Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Soley Excerpts

Wednesday 12th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, we change topic now and come to a short amendment, which deals with the question of resources for the Boundary Commission. The purpose of this amendment, which is in my name and that of my noble and learned friend, is to gain a degree of reassurance from the Minister that the Government are committed to doing all they can to ensure that what can only be described as the dramatic boundary review proposed is carried out smoothly and effectively, and has the necessary resources.

It has always been a huge task to redraw constituency boundaries. It was the responsibility for many years of the Boundary Commission. However, there is a huge difference in the review planned by the Bill. In usual periods, boundary commissions will indeed look at all constituencies, but in many cases no significant change—or no change at all—would be recommended for a large majority of those constituencies. However, reviewing the boundaries, as is the intention, on very tight mathematical rules, and the crucial factoring in of a large reduction in the number of Members of Parliament, make the Boundary Commission’s task significantly harder. There will be much more work.

In giving evidence on the Bill to the other place’s Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, the boundary commissions said that the task was achievable but difficult. I think that is a fair summary of their evidence. The point is that every single constituency will change as a consequence of this boundary review, as set out in the Bill. There are numerous potential manifestations of redrawn constituency boundaries; that is just a statement of the obvious. What is also obvious is that the task itself is immense. I hope the Committee agrees that the timescale of the task makes this boundary review very different from those that have occurred in the past.

As the Bill stands, the task facing the boundary commissions must be completed by 1 October 2013. The Government recommend that after that a review should occur every five years, but the first major change has to be completed in considerably less than three years’ time. We argue that it follows that the resources required will be greater than what the boundary commissions are used to having at their disposal. Will the Minister reassure the Committee that the boundary commissions will be granted all the necessary resources that the commissioners, who after all are the experts in this area, deem necessary for delivering the task that the Government are asking them to do? It would be helpful if he could remind us out of what budget the resources that are necessary for this inquiry come. If extra resources are found to be necessary in due course, out of what budget will they come? In other words, we are asking him to fill in the details for the Committee. I beg to move.

[Lord Soley]

I support my noble friend on the Front Bench. The Government could give important reassurance on this. The amendment does not ask directly for more funds now but recognises that what the Government are imposing constitutes a complex and continuing problem for the Boundary Commission, which already struggles at times to deliver what it needs to deliver on time. We all know that at present, when the Government are looking for savings in all these areas, there is a danger that the Boundary Commission will be expected to carry out a task that is beyond it. It seems to me that the wording of the amendment is so reasonable that it would be unreasonable for the Government not to give an assurance that if the Boundary Commission needs more money, it will be given it. It is important in that respect.

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords, I seek some figures from the Minister, although he has indicated that he will not give any and has adhered to that stance so far when responding to amendments. Time and again before the election the parties that are now in government said that the reason for reducing the number of MPs was to reduce the costs of democracy. I was never able to work out how that would happen, principally because I knew the cost of a normal Boundary Commission review from Questions that I had posed to my noble friend Lord Bach when he was a Minister long before this was ever an issue. From memory, I was told that it was around £13 million. When pressed on the matter, Nick Clegg has said that the saving to the Exchequer of reducing the number of MPs by 50 would be about £12 million. As I knew that there would have to be an advanced Boundary Commission, it was obvious to me that the cost of the Boundary Commission alone would be more initially than the savings gained from that reduction in the number of MPs, so there are no savings in the costs of democracy.

What I did not realise in those early stages was quite how frequently Boundary Commission reviews would be required under the legislation. We now know, should the Bill become an Act, that because the Minister rejected our various proposals to extend the period between boundary redistributions, those redistributions would be roughly twice as frequent as they are now. They now occur between every eight and 12 years; if the Bill is enacted, they will happen every five years.

Unless my basic maths is completely wrong, the savings to the Exchequer from the reduction in the number of MPs will be £12 million, while the cost of a Boundary Commission review will, I assume, remain at about £13 million, but reviews will occur twice as frequently. I am even being generous to the Government in that respect, because if all these reviews are to be accelerated, they will presumably be costly. More commissioners will be needed to do things quickly.

It is therefore not unreasonable—although I fear that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, appears to indicate that he thinks it is an unreasonable request—for us to know the cost of the Boundary Commission reviews, given that they will occur twice as frequently. Given that the Government’s principal justification has been to reduce the cost of democracy, we ought to bear in mind that the cost of the referendum will be about £90 million.

We know well enough that all areas of public expenditure are being very closely scrutinised as to whether they are necessary, and it is reasonable to ask these questions. If I do not get a response now, I shall have to table a Parliamentary Question on the subject. If the noble Lord cannot provide the figures now, perhaps he would be kind enough to tell the Committee in due course what they are. What are the costs of the Boundary Commission? How much more will they be when the reviews are twice as frequent as they are at present? Can he confirm in passing—I am sure that it is easy for him to do—whether cost of the referendum will be £90 million? If those figures are anything like what I estimate, and I do not have the noble Lord’s resources, can I at least appeal to him and his colleagues on the Front Bench never again to say, as a justification for this legislation, that he is “reducing the cost of democracy”?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Soley]

I am pleased to follow my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours because he has put his finger on one of the critical issues that has made me feel very angry and frustrated throughout this process. We are dealing with a constitutional Bill that changes the nature of the House of Commons without all-party agreement and without any independent assessment of it, in a way that we would look askance at if it was happening in a country that was emerging from the communist world. We would not accept it. Why is that? It is because we know that normally you change the numbers of a Parliament either by all-party agreement or after some independent assessment.

My noble friend has pointed out the central constitutional issue here and has drawn attention to the fact that we all know that we are debating this because of the political deal between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Party. I understand that. Indeed, the rather weak argument can even be made that it was put to the electorate before the general election inasmuch as the Conservative Party campaigned on the basis of a reduced membership of the House of Commons. You could also argue, again weakly in my view, that the Liberal Democrats had put before the electorate a view that the electoral system ought to be changed, although not to the system that that has been put into this Bill. My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours has made the point that this is a very strange deal for the Liberal Democrats. It may be strange, but it has been my view for some time that it is a very clever deal struck by the Conservative Leader, David Cameron. What we have here is a deal in which the Conservative Party and the current Prime Minister get a majority in Parliament and the Liberal Democrat party gets a once-and-for-all opportunity to commit political suicide. It is in the process of doing that; you can see it happening before your eyes.

Do we have to worry about that? From time to time people both within and outside this House ask whether this issue is mainly just a party political one. The problem is that while it is party political, it is so because the constitution is being changed in a way that disadvantages other parties—and not just the Labour Party, incidentally. It is that issue on which we need to focus and make the core of our debate.

My noble friend, with his newly christened Jessica amendment—I rather like that title—makes the very fair point that if this deal has been done for political reasons, which we all accept it has and I acknowledge that that is a perfectly reasonable thing for two political parties to do, how on earth have we ended up in a situation in which one party gets the guaranteed reduction in seats in the House of Commons and the other party may or may not get a type of electoral reform that it does not really want anyway? It is a very strange deal. My noble friend is saying that if we are to go down this road, at least the other half of the deal ought to be delivered.

Personally, I am much more relaxed about voting systems than many of my colleagues. I quite literally have not yet decided whether I would vote for first past the post or an alternative vote system. I am becoming much more educated in the arguments since listening to the debates over the past weeks, but I do not have a strong commitment to either side. It is all too easy to know the problems of the current system but then not to look at the problems that emerge from other systems. Our attention has been drawn to some of those.

As my noble friend has so ably and forcefully pointed out, a political deal has been struck between two political parties to enable them to stay in government. Under it, the constitution of the United Kingdom and the structure of the House of Commons will be changed in a way that favours one political party. That is what is so deeply unhealthy about it. We will turn—I hope, on Monday; I do not suppose that we will get there tonight—to amendments that address this issue again. As one would expect from a previous Minister with his experience, the noble Lord, Lord Wills, made an excellent speech on his amendment. It was so detailed that it could have been plonked into any Bill. The amendment would strike at the very heart of the political deal between the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties.

I would have no trouble supporting the amendment, although, frankly, it is really a matter between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Party. However, if we are to be forced to change the constitution of the country on the basis of half the deal, it should at the very least be done on the basis of the other half of the deal being delivered. At the moment, there is no evidence of that, and the Liberal Democrats, for reasons that are totally beyond me, have made the politically fatal error of putting forward their half of the deal in a way that makes it highly unlikely that they will get it. One cannot guarantee that they will not get it, because the electorate might vote for it, but the referendum will be hard fought. You then have to ask what they are doing making such a deal and whether it really is just for the sake of getting a few seats in government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I had reflected on that. I thought that it was somewhat ironic that, having been lambasted, as my noble friend said, for allegedly bringing forward legislation of a partisan nature, we were accused of having partisan advantage as a basic motivation for supporting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. That was a perverse argument.

[Lord Soley]

The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, is wrong. What was said is that the Liberal Democrat party has campaigned for years for a different voting system in the belief that it would increase its majority. The alternative vote system is not a full system but would improve its position. Similarly, the Conservative position, as has been indicated in a number of statements over the years by the Conservative Party, is that 600 seats instead of the current number would increase the proportion of its MPs. Both parties have stated that these systems are to their advantage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, Amendment 58ZBC adds the Chief Survey Officer of Northern Ireland to the list of assessor officers of that commission. At present the Chief Survey Officer advises the commission but does not hold the formal status of assessor. The Chief Survey Officer’s counterpart in the other nations of the United Kingdom—the director-general of Ordnance Survey—is an assessor to the other commissions, and the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland has requested of us, in its report for the last boundary review, that the position in the other nations be replicated in Northern Ireland. This we now do in this amendment and I beg to move.

[Lord Soley]

Can the Minister tell us whether this was also the request of the Assembly in Northern Ireland, or of an officer? I was not quite sure what he was saying on that.

[Lord McNally]

It was not from the Assembly but from the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland, which simply asked that the status of the Chief Survey Officer of Northern Ireland, who is doing the job anyway, be given this formal status. We are happy to do that.

[Lord Soley]

I am sorry to pursue it, but the reason I pick it up is simply because of my past knowledge of Northern Ireland, which is now a little dated, but where things such as boundaries were very contentious, to put it mildly. Obviously, the officer in charge would have wanted to be treated in the same way as in Scotland and Wales, for example. I understand that but I would hope—I do not know whether the Minister knows this—that the Assembly took a view on it. In other words, that it is not an initiative by the officer but the Assembly itself recognising that it is being grouped into line, because there may well be two different views within the Assembly on whether they ought to be treated in precisely the same way as Scotland and Wales. It has always been one of the things that has bugged the politics of Northern Ireland. I just want some assurance; it may be that the Minister cannot give it to me now, but it would be quite useful to know whether this was a simple request by the officer to the Government here or one approved by the Northern Ireland Assembly. If he cannot answer it now, I am happy to have it later but we need to have some indication, if he would not mind.

[Lord McNally]

When I moved this amendment, I thought, “This is the one bloody thing I’m going to move all night which the conspiracy theorists will not be able to work into their paranoia”. I have no idea, but I suspect that since it is a report of the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland, it has gone before the Northern Ireland Assembly. It has simply been a request for us to give this man the same status as his British counterparts. I will make inquiries and if I find that beneath this is some seething sectarian dispute, I will report back to the Committee.

[Lord Soley]

I am grateful to the Minister. The reason why this point is important is that things do not always get picked up in the way that they need to. This is not just some minor point. I have seen problems before with anything to do with the Boundary Commission or elections in Northern Ireland; the Minister must know that. He should have known, as soon as he saw an amendment with the words “Northern Ireland” in, that it could be contentious. It is not really a matter for now, but for the comfort of the Government they need to make sure that the Assembly was signed up for this.

[Lord McNally]

I will take comfort in it. It is still seared into my soul—we should count ourselves lucky here—that I once had an order in the other place that involved Northern Ireland. There was me, the government Minister, and five Ulster Unionists, and we finally got away at about 2.20 am. I take the noble Lord’s Gypsy’s warning; I will check on this, and if there are any worries I will bring it back to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, if I speak for long enough I might get a full answer to the second of the noble and learned Lord’s questions. With regard to his initial question about the interim reviews and the repealing of subsection (3), the reason for this is that the existing legislation reflects the fact that the constituencies may require adjustment during what is, at present, the long period that elapses between full reviews. However, it is believed that if the full reviews are to take place every five years, there may not be a need—certainly there will scarcely be any time—to conduct an interim review. Clause 13, for completeness, makes transitional provisions for the outcome of the interim reviews, which are currently under way in Wales.

With regard to the modifications, the clause allows modifications to the Boundary Commission’s recommendations only in an Order in Council that gives effect to those recommendations at the request of one of the four commissions and with its reasons set out in writing. This was tabled as an amendment on Report in another place, following an amendment that was tabled in Committee by members of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. It was done to get the substance of that committee’s amendment into proper form. I do not necessarily anticipate that it would lead to any significant change to the proposals that were being brought forward. As I indicated, any modifications would require some explanation in writing, which would be at the behest of the Boundary Commission. I regret that I do not have the views of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee as to why it wishes the original amendment to be brought forward, but my information is that it was in response to that.

If I just keep on talking, I am sure that I will be able to give the noble and learned Lord an even fuller answer to a perfectly legitimate question. As far as we know, the power to make modifications has never been used but has existed since the 1940s. It is envisaged that it may be used to correct an error that comes to light only after the initial report has been made. I hope that that explanation satisfies him.

[Lord Soley]

This is a bad clause. It is not bad simply because of its content but, as has been pointed out on a number of occasions, because it has been drawn up in a way that is designed to meet a short-term political problem and has not been dealt with in the way in which a constitutional reform of this type ought to be dealt with. The Boundary Commission of all things, given its implications for the future of MPs, constituencies and constituents, ought to have been given far more detailed consideration, but the Bill has been brought forward in just a few months following the deal between the two political parties. It is a good example of bad law. It comprises a constitutional change that is underpinned by Boundary Commission reports that were necessarily drawn up in haste. All the things we have heard about the electoral register and the whole electoral registration process indicate the detailed work that should have been done on the Bill in a proper constitutional way either by committee beforehand or through an inquiry. Instead, it has been hastily drawn up and placed before us at short notice.

I have worries about the Electoral Commission and the Boundary Commission being able to complete this task in the necessary detail in the time available. It troubles me that when you rush something like this, you could well get into difficulties with it. I remember the previous time when we tried to change how votes were cast and push things on the Electoral Commission that it was unhappy about. My Government were in power at the time, so I have to accept some responsibility for this. Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of the policy, it resulted in considerable problems on the ground.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

There is a part of this debate that has not been answered, and this is the only opportunity that we have to discuss it—that is, what happens in the event that the public petition over the recommendations of the Boundary Commission by using legislation that the Government say they intend to introduce? What happens if the boundaries were to be changed in my former constituency and 10,000 or 15,000 people went down to the town centre in Workington, signed a petition, gave it to their MP and said, “We object to what has been decided and we want it to be revised”, and the Boundary Commission has taken its decision? I still do not know what happens in those circumstances. I am not exaggerating. It is quite possible that that will happen. It could happen in any constituency in the United Kingdom. I wonder whether my noble friend might give thought to other cases as well.

[Lord Soley]

To some extent my noble friend anticipates me. I was thinking not just of that example. There will be a number of possibilities here of problems on the ground, and there will be either legal challenges or else what we had because of previous attempts to legislate in a rush in areas such as this: confusion, uncertainty and alienated electors who feel unable to vote in certain circumstances. There will be big problems. The point that my noble friend has just made highlights a classic example of them. As I said, there may well be legal challenges. I am sure the Minister will say, understandably, that in that case the courts will decide the matter because that is their role. However, he has to accept that because this Bill is driven by a particular timetable, that timetable may not be met unless the Government ignore the courts’ decisions. I hope that the Government are not prepared to go down that road.

I simply say at this stage that if you put forward a clause such as this, the duty on the Government to look at it in considerable detail is important. I know that Members opposite have sometimes grumbled about time and, dare I say, even got paranoid about it. However, I had better not use that word after the confusion in the previous exchanges, which I assume did not apply to me, although I shall have to read Hansard to make sure. There is a genuine problem, and it is not something that can be just airbrushed out.