Parliamentary Constituencies bill (Second sitting)

Jane Hunt Excerpts

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

[John Spellar]

Q Finally, you mentioned that something like 50% of the initial recommendations were altered. Is that not partly because if they followed an argument in one constituency, because of the 5% margin, there were inevitable knock-on effects on many other constituencies, which could have been perfectly easily accommodated had there been a wider margin of difference? You had a domino effect rather than dealing with a perfectly proper and legitimate cause of local complaint.

Roger Pratt: There were some perfectly legitimate causes of local complaint, but one of the things they had to do was make sure that the knock-on effects were affected. Certainly, the Labour party and ourselves and others always put in an overall plan, so you could look at the overall plan. That is what you must do to try to get it right sometimes.

The Labour party and ourselves and other parties agreed in Dorset. All three of us came up independently with the same alternative plan for the Boundary Commission, so I do believe that it is right. I do not believe that a 7.5% quota is right.

It is a question of balance, isn’t it? It is a question of the balance you strike between getting a quota right and community ties. I think the quota at a 10% variance, rather than at 15%, which you would have under seven and a half, is the right balance to strike.

In the past, the Boundary Commission, in the rules under which you were all elected, stated quite clearly that it needs to get as near as possible to the electoral quota—that is in the Act—but it has been conflicted as to how it uses those rules. Under the new rules, it is not; it knows it has to get everything within 10%, that is 5% either side, but, in addition to that, it uses the rules to make sure that it uses the other factors. It does not need to get as near the quota as possible. Mr Bellringer made that clear this morning.

If I may, Mr Chairman, I have one other point on the 10%. The right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell referred to the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. The OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights publishes an election observation handbook, which says that,

“all votes should carry the same weight to ensure equal representation. This means that each elected representative represents a similar number of registered electors. For example, in a majority voting system, the size of the electorate should not vary by more than approximately ten percent from constituency to constituency.”

I think that is the right balance to strike.

[Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)]

Q I have a couple of questions about reviews. First, on the proposal for an eight-year review cycle, could you tell me what you think of that, and why?

Roger Pratt: Yes. I think that is absolutely right. When there was an original five-year term, it was linked to the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. Since then, we have had two general elections not based on the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, and I think it is the Government’s intention to change that Act. So I think eight years is the right balance to strike, so that normally you would have two Parliaments between each review.

[Jane Hunt]

Q Super. And if I may, I have a second question, which is about the review process, or rather the consultation process. Again, it is proposed that that process will change slightly. What do you think of that?

Roger Pratt: I fully support the changes. I think it is right that the initial proposals should be out there for eight weeks, and you should not be having public hearings during that period. It was very difficult to have public hearings during the initial period; I think that caused problems for parties and people. It is much better that, during the secondary consultation stage, which is six weeks, you have those public hearings, and you can discuss not only what the Boundary Commission has brought forward but any other alternatives that are brought forward in the first stage. So I think it is absolutely right.

[The Chair]

Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions of you, Roger. Thank you very much for your time and your expertise today; they have been much appreciated.

Roger Pratt: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman.

Examination of Witness

Tom Adams gave evidence.

2.31 pm

--- Later in debate ---

[Jane Hunt]

Q Automaticity—a word I have much difficulty saying—proposes that decisions on boundary changes will be put into force directly. Would that prevent a recurrence of what happened with the Labour Government in 1969?

Tom Adams: Or equally what happened in the last few reviews. I think I have covered my views on that already, and what I think Parliament should do in terms of approving the proposals once they are put to Parliament. I do not have anything further to add.

[Jane Hunt]

Q Okay, so you do not think it would make any difference if the Boundary Commission made the recommendations and they went straight to the Speaker.

Tom Adams: Well, the fact that they would go straight to the Speaker is welcome, because that would mean that the Secretary of State could no longer make amendments to them, but I still think they should be subject to parliamentary approval, as I said earlier.

[John Spellar]

Q Do you find it interesting that a Government with a majority of 80 are so concerned about their inability to get through a boundary review? Might that indicate that the underlying reason for the previous review not going through was because it caused so much discontent in their own ranks—in other words, because it did not respect local community interests and local boundaries?

Tom Adams: That gets at one reason why Parliament should ultimately have to approve boundary reviews: if you cannot even get half the House to agree to them, clearly there is not sufficient MP backing for them—not enough MPs agree that it is a sensible process. Last time, the proposed reduction to 600 seats clearly had a big impact on that backing. Keeping the number at 650 will mitigate that somewhat. I agree that that is one reason why it is important that Parliament has that oversight. If it struggles to get half of MPs to vote in favour of the proposal, that implies that people do not broadly think it would be a good outcome.