Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

My Lords, this Bill is in two parts so it is perhaps fitting that Second Reading should end up being in two parts as well. Last night's debate contained many thoughtful contributions and I found myself agreeing with a great deal of what was said from all sides of the House. I was a little concerned that supporters of the Bill had decided not to speak, but I am relieved that the noble Lord, Lord Maples, has risen to the occasion. There are many aspects of this Bill, so I will concentrate on Part 2, which deals with the reduction in the size of constituencies. From the debate that we have had so far, I believe that it is recognised on all sides of your Lordships' House that there is an urgent need to restore trust and confidence in our Parliament and our elected representatives. But that urgency should not mean that we rush headlong into change without proper scrutiny, consultation or safeguards in place. Our democracy is worth rather more than that. We need to remember that what is proposed in this Bill was not put before the electorate at the last election by either the Conservative Party or the Liberal Democrats. It is the result of an agreement which has been subsequently cobbled together between the two parties that make up the coalition Government. The coalition cannot claim that this Bill has been sanctioned by the electorate. As we all know, the Liberals Democrats' manifesto argued in favour of the single transferable vote, with the number of MPs in the House of Commons being reduced to just over 500. The Conservative Party wanted to retain the first past the post system, while reducing the number of MPs by 10 per cent across the board, with no exceptions. They wanted to equalise the size of constituencies in all parts of the country. There was no common ground between the reform plans presented to the electorate by the two parties which have formed the coalition. Now we are presented with this Bill, which has an arbitrary number of 600 elected Members of Parliament and a referendum on AV. This Bill represents the glue that keeps the coalition Government together. As has been said by many noble Lords, the Government intend to reduce the size of the other place, while leaving the number of government Ministers unchanged. This will automatically reduce the number of Back-Bench MPs available to scrutinise the actions of an ever-larger Executive. Professor Anthony King, one of our leading constitutional academics, wrote on Sunday that this is a very bad idea which will enfeeble Parliament and further reduce its ability to hold the Executive to account. Yet the coalition has pledged to strengthen Parliament's role relative to Ministers. It has not taken them very long to introduce a Bill which will do exactly the opposite. Not only does it have no legitimacy from the electorate, but it was not even mentioned in the coalition agreement. That merely said that the Bill would make provision, "for the creation of fewer and more equal sized constituencies", so at that point there was still an opportunity for the coalition Government to present a Bill that would allow the Boundary Commission to undertake a far-reaching review of every constituency in the land in a way that would restore trust and confidence in the political process. I should remind the House that my own party's election manifesto promised to introduce a non-partisan parliamentary boundary review to examine the rules for constructing parliamentary constituencies. I believe that that would have been a fairer way of redrawing the political landscape. Alas, however, that opportunity was not taken. The arbitrary number of 600 seats has been plucked out of the air because, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said yesterday, it is a nice round figure. I point out to him that 500 is also a nice round figure and has the merit of having been in the manifesto of one party to the coalition. I hope that when the Minister winds up, he has managed to come up with a better rationale for that figure. What is even worse is that the review is to be concluded in a timeframe that is many years shorter than would usually be spent on such a critical matter. How is this to be achieved? It will be done by abolishing all public inquiries into Boundary Commission proposals, so there will be no mechanism for local people to object to the constituency boundaries that will reshape their political lives. The coalition Government are showing scant respect for people's feelings about their communities. In Britain, we have a long established and open democratic process for the redrawing of political boundaries. We have developed this open process for a very good reason. It builds public acceptance of what could otherwise be a very contentious and divisive matter. It does this by allowing local residents to object, by requiring the Boundary Commission to respond and, crucially, by permitting a further and final round of public discussion. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, who is not in his place at the moment, that there is a dilemma here. On the one hand, people like the simplicity of the notion of equal-sized constituencies, but on the other, they would be happier with a lower or higher level of representation than proposed if it better maintains their feeling of local identity. Communities will not have their trust and confidence restored in Parliament if their ability to influence decisions at the local level is taken away. If the new equalisation rules are drawn as tightly as proposed, it will mean that the new constituencies will cross county, metropolitan and ward boundaries. There is a real danger that with this rushed approach and minimal consultation, the public will come to doubt the independence and objectivity of the Boundary Commission itself, and that cannot be in anyone's long-term interests. Your Lordships' House should take account of the fact that this Bill is not just a routine matter. It will bring with it an historic change in the size of the other place that would enfeeble Parliament's ability to hold the Executive to account and bring about a fundamental change in the way in which we have always drawn our constituency boundaries in this country. The greater the change, the greater the need for accountability, so why abolish local inquiries? It is true that inquiries sometimes take an inordinate time to complete, but surely it would be far better to find ways of speeding up the process while safeguarding the rights of local communities to influence the outcome. As we know, the Bill restricts the size of the electorate in each constituency to within 5 per cent of the electoral quota. But as has been said, this simple mathematical equation will be based on an electoral register that is out of date-a register that does not take account of the 3.5 million people across England and Wales who are eligible but missing, according to the Electoral Commission. Who and where are these missing voters? They are predominantly young, from black and minority-ethnic communities, and living in rented accommodation in metropolitan and coastal areas. Why is the coalition so eager to reduce the representation of this group of people? These people exist even if they are not on the register and have problems that have to be dealt with. After all, a census is planned for next year, as my noble friend Lady Henig pointed out. Instead of rushing headlong into these changes to our political landscape, why not wait until we have the data we need to make them both fair and legitimate? When registration levels can vary so widely from constituency to constituency, why can the Boundary Commission not be given more leeway than the 5 per cent that this Bill envisages? Surely 10 per cent would mean less cross-boundary and geographical problems arising. In conclusion, I would like to ask the Minister why he is proposing to abolish local inquiries when we all agree, and I quote, that: "Localism brings people closer to political power and gives them control over their own communities". Those are not my words, but those of the Minister's right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I quote again, this time from another of the noble Lord's colleagues in the other place, that, "if this reform is to carry weight and legitimacy, it must be seen to be fair to all parties, not to the naked advantage of one party". That is absolutely right, and perhaps it is why the coalition Government are not giving a coherent explanation of the arbitrary 600-seat proposal. The other day I was trying to find out what the big society meant, and I read an article which contained these words: "When one-size-fits-all solutions are dispensed from the centre, it's not surprising they so often fail local communities". They are the words of the Prime Minister in 2009. I do not frequently agree with the Prime Minister, but I think they are words that we should keep to the forefront as we continue to debate this Bill.