance and that once we pass the Bill, it is done. Well, I say: good, that is how it should be. Let the convention be re-established that boundary changes are a process that should not be interfered with by MPs.

[David Linden]

The hon. Gentleman talks about the House not interfering with the Boundary Commission’s process going forward. Why, then, did the Government not table the Orders in Council that allowed the last Parliament to have a vote on those boundary proposals?

[Aaron Bell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. There are two points. The one from my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke about the EU referendum was well made, and I regret to say that the Government—I was not a Member at the time—probably felt that there were not the votes in the House to get the proposals through. That is principally the same reason that the previous review was abandoned. I am trying to make the point that we should not rely on votes in the House to get a boundary review through. A boundary review will undoubtedly be bad news for certain Members and good news for others. The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) might get a lovely SNP ward added to his seat, whereas I might lose a lovely rural ward, but it should not be for me to vote on that with my self-interest at heart. We need to create a fair, independent process, which is what the Bill does. I therefore commend it to the House and urge us to reject the Lords amendments, with the exception of the ones on automaticity.