Parliamentary Constituencies Bill — House of Commons, 2020-11-10
Topic: Government Operations
Wendy Anne Chamberlain (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): May I start by re-echoing the comments of Members from across the House in wishing the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution well at this difficult time? I hope her treatment progresses well I would like to speak in favour of all eight Lords amendments. The Bill has been much improved since it left the House back in July, and I am pleased the Government have supported Lords amendments 3 to 5, but I am particularly keen, in the time I have, to touch on Lords amendments 7 and 8 On the flexibility quota, all the evidence suggests that a 5% quota will lead to huge upheaval. Just one in five constituencies will remain the same and about two thirds risk being changed completely. That presents a huge change to our parliamentary map, as we head into 2024, which we all know is just over three years away. An end to the pandemic might be in sight, given yesterday’s good news, but the economic damage will still be being felt in two years’ time, so I ask whether it is responsible to unleash a wave of reselection battles between Members of Parliament—although likely to be on the Government side of the House—once the new boundaries have been unveiled and many MPs find that their constituency has been significantly changed. The 2013 boundary review caused such disquiet that it was rejected by this House for exactly that reason, and the report from 2018 was not even laid before the House because there was no chance it would have been passed On the automaticity conditions in the Bill, Members must realise that this is really the last chance to scrutinise the Bill as it stands. Once the touch paper is lit, that is the end of our role in this process Today, on Report and on Second Reading, I think proponents of both the 7.5% and 5% flexibility conditions have been mischaracterised. Some Members are talking as though 5% is the ideal of electoral equality, while 7.5% is at exactly the other end of the scale, but the truth is that they are variations on a theme: 5% will not mean complete equality between voters, and 7.5% will not mean that voters in one constituency have far more of a say than those in another On Second Reading, the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), who is no longer in her place, pointed out that her constituency has 83,000 electors, while mine has 61,000. There is significant variability in my own constituency related to the University of Saint Andrews and the registration of students at their term-time addresses, but it is right that inequity should be addressed, and there are many more examples across the country of similar cases It is important to remember that whether we adopt 5% or 7.5%, the constituencies I have mentioned, including my own, become more equal, but there will still be variation under either quota, and we account for that variation because we accept that strict numerical equality is not the only basis on which to draw up constituencies. We recognise that other factors are important and should be taken into consideration, such as language, geography, cultural ties, and these are all on the statute book. For a small handful of constituencies, we judge these factors to be so important that we have decided that numerical equality should not apply to them at all One of the arguments regularly put forward in relation to first past the post is the politics of place. Strict numerical equality arguably makes that much harder to achieve. I would argue—I know you are conscious of time, Madam Deputy Speaker—that if we want to achieve politics of place and equality of voters, we should look for a more representative voting system in the first place. I find it strange that the Government are insisting that, for the rest of the country, we should impose numerical equality so strict that it will be difficult for the Boundary Commission properly to take these factors of geography and cultural ties into account. That is not just the view of Opposition Members. I note that the 7.5% condition is included in the Private Member’s Bill of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Sir Peter Bone), no doubt because he recognises the disruption that 5% will cause to such a high proportion of existing boundaries We must ask how important those ties are compared with the goal of numerical equality. Not only will 7.5% prevent excessive disruption, but it will allow the boundary commissioners better to account for those other factors. Given the arguably small difference, which is within the norms mentioned by the Leader of the House, that seems like a reasonable compromise Secondly, I wish to discuss Lords amendment 8, a cross-party amendment tabled by Lord Shutt of Greetland, which received significant support in the other place. As hon. Members have mentioned and are aware, the Liberal Democrat peer Lord Shutt sadly passed away at the end of October, just a few weeks after steering this amendment through the House of Lords. David was a no-nonsense politician and a proud Yorkshireman and was passionate about democracy and electoral reform—displayed through his excellent chairmanship of the committee that considered the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013. Its report originally recommended this amendment. It is fitting that, as a Liberal Democrat, his last political act was championing the representation of young people. His friends and family, including many people across the Houses and parties, will miss him dearly.