Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

My Lords, Amendment 54A stands in my name and in the names of my noble friends Lord Bach and Lady Thornton. It would leave out lines 14 and 15 of Clause 10 on page 8 of the Bill. Clause 10(3) states: "““For subsection (2)””—" of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986— "““there is substituted … ‘A Boundary Commission shall submit reports under subsection (1) above periodically … before 1st October 2013, and … before 1st October of every fifth year after that’””." We propose that the two dates should be deleted and the following inserted: "““initially by a date to be specified by the Boundary Commission, once the Electoral Commission has certified that every local authority has taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the electoral register is as complete and accurate as possible; and … no later than every six years after that””." We propose the change because in practice—this is their timetable—it has taken Boundary Commissions six to seven years to complete the past five reviews of parliamentary constituencies. The Bill proposes that the first review be completed before 1 October 2013. If the Bill were passed tomorrow—which seems unlikely—the work would have to be completed in two years and nine months. That is less than half the time that ordinary reviews have taken so far. While everyone would want the process to be quicker than it has been before, the Bill proposes that one should do it in less than half the time that it has taken before, even when one has to redraw every single boundary in the country. I say that because the chair men and women of Boundary Commissions came before the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of the House of Commons and said that it was probable that every constituency in the country would be affected by the proposals that were being made. In the first instance the Bill states said that the work should be completed in two years and nine months—assuming that it gets Royal Assent tomorrow, which it will not—and before 1 October of every fifth year after that. It appears to acknowledge that the review process will take twice as long as the first review that the Bill proposes. One is struck immediately by the fact that there must be some driving timetable for the first review, other than practicalities. As noble Lords may know, under the current rules governing the boundary review process that are contained in the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, as amended by the Boundary Commissions Act 1992, Boundary Commissions are required to conduct reviews every eight to 12 years. As I have said, in practice Boundary Commissions have taken around six to seven years to complete the past five periodical reviews of parliamentary constituencies. On account of comparative size, reviews in England have obviously taken more time than those in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Some argue that in practice a review every six or seven years is too long and that it carries the risk that population movements in the mean time are not taken into account. I have sympathy with that view, and it may well be possible to expedite the time it takes to undertake a boundary review, although that would obviously require additional resources. We will come to that point in a later amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Bach. A wish to speed up the process is one thing, but why are the Government proposing to conduct this first review under a new set of rules in less than three years? Let us not forget that we are not even talking about a standard boundary review. The secretaries of the four Boundary Commissions acknowledged that ““every constituency will change””. The Government propose arguably the biggest, most controversial and most complicated redrawing of constituency boundaries since the departure of the Irish MPs in 1921. They intend to do it on the basis of an entirely new set of mathematical rules that will see factors such as geography, history and community pushed to one side by the need to adhere unbendingly to a higher electoral quota. The Government’s proposal of a timetable of less than three years is artificially quick, even under the Bill’s own terms. As I said, further reviews, according to Clause 10(3), which amends Section 3(2) of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, will be held on a five-yearly basis. That initial dramatic redrawing of boundaries is being tracked even faster than this apparent ideal. Why is that? Are the Government trying to minimise the risks of the results being made out of date by interim changes in the population? That cannot be the reason or they would be proposing that three years should always be the period for boundary reviews if the problem was ““out of dateness””. The highly respected Constitution Committee of this House concluded that it could see no reason for the haste of this process. Indeed, that was its key criticism of the way in which this Bill has been presented: that it has been tagged on to the provisions for the referendum on voting systems. One, arguably, has some time sensitivity. The urgency of Part 2 of the Bill is, however, fabricated. As the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Nicholas Clegg, said in the other place on 5 July: "““we need to start with the work of the boundary review as soon as possible in order that it can be concluded in the timetable that we have set out””.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/7/10; col. 37.]" I underline the words, "““in the timetable we have set out””." The Deputy Prime Minister was questioned by the members of your Lordships’ Constitution Committee in oral evidence about this timetable and gave no other explanation other than that it had to be concluded, "““in the timetable we have set out””." Rather than conducting a boundary review of this magnitude according to an entirely arbitrary and politically motivated timetable, the change should not begin until the basis for making it is reliable. As I think that everyone around the House accepts, our electoral register is not up to scratch. Measures that were introduced while my party was in government—the rolling canvas and individual registration spring to mind—have improved and will further improve the situation, but further improvement is needed. In the words of the Deputy Prime Minister, this will be, "““the biggest shake up of our democracy since 1832””." The boundaries are to be redrawn on data from which the Government admit 3.5 million eligible voters are missing. The Great Reform Act 1832 extended the franchise. How ironic it is that, in promoting the Bill, the Deputy Prime Minister will be rolling back the franchise. Millions of eligible but unregistered voters will be left out. For example, 9,651 are missing in Tooting; 12,421 in Bristol East; 17,528 in Leeds North West; and just shy of 50,000 in the Cities of London and Westminster. The national average registration is 91 per cent, but in a significant number of cases, mainly in urban constituencies, only about 80 per cent are registered to vote. That means that in some cases, as many as one in five voters are missing. Those figures highlight both the extent of the problem—cautioning against the timetable for boundary changes envisaged under the Bill—and what is realistically achievable. If some inner urban constituencies in Birmingham and Manchester can register 95 per cent of eligible voters, why cannot similar seats do the same?