Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

My Lords, this will be the last amendment before we need to conclude the proceedings of this day’s Committee as a courtesy—the House would expect no less—to the three new Members who are being introduced today. That may be relevant to the discussions that we have just had but, in view of the procedure that quite properly has to be observed, it would be quite wrong if we went on very much longer. This is a simple amendment. It follows on from the discussions that we have just had because, believe it or not, it is an attempt to compromise; it is an attempt to meet one of the objections that the Front Bench opposite has raised to those of us who are keen for the House of Commons to remain at about 650 Members. The position is, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, in particular, said, one of the problems with every redistribution is that figures get rounded up and the House gets larger and larger. I have already said that I strongly support a House of 650. I have not liked having to be here right through the night; it is not a good way of considering such a major constitutional Bill. However, it has had one huge advantage. I need to remind the House that we have been debating most of the night the reasons for the Government’s decision to reduce the House of Commons from 650 to 600. It is sometimes only when you have a very long debate that the barren nature of the Government’s position is laid bare. They have so far completely failed to explain to the House where the figure of 600 came from. They have completely abandoned their first justification for doing it, which was that it would reduce the costs of democracy. That is what Ministers said time and again, but they do not even attempt that defence for the reduction of MPs any longer and I hope that whoever responds to this debate does not resurrect that argument now, as we have demonstrated conclusively that it does not stand up. It was in the later reaches of the night that it became apparent to me, and to any dispassionate person listening to the debates, that the Government could not say in two sentences why it was of such imminent importance that the House of Commons should be reduced to 600 Members. My amendment, which I acknowledge is badly worded, although I drafted it as effectively as I could, says that at the next Boundary Commission—which, I am afraid, we have already decided will be as the Government wish, in that it will come quickly and there will be a short period of consideration for redistribution—the numbers should not be rounded up, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, rightly says they normally are, but should be rounded down. That means that over a period of redistribution, rather than in one great shock, the size of the House of Commons should be slowly reduced. I do not like that, and feel strongly that it should be 650. We have been told that somehow or another we need to try to reach agreement on some of these matters. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has left but I was astonished at something he said, which I tried to take down verbatim, when we suggested that there should be compromise. I apologise if I have completely misinterpreted him but he said, ““Governments reach compromises only if they lose amendments””. I do not object to him not being here at the moment as he has been here a long time, but, if that is what he said, I hope that when he reads Hansard he will rethink that statement. It was certainly never the position of the Labour Government in my time that you seek compromise only if you lose an amendment. You seek compromise all the time, which is what a Committee stage is for, but that has not happened on this Bill. Ministers should say, ““We don’t like that amendment very much. It may have some good points but let’s go away to see if there is anything there””. Of course, we reach compromises on ping pong, as and when that arrives. I shall not prolong this short amendment. I am saying simply that the Government are not getting all that they want if they do not get a cull of 50 MPs immediately. I am emphatically not getting all that I want, but this is something of a compromise. I hope that we might get something from the noble Lord, Lord McNally, in the spirit in which it is offered.