Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

My Lords, I, too, endorse the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Wills and follow some lines of argument developed by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. Lord Randolph Churchill described Gladstone—presumably still something of an inspiration to at least some noble Lords opposite—as an, "““old man in a hurry””." This Bill and other pieces of legislation we are seeing are redolent of a Government of young men in a hurry. That hurry is palpable and inexcusable. I would not accuse the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, of being young men—in a hurry or in any other sense—but the hurry is certainly still there. A reference has been made to the interesting report of the Select Committee on the Constitution—a most distinguished body, as my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours remarked. There are some additional matters on top of those to which he referred, but first, following the valid point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Martin, about asylum seekers, another point has been overlooked. Within towns and cities, and across the country, EU citizens resident in this country and entitled to vote in the local elections—though not parliamentary elections—are also outside the compass of this proposal to determine the size of constituencies. They have a vote and are undoubtedly contributing to council tax and the rest in this country, which might be thought a material factor. The report also concludes in paragraph 29 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 matter was touched on by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. The committee concluded that the Government, "““have not made a proper assessment of the impact which the reduction in the size of the House of Commons may have on the relationship between the executive and Parliament””." That is also a significant point. The committee was not persuaded that the reduction—essentially to be made among Back-Bench Members in another place— would necessarily be adverse to the balance but the matter does not seem to have been considered at all and it was, "““concerned that the Bill could possibly result in the Executive's dominance over Parliament being increased””." On the timing of the boundary review, the committee observed that, "““additional resources will be required, particularly for the first such review””." What estimate has been made of the additional resources required if and when this Bill goes through, in particular for that first review? The committee shared the concern of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee that it was, "““not clear whether political parties have the necessary resources and resilience at a local level to adapt successfully within this timeframe to contesting new constituencies””." The report goes on to say that, "““the Government should set out how they propose to meet the need for parties, candidates and electors to know the shape of their constituencies a sufficient length of time in advance of each general election””." One of the Ministers giving evidence to the committee rather dismissed that issue but it is significant for those of us on the ground. On the crucially important question of equalisation, the committee affirmed that, "““pre-legislative scrutiny and public consultation would have enabled a better assessment of whether the new rules as to equalisation are overly rigid””." What does the Minister make of that judgment? On public participation, I mentioned in a previous debate that I had been engaged—on one occasion professionally and on another in a political capacity—in giving evidence at local public inquiries about both ward and parliamentary boundaries. The Bill in effect proposes to end the system of public inquiries of that kind and to rely on written evidence. The crucial difference between written evidence and a public inquiry is that the evidence cannot be tested by those with a contrary view—whether they be a different political party, an individual citizen or any other interest group. It is most important that, particularly when dealing with sensitive areas of locality, these issues are properly argued out in public. Written submissions will not, I believe, have that effect. We already have experience of some rather difficult hybrid constituencies. For many years, I have represented a ward that was at one time in the constituency of Newcastle Central and then became part of a constituency called Tyne Bridge, which included part of Newcastle and part of Gateshead and was divided only by the River Tyne. I have occasionally likened Newcastle and Gateshead—of which my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton has intimate knowledge, as chairman of a concern that tries to unite the two areas in promoting their economic interest—to the city of Budapest, which also comprises two quite separate places brought together, although I hesitate to indicate which might be Buda and which might be Pest. Nevertheless, even in an area as compact as Newcastle and Gateshead, there is a distinct feeling of difference, so the Tyne Bridge constituency was never a happy compromise. Most of us, on both sides of the river, are glad that our respective constituencies are now confined to areas on either side. Such significant local issues would be even more salient, as many of your Lordships will know from the many e-mails and letters received, in areas such as Cornwall and the Isle of Wight. However, all of that appears to have been dismissed. The Constitution Committee’s report also states, "““we believe that a number of concerns, particularly with Part 2 of the Bill, have not been properly addressed by the Government””," but it does not look like the Government have much intention of giving them that further consideration. Indeed, it is sad that a committee of the distinction and weight of the Select Committee on the Constitution should have to conclude: "““We are concerned that the constitutional relationship between the provisions of this Bill and the Government’s other proposals for constitutional reform have not been adequately thought through. … The Government should set out how they consider that this Bill and its place within their programme of constitutional reform makes the political system ‘more transparent and accountable.’””" To that I would add that the Government should also set out how the Bill will make the political system more comprehensible to the public, whom the Government are here to serve, who must be encouraged to participate more fully in the democratic process. My final point is on the continuing problem with electoral registration. Levels of registrations are very variable up and down the country, as noble Lords have mentioned. Given the requirement for individual voter registration that will eventually come into force, it seems likely that the existing problem will become worse rather than better. I ask the Minister what resources will be devoted to ensure that the maximum effort is made to have as full a register as possible. What methods might be used to promote registration? For example, will data sharing and the like be promoted, and would that be compatible with the individual registration that will be required in due course? There is certainly scope for improvement in our electoral system, but that is not likely to be achieved if legislation is rushed. Like many noble Lords—on, I suspect, all sides of the House—I hope that the Government will think again about the process and look sympathetically on the very constructive Amendment 54ZA, which has been moved by my noble friend Lord Wills.