Electoral Registration and Administration Bill Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Leader of the House
Tuesday 29th January 2013

(11 years, 9 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not be held back for long.

Peter Bottomley Portrait Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
- Hansard - -

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Would you accept a motion that the right hon. Gentleman be no longer heard?

--- Later in debate ---
Viscount Thurso Portrait John Thurso
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My hon. Friend makes a good point.

Peter Bottomley Portrait Sir Peter Bottomley
- Hansard - -

In the 1950s Jo Grimond said in my hearing that one of the roles of the House of Lords was to stop the House of Commons abusing the electoral process. I think that to carry on having boundaries that are old and constituencies with unequal numbers of voters is just such an abuse. What would Jo Grimond say about what is happening now?

Viscount Thurso Portrait John Thurso
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I had the great privilege of listening to Jo Grimond on many occasions. He met his wife in my grandparents’ house and proposed to her there—and, indeed, Laura was godmother to my sister. I regularly listened to him, therefore, and I feel certain that if he was in the circumstances we are in, he would without doubt support his Liberal colleagues. [Interruption.] One has some small advantages in life.

Their lordships’ amendment 5 delays the implementation of the boundary changes until the next Parliament. There are three good reasons why this should happen, two of which have been touched on and featured in the debate in their lordships’ House, and the third I shall add. The first point is in regard to the quality of the register. Since the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill was enacted, much work has been done on that register. At the time, the best evidence was that it contained the details of about 92% of those who should be on it. As a result of work carried out by the Electoral Commission, we now know the figure is much lower, however; it is, in fact, 82%. To my mind, that is a material difference that should be addressed. We should be asked to look at that again.