The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chairman:
Mrs.
Janet
Dean
†
Bellingham,
Mr. Henry
(North-West Norfolk)
(Con)
†
Borrow,
Mr. David S.
(South Ribble)
(Lab)
†
Brown,
Mr. Russell
(Dumfries and Galloway)
(Lab)
Butler,
Ms Dawn
(Brent, South)
(Lab)
†
Cash,
Mr. William
(Stone)
(Con)
†
Crausby,
Mr. David
(Bolton, North-East)
(Lab)
†
Ellwood,
Mr. Tobias
(Bournemouth, East)
(Con)
Heath,
Mr. David
(Somerton and Frome)
(LD)
†
Hughes,
Simon
(North Southwark and Bermondsey)
(LD)
†
Irranca-Davies,
Huw
(Ogmore)
(Lab)
†
Keeble,
Ms Sally
(Northampton, North)
(Lab)
†
Linton,
Martin
(Battersea)
(Lab)
†
Prentice,
Bridget
(Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional
Affairs)
†
Simon,
Mr. Siôn
(Birmingham, Erdington)
(Lab)
†
Touhig,
Mr. Don
(Islwyn)
(Lab/Co-op)
†
Walker,
Mr. Charles
(Broxbourne)
(Con)
Walter,
Mr. Robert
(North Dorset)
(Con)
Mark
Etherton, Committee
Clerk
†
attended the
Committee
The following
also attended, pursuant to Standing Order No.
118(2):
Boswell,
Mr. Tim
(Daventry)
(Con)
Fourth
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Tuesday 27
March
2007
[Mrs.
Janet Dean
in the
Chair]
Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (England) Order 2007
4.30
pm
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs
(Bridget Prentice):
I beg to
move,
That the
Committee has considered the draft Parliamentary Constituencies
(England) Order
2007.
It is a
pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs.
Dean. I am sure that you will keep us firmly in order on a matter as
sensitive as parliamentary boundary changes, which generally tend to
encourage a lot of thought on the part of Members of
Parliament.
The
Boundary Commission for England announced in February 2000 the
beginning of its fifth general review of English parliamentary
constituencies. The Secretary of State received the resulting report
on 31 October 2006. That report and the draft order were laid
before Parliament on 26 February
2007.
The order will
give effect, without modification, to the recommendations made by the
Boundary Commission in its report, but before dealing with the details
of the order, I would like to put on the record our thanks to the
Boundary Commission. I thank the deputy chairman, the honourable
Mr. Justice Sullivan, and his fellow commissioners,
Mr. Michael Lewer and Mr. Robin Gray, together
with their expert secretariat, for the work that they did in delivering
the
report.
Simon
Hughes (North Southwark and Bermondsey) (LD): I join the
Minister in thanking the commissioners and their staff. In her general
remarks, will she comment on whether the situation that I am about to
describe is satisfactory? Local inquiries were held up to five or six
years ago and, since then and before the new system has even come into
operation, there have been significant changes of population in many of
our communities, so that, with the best will in the world, under the
present system that it has to work under, the Boundary Commission
cannot produce an up-to-date, fair distribution of seats across the
country.
Bridget
Prentice:
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. It took
six years to get from the beginning of the review to the date when the
report was submitted to us and, in that period, at least one Parliament
has come and gone and there could have been huge changes in population.
I think that we will have to consider that. It may be worth considering
if, as the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommends, we have a
review of the parliamentary and, possibly, local government boundary
commissions. Looking at both of them, I think that those are issues
that will have to be addressed. The hon. Gentleman will know that they
used to have between eight and 15 years to complete their reviews. That
period has been reduced, at their instigation, to between eight and 12
years. Nevertheless, big changes can take place in that
time.
The Boundary
Commission for England is required, under the Parliamentary
Constituencies Act 1986, to have what is called a constant review but,
as the hon. Gentleman suggested, that can still throw up anomalies. A
review has to take place every eight to 12 years. The
commission has to seek, in line with that Act, to create constituencies
that, as far as practicable, are contained within and respect county
and London borough boundaries. We all know that that has not always
been the case—I am sure that hon. Members will be able to give
examples—but the commission has to try to adhere to that and to
adhere as closely as possible to the electoral
quota.
That
figure is calculated by dividing the total electorate in England by the
number of English seats in the House of Commons at the time. The
figures used in the calculation for the review, therefore, are taken
from the electoral register in force when the Boundary Commission
announced the beginning of its review—in 2000. I am talking
about what is referred to in the Act as the enumeration date. On that
basis, the electoral quota for this review was set at 69,935. The
Boundary Commission attempts to create constituencies with a
parliamentary electorate that is as close as possible to that
number.
Mr.
Tim Boswell (Daventry) (Con): I am here because of the
implications for my constituency, to which I may return later. Does the
hon. Lady agree that, within the present structure, it is very
unsatisfactory that, because of rapid expansion, my constituency, and
that of my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South
(Mr. Binley), have both grown to about 90,000 electors? They
are inordinately large in comparison with the electoral quota to which
she
referred.
Bridget
Prentice:
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point.
As I said, the commission does its best to keep as close as possible to
the quota, but, as I was about to say, other factors have to be taken
into account in order, for example, to mitigate the arbitrary splitting
of natural communities—the hon. Member for North Southwark and
Bermondsey will have something to say about that. The commission has to
take into account not just the mathematical formula; there are other
rules about special geographical, community and transport
considerations. We should bear in mind that in devising new
constituency boundaries, the commission must do its best to strike a
balance to achieve the best possible outcome.
There will inevitably be
opposition to some of the individual recommendations in the
report—it would be surprising if there were not—but as
long as there is no evidence of political bias or failure by the
commission to observe the statutory requirements, neither I nor the
Secretary of State can see sufficient reason to alter these
recommendations. That is particularly so given that the Boundary
Commission is an independent, apolitical and impartial body, which
formulates its recommendations following a lengthy and detailed process
of consultation and research within the terms of its
remit.
Mr.
Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con): On a point of
information, if the last boundary review started in 2000, when will the
next one start?
Bridget
Prentice:
The commission will decide immediately after the
next general election when the next boundary review will start. As I
said to the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey, in the
meantime, the Committee on Standards in Public Life has recommended a
review of the commission and its role, and some changes may come out of
that review.
The next
period for starting a review is between 2008 and 2012. However, before
that review is instigated, recommendations in that regard may be made
following a review by Parliament of the role of the commission. I hope
that I have made that
clear.
Mr.
Walker:
What triggered the interest of the
Committee on Standards in Public Life in the Boundary Commission and
how it operates? Why does that Committee want to examine its
role?
Bridget
Prentice:
That is a fair point. For clarification,
the Committee on Standards in Public Life was carrying out a review of
the Electoral Commission. Under the Political Parties, Elections and
Referendums Act 2000, the Electoral Commission was supposed to take as
part of its remit the parliamentary and local government boundary
commissions. In looking at the Electoral Commission’s role, the
Committee on Standards in Public Life suggested that that might not be
a good idea and that we should revisit that part of the 2000 Act, which
is something that the Government are still considering. That is why the
Committee on Standards in Public Life had an interest in the
matter.
I should
correct what I said about 2008 to 2012. In fact, the report will be
eight to 12 years after the previous one, so it should be any time
between 2014 and 2018. That should give us all plenty of time to
consider what the Boundary Commission should be
doing.
Simon
Hughes:
The Minister has given us the average figure for
English constituencies. For the record—she will anticipate why I
ask—will she tell us the current average figure for Scottish,
Welsh and Northern Irish constituencies and confirm that there is a
very substantial
discrepancy?
Bridget
Prentice:
I will get the figures to the hon. Gentleman as
soon as someone is able to do that for me. In the past the figures for
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have been out of kilter with those
for England because of the nature of those areas, for example the
geographical distances in the highlands. All of that was taken into
account.
Since the
last review by the Boundary Commission for Scotland, Scotland has been
much more in parallel with England. It is true that in direct
comparison Wales is still over-represented, and I am told that the
average figure is about 55,000 electors for Wales and about 60,000 for
Northern Ireland. As we all know, there are special reasons for that,
particularly in the case of Northern
Ireland.
Mr.
Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab): Perhaps I can
assist my hon. Friend the Minister by saying that after the previous
boundary change in Scotland, which came into being at the 2005 general
election, the average was 69,934 electors—or 69,943, but what is
nine people either
way?
Bridget
Prentice:
If it was the latter, I hope that my Scottish
colleagues will not come to me and say that they are being unfairly
treated compared with England as a result of that change. The debate
highlights the fact that it would be much better if we could make all
these changes at the same time across the United Kingdom rather than in
what appears to be a piecemeal, jagged
fashion.
Mr.
Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth, East) (Con): Does the
Minister envisage the Electoral Commission expanding? If, as she says,
the next report will be announced in about 2014, by that time we will
be looking at an elected second Chamber. Will the Electoral Commission
participate in
that?
Bridget
Prentice:
I am impressed that the hon. Gentleman thinks
that we will have an elected second Chamber by 2014. If I am still
around then, I shall come back to him to see whether that is true. I do
not want to anticipate what might come out of the possible review of
the role of the Boundary Commission, so I should leave it
there.
The
commission’s provisional recommendations are publicised locally
and interested parties are invited to give their views. If there are
sufficient objections to a recommendation, public inquiries are held in
an area, to which interested parties can submit counter-proposals.
Independent legal experts chair those inquiries, consider each
objection and counter-proposal and produce a full report that is then
considered by the commission in formulating revised recommendations.
Those are again publicised, with a further opportunity for
representations to be made and considered by the commission before its
recommendations are
finalised.
Mr.
William Cash (Stone) (Con): I do not think that the
Minister has told us when the Privy Council will advise Her Majesty on
the moment at which the order is intended to come into operation. It
will commence on the fourteenth day after it is made. On what day will
the Privy Council sit? I heard that it would be 4
April.
Bridget
Prentice:
The hon. Gentleman’s knowledge on the
matter is greater than mine. I am not aware of the exact date on which
the Privy Council will consider that matter. I will get that
information to him as soon as I
can.
Mr.
Cash:
The Minister will understand that not until the
Privy Council has given its advice does any of this extremely important
discussion come into effect, and then 14 days after. We will be running
into local government elections, so it is a question of our knowing
exactly what the situation is as soon as
possible.
Bridget
Prentice:
The hon. Gentleman need not worry unduly about
the local government elections in five or so weeks. We are discussing
parliamentary boundaries rather than local government ones, which are
dealt with by a separate organisation. Even if, for example, there were
to be a by-election between now and the next general election, it would
be fought on the present boundaries and not on the boundaries in the
review. Members can continue to work on their present boundaries until
the next general
election.
In
conclusion, the Boundary Commission has followed all the due procedures
in reaching its conclusions and making its recommendations. In order to
complete the parliamentary process to implement those recommendations,
I commend the draft order to the
Committee.
4.46
pm
Mr.
Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk) (Con): It is a
pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs
Dean.
It
would be useful if the Minister gave us the answer to the question that
my hon. Friend the Member for Stone asked about the Privy Council. It
might be helpful if she was made a member of the Privy Council, and
then she would know what was going on. Dealing with important matters
that have to go to the Privy Council is possibly an argument for
someone like the Minister to be made a Privy Councillor. My hon. Friend
made the valid point that, although local government election
boundaries are obviously different, if an MP is out canvassing in a
local election, as many of us will be, particularly in those districts
and boroughs up for re-election this May, it is useful to know whether
the wards that we are canvassing are to be in our constituency or that
of our neighbour at the next election.
I would also like to pay
tribute to the chairman, commissioners and secretariat of the Boundary
Commission for their work, which we endorse. We pay tribute to their
supremely professional attitude; they are totally neutral and
invariably avoid any bias. In that context, could the Minister tell us
a bit more about the Committee on Standards in Public Life review of
the Boundary Commission? Is that review about how it handles its brief?
Is it about the length of time taken over deliberations and between one
report and another, or is it much more about the processes that the
commission uses and how it is organised? Perhaps the Minister could
fill us in on those
points.
I
take on board the point made by the hon. Member for North Southwark and
Bermondsey that constituencies often change substantially between
Boundary Commission reviews. Parts of London are certainly changing
fast and there is a huge amount of development in parts of the home
counties. It is difficult for the Boundary Commission to catch up with
the development.
On
the other hand, however, there are significant practical difficulties
in trying to speed up the process. In Norfolk we had an issue with the
Boundary Commission over a number of wards that were moving out of my
constituency. Other Norfolk Members had similar concerns in their
constituencies. Everyone was given a chance to have their say and,
indeed, the matter did then go to an inquiry, which was chaired by a
very impressive, independent individual. He not only
listened to all the arguments but took action and made a number of
changes that were in line with what local people and parishes wanted.
If the whole process had been significantly speeded up it would have
been quite difficult to have the level of local participation that we
were able to enjoy. Yes, the period between reviews may sound long, and
speeding it up may, on the face of it, appear quite attractive, but if
we did that it would cause a number of practical
difficulties.
Perhaps
I can make one point about my own county. We obviously welcome the fact
that Norfolk is getting one more constituency. Certainly from the point
of view of the party I represent, that will invariably be good news
because we are getting another rural constituency—a situation
that is mirrored across the country. That is obviously another reason
why we have a vested interest in this review being implemented as soon
as possible.
Mr.
Siôn Simon (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab): I am not
sure that I understood that point. I get the impression that the
Conservative party is not interested in representing people unless they
live in the
countryside.
Mr.
Bellingham:
We are interested in
providing representation in constituencies across the countryside. Of
course we are. We are also interested in constituencies being of a
sensible size. If, coincidentally, that means that there are more rural
constituencies that are likely to return Conservative Members that is
also to be welcomed. We have been through the review process in
Norfolk, a county that has been growing. A point was reached at which
it was inevitable and indeed desirable for there to be a new Norfolk
constituency.
My only
comment about what is happening in Norfolk is that although the
Boundary Commission has done a good job, for some bizarre reason the
new constituency of Broadland, which is meant to be a constituency
based on the Norfolk broads, north and east of Norwich, a constituency
which by its very name implies that it will encompass that part of
Norfolk where there are rivers and broads, stretches right across the
county. Although my constituency is at the far west of the county the
new constituency adjoins my eastern boundary. It will be a very long,
thin constituency.
In
a way that reinforces the mistake that was made when the Mid-Norfolk
constituency was created 18 or so years ago. That was a long, thin
constituency and this one is even longer and thinner. I only hope that
in future the Boundary Commission will try to take on board the fact
that if it creates constituencies that are completely unmanageable and
do not have any real centre or core to them, sitting Members of
whatever party will find it particularly difficult to represent them.
The problem is not the distance, but the lack of any focal point in the
constituency, particularly when it cuts across a number of district
council boundaries. There are lessons to be learnt. I am sure that
every hon. Member will be able to look at how the Boundary Commission
has dealt with particular cases in their own constituency and county
and find anomalies.
Mr.
Cash:
I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is implying
that if a constituency cuts through several
districts it is automatically disadvantageous. In my constituency of
Stone I have one borough and two districts. I find it highly congenial.
Not only that, I find that my majority has tripled since
1997.
Mr.
Bellingham:
My hon. Friend is very modest. The reason that
his majority has risen so much is probably his own dynamic personality
and the issues on which he campaigns on a regular basis. I know from
visiting his constituency that it is quite compact. My point is that
the more compact constituencies are, the more dependent they are on the
influences of one or more towns, and the greater the geographical logic
to their composition, the happier we will be.
There are
some anomalies, but having said that, the Boundary Commission has done
a very good job and the Opposition would like to endorse its work. We
look forward to the Privy Council approving its recommendations and to
their going live so that we will have them in time for the next
election, whenever that is.
I should be grateful if the
Minister could tell us more about the review of the Committee on
Standards in Public Life. It seems to have crept up under the radar
screen and we are concerned about it. Perhaps I should have noticed it
during my duties shadowing the hon. Lady, which I try to do diligently.
Will she fill the Committee in a bit more on such matters? Apart from
that issue, we endorse the findings of the Boundary Commission review
and look forward to its coming into
action.
4.55
pm
Simon
Hughes:
This is a small, modest Committee, but we are
discussing a significant issue. I have several general points to make
and, as the Minister knows, I wish to raise a specific constituency
issue for which I am sure colleagues will excuse me, given that we
all take an interest in the local community outcome of such
matters.
I thank those
who do the work. It is important that it is done neutrally,
independently and within the law as we set it down. We therefore should
not direct criticism at anyone in the Boundary Commission because, if
there is a fault in the system, it is ours to remedy, and significant
faults in the system remain to be remedied. In passing, I wish to pay
tribute also to three others who work much closer to us and look after
the House of Commons Library statistics department. Whenever we want
electoral statistics, that department helps us out. It produces reports
on all elections; it gives us all the figures and independent
information. Richard Cracknell has been there for many years. He has
done a fantastic job. He is always courteous, always prompt and always
efficient. I also thank Ross Young and Adam Mellows-Facer, who work
with him. Often at very short notice, they give us the information
necessary to take part in debates such as
this.
Mr.
Bellingham:
Adam Mellows-Facer has left the Library, but I
agree with the hon. Gentleman that the fact that he has done a superb
job in briefing hon. Members should be put on the
record.
Simon
Hughes:
We are all agreed and are again sending a bouquet
to those in our great Library.
Looking at the
matter objectively before we come to more controversial matters, I must
point out that the order increases the number of English constituencies
by four. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, it produces more
constituencies in some parts of the country to accommodate growth in
the population and fewer in others. Each of the six metropolitan areas
in England loses seats. London loses seats, and eleven parts of
the country gain seats: Wiltshire, Warwickshire,
Northamptonshire, Norfolk, the area around the southern part of
Hampshire, Essex, Devon, Derby and Derbyshire, Cornwall and the Isles
of Scilly, Lancashire and Blackburn with Darwen and Blackpool, and Bath
and Gloucestershire. There are important changes in other areas, but
not as significant as those that produce extra
seats.
My
colleagues and I have always argued that, apart from changing our
electoral systems, ideally we should aim to reduce the number of
parliamentary constituencies, not increase them. When devolution in
Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and, we hope, soon in England, is
finalised and agreed by us all, there should be an argument for
reducing the number of seats. It is a desirable objective. Obviously,
my argument is that there should be a proportional system for electing
people, but that debate is for another
time.
Mr.
Cash:
In the course of his panoramic view of the landscape
of electoral reform, did the thought occur to the hon. Gentleman that
there is something slightly peculiar about the fact that Gibraltar for
the purposes of the European parliamentary elections is made part and
parcel of the United Kingdom electorate, certainly the English
electorate, but that no similar arrangement applies in respect of the
English constituencies in the United Kingdom Parliament? I know that
that is a highly difficult and controversial matter but, given that we
are talking about constituencies, I want at least to put it on the
record that what has happened only in the past year or so has created
something of an
anomaly.
Simon
Hughes:
There is a relevant matter. I was fearful that we
would be tempted to go a long way off the subject, but I shall keep my
remarks within the limits of the debate. Yes, a change has meant that
Gibraltarians can vote in the European Parliament elections. I have
supported such a policy for many years. I am a big fan of Gibraltar. As
for whether it would want to be represented in the UK Parliament, that
is a matter for the Gibraltarians. I am personally sympathetic to that,
but have not heard the Government of Gibraltar say it formally. They
have been negotiating a new constitutional link between Gibraltar and
the UK, with a lot of agreement and a referendum, and that was not part
of that settlement.
Simon
Hughes:
If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue, I
do not want to be distracted when there are other matters that I want
to cover.
My third
point—the one that I made in my intervention to the
Minister—is that I am troubled that the process, through
nobody’s fault, takes so long. The consequence is the point that
was made about Northamptonshire, which is also true of other areas
such as Buckinghamshire, parts of the home counties, my constituency and
others in London in which there have been large developments. For
example, there has been significant change in Tower Hamlets, with the
huge amount of development in the Docklands, between the beginning of
the review and the end. That distorts the outcome, and by definition it
means that the figures have been distorted. I will come back to my
point about boundaries.
We have more 80,000 electors in
my constituency, way over what is meant to be the average. My
neighbour, the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional
Affairs, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham
(Ms Harman), has, I think, fewer than 60,000 electors. That is a huge
difference between two seats, which is unfair to everyone
concerned.
Since the
Boundary Commission wrote its report, the figures for the five seats in
Southwark and Lambeth—as proposed by the commission and on the
electoral roll since the beginning of this year—show the figure
for the proposed new seat for the northern part of my borough as
78,279. Camberwell and Peckham has 79,011 electors, Dulwich and West
Norwich has 74,487, Streatham has 78,727 and Vauxhall has 79,803. All
of those are way above the figure that is meant to be the norm.
Elsewhere, there are considerably higher figures, going up to nearly
90,000. That excludes the Isle of Wight, which has always been a very
large seat in England, for obvious geographical reasons.
I am strongly of the view that
we need to have a system that more quickly captures the size of
parliamentary seats. However, as colleagues will probably be aware,
there is a worse concern about which—although the Minister and
her departmental colleagues have been sympathetic—we have not
yet had a satisfactory answer, namely that there is hugely differential
under-registration of voters.
I want to put that on the
record because it is a significant issue. Of the 25 seats with the
highest rates of under-registration in the UK 20 are in London. These
are the Library’s figures so they are the latest. For the
record, the only seats that are not in London are Belfast, South, which
is fifth in the league table, Sheffield, Central, which is 14th and
Aberdeen, Central, Aldershot and West Suffolk which are 23rd, 24th and
25th respectively. I will list the 20 seats in London
because I want it to be recorded that this is a big issue on which we
all need to work. Kensington and Chelsea has the worst rate. Only 62.5
per cent. of those on the census recorded as being adults of voting age
and entitled to vote are on the electoral register. That percentage is
not out of the whole population, but out of those people entitled to
vote.
The figures for
the other seats are as follows: 72.4 per cent. in Cities of London and
Westminster; 78 per cent. in Hampstead and Highgate; 78.5 per cent. in
Hammersmith and Fulham; 79.5 per cent. in Brent, East; 79.8 per cent.
in Regent’s Park and Kensington, North; 80.5 per cent. in
Holborn and St. Pancreas; 80.7 per cent. in Tottenham; 80.9
per cent. in Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush; 81.2 per cent.
in my own constituency, North Southwark and Bermondsey; 82.8
per cent. in Hackney, North and Stoke
Newington; 83.1 per cent. in Hackney, South and Shoreditch; 84.6 per
cent. in Kingston and Surbiton; 85.6 per cent. in Wimbledon; 85.7 per
cent. in Vauxhall, just over the river from here; 85.9 per cent. in
Islington, North; 85.9 per cent. in Richmond Park; 86.6 per cent. in
Streatham and 87.2 per cent. in Brent, North.
The Library’s figure,
which is borne out elsewhere, suggests that there are 3.5 million
people who were captured for the purpose of the census but are not on
the electoral register. That is another big distortion. If urban areas
such as the west midlands, London or Greater Manchester recorded the
number of people who were entitled to vote, we would probably not see
reductions in the number of seats in urban England, because the
electorate would be big enough to justify the same number of seats or
more.
My last point
on that issue is that it is normally the otherwise
excluded—people from the black community or other ethnic
minority communities, young people and people in single-parent
households—who are least likely to be on the electoral register.
We all know the reasons for that, and I am not making a criticism, but
simply reminding us that we have work to do if the electoral register
is really to reflect what is going on. We therefore need a system that
is more up to date.
I
have three last points. First, I share and support the
Minister’s view that we should have one Boundary Commission
process for the United Kingdom. I have never argued that we should have
similar sized constituencies everywhere. Island communities such as
Orkney, Shetland, the Western Isles, Anglesey—Môn in
Welsh—and the Isle of Wight are communities and probably need to
be treated as such, although there is a question as to whether the Isle
of Wight will need to be two seats if its electorate grows enough to
justify that. Islands are, however, a special category.
I have always argued that very
rural communities should probably be entitled to a smaller electorate,
for all sorts of good reasons. However, the same standard should apply
across the UK. If the most rural seat, which belongs to my hon. Friend
the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) and
is as big as the whole of Northern Ireland, has a smaller electorate
than any other, the same criteria should apply to a big rural seat in
the Lake district in England, Snowdonia in Wales or the middle of
Northern Ireland. We shall have fair representation in the UK
Parliament only if we have one system with common criteria for the
electorate across the four countries. I am encouraged that Ministers
think the same and I hope that we can move in that direction.
In that respect, the hon.
Member for Broxbourne referred to the Committee on Standards in Public
Life, which considered whether the Boundary Commissions should exercise
the relevant functions independently or whether they should go to one
body. My view is that they should go to the Electoral Commission, which
should exercise those functions for the UK, and we shall have
a debate about that. I am simply keen that we have one system, rather
than four, although that is absolutely not intended to
discredit those who do the work.
My penultimate point is my only
mischievous point of the day.
Mr.
Bellingham:
Only
one?
Simon
Hughes:
Yes. Changing boundaries has political
implications of course. My most objective assessment—this is for
the people who have written in
The House
Magazine
—is that, under the changes, the last
election result would have been that Labour had 347 seats instead of
355, the Tories 209 seats instead of 198, the Liberal Democrats 64
seats instead of 62 and the other parties 30 seats instead of 31. Had
we had a more up-to-date electoral system and electoral counting, there
would have been a much closer election result. The result of the
proposals is that we are at least getting nearer to a fairer system for
the next election.
My
last point is my constituency point. I have made it throughout the
process and I apologise again for troubling people with it, but I want
to make it on behalf of my constituents. I am proud to represent the
northern part of the borough over the bridge, Southwark, which has sent
MPs to the House since the 13th century. At last, the Boundary
Commission has accepted the constituency’s right name. There
have been four slight variations of its name during my time in the
House, but the recommendation is that it should now be called
Bermondsey and Old Southwark. That is, at last, an accurate definition,
and I welcome that.
However, there is one Boundary
Commission proposal to which I and others objected during the inquiry
and to which I have sustained my objection—it is not a party
political advantage point—and I put it to the Minister even when
the opportunities to do so were in their dying days. The Boundary
Commission has tried to keep boroughs together, and I understand that.
It has also tried to keep wards together, but wards are occasionally
anomalous, and the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk talked about
constituencies being funny shapes. When Southwark last had its
boundaries changed, a ward was created called Livesey, which stretches
across the Old Kent road from north to south, part of which is
currently in my constituency and part of which is in the constituency
of the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham. Those
are two entirely different communities: the northern part is in
Rotherhithe, which is near the Bermondsey borough, and the southern
part is in Camberwell and Peckham, which is in the old Camberwell
borough. Those areas contain people who go in different directions for
shopping or travel and are part of very different
communities.
The Livesey
ward created a marriage of those two areas and the council, in its
wisdom, rightly created community councils in recognition of the fact
that there are two communities. The northern part, which includes part
of the Livesey ward, has Rotherhithe community council, and the south
has Peckham community council, which, sensibly, includes the southern
part of Livesey ward. That arrangement works well and this is not a
party political issue. Sadly, the Electoral Commission recommendations
put the SE16 bit of Rotherhithe, which is currently part of the North
Southwark and Bermondsey seat, into the Camberwell and Peckham seat.
Therefore, as well as all of Camberwell and much of Peckham, and half
of Walworth and Kennington, which is in the middle of the Southwark
seat, there will be a sort of peninsula attached that will go almost up
to the Thames in Rotherhithe, which has always been in
Rotherhithe and is north of the Old Kent road. It is frustrating that we
were not able to persuade the Boundary Commission for England to do
that differently. It is more frustrating in a way that Ministers or
somebody in the system did not feel able to review the outcome, given
that the existence of community councils provided confirmation of the
two different
communities.
Ms
Sally Keeble (Northampton, North) (Lab): I think that the
area that the hon. Gentleman is talking about is, or includes part of,
the ward that I used to represent, and I wonder whether he could
confirm that. The straddling of the Old Kent road by a ward was
important because it brought community cohesion to areas that otherwise
would be quite distinct.
Simon
Hughes:
The hon. Lady used to be the leader of our council
and I respected her very much throughout that time although she knows
that we were on different sides. She is right to raise that issue and
is partly right in her assessment. The ward that she used to represent
did indeed straddle the Old Kent road—this is a parochial
point—and took in the Tustin estate, but did not go up to the
Rotherhithe Old road and the Surrey Docks tube station. Changes in ward
boundaries mean that the ward has become considerably stretched, which
results in more than bringing a community together along the Old Kent
road; it produces an unnatural result.
The outcome for elector numbers
in the constituency would barely have been different if we had won the
argument. In a letter to the Minister, I said that I hoped that I might
persuade her to use the Secretary of State’s discretion to
change that bit of the great plan for England. I was conscious that
there had been only one other suggestion for a change since the
Boundary Commission reported. That concerned a name change in Salford
in Greater Manchester—in the Royston and Oldham area, I
think—which was also rejected. It would have been fantastic if a
change could have been accommodated as it would have meant that the new
northern seats in Southwark had just more than 80,000 electors and that
none of the others had fewer than 74,000, which would have provided
much better parity than now.
I would be grateful if the
Minister could address that issue. I know that she is personally
sympathetic, but I also know that she is constrained by trying to keep
within ward boundaries. I understand that, and I hope that, in the end,
we can get back to the right community boundaries. It is sad for the
people in the community concerned and they will regret it if a change
is not made, but at least they will know that we kept up the argument
until the last moment. With that reservation and those about the
structure and the whole process, which I hope we will come back to
soon, I, again, thank those who have done the work. I say to the
Minister that I am keen that when the order has gone through, the Privy
Council has met and this has become law we should meet again and try to
get to grips with a system that will be much better at getting electors
on the electoral roll, providing a fairer electoral distribution and
speeding up the process from beginning to end so that we have the best,
fairest division of seats whatever electoral system we
have.
5.14
pm
Mr.
Cash:
I have one or two points to make, the first of which
is to repeat for the record my request to the Minister to let us know
as soon as possible when the Privy Council will
sit.
Secondly, I
noticed when looking through the extremely voluminous papers that came
into the Vote Office a few weeks ago that some of the figures buried
there purport to indicate an increase in the number of people on the
register at the present moment—that is, during the next few
weeks—compared with the number last year. I think that those
were the figures that I noticed. I may have got the dates slightly
wrong. All I know is that in my constituency, the number of people whom
I will hopefully be representing in future has increased by 1,000 under
the present ward boundaries, which is quite a lot in a short period,
but I suspect from what I have heard from colleagues that the figures
can differ dramatically between the moment when they are struck and the
moment when they come into effect. I leave that on the
record.
As others have
spoken about their constituencies, and as by the strange vagaries of
the Whips Office I have found myself on this Committee, I might as well
say that I find the way that the Boundary Commission review has worked
out for my own constituency satisfactory. However, I will be sorry to
lose some parts of my constituency of which I have become fond over the
years. It is just one of those things done by the stroke of a pen after
some deliberation. It is a pity to lose some places, but a pleasure to
gain others. I leave that on the record as
well.
I have a
specific point to make, and I should be interested to know whether any
other Committee members have had a similar experience. Working out
exactly where the boundaries lie in relation to one’s
constituency and where one crosses from one constituency into
another—particularly in relation to the roads and particularly,
I suspect, in rural areas—can be something of a nightmare. No
proper map is easily obtainable that shows on a sufficiently large
scale exactly where a rural lane in one constituency turns into a rural
lane in another. It would not be the first time when travelling around
during a general election that I have found myself in somebody
else’s constituency. That can happen quite easily, particularly
in a very large constituency such as mine and, I suspect, those of my
hon. Friends the Members for North-West Norfolk and for Daventry
(Mr.
Boswell).
Mr.
Boswell:
Would my hon. Friend not acknowledge that in
certain cases, even the detailed six-digit post code can be shared
between two constituencies? Furthermore, as I commit the cardinal sin
of being within sight of my constituency boundary, albeit on the right
side, would he not also acknowledge that I regularly get a load of
entirely inappropriate electoral information from the European
Parliament, which is sent to the wrong
region?
Mr.
Cash:
I commiserate with my hon. Friend for receiving any
material from the European Parliament. The Post Office, particularly
when it comes to the delivery of election addresses, can sometimes get
things monumentally wrong, and huge swathes of literature
can go into the wrong constituency, because it is extremely difficult
without a comprehensive, crystal-clear map showing each constituency. I
forget precisely how many we have. Is it six hundred
and—?
Mr.
Cash:
It is not beyond the wit of man—or of the
Boundary Commission—to be able to prepare a precise map, with an
appropriate ordnance survey scale, to ensure that we know exactly who
we represent and who we do not.
Mr.
Bellingham:
My hon. Friend is right. The constituency of
my former neighbour, Sir Richard Body, who was the Member for Holland
and Boston, suffered a substantial boundary change prior to the 1992
election, but he had not been made aware of the changes and spent all
of five days canvassing in the old constituency. No one knew any
different. The constituents had no idea, and nor did he. There was
confusion all round.
Mr.
Cash:
I am glad to say that one part of my
constituency when I represented Stafford—it went by the name of
Bradeley—disappeared in the last boundary review but has now
come back in again. At least I know where the boundaries of Bradeley
are, and I know where the boundaries of the rest of my constituency are
by dint of having been around it so often over the past few
years.
When
canvassing is taking place we often go around in cars. In rural areas,
we tend to be driven by others to enable us to get out and meet our
constituents. However, the drivers do not necessarily know exactly
where the constituency boundaries lie, and it is not unknown for them
to wander into another constituency and then to return. I can say that
because I have the most marvellous team of helpers, but we all have the
same problem. I know that many Labour Members represent urban
constituencies, and I imagine that it applies there with equal
force.
I do not know
whether other Committee members would dispute what I am saying or want
to comment on it, but through this debate we could get it across to the
Boundary Commission and the Government that having accurate maps of the
sort that I describe would be an enormous benefit; and the maps should
be made available as soon as possible.
Simon
Hughes:
I do not think that I have ever told hon. Members
this, but the intervention of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk
prompts me to mention it. The problem may be greater for people like
Sir Richard Body. We were both in Norman Shaw yard on the last day of
the summer term, and I said, “Sir Richard, are you going back to
your constituency?” He replied, “Certainly not. The less
they see of me, the more likely it is that they will vote for
me.” If he had gone there more often, he might not have spent
those five days canvassing in the wrong
place.
Mr.
Cash:
I take the point, but I am certainly not going to
make it applicable to myself.
I am lucky to have such a good
constituency, and I know its boundaries. I have a fairly large-scale
map, but even that does not quite do the job. It would be impossible in
a Committee such as this to be able to describe how difficult it is. It
is a visual problem. It is a problem of drawing the lines on a map at
sufficient scale. It would be of great benefit to everyone if we could
use this Committee as a means of getting that across. I feel strongly
that it is unfair on Members of Parliament and those who work for
them.
Mr.
Simon:
If there are going to be maps, I, too, would like
one, please.
Mr.
Cash:
We are building up to it almost by omission, because
no one is disagreeing with me. The hon. Gentleman says that he would
like a map, and I rather imagine that such requests could gather steam.
I am looking to the advisors and officials, but also to the
Minister.
That is all
that I need to say on the subject. It could make a big difference to
the efficient running of affairs in our constituencies. We know our
constituencies and we love them, but we would like to be absolutely
certain. For example, in one patch of my constituency, I have a house
that is in three counties. That is the sort of thing that we can
sometimes be up against. I leave it at
that.
5.25
pm
Mr.
Boswell:
Thank you, Mrs. Dean, for calling me
to participate in this debate. I thoroughly enjoyed the contribution
just made by my hon. Friend, who exposed some of the difficulties of
the process, but the important thing is that we are all basically in
favour of the recommendations. We also respect the professionalism of
the Boundary Commission for England—that should go without
saying.
I
should declare an interest—or, perhaps more accurately, the
extinction of an interest. As certain members of the Committee,
including my neighbour, the hon. Member for Northampton, North, will be
aware, I have made it clear locally that I intend to retire at the next
general election. [
Interruption.
] I am grateful to
my hon. Friends. However, being a cautious person, I had entered the
caveat that that was contingent on the introduction of the new
parliamentary boundaries. Therefore, not to over-dramatise the
situation, I am in a sense signing my own death warrant.
I should add that one of the
reasons that was driving me to consider retirement, albeit I am
approaching 65, is that, when I was a junior researcher—I
realise to my horror that that was some 38 years ago—the then
Labour Government introduced orders and then whipped their own troops
to vote them down. That was the most cynical act in political history
that I can remember. However, I do not intend to provoke the Minister
further to respond to that. It happened a long time ago, and it clearly
will not happen now.
I
am also very much fortified by the fact that an additional seat in my
county of Northamptonshire will probably assist the electoral fortunes
of my party, and I am certain that the two parliamentary
spokespersons—that is what they will morph into when the
boundary orders go through—who have been selected to succeed
me will prove worthy Members of the House, which brings me back to the
boundaries. I would like briefly to describe the process as it affects
the seat of Daventry and then to make some more general points. I do
not need to go on at length about
either.
I am faced
with the rather embarrassing and painful personal operation of being
sawn in half and simultaneously stretched, with arms and legs extending
in opposite directions. The seat is at present 43 miles north-south,
but the alignment of the two future constituencies that will
substantially be carved out of mine will be some 35 miles east-west.
That is also a contributory factor in my announced retirement. I would
like to mention some of the implications of that, because they reveal
the difficulty of the process when it is interpreted at local level.
Again, that is not derogatory of the conclusions reached by the
commission.
Let me
make my first point with an anecdote. On Saturday, my wife and I had to
leave our home, which, perhaps unfortunately, is placed in the most
extreme south-west parish of Northamptonshire and my
constituency—I have lived there for a very long time, even
before I represented the seat—to go to Peterborough on
ecclesiastical business. As we bowled along, we passed Northampton, and
as we were going along the A45 at a certain point north-east of
Northampton, by which time I had already clocked about 33 miles, I said
to my wife, “And here we have the new South Northamptonshire
constituency on my right and the new Daventry constituency on my
left.” The constituencies have, metaphorically, joined hands and
embraced the borough. Historically, I have not represented either
territory. One was carved out from the edge of the borough of
Wellingborough, and the other is part of South Northamptonshire
borough, which I do not represent. There is a huge re-jigging going on.
Every time a change is made, something like that
happens.
The
new boundaries also meant some awkward juggling of wards. South
Northamptonshire constituency, which is a new county constituency, will
transfer wards to Daventry constituency to make up its numbers but will
in turn take on substantial and populous wards from the borough of
Northampton, so it will be primarily a county seat with a strong
borough
component.
Interestingly
enough, all four Conservative MPs sitting for Northamptonshire
constituencies at the moment are contributing to the revised seat of
Daventry. Had we wished to persist, it would have made a most
interesting selection committee between the four of us, but fortunately
that did not happen and there will be a new
candidate.
I
would like to make another point, which is perhaps a bit more
substantive and is about the ward boundaries. The hon. Member for North
Southwark and Bermondsey rightly said that boundaries in London have
crossed wards for a long time, for which there are good reasons,
although I think even that was eschewed originally. I should point out
that the schedule is already a work of fiction, because the small print
of the order indicates that the areas set out are local government
areas as they existed on 12 April 2005, which is effectively in the
run-up to the last general election. Since then of course, there has
been a major re-warding of the local authority
boundaries—certainly within the district of South
Northamptonshire—and the wards described here do not exactly map
on to the wards as they are, or as they are about to be contested in
the local election. Indeed, those decisions have only recently been
announced and I am still, frankly, coming to terms with them myself,
although I have lived in the area for many years.
The result, unless I am grossly
misinformed, is that for the first time we will find district ward
boundaries in county constituencies being split. We have been familiar
for some time with county councils having parts of their wards
represented by one parliamentary seat and parts by others. That is
already the situation in my own case. We will now start to find that
that is the position for district
councils.
That brief
account of my county situation shows the growing tensions and
difficulties in fitting the present model into the change,
particularly—coming to my more general points—the speed
of change in population. I have already indicated that we have
electorates in the range of 90,000. I do not mind a lot of electors. I
enjoy representing them—that is not the problem—but it is
disproportionate. I cannot promise some slowing down of growth. We are
one of the designated areas under the Milton Keynes-south midlands
expansion plan. We will take a large amount of extra housing. For
example, the population of the town of Daventry is due to rise from
about 23,000 to 40,000 almost within the life of the new set of
boundary proposals, or not long beyond it, which will again put strains
on the process.
I
suggest that, over time, we will need to give greater attention to
flexibility in our response. I welcome the Minister’s readiness
to take a long look at the matter and all the implications, including
those revealed today. Although not in any sense an official proposal,
we may have to look at particular regions where there is greater
pressure and say that we should review those now and then look at areas
of greater
stability.
Simon
Hughes:
Would it be useful—with the
Minister’s and the Boundary Commission’s help—if
colleagues on the Committee, as a first port of call, were supplied
with the differences in the population between the time that the
Boundary Commission did its inquiry locally and the time of the
electoral roll this year? That would show us the pattern of growth
constituency by constituency and region by
region.
Mr.
Boswell:
That is a helpful suggestion. Frankly, the matter
should not be party political, although it would be idle to pretend
that party political interests were not involved, but that is not the
point. We all on the Committee have a common interest in democracy and
want people to be properly represented. To do that, we need to know
what is happening and to get our arrangements to fit, not the other way
round, if I can put it that
way.
I described the
rather painful adjustments that the Boundary Commission has had to make
to accommodate the extra seat in Northamptonshire. We may need slightly
greater flexibility in terms of the electoral formula or adherence to
the electoral quota. The hon. Gentleman, who speaks for the Liberal
Democrats, has again made some quite powerful constituency points. I am
uncomfortable about a situation whereby the district in which I live,
most of which I have represented, is exporting and importing wards at
the same time. Both my successors will have three local authorities to
deal with, which is a new situation. My successor in Daventry will have
wards from the borough of Wellingborough that have no conceivable local
or other interest in Daventry. We should consider that and not allow
the best to be the enemy of the
good.
I echo the
comments that have been made about equality of representation, or
certainly of electoral treatment across the various territories of the
United Kingdom. I ought perhaps to say that my wife is Welsh, and her
mother has some association with the Government Whip—she taught
him. She is perhaps over-represented, and we need at least to consider
the four territories of the UK
together.
I have two
final points on interaction. First, given that the Boundary Commission
has been exemplary in advising Members about what it is doing, it would
be helpful if, when parallel changes are made to local authority
boundaries, they could be flagged up and incorporated into schedules to
legislation. We all have word processors now and can change things
quickly and bring them up to
date.
Secondly,
I echo the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone about
mapping. What has been missing in the commission’s
proposal—every time I asked for it, at least until we got the
final proposals, I did not have a clear answer from my agent or
elsewhere—is a developing series of maps showing the
commission’s developing thinking. Of course they would need to
be marked as drafts or whatever to make it clear that they were not the
final ones, but they would enable us to start piecing together a
pattern of the proposed constituencies other than purely in words. The
document is not particularly informative for people who are visually
inclined.
When I
initially examined the wards to be transferred for the purposes of
general elections from Northamptonshire, South to the Daventry
district, it appeared to me that they were almost irrational. It
required a little time with a map to see that they were at least
closely
fitting.
Mr.
Cash:
Does my hon. Friend agree that what sounds quite
simple can be quite complicated, even to those of us expecting the
Boundary Commission to achieve it? The point at which I pitch my
argument is that the good to be derived from being accurate makes it
worth while—that is the real point. I suspect that the matter
has concerned people for a long period; certainly in my 23 years here I
would have liked it to be improved. However difficult it might be, it
is worth doing. If people can find their way around the seas with
proper navigation and Admiralty maps, I hope that we will be able to
navigate our constituencies in the same
fashion.
Mr.
Boswell:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is adding to
my argument, and to pick up on his point I should make it clear to the
Committee that there are two separate, though closely related,
interests. The first is that during the formulation of proposals it is
important to get mapping of the interim proposals that is indicative and
that people can understand. As and when those proposals are concluded
we come on to my hon. Friend’s interest, which is to have a
definitive map of a constituency that can be made available, for
example, to the Post Office so that it can map against its postal areas
to prevent the type of irritations that regularly happen to me and to
other people in border or anomalous areas. All that would add to the
process, but I hope that it would not make the work
unreasonable.
My
advice to the Minister is that it is right that we go ahead now. It
will have implications for me, but I shall enjoy watching the process
as it unfolds. I hope that we can make it better, and to do that we
need a process that is initiated earlier, more responsive to changes
and movements in population and informed by the most modern technology,
so that, broadly, everyone is treated fairly and knows where they
are.
5.39
pm
Bridget
Prentice:
This has been a very informative and
entertaining debate and has shown clearly the passion that Members of
Parliament feel about their constituencies and the responsibility that
they feel to look after them—even if they do not always know
exactly where the constituencies
are.
Let
me quickly address some of the main issues that were raised. I am
grateful to the hon. Members for North-West Norfolk and for North
Southwark and Bermondsey. I put on record my own thanks to Richard
Cracknell and his team in the Library, who serve us so
well—often giving information at virtually a moment’s
notice, as the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey said.
That is extremely helpful.
I address first the
recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life that were
made during their review of the Electoral Commission. The committee
said:
“The
Electoral Commission should no longer have any involvement in electoral
boundary matters and the provision in
PPERA”—
that is,
the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act
2000—
“to allow
the transfer of boundary setting function to the Commission should be
repealed.”
The committee
also recommended that because the Speaker’s Committee on the
Electoral Commission has oversight of that commission, it should review
the boundary committee position. The Government are still considering
those recommendations, so it would be improper for me to anticipate the
outcome. However, it is clear both from what was said by the Committee
on Standards in Public Life and from what hon. Members have said in
this Committee that the issue is a live one that needs detailed
examination.
There has
been discussion today of the issue of the number of electors at the
time when the Boundary Commission started its review, compared with the
numbers of electors now, and certain colleagues have said that
population, rather than the electoral register, should determine the
size of constituencies. The hon. Member for North Southwark and
Bermondsey rightly pointed out that one reason for London and the
metropolitan counties losing seats in the present review
is migration from cities to more rural areas. However, I suspect that
another reason is that under-registration occurs much more in cities
than in rural places. If there are 3.5 million people who should be on
the register but who are not, that is the equivalent of
about 30 constituencies—even on the basis of the figure
of 69,000 electors per constituency. That is a significant number of
constituents who should be represented in this place. The issue is
serious.
Simon
Hughes:
The figures that I gave were based on the later
census—the 2001 figures. We do not quite know whether the
situation is now worse or better. Voter registration improved slightly
last year, but the situation might still be worse than in 2001, when
the figures that the Minister is rightly citing were
prepared.
Bridget
Prentice:
The hon. Gentleman is right. As a result of the
Electoral Administration Act 2006 and the extra powers that the
Government have given to local registration officers, an additional
half a million people have been registered. However, that might only
have maintained the status
quo.
The speed of the
process was mentioned as a matter of concern. However, the hon. Member
for North-West Norfolk made an important point when he cited the detail
involved in the review and the necessity of local consultation, which
prevent the process happening overnight. I agree that the process could
be speedier than at present, but the Representation of the People Act
1948 stipulated a period of seven years, and Members of Parliament
objected to that because they felt that they had barely arrived in the
House before their boundaries were being shifted again. That was why
the period was extended to 15 years and then reduced to 12 years. It is
difficult to strike exactly the right balance in terms of the amount of
time that is needed to conduct the reviews properly. It has been
suggested the review should include the electorate itself, so that that
issues such as population and an increase in the size electorate could
be taken into account. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the census, but it
is only 94 per cent. accurate and whether it is the best record to use
is something that needs further consideration and
debate.
Mr.
Boswell:
Does the Minister agree that increasing the
number of criteria in the interests of being fair equally increases the
number of issues to be argued about? In particular, it increases the
possibilities of challenge through judicial review if the Boundary
Commission, even trying its level best, cannot meet each one of those
criteria simultaneously.
Bridget
Prentice:
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. That
is why the Boundary Commission has to be seen to be, and is, an
independent and apolitical organisation. He is right to say that the
more criteria the commission is given to take into account, the more
opportunity there is for argument, judicial review and so on. We want
simplicity whenever possible, too, which makes transparency much more
effective.
Simon
Hughes:
I have a thought provoked by what the hon. Member
for Daventry said. Has any thought
been given to whether the census, which is every 10 years,
could also be used in that year as the electoral registration exercise?
It could be used on a 10-year basis as the benchmark, with the Boundary
Commission following it as soon as is practically possible. That seems
to be a simple cycle, which everyone could keep
to.
Bridget
Prentice:
That is a very reasonable idea, which could be
considered when there is a review of the Boundary Commission’s
role. As I said earlier, I would like all the reviews—local and
general—to be done at more or less the same time, although I
know there would be serious difficulties in doing so. However, that may
be considered when we look at what is practicable in attempting to
achieve a consensus on these issues.
The hon. Member for North-West
Norfolk talked about constituencies that are near his, such as the new
constituency of Broadland in Norfolk, which was adopted after a local
inquiry. We are unable to accept the recommendations on local issues
made by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey, which have
been put to local inquiry and subject to further debate, mostly because
we are trying to keep the local government ward in one piece.
I have much sympathy with the
hon. Gentleman, as I have the same problem in my constituency. Three
quarters of the Lewisham, Central ward, which is in my original
parliamentary constituency, has been joined with a bit of Deptford, and
the whole of that ward is going into Deptford. As a result of the
changes, people who live virtually on the South Circular road will be
in the Deptford constituency, which will seem rather odd to some of
them. There is an area where I cross from one part of my constituency
through the Deptford constituency to another part of my
constituency—the peninsula, as the hon. Gentleman described it.
I argued against it at the time, but lost to the Boundary Commission.
Keeping the ward boundary intact is quite important, and that is why,
on balance, we will go with the commission’s
view.
The
new name for the hon. Gentleman’s constituency reverts to using
Old Southwark; it will become like Bexley and Old Sidcup. The hon.
Gentleman will remember that that was the constituency of the former
Conservative Prime Minister, who was often referred to as “Old
Sidcup”, so the hon. Gentleman will have to get used to being
referred to as “Old
Southwark”.
The
hon. Member for Stone made some important points, especially in
relation to rural areas, although I suspect that they may apply
occasionally to other areas, too. It crossed my mind, when he was
talking about his friend, Richard Body, being in the wrong
constituency, that the electorate often make the accusation that they
never see us except at election times. Clearly, that did not affect him
at all, and it was quite good that they saw him not at election times,
but perhaps at other times. There are obviously pros and cons with all
these
things.
Again,
I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman said about maps.
The Boundary Commission does not produce the maps. That job belongs to
Ordnance Survey, which is a commercial organisation. Its argument
is that there is no commercial market for single constituency maps. I
have raised the issue before and I am very happy to go back to
officials and say that I think we need to have discussions with
Ordnance Survey and the Boundary Commission about how we can make more
accessible and more available to the commission, to Members of
Parliament and to local authorities proper mapping for boundaries,
whether at ward or constituency level. I have every sympathy with the
hon. Gentleman on that
subject.
Mr.
Cash:
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. Just to amplify my
point slightly, quite often the external boundaries are the ones that
cause the greatest difficulty. That ought to be something that could be
dealt with, as long as we were clear about where one constituency began
and the other ended. We get used to the boundaries and we get to know
them, but it is not just a matter for us. On the point about Ordnance
Survey being a commercial organisation, my response is simple: this is
a matter of enormous public interest. It is hugely important that
people know that they do not have to go to the electoral register to
find out exactly which constituency they are in. I could enlarge on all
that, but in essence it is a practical question. I am extremely
encouraged by the Minister’s response, because she is obviously
aware that it is an important matter, and I am sure, from the reactions
of other members of the Committee, that they feel the same
way.
Bridget
Prentice:
The hon. Gentleman is right. I say to
him and to the hon. Member for Daventry that each stage of the
Boundary Commission’s recommendations, whether provisional,
revised or final, is accompanied by outline maps, but I take the point
that the hon. Member for Stone makes. He makes it well and we will
certainly return to
it.
Mr.
Boswell:
Does the Minister agree that the whole process
should be made much easier by making the material that we are
describing available online? In that way, it would be accessible both
to Members of Parliament and to the public without physical copies
having to be passed
around.
Bridget
Prentice:
That, too, is a very good point. One of the
issues dealt with between receipt of the review and today was making
the reports available in hard copy. There was some insistence on my
part that if we could make them available by disk—heavens above,
we have the technology nowadays; we ought to be able to do
that—we could speed up the process. The hon. Gentleman is right.
These things should be made available online more
easily.
On the Privy
Council I say to the hon. Member for Stone that the order will of
course have to go to the House of Lords to be debated. We do not yet
have a date for that, but I hope that once it has been debated in the
other place it will go before the first Privy Council meeting
thereafter, where it will finally be rubber
stamped.
Simon
Hughes:
Before the Minister sits down, I hope that she has
the figures for electors in constituencies, including comparable
figures for Scotland, England,
Northern Ireland and Wales. Will she give an undertaking to let us have
the changes in population between the start of the inquiry and the
current electoral
roll?
Bridget
Prentice:
I thought that I had given them earlier. I know
that the average number of electors in a constituency in Wales is
55,000 and in Northern Ireland about 60,000; but I will let the
Committee have more accurate figures later.
I hope that I
have answered all the questions put to me by hon. Members. I am pleased
that they support the recommendations. I record my regret that the hon.
Member for Daventry is retiring at the next election.
[
Interruption.
] “Reconsider” is the
cry from my colleagues. I therefore commend the order to the
Committee.
Question put and agreed
to.
Resolved,
That
the Committee has considered the draft Parliamentary Constituencies
(England) Order
2007.
Committee
rose at five minutes to Six
o’clock.
