Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

My Lords, this is an important amendment. It is designed to try to promote the settlement of an impasse in the House. We support the principle of this amendment. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, promotes it on two bases. First, it strengthens the hand of the citizen in making representations in relation to individual Boundary Commission issues. Secondly, and more importantly, it will give time for further examination, particularly independent examination, of the practical consequences of the reduction in the number of constituencies. We thoroughly endorse that approach. It is implicit in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, that that examination should take place before the implementation of the reduction of the number of constituencies. It is also explicit in the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, that Parliament should have another opportunity to consider this before the implementation. At the heart of the case in favour of that is the widespread concern around the House that the production of this Bill and its passage through Parliament have not been attended by the normal processes that one would expect to precede a constitutional Bill of this enormity and importance. Noble Lords know the quotes well; the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in the other place stated: "““The Government has declared that the Parliamentary Systems and Constituencies Bill is intended as a ‘major step’ towards restoring people's faith in Parliament. The Government’s failure to consult on the provisions in this Bill risks undermining that laudable intention””." Our own Constitution Committee stated: "““We conclude 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””." The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in the other place was even more scathing. It stated: "““The decision to make this reduction has not been prefigured by any public consultation on the role of a Member of Parliament, nor by any analysis of the impact of the reduction on constituency ""casework. It has not been accompanied by any compelling international comparisons, nor by any information on what the Government proposes should be the size and role of a reformed upper House. The reduction would, on current plans, be made entirely from the backbenches, with no proposals to reduce the number of Ministers or of others on the Government payroll sitting and voting in the House, thus increasing the extent of executive dominance of Parliament. The savings that the Government claims, but has not proved, the reduction would lead to, would make no discernible impact on the national deficit, amounting as they do to around one millionth of the annual budget of the National Health Service. There may be a case for reducing the number of Members””—" the committee states, "““but the Government has not made it””." The Government's failure to offer any proper explanation or evidential basis for the proposed reduction in the size of the other place is worrying. Its legitimacy may have been eroded yet further by revelations on BBC's ““Newsnight”” by its political editor, Michael Crick, who said that the Conservative Party is orchestrating an operation to ensure that any of its current Members of Parliament unseated by the reduction to 600 are shipped off up the Corridor to your Lordships' House instead. Mark Field, whom I cited earlier, said that, "““the current proposals for AV and the reduction in number of parliamentary constituencies are being promoted by Party managers as an expedient way to prevent our principal political opponents from recapturing office””." It is possible to make light of those matters, but it gravely undermines our Parliament that such allegations are swirling around this proposal. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, reflects that anxiety and would provide a sensible mechanism to address it. It raises issues that will need further consideration, but its crucial element, which is attractive and allows legitimacy for this major change in our constitution, is that it allows for an independent body to be set up, populated by people who are experienced and have respect, to look at the issue and come to an independent and authoritative conclusion before implementation of the change. We would need to discuss how best that would be achieved, how and when it should take place. For example, if the independent body reported within nine months to a year; there was then a vote in Parliament before the completion of the work of the Boundary Commission; and the Government were willing to contemplate some delay in the completion of the work of the Boundary Commission while not endangering the review before the next election, the aims of all in this House could be satisfied. This is a test of the sincerity of the Government's position in stepping back from the precipice. It allows the Bill to go through, but it gives the opportunity for proper, independent consideration of an important aspect of our constitution. I am glad that the noble Lord the Leader of the House is to answer the debate, because we will get an authoritative answer. I really hope that he will respond by saying that he accepts in principle and that we can discuss the detail further.