Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

My Lords, the terms of the amendments are quite deliberate, stating that ““a Boundary Commission shall””. If we go back to the original principle of parity and one vote, one value, the Government are not saying, ““Get what the electoral quota should be and that must be it, with no flexibility whatever””. There is flexibility, and there is a genuine debate as to its degree, but this and earlier amendments use ““shall””, which takes away some of that discretion. If people feel strongly about a proposal when it comes forward, it will be possible for them to make representations to the Boundary Commission. Local ties and geographical considerations are among the factors to which it may have regard if, and to the extent that, it sees fit. As I indicated in response to the previous debate, the Boundary Commission cannot set aside those considerations at a whim when it makes its initial recommendations. Where ““shall”” does come into effect is in Clause 12. Subsection (1), which allows for a period for making representations that is three times as long as under existing legislation, states that, "““the Commission shall take into consideration any such representations duly made””." The suggestion made in the debate that such representations can simply be swept aside and not given proper consideration is just not right. It gives the impression that the public will somehow be excluded from the process. In many respects, the public may have more opportunities, and certainly longer opportunities, to make representations; it may just be that the parties will not be represented by Queen’s Counsel when a public hearing takes place.