Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Falconer of Thoroton Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

27GA: Clause 12, line 11, leave out “12” and insert “6”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

My Lords, I propose a number of amendments to those proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, on behalf of the Government. At the heart of the noble and learned Lord’s proposals is the introduction of a process which, as he accepts, is not in any sense an inquiry but is intended to enable the public to make representations about any proposals regarding boundary changes with which the hearing is concerned.

As I understand the Government’s proposal, it will be open to individuals to make oral representations. A chair will be present to govern the proceedings—presumably to determine the order in which people speak; perhaps to determine whether what they say properly relates to the proposals; and also to determine how long they speak to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to do so. A record will be kept of what is said and that will be put into a public place for people to see. It is not envisaged that there will be any resolution or that the chair will play any part in determining any issues that arise on the wisdom or otherwise of the boundary proposals. However, it is envisaged that the oral hearing process should take place before the conclusion of the written representation period, which I think ends at week 12, with the oral hearing process taking place between weeks five and 10. Therefore, what the Government propose is not in any sense an inquiry and resolution of issues in the form of a report making recommendations to the Boundary Commission; it is simply an opportunity to make oral representations, which are recorded and then made public.

Previously, the Government proposed to ban the Boundary Commission from holding public inquiries altogether. They have not moved from that position but they have introduced the public hearing process that I have described. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, expresses his opposition to public inquiries primarily because he is concerned that an open-ended process of public inquiries could cause a fatal delay to the timetable for completing the next boundary review before the intended 2015 general election. He was also concerned that political parties would be too involved. For that reason, the Government have reduced the process to one of only a hearing.

It is important to hear what those who have experience of this situation have said. Robin Gray, former chairman of the Boundary Commission for England, said concerning the proposals in the Bill:

“Particularly with this first round … there is a real need for public inquiries particularly to enable those who are interested, political parties and others, to actually argue this through because these are going to be big changes”.

Ron Johnston, as the noble and learned Lord fairly said, is normally an opponent of public inquiries. In this area, he said that,

“you are drawing a totally new map with new constituencies and nearly everything will be different ... local people are going to be concerned because suddenly the pattern of representation is going to be very different from what they have been used to for a long time”.

Noble Lords will form their own view of the extent to which they have received representations from members of the public about, for example, the Isle of Wight, Cornwall, Anglesey and a number of other issues relating to the proposed boundary changes.

Our initial proposals to reinstate public inquiries in their current form did not address the noble and learned Lord’s concerns about the prospect of delay or the fact that there needed to be streamlined public inquiries. We agree with him that there needs to be proper control, as efficient focus as possible and a real focus on real issues. We listened to what the Government said and moved to a new amendment, which allowed for public inquiries but with significant new limitations that would give the Boundary Commissions discretion over whether an inquiry was held. It also placed a cap on the length of time that inquiries could take. During the debate on our amendment, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, who, I am happy to see, is in his place, made an important intervention. He pointed out:

“If there is no provision for an inquiry”—

I interpose that there is no doubt that by “inquiry” he meant a proper inquiry, not the hearing process to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, refers—

“I anticipate that there will inevitably be an increase in applications for judicial review”.—[Official Report, 26/1/11; col. 1067.]

The Minister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, responded favourably to that first debate, which was on our amendments. He said:

“It is not a fundamental principle of the Bill that there should be no oral inquiries”.—[Official Report, 26/1/11; col. 1070.]

Although he did not mention it at that point, when he said “inquiries”, I think he meant the sort of hearings that he has been referring to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

Apart from the question of timing and the chairmanship of an inquiry, or whatever we call it, what is the substantive difference between a public inquiry and what is proposed, a public hearing? Can the noble and learned Lord summarise the substantive differences for my sake?

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that opportunity. As I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will confirm, a public hearing simply involves an opportunity for people to come to a room—a town hall or a village hall—to make or read a statement. It is recorded, and that is it. The next person then stands up and makes a statement, and then he or she sits down. It goes on like that. A record is kept of what is said, but there is no resolution of any issues. The statement of what is said is then, I assume, placed on the web so that everybody can see what was said

A public inquiry would involve Mr X saying, “I think that the boundaries should be here”, and Mr Y saying, “I think that the boundaries should be there”. Then the chair—having heard all the representations that people want to make, determining what the process is, having heard what everybody has said—says, “I recommend to the Boundary Commission that it should draw the boundaries there”. So it is a process where issues are identified and some resolution is given. That is the fundamental difference.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

That is the weakness in the position at present and as outlined by the noble and learned Lord: there are two recommendations. There is the recommendation from the chairman of the inquiry and then the Boundary Commission makes a recommendation to the Secretary of State as to where the boundary should be. What is the need for a double decision?

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

The effect of the Bill and all previous Bills is that the Boundary Commission's conclusions are in practice final. Yes, they have to be given to the Secretary of State, but the Bill—in my view, correctly—takes away any discretion from the Secretary of State to do anything other than lay them before Parliament, so, in practice, they are final.

The Boundary Commission does not come in any shape or form from the locality; it does not hear local representations; and it does not hear argument about where the boundaries should be. It is fundamentally different; it is carrying out an administrative process.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

Is the difference, therefore, that the Boundary Commission will be the body that considers all representations, whether oral or written? Will this not be more desirable than it simply acting administratively, as the noble and learned Lord says, upon the recommendation of somebody else?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

Absolutely not, because where, as a result of the representations made at written stage, an issue is identified that would be assisted by hearing people locally, not only do you get local engagement—which everybody thinks is important—you also focus on a particular issue with somebody hearing and resolving the arguments. Of all the people in the world who would think that that was a worthwhile process, I can think of nobody who would regard it as more so than the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, who in all my years in the House has upheld every single aspect of such a process.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

It is important that the Boundary Commission, which has an overall view, should be the body that takes the decision and makes the final recommendation.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I apologise for not making this clear. It will, but with the benefit of the recommendation made by the chair after a local inquiry.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

The noble Lord has been extraordinarily patient, but I am sure that he wants us all to understand—and I may not be the only person in the Chamber who does not from his explanation—whether cross-examination will be allowed.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

It will be entirely a matter for the chair, probably operating in accordance with guidance given by the assistant or deputy chairs of the Boundary Commission. We will encourage a process that is streamlined and non-formal. If cross-examination would help let it be so, if it would not let it be a matter for the assistant chair hearing the inquiry on the day. I trust the right people to make the right decisions on how to get to a conclusion as shortly, as economically and as appropriately as possible.

In our amendment we propose that the chair of such a public inquiry must be a legally qualified assistant commissioner, appointed by the chair of the Boundary Commission, with the power to make recommendations. We say this must be a legally qualified person because they will have experience of ensuring short, sharp hearings, which I think is what everybody wants. Without that, the system of hearings put forward by the Government is little more than a public reading of statements. It will lead, I am sure, to a sense of frustration because there is no response of any detailed sort.

The issue of public inquiries is one of the most central concerns we have with the Bill. The Government’s initial response to the debates we had on this matter was pivotal in breaking the deadlock in Committee. We have understood that they would respond favourably to this and other amendments on public enquiries; it matters hugely. However, we have put the proposal forward in a spirit of compromise. We have sought at every stage to listen to what the Government have said.

[Lord Campbell of Alloway]

I have not taken much active interest in this debate but I have read all the official reports. I cannot understand why one has to go into this rather complex, devious regime and not leave this matter of tremendous importance—non-political importance—to the Boundary Commission. I may have missed it, but I have been listening and I do not understand.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I have considerable sympathy with that view. If the Bill had said, “Let there be public inquiries and let the chair or the deputy chair of the Boundary Commission determine the right course and whether or not there should be a public inquiry”, I anticipate and understand that the Government would have been concerned about the delay that that might cause to the timing of the boundary review. We are prepared to enter into a scheme, whose structure is in effect proposed by the Government, that does its level best to ensure that the process will be over by 30 October 2013, in accordance with the fresh proposals now being made, so that the Government’s timescale would be met. That is why the Government have taken this approach.

In an attempt to reach a conclusion, the Government’s amendment, as amended by ours, would do what your Lordships’ House does very well—namely, improve the Bill in a way which is both a sensible solution and a product of compromise and good sense. I beg to move.

[Lord Woolf]

My Lords, the Government have moved a long way but, in my view, they have not moved far enough. Indeed, some of what they propose is not constructive in the way they intend. The Government’s proposals, if coupled with those put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, would produce a much better result. This is very important for the public because the scale of the changes involved means that the public should have a proper hearing.

I am not surprised that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, asked what is the difference between a public hearing and a public inquiry. Normally a proper hearing involves the kind of matters to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, referred. It is no use having a hearing if it does not serve its purpose. The great defect in the Government’s proposals is that they arrange a hearing following which the person who has to make the decision will not have an opportunity of having any more than a record of what has occurred in the hearing.

In times out of number within our legal system—whether it be in the form of a planning or any other inquiry—a hearing has resulted in an opportunity to be heard, which is then reported upon by a neutral and independent person, normally someone with skill and experience in the area in question. Here it is quite clear that, in the end, the Boundary Commission will have to make the decision and, on both proposals, its decision will be coloured by what has happened at the public hearing. However, on the Government’s case, the Boundary Commission will have only a written record. What is the purpose of having an oral hearing if there is going to be no more than that?

What should happen—I submit that this is what is intended to happen in the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer—is that there should be included in the matters that go before the Boundary Commission the views of the person who is chairing the hearing. That does not mean, as was thought by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas—I say this with great respect—that there would be two decisions; there will be only one decision. The chairman will take great care to do no more than assist the Boundary Commission to reach its decision.

Those who have had the task of looking at many inspectors’ reports will know how a decision that is to be made by the Secretary of State is assisted by an inspector’s report. I anticipate that the chairman will say, “So and so was contended on behalf of X, but Y said so and so, which the Boundary Commission may think is the stronger argument”. The chairman might say, “The Boundary Commission may submit that this point or that point was not properly considered by X in giving his evidence”.

A multitude of situations could arise whereby that process could properly be dealt with by a report by the person who actually conducted the hearing. If that was allowed, you would avoid the frustration felt on the part of those appearing before the chairman that their words are apparently disappearing into the ether with no conclusion being given on them. I strongly urge the Government to think again objectively about what is proposed to avoid that situation, especially if they are concerned about delay.

The Boundary Commission can be given the task of reaching its final decision within a specific time. If, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, suggested, it is given the power to control the chairman, it can ensure that there will be no undue delay, which would have the undesirable results on which the Government speculate. An important point is that there are provisions in the Government’s proposal for questions to be asked of those making oral statements to the hearing—I refer to paragraph 8 of new Schedule 2A, proposed in Amendment 39, where that is made clear. That comes very close to the procedure which would normally take place before someone such as the chairman at a public hearing, as that is normally known. Therefore, you have questioning only under the control of the chairman. Answers are given and you have—and should have—the views of the chairman on what has occurred. If that is not done, a very strange animal indeed will be produced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am not aware that there was a judicial review. The noble Lord said that everyone accepted it. He should consult my noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood about how effective he thinks the present public inquiry system is.

The role of the chair has been much debated. It was said that the chair should be legally qualified in order to provide clarity and consistency of practice, and to make the process resistant to judicial review. It was claimed also that there must be report back. We have just heard about the pros and cons of that. The Government do not agree. The hearings that we propose are about giving the public and the political parties a chance to have their say as part of the consultation process. The legislation provides that a commission shall take into account the representations made at hearings, as it does the written submissions.

Another of my concerns about the opposition proposals is that the value of the written submissions appears to be somewhat relegated. We propose that there should be a counter-representation period. As I understand the Opposition's proposals, any written counter-representations would have to be channelled into the public inquiry: there would not be a time period for them.

It is important to remember that the commissions are independent. They exist to weigh the arguments. It will be for them to decide how best to do that. There is no need to interpose an independent lawyer between the commissions and the arguments in order to allow the public to have their say. The commissions will be chaired by a High Court judge or equivalent and will be very sensitive to those issues. It will be open to them to appoint the chair that they think best for the job. I will not detain the House at the moment by speaking to Amendment 18E in this group, save to say that we have tabled it to broaden the purposes for which assistant commissioners may be engaged.

The Opposition claim that the process is flawed because the hearings will take place at a point in the process before all the written representations are known. This point was picked up by my noble friend Lord Phillips. Again, that is a concern if one has the mindset of a public inquiry. We say that parties will be able to feed in their views of the commission's initial recommendations, and others will be able to hear them. We have provided for counter-representation that will allow scrutiny of the arguments of others. Although we do not envisage a public inquiry with a quasi-judicial cross-examination, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn, that our amendment provides for the chair to put questions or allow questions to be put to a person present at the hearing and, if the question is allowed to be put, to regulate the manner of the questioning or restrict the number of questions that a person may ask. Therefore, there will be an opportunity for the kind of engagement that the noble Lord clearly feels is of value.

The noble and learned Lord stated that the Opposition are arguing that if we adjust the number of weeks for written consultation there is time for oral inquiries to be held. Putting a deadline in the Bill does not guarantee that it will be achieved. The Boundary Commission for England was set a deadline in primary legislation in 1992. However, it reported months later because it felt the need to focus on the process under the previous legislation. I do not criticise it for that: it believed that the process was important. However, I ask the House to consider that the Boundary Commissions may think that the process is important, and that whatever deadline we set may not be met. If that happens, there is a danger that one of the key principles of the Bill will be seriously undermined.

The noble and learned Lord indicated that two days was not enough for an inquiry. Past inquiries have taken 12 days, or 10 under the previous review. Under the Government's proposal, there would be a maximum of 90 days of public hearings in England: five in each region, lasting two days each. That would be the upper limit. The Opposition would remove the limit on the number of days, and the period for counter-representations, meaning that the only place for scrutinising the arguments of others would be in that oral public inquiry. Therefore, we could expect more 10 and 12-day inquiries. We believe that this proposal is simply impractical. I recognise that in toto the number of weeks is similar to ours but I fear that I am sceptical about whether it could be achieved in practice, even if it were desirable to restore the old-style, legalistic form of inquiry. I remind the House that it is not. I quote from academic literature:

“In effect, the public consultation process is very largely an exercise in allowing the political parties to seek influence over the Commission’s recommendations—in which their sole goal is to promote their own electoral interests”.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, indicated that he thought that all the key components were in fact ticked off with the Government’s amendment.

In conclusion, the House is faced with a choice between a new mechanism for ensuring that the public can genuinely engage in the boundary review process through hearings or the recreation of the old inquiry process that we know can be alien to the public and would return us to the days of six-year boundary reviews. Even if it does not do that, it would certainly lead to a length of time which could undermine getting the boundary review through and the next election being fought on modern, up-to-date boundaries. I believe that the Government have moved a long way on this point and they have done so after careful consideration. I urge noble Lords carefully to consider the proposals that we are putting before the House today and to support them.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

My Lords, there is a very real and important issue here. On close analysis, the noble and learned Lord’s proposals are flawed, and fatally so. First, on the point about delay, I do not think that the noble and learned Lord was listening to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, were saying. In his closing remarks, he agreed that the period of time specified for his scheme and for the Opposition’s scheme is broadly the same. With ours it is 26 weeks and with his it is 24 weeks. Therefore, a scheme is being proposed to enable the process to finish by October 2013. I want to spare the blushes of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, but they are probably the two leading experts on judicial review in this country and they are saying that there will be more judicial reviews. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, whom I greatly respect, is shaking his head but, with respect, I am listening to them, not to him, and they are saying that there will be more judicial reviews. They say that they do not know what form they will take but there will be more of them. Therefore, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, is making his scheme more vulnerable to delay through the process that he is proposing. I say that not on the basis of my opinion but on the basis of the opinion of the noble Lord and the noble and learned Lord. Therefore, with respect, his point about a delay is wrong.

Secondly, he says that this process will engage people, in that his scheme will allow people to come and say something—a process that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, described as a day in court. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, spent many days in court, but I have never known a day in court where you say something but then nothing happens. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said—in my submission, entirely correctly—that will be bound to increase resentment, not reduce it. As my noble friend Lord Rooker said, someone will not be saying, “Well, I have heard your arguments and you’re wrong on this and right on that”. It is, with respect, a point that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, put his finger on and it is incredibly important.

The third point that the noble and learned Lord made is that academics are all against us. They are not. They are saying, as we are saying, that we must streamline the process. We must not allow it to become abused, but we must have some process like this. The person who knows best about this is the boundary commissioner, Robin Gray, who said that if you do not have a process where the public can put their point of view and have a response to their point of view rather than complete silence, you are going to have real disquiet about an area where there is no disquiet at the moment. With the greatest of respect, I must say that the Government have moved some way, but they have moved nowhere near enough, and they have put us in a position where we have no alternative but to seek the opinion of the House. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Renton of Mount Harry]

I confess that I was not proposing to speak to this amendment, but I have just listened to the noble Lord, Lord Wills, who I believe was Minister for Constitutional Affairs in another place, and I have to say to him that, frankly, I have rarely read a paragraph that horrified me as much as the one on his committee of inquiry. It seems to me that he is going down absolutely the wrong route by proposing a committee of inquiry composed of,

“a High Court judge … members of both Houses of Parliament … representatives of the principal political parties in the House of Commons as well as individuals with no party attachment, and others”.

That is a joke. The inquiry would go on for ever and would not reach sensible conclusions. We in this House and the other House are expert in what is required here.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, will know, my noble friend Lord Wills’ provision states that they have to produce a report within three years. So it will not go on for ever.

[Lord Wills]

I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Falconer for pointing that out. Perhaps I may also say to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that this committee is based on what used to be known as a royal commission. I was told by the powers in this House that I could not refer to it as a royal commission, but the royal commission, as he ought to know, has a very long and distinguished provenance. If he has read my remarks in the earlier debate on this amendment he will have seen that the period of time provided by the amendment is pretty much the average time given to the last 12 royal commissions that have reported.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Soley]

I invite the noble Lord to read the debates held during the Committee stage, where he will find that those issues were dealt with. I do not want to repeat it all again. I would also say to him that he should read his own party’s literature on this matter since 2004. The arguments are very clearly put in favour of the Conservatives reducing the number of seats not just for fairness but because a reduction would increase their majority. That is a fact, and my concern about it is that any future Government could do the same.

If the Conservative Party is then in opposition, as well as the Liberal party—although why that party is pursuing this is beyond me, because if it was on this side of the House it would fight it fiercely, and its friends in the press would support it—that party would be saying that it was the Labour Party gerrymandering. This is a gerrymandering issue. What my noble friend has done is come up with a structure so that we can take our time and deliberate on very important issues related to the size of the House of Commons. We could do it over time and we would not need to delay the Government getting their Bill. This is a very important amendment that goes to the heart of the problem that the Government have on this. In my view, the position is deeply undesirable and I would love this amendment to be taken in the spirit in which it is intended. It recognises that there is a case to review the size of the House of Commons, but not doing that to the advantage of one or other political party. If my own party tried to do this, I would feel just as strongly about it.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Wills’ amendment is back with us by popular demand, having achieved a very supportive hearing and interesting debate in Committee. I would imagine that that is why we are being treated to a guest appearance by the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones. We are disappointed that he has not played more of a part in our debates. Had he been here, as my noble friend Lord Soley said, he would have discovered—because these points have been made on many occasions—that the reasons why the Conservatives do not do so well are threefold. First, it is because their vote is spread all over the country; secondly, there are lower turnouts in Labour seats than Tory seats; and thirdly, that yes, there is some inequality, but that is the third and most minor of the reasons. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, nodding sagely, and I am only disappointed that he has come today, because the result might have been different in the previous vote.

The amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Wills is an attempt to force the Government to face up to the reality that the issues being dealt with in this Bill need proper thought. The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill provides for significant changes to the British constitution, significant changes that everyone agrees ought to be properly considered in due time and by those with the expertise and the means to disseminate the many views and opinions on these major constitutional issues. These are matters which everyone agrees need proper consideration and resolution, but they undoubtedly will not get that from this Government.

It is therefore right that Members of your Lordships’ House—like my noble friend Lord Wills, who takes these matters seriously and has a proud record in what he has achieved as a Minister, particularly when he was responsible for constitutional matters, and who not only believes in good process and informed proposals but put those into practice when he was a Minister—should put forward amendments like the one before us now. I ask noble Lords to look at what, if I may say, is the rather idle government amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, which can be found on page 14 of the Marshalled List. A minimum effort has been made in order to have an inquiry and it is almost contemptible in the way it has been done. No effort of any sort has been made, despite accepting the proposition which the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, finds so difficult.

The effect of my noble friend’s amendment would be to provide time for the key questions raised by the contents of Part 2 of the Bill to be answered. It would give the time for the sort of consideration that the constitutional matters at hand deserve, and time that we on this side of your Lordships’ House have been trying to provide. We have given this Bill proper scrutiny, and on this side we have forced the House to provide time to allow that to happen. There are so many things that the Government have not done properly in the Bill: no public consultation, no pre-legislative scrutiny, and no respect for the usual gaps between stages in Parliament. The consequence is that parts of the Bill were not considered at all in the House of Commons. The consequence is a shambles where correspondence from Ministers arrives after we have had a debate. That feels like a corrosive process as far as constitutional change is concerned.

But there is more—and my noble friend Lord Wills made this point very effectively. Noble Lords will know that allegations have been made, not by the Labour Party, although it does make them, but by Members of Parliament who are Conservative, for example, and “Newsnight”. People like that would be regarded as not parti pris. The effect is that these constitutional changes, effectively unheralded by a manifesto and effectively unmandated, would go through with an air of suspicion. The consequence is that, for the first time since the Second World War, the method by which we determine how many Members of Parliament there should be is in the hands of the majority of the House of Commons and in the hands of the House of Lords, which has received 114 new Members since May 2010. Every single one of those Members is delightful and personable, men and women of real merit, whatever party they come from or whether they come from no party at all, but I have the deepest and most profound suspicion that if we counted the numbers we would find that they have increased the coalition’s majority. Looking across the House, I see many delightful new Peers, many of whom have made a major contribution to British public life, but many of them are voting in accordance with a Whip that they receive from the Government. The consequence is that the Government now have the ability to ram through their choice on the size of the House of Commons in such a way that there is real suspicion that it has been done in the interests not of the country but of a party. The consequence is that that aspect of the coalition gets into political play.

The effect of my noble friend’s proposals is that there can be an independent review. We like the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, very much indeed, but we wonder whether his justification for there being 600 in the House of Commons—that it is a nice, round number—carries the weight that perhaps it needs when you are trying to persuade people that the reason you have reduced the number in the House of Commons is not for political but for good constitutional reasons.

We support this amendment. We think that a lot of trouble has gone into it and that it has real merit. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, I think that it is entirely unfair when he said that the process would go on. I am glad that it was pointed out to him that my noble friend Lord Wills has thought about all the issues that he mentioned.

I very much hope that there will now be a change of heart and that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, one of the most powerful members of the Government, will indicate that we are now going to have a committee of inquiry.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, that was a kind and generous invitation from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, but one that I shall have to resist—and therefore I shall disappoint him. However, I shall try to explain why and give some coherence to this debate, which has been an interesting one, because this issue goes to the core of the disagreement that has taken place over this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Wills, must wake up every morning kicking himself that he did not set up this inquiry when he was a Minister a year or two ago, because now we would be anticipating its results. Maybe he did try to set it up and maybe he could tell us a bit about that when he comes to wind up.

The main accusation being made by noble Lords opposite is not so much that we are rigging the system as that the proposals raise a suspicion that we are rigging the system. Yet nobody can bring any evidence to bear that that would be the likely effects of what we are trying to do—either reducing the number of seats or reaching an equalisation in the number of voters in each seat.

The amendment would require a committee of inquiry to conduct a wide-ranging review not only of the structure of our electoral institutions and processes but of how they interrelate. The Government have accepted the argument made by noble Lords that consideration of the impact of a House of 600 seats is important. I know that the noble and learned Lord rather pooh-poohed it, but when we get to that matter, I shall explain why I believe that it is the right way in which to look at it. Why have we done it as we have? It is because we should not allow this issue to prevent a boundary review taking place, leading to boundaries that are as much as 20 years out of date if a review does not report before the next general election.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

16J: Clause 10, page 8, leave out lines 28 and 29 and insert “, initially by a date to be specified by the Boundary Commission, once the Electoral Commission has certified that every local authority has taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the electoral register is as complete and accurate as possible””

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

My Lords, this amendment would change the Bill so that the date of the next boundary review would be set by the Boundary Commission, rather than the Government,

“once the Electoral Commission has certified that every local authority has taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the electoral register is as complete and accurate as possible”.

The amendment stems from a deep concern that has been expressed not just by Members on these Benches but by many noble Peers, and which is shared by the Government, about the incomplete nature of the current voter register. It makes it a flawed basis on which to redraw the electoral map in the way that the Bill proposes. The Bill states in rule 10(5) in Clause 11 that the basis of the next boundary review will be the electoral register as it stands two years and 10 months before the submission date of 2013. In plain English that means that the Boundary Commissions must use the 2010 electoral register in carrying out their redrawing.

We now know, and the Government have acknowledged during these debates, that this register is likely to be missing upwards of 3.5 million eligible voters. We also know, and the Government have also acknowledged, that the problem of under-registration is most acute among particular social groups in particular areas. As the Electoral Commission has reported,

“underregistration is concentrated among specific social groups, with registration rates being especially low among young people, private renters and those who have recently moved home … The highest concentrations of under-registration are most likely to be found in metropolitan areas, smaller towns and cities with large student populations, and coastal areas with significant population turnover and high levels of social deprivation”.

The Electoral Commission’s study was underpinned by Ipsos MORI research, which found that only 69 per cent of black and minority ethnic voters are registered, and only 44 per cent of 20 to 24 year-olds are registered, as opposed to 97 per cent of 60 to 64 year-olds. Therefore, the December 2010 register is clearly a flawed basis for the boundary review, but the Bill insists that this is the register that must be used.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, explained in Committee that it was,

“the wish of the Government that constituency sizes should be of an equal size”.—[Official Report, 10/1/11; col. 1278.]

That is a reasonable objective. We support the principle of more equal seats, but you cannot have equal seats on the basis of an unequal register. That goes against basic democratic principles. That is why our amendment stipulates that before the next boundary review—which will be very significant and widely disruptive—the electoral register should be brought to as complete a state as is reasonably possible. We suggest that this can be done by requiring the Electoral Commission to check that local authorities have taken all reasonable steps to ensure that this has happened. This does not seem an unreasonable or impossible demand. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, pointed out in Committee:

“electoral registration officers are under a statutory duty to compile and maintain comprehensive and accurate electoral registers. It is not as if it is a voluntary activity; there is an obligation on local authorities to compile as best they can comprehensive and accurate electoral registers”.—[Official Report, 10/1/11; col. 1280.]

If that is the legal obligation, what is wrong with holding those registration officers to account?

At the moment, there are self-reported performance standards, but they are not doing the trick. We know that because of the markedly different registration rates across different parts of the UK, which the Electoral Commission has itself uncovered. It seems perfectly possible and reasonable to ask the Electoral Commission to take a more proactive approach to the registration of electors. The central aim of the commission is to ensure,

“integrity and public confidence in the democratic process”.

That should be our aim, too. We will fail to achieve it if we do not place some safeguard in the Bill that takes into account the problem of under-registration among particular social groups in particular places. I beg to move.

[The Lord Speaker (Baroness Hayman)]

I have to inform the House that if either Amendment 16J or Amendment 16K is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 16L to 17 inclusive by reason of pre-emption.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, when there is a census every 10 years, there is a great debate about how quickly the information taken by that census can be applied to policy. Every 10 years, the answer is that it will come about as quickly as possible, and Ministers are encouraged to make it even quicker than that. However, it is not always possible to make the process quicker. Those who run the census do it on the basis of trying to provide the information quickly. I am very happy try to find out from them exactly why it takes so long. I will write to the noble Lord and put a copy of that letter in the Library.

Amendment 26 proposes to amend the definition of electorate to include all those eligible to vote in the UK, even if they have not registered to do so. This would have a consequent effect on the calculation of the electoral quota of the United Kingdom, and thus the size of constituencies drawn up by the Boundary Commissions in their reviews. This is very similar to Amendment 25A. I do not need to explain its drawbacks further.

Throughout the debates on this subject, in Committee and on Report, we made it clear that we agree that it is vital that the register is as complete and as accurate as possible. That must serve our interests as well as those of Parliament and ultimately those of the people we serve. However, progress on this must sit alongside the Boundary Commission's work on updating constituency boundaries. Solving the problem of under-registration will be a long-term process in which we should all be involved. Delaying the boundary review process until it is complete would mean that the 2015 election would be likely to be fought in constituencies based on electoral data from 2000. If noble Lords are genuinely concerned that representation should reflect entitlement—and I believe that they are—they should strongly support the Government's proposals. By leaving existing boundaries in place for the 2015 election and the next Parliament, the amendments would achieve precisely the opposite. On that basis, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I thank the noble Lord for his response. It was extremely disappointing and reflected an approach that has been taken by the Government throughout the process. They have accepted the problem but offered few proposals in relation to it. Two things need to be done. Active steps must be taken and a proposal must be made about how the date problem should be dealt with. Neither is impossible. In these circumstances, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

18F: Clause 11, page 9, leave out lines 36 and 37 and insert—
“United Kingdom electoral quota
1 The United Kingdom electoral quota shall be defined as the total electorate of the United Kingdom on the designated enumeration day divided by 650.”

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

My Lords, Amendment 18F would replace the current provision of the Bill to fix the House of Commons at 600 seats with an alternative rule that would anchor the size of the Commons at its current membership of 650. We have touched down on this a few times this afternoon.

We contend that the Government have failed properly to explain why the figure of 600 seats has been identified as the optimum membership in the other place. They began by claiming that the House of Commons is a “bloated” Chamber and that the UK suffers from overrepresentation, but those arguments were quickly disproved. The claim that Britain is overrepresented in comparison with other similar-sized countries is based on a simple international comparison of numbers of elected representatives per head of population. In fact, the extent to which the UK has more representatives in the national legislature per head of the national population can be exaggerated.

As a briefing note from the House of Commons Library makes clear, the UK has roughly the same ratio as France and Italy. Of course, those calculations take account only of national legislatures and do not include reference to levels of representation beneath that tier. If we look below the national level, we see that the UK has far fewer elected officeholders per head of population than almost all comparable countries. One academic study found that, at the level of local government, the population per elected member is 2,603 in the UK, 350 in Germany and 118 in France. When subnational elected representatives are factored in, it is apparent that the UK does not suffer from overrepresentation.

In any event, there is a fundamental problem in seeking to draw simple comparisons between numbers of elected representatives in different national legislatures. Some countries are unitary states; others are federal. Some have a Westminster model; some have a presidential system. As a consequence, comparison is difficult.

A more sensible basis on which to decide what level of representation is right for the UK is to examine how the size of the House of Commons has changed over time. If the number of MPs was inexorably growing out of all proportion to the size of the electorate, there would clearly be a problem. The evidence shows that that is not the case. The Commons has not grown disproportionately in recent years. It has increased by about 3 to 4 per cent—that is, 25 Members—since 1950. However, the electorate and therefore the average size of constituencies have increased by approximately 25 per cent. That has produced a significant increase in the workload of MPs, which has in any event grown out of all proportion to the increase in population as a consequence of changing social norms, political developments and new forms of communication.

There is no evidence that having fewer MPs will reduce the demand for their services. Assuming that that remains the same, the pressure on the remaining Members and their staff will increase. If the service that MPs provide to their constituencies is not to deteriorate, they will no doubt need greater resources—employing people as caseworkers and those assisting them. The savings made by a reduction of 50 Members of Parliament are then likely to be lost, or reduced, undermining the argument that this is worthy as a cost-cutting measure.

As the initial justifications for the proposed reduction in the other place have broadly collapsed, the government Front Bench has adopted other numbers: a nice round number, now famous in this House. No wonder your Lordships’ Constitution Committee said in its report on the Bill:

“We conclude that the Government have not calculated the proposed reduction in the size of the House of Commons on the basis of any considered assessment of the role and functions of MPs”.

That is now confirmed by the Marshalled List of amendments, which includes, on page 14, Amendment 28A, which provides for a review into the proposed reduction in the number of constituencies. Your Lordships may note that the review is not due to begin until after the election, when the reduction will have happened.

The reduction in the number of MPs is a gamble based on no proper evidence, but it will be pursued anyway. The timeline was explained to us in discussion with the Government on the basis that it would be pointless to try to assess the impact of the proposed reduction on MPs before it had happened. If the reduction turns out to have a very negative impact, it will be too late to prevent it.

In most organisations, you consider the decision first on the evidence and then you take the decision. This Government take the decision, set up a body to look at it and then decide whether it was the right decision. Their approach to whether it affects our national Parliament to the total detriment of the people is, “Who cares?”. Surely the more sensible approach would be to assess the workload and responsibilities of MPs now, with a House of Commons of 650 seats, before making a change of the sort now proposed.

We believe that the case for a 650-seat Commons has not changed since the current Prime Minister, Mr David Cameron, spoke in its favour—indeed, in favour of a slightly larger elected Chamber—at the 2003 Oxfordshire boundary inquiry. Opposing proposals to alter his constituency boundaries at one of the last public inquiries to be allowed into constituency boundaries, he told that inquiry—what a valuable inquiry it was:

“Somebody might take the view that at 659 there are already too many Members of Parliament at Westminster. They may take the view, depending on what happens in the European constitution, that Westminster has less to do, with less MPs—I certainly hope that is not the case”.

Our amendment stems from a conviction that the current Commons of 650 is the most appropriate basis on which to stabilise the size of that Chamber.

Put simply, under our proposals for alternative rules, an initial UK quota would be calculated by dividing the total UK electorate by 650. That would stabilise the House at about 650, but, with a mathematical rounding up or down involved in the calculation of seats in the four parts of the United Kingdom, it would enable minor fluctuations of up to one or two seats either side of 650, which would help the Boundary Commission to deal with remainders. That will give the Boundary Commission flexibility. That seems to be plain common sense. Unfortunately, the Government have struggled to respond positively to those common-sense views.

This is an incredibly important part of the Bill. We are being asked to cut 50 seats from the primary national political body in the United Kingdom. We are being asked to fix its size in statute in perpetuity at 600 and we are not being given any proper explanation as to why that is the most appropriate size for the House of Commons. Does anyone here honestly think that that is the right way to enact such fundamental constitutional change? I beg to move.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, my noble and learned friend, as the House has come to expect of him, has laid out all the relevant issues with magisterial authority. However, I suggest that there is one issue that he may have overlooked, which is that the population of this country is projected to grow very rapidly in the next few decades. If we fix the number of constituencies at 600, or even at 650, we will shortly find that the average number of constituents is unmanageably large. My noble friend Lady McDonagh made an interesting and thoughtful speech on the subject in Committee. We will quickly find ourselves with constituencies of 100,000 voters, trending upwards. Something has to give. You cannot have a fixed quota and a fixed number of constituencies. If the fixed number of constituencies is to be the paramount consideration, the quota will have to jump up at frequent intervals. That is unsatisfactory.

That leads me to my second point, on which I slightly take issue with my noble and learned friend. I question whether it is appropriate for the Government to invite Parliament to determine the precise number of Members that there should be in the House of Commons. That has not been our practice in the past. The Boundary Commissions have had the discretion to recommend the number of constituencies that they judge to be appropriate, which I think is more practical and more proper. If we were to look at the case of a country in Africa—it might be Zimbabwe, Kenya or Rwanda, one of those countries whose political conduct we are quite apt to criticise and where the regime wins less than universal admiration from all of us around the House—

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I think that the noble Lord slightly mischaracterises my argument. The effect of my proposal is that it will be for the Boundary Commission to determine the precise number of MPs, which might not be 650. That is the same as the current position.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

I am hugely relieved as a result of my noble and learned friend’s intervention. However, I do not think that we should lean particularly on the Boundary Commission; it is not for Governments or politicians to suggest a desirable norm for the precise number of constituencies. Just as we would deplore the regimes of other countries whose practices we considered to be seriously illiberal determining the number of constituencies, so we should not do so here. I acquit my noble and learned friend of any such exact intention, but it is important that no one should suffer from the same misapprehension of his purposes as I did.

--- Later in debate ---

That is a very sound basis on which to make our proposals. With this review and the Bill’s other aims in mind, I invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

The noble Lord’s speech was again attractively delivered and charmingly put, but it got worse and worse as a justification for 600 being the number of seats. I listened very carefully to him: he said that there were three reasons for introducing the reduction. The first was that arguments against it imply that we are departing from well known rules; the second that the current arrangements produce a “steady upward pressure”; and the third that we have a good starting point in the commission which will meet and give its report three years after the introduction of the figure 600. What he said was risible. He said that we would have as our starting point a commission that has not yet been formed and that, in order to get rid of the “steady upward pressure” in the House of Commons, the Government were reducing its size to 600 seats. Noble Lords will know that the House of Commons has never been less than 615 in the past 160 years. When it was 615, the electorate was 20,874,000. In 2004, when the number of seats was 646, the electorate was 44,245,000. The inexorable upwards pressure has in the past 25 years led to the membership of the House of Commons increasing from 650 to—blow me down—650. The arguments being advanced are risible. We are being asked to reduce our House of Commons by 7.5 per cent.

I understand the noble Lord’s dilemma. He can be the stand-up comic who says that 600 is a nice round number and he likes it—he is a nice round man, and a nice round number matches that—or he can be incomprehensible, as he was today. What he cannot give—it is not his fault—is any justification for this reduction from 650 to 600. I invite the opinion of the House.