Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

I hear what the noble Lord says, but the point that I was on at the moment is not just that there is no limit on the 10 per cent—I shall come on to the question about exceptional circumstances in a moment—but that the number of 600 could be reached. I think that it was my noble friend Lord Eccles yesterday who raised the question of 630, which is the target aspirational number. Even that varies, though. With the one exception of when the Scottish seats were redistributed following devolution, the number has gone up after every Boundary Commission review. The noble Lord, Lord Soley, asked about ““shall”” and ““may””. The fact that it is at the Boundary Commission’s discretion whether and to what extent at present it should take into account the factors in rule 5 does not mean that it is able to decide simply to ignore a relevant factor on a whim. The commission cannot just dismiss it. I shall give two reasons why ““may”” is preferable to ““shall””. First, and this reflects back to what I was just saying, the 1986 Act currently has conflicting rules. The British Academy said that, "““the rules set out in the Bill are a very substantial improvement””," because they are clear and not contradictory. Our fear is that changing ““may”” could reintroduce conflict between the rules. Secondly, it is important that the independent Boundary Commission has the freedom to use its discretion. Many of the noble Lords moving amendments similar to this have talked about the importance of giving the commission flexibility. I fear that by using ““shall”” rather than ““may””, one takes away with one hand what is perhaps sought to be given with the other. As I have indicated, the Boundary Commission cannot ignore these factors on a whim. Issues such as local geography and historical factors are important. We have also provided flexibility; we have allowed a margin of 10 per cent—5 per cent either side of the quota—for these factors to be taken into account. However, we do not believe that they are so important that they justify a situation in which one person’s vote counts for only 41 per cent of one cast elsewhere, except in those very tightly defined cases where exceptional geographical circumstances make an exemption from the parity rule necessary. The current position in the Bill is that the principle of equity is paramount. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, referred to the British Academy report, which, I repeat, says that, "““the rules set out in the Bill are a very substantial improvement on those currently implemented by the Boundary Commissions (they have a clear hierarchy and are not contradictory)””." I am concerned that rule 6, under the existing rules to which the noble Lord, Lord Bach, referred, is the part that does away, as it were, with the hierarchy and leads to contradictions. The amendment would blur the clear hierarchy and introduce potential inconsistencies and confusion. With regard to the point about there being exceptional circumstances, we all know, if we are honest in our heart of hearts, that these words open the door to arguments, particularly from political parties, that considerations of exceptional importance arise in nearly every constituency. This would make the commission’s task far harder. Boundary reviews would become slower and lengthier, and the result would be the unequal weight of votes that we see today. I have tried to answer the noble Lord’s points.