Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Lipsey Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Lipsey]

17: Clause 10, page 8, line 29, leave out “fifth” and insert “tenth”

[Lord Lipsey]

This amendment follows on from one that I moved in Committee. In that one, I favoured seven years, which was the time given in the original amendment in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer. However, I am a sinner who repenteth and have changed my mind, now believing that 10 years is the right period. I am trying to prevent perpetual revolution in constituencies, allowing MPs to be MPs and not—as they would be should the system under the Bill survive the 2013-15 experience, which it might well not—turning them into carpetbaggers, devoting their lives to finding new seats instead of doing what they and every Member of that House would want them to do, which is to serve their constituencies and our country.

The advantage of 10 years over any other period is that it would accord with the five-yearly elections proposed in the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill. I think that it provides the right balance between updating population changes and so on—which we all want because we want greater equality in constituencies—and providing a measure of stability for the Members of another place that will enable them to do their jobs properly without keeping half an eye on their next move. I beg to move.

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, I will speak to the one amendment in this group that has now been moved but, first, I apologise to the House. Having studied the lead amendment in this group, which is in our name, we find that it is defective. Perhaps that is partly a symptom of the absolutely ridiculous haste with which we are being asked by the Government to table amendments for Report. The noble Lord says from a sedentary position that there is no excuse at all—he says that when the gap between Report and Committee is cut from a fortnight to in effect one sitting day. Mistakes were bound to occur. We own up to having got one amendment wrong, which is why we have not moved it. However, the matters that we hoped to raise are effectively covered by my noble friend’s amendment, to which I shall speak briefly.

There is a balance to be struck on the timing of the boundary review process. The more frequent the boundary reviews, the more up to date the electoral registers on which they are based. In the light of our previous amendment and concern about the accuracy and quality of the registers, we do not judge eight or 10 years to be an advisable interval between reviews. On the other hand, frequent boundary reviews lead to more frequent disruption of the UK electoral map, especially if such reviews take place on the basis of the narrow parity law contained in this Bill. Such disruption has been confirmed in evidence to the bodies that have often been mentioned during our proceedings—the Constitution Committee of this House and the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of another place. A serious issue arises from regular and widespread disruption—one can ask any Member of Parliament about that—and that is the disconnect that it might cause between Members of Parliament and the electors they represent, many of whom will find that their constituency will change at each review in each Parliament if the Government’s proposals are implemented. Therefore, we are grateful to my noble friend for moving his amendment.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for moving his amendment. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for not moving his amendment, as he had spotted that it was defective. It raises remarkably similar issues, so he will get a remarkably similar answer—or he would have done if he had been able to move it.

On the question of the disconnect for Members of Parliament. I do know whether this has been said before—if it has not, it should have been—but this is not being done for the convenience of Members of Parliament; it is being done to equalise the electorate across the whole country and to try to create a fairer system. Once we have the 600 seats in place with equalisation of the electorate, I do not believe that minor changes every Parliament will be an insurmountable burden.

The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, requires the Boundary Commission to report every 10 years after October 2013 instead of every five, as laid out in the Bill. The Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 requires reports from the Boundary Commissions every eight to 12 years. The intention of the Bill is to increase their frequency, ensuring that boundaries are more up to date than at present. There is a cost implication to holding more frequent reviews, but this is offset by the estimated £12.2 million in annual savings made by the reduction from 650 to 600 MPs.

Many noble Lords have rightly spoken in Committee and on Report about the important issue of the accuracy and completeness of the electoral register. That work is incredibly valuable in enabling people to participate in the democratic process, but it will not be reflected in their constituency boundaries if reviews are insufficiently frequent. That is why we advocate reviews every five years. I know that noble Lords opposite might feel that we have not gone far enough on the accuracy or completeness of the electoral register, but I hope that they will accept the logic of having reviews every five years. The Government’s view is that reviews can be completed once a Parliament, giving sufficient time for the commissioners to do their work and for parties and electors to familiarise themselves with new boundaries before the next general election. If that is the case, I see no reason why we should make do with more out-of-date electoral data. We should have reviews during each Parliament so that boundaries remain refreshed; and more frequent reviews will limit the degree of upheaval each time.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, was trying to be helpful and constructive, but I hope that he sees the force of the argument of having regular reviews every five years.

[Lord Lipsey]

My Lords, I see the force of the argument; I just think that the argument for a review every 10 years is a good deal stronger. However, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 17 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Lipsey]

18: Clause 10, page 8, line 29, at end insert—
“( ) If in the event a general election is not held in 2015, or in one of the subsequent five-yearly intervals thereafter, the government shall set up an independent inquiry to recommend appropriate changes to the provisions of this Act.”

[Lord Lipsey]

My Lords, this amendment seeks to deal with the following situation. At the moment we have a five-yearly review, and that accords with the timetable of elections every five years, which has been proposed under the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill. As I understand it, when that Bill comes to us, it will contain provision for an early election in certain circumstances: for example, a vote of no confidence in the Government in the Commons. If such a vote happens and an early election is held, the timetable in the current Bill would go awry.

We have learnt, during the passage of this Bill, to accord almost religious significance to the pronouncements of the wonderful British Academy’s study of the Bill, to which the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, referred earlier this afternoon in kindly accepting an amendment from me that incorporated one of its suggestions. On this subject, the British Academy says:

“Parliament may wish to consider the possible implications of an early dissolution on the timetable for reviews set out in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, either by an amendment or by ad hoc legislation should such an occasion arise”.

In view of this rightful plea that Parliament should consider it, I asked the authors of the British Academy study what they suggested by way of an amendment, and they replied honestly, being academics: “It is beyond the wit of man, or at least the four men who wrote this pamphlet, to suggest how”. I was therefore forced back to my own suggestion here, which is a quick independent inquiry. If that does not win favour with the Government, I have another main purpose in raising this: to bring the Government’s attention to this possible situation so that appropriate contingency planning can be put in place for what the British Academy called an “ad hoc” solution, should the matter arise. With that, I beg to move.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for moving that amendment. The issue that he is pursuing here is that the Government should themselves set up an independent inquiry, as the amendment says,

“to recommend appropriate changes to the provisions of this Act”.

As I said in reply to the earlier amendment, the Bill requires reports every five years after 2013. Amendment 16M, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, would see reports every four years. As I said earlier, the five-yearly timetable in the Bill is intended to give sufficient opportunity for the boundary commissioners to complete their task and for political parties and candidates to organise themselves ahead of the next election, which will be the case if Parliament passes the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill in its current form. We would move away from the pattern of fixed-term Parliaments starting in May 2015 if the terms in the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill were changed to something other than five years or if there was an extraordinary general election.

The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, is right that the Government undertook to consider this issue further in Committee. Having done so, we remain of the view that it would be difficult to provide for every possible reason why an election might not occur at an exact five-year interval. We have also considered a power for the Minister to vary the arrangements, exercisable only in the event of an extraordinary election. However, this would place the decision in the hands of a Minister who would have just won an election on the basis of the new boundaries. I think all noble Lords would agree that this might not be a helpful principle and that we should allow Parliament to decide if it becomes necessary. Instead of involving such complexity, the Bill seeks a middle way that does not waste those resources.

I hope that that explains our thinking behind why we are doing what we are doing. I hope that that honours the commitment that we gave in Committee to reflect on the noble Lord’s suggestion.

[Lord Lipsey]

I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving it that consideration. He makes it plain that the Government have considered this issue and no doubt will be ready to respond to it should the situation arise. I take the force of the argument that he makes about new Ministers, and therefore beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 18 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lipsey]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of Straight Statistics, a group working against statistical abuse by the media, companies, advertisers and the Government. The Minister, in an earlier debate, used in justification for the cut in the number of Members of Parliament by 50 an alleged saving of £12.5 million—he will correct me if I have this figure wrong, as my hearing is not as good as it was. He is nodding in approval, but I cannot approve of that statistic.

If you take the average cost of each MP and multiply it by 50, you get to the figure of £12.5 million or thereabouts. However, that is of course an entirely phoney way to do it. There will be more constituency cases and more people for each MP to write letters to. The workload will not change. The only thing that you save by having 50 fewer MPs is the MPs’ salaries, with a total saving of about £3 million. Perhaps the difference between £12.5 million and £3 million is regarded as insignificant—

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top]

My Lords, I wonder if my noble friend would take that a little further. If the Government want to save £12.5 million, they have to make sure that costs elsewhere do not rise. The level of work needed to be done by the Electoral Commission will involve the employment of more staff—a recurrent expense year on year. I do not think that the Government have thought about that. If they are going to tell us what this measure is going to save—and the only argument that I have heard from the Government is that this will save money—I think that we have the right to know precisely what it will cost in other areas, so that we can see the real costs.

[Lord Lipsey]

My noble friend is right. There are bags of extra costs in this Bill, including £80 million well spent on the AV referendum—well spent, that is, if it gets the result that both the noble Baroness and I would like to see. I am, however, confining myself to the saving on MPs, because that is the one argument that the Minister has made this afternoon. My point is that he has used a totally bogus figure—inadvertently, I am sure. If he wants to dispute this later, he can put a letter in the Library and we can no doubt correspond about it. It is extremely worrying if a Minister has inadvertently misled—

[Lord Tyler]

I know that in the past we have assumed that the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, has been a Member of the other place, but I can assure him from my own experience that he is mistaken if he thinks that Members of Parliament are paid by results. You do not get paid more because you have more constituents; the payment is standard. I had an electorate of 87,000 constituents at one point; that constituency is now much reduced, but my successor does not get paid less just because he has fewer constituents. The whole basis of his calculation should be taken back to his statistician friends and looked at again.

[Lord Lipsey]

I am sorry that the noble Lord’s long experience in another place has not enabled him easily to absorb points being put by people who are, no doubt, less articulate than he is.

[Lord Kinnock]

But more numerate.

[Lord Lipsey]

The point I hope to make clear is that I am not claiming that there will not be a saving in salary; I am claiming that the workload will remain the same but that there will be fewer people to do it. You will still need people to deal with that workload and letters will still need to be sent. Is the noble Lord saying that if his constituency had increased in size by 10 per cent, he would not have written to anyone in that 10 per cent; that their problems could go fly because he had not got the money to pay for it?

[Lord Tyler]

But the allowance—

[Lord Lipsey]

If the noble Lord will forgive me, we should not have multiple interventions on Report. The last intervention did not take the debate forward in the way that the House would desire.

[Lord Tyler]

But the allowance is not increased. The staffing allowance is not increased simply because there are more constituents.

[Lord Lipsey]

This often happens in this life. I was just coming to that. What will happen is that MPs will come back and find that they have got an increasing workload. Their staff are worked to the bone, anyway, and they will suddenly see that they have an opportunity to put in an irresistible bid for yet more of them. It will be impossible for a Government to resist that pressure from their own Members, and so the extra staff will be granted and staff allowances will go up. The probability is that this will swamp, dwarf and completely eliminate any saving made by having 50 fewer MPs.

The proof of this particular pudding will lie in the eating. I therefore ask the Leader of the House to put his calculations in the Library so that we can look at the facts when they emerge after the next general election. It would be a nice subject for the independent inquiry into the number of MPs to consider and would give it a good factual basis for saying that this huge error, justified on the grounds of cost, is a statistical howler of the utmost proportions.