Examination of Witness (Question Numbers
380-386)
MR MARK
HARPER
16 SEPTEMBER 2010
Q380 Mr Turner: Right, fine. Lastly,
I'm really confused about regional boundaries. These boundaries
have come into the Bill, but that is not, I think, to say that
they are any more important than any other boundaries. It is felt,
not least by you, that the Boundary Commission will start with
regional boundaries. You could, for instance, have a result where
the average number of electors in the South West was 71,000, while
the average number in the South East was 78,000, which is a significant
division. Whose job is it to make sure that that doesn't happen?
Mr Harper: No. A single electoral
quota—an average size of constituency—will be set
for the whole United Kingdom, except the two Scottish island constituencies.
Every constituency will have to be within plus or minus 5% of
that number. The division of seats by country between England,
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is done at the beginning
of the process, so the Boundary Commissioners know how many seats
they've got to deal with; they are not divided out by region or
sub-divided. Based on the 2009 data, England will have 503 constituencies.
Each of those has to be within plus or minus 5%. I don't think
there's anything in the way the Boundary Commissioners will go
about the process that will lead to there being a cluster of constituencies
of a particular size.
Q381 Mr Turner: I would have thought
that there would. They've got to sort it out somehow. I assume
they're not going to start in the South West and work their way
across to the North East.
Mr Harper: There's nothing to
prevent them from crossing regional boundaries. As I said, all
they're going to use the regional boundaries for is as a convenient
starting point, but the regional boundaries have no significance
at all, so there is nothing to prevent the Boundary Commissioners,
in order to get seats within plus or minus 5% of the quota, from
crossing those regional boundaries.
Q382 Mr Turner: I realise that,
but with people starting in the South West, it could turn out
that most constituencies are smaller than average and that those
in the South East could be larger than average by a significant
amount. Is that not true?
Mr Harper: Well, if you go around
the country grouping constituencies—I don't know, to be
perfectly honest. The Boundary Commissioners are not going to
be looking at it like that. Each individual constituency has to
be within plus or minus 5% of the average. If you go around the
country grouping constituencies in particular ways, I do not know
whether you get a coincidence as regards a number of constituencies
or whatever. It's a bit of a mathematical conundrum. I don't think
there's anything in the Bill that means that that would be a systemic
issue. It'll just fall out of the starting point that the Boundary
Commissioners have for the seats and then the taking into account
of all the other things that Sir Peter outlined around local authority
boundaries and local ties. The Boundary Commissioners will make
their decisions, and the constituencies will be within the size
I've mentioned. As to what happens if you group them together
in certain regions, it would be a random process.
Chair: Minister, I think we will need
to pursue this detail in writing, if we may. Perhaps Andrew and
the Clerk will drop you a line about that. A couple of other Members
are bursting to get in, if you're prepared to run over by a couple
of minutes.
Mr Harper: That's fine. Absolutely.
Q383 Chair: There's one thing
that we've not covered, which I should ask for your view on. In
your previous, non-ministerial incarnation, you were a great advocate
of the role and strength of Parliament. If we reduce the number
of seats, there is no proposal to reduce the number of Ministers
in proportion. That will necessarily mean that Parliament is dominated
even more than it is currently by the payroll vote. Is that something
that you would be prepared to look at during the Committee stage?
Mr Harper: It is. I think that
I touched on it briefly in my winding-up speech in the Second
Reading debate. I am not trying to avoid the issue and I can say,
for the benefit of the Committee, that my views about the importance
of Parliament have not changed just because I am a Minister. I
still think that a strong Parliament and good scrutiny make for
better Ministers and therefore better government. I still think
that, uncomfortable though it may be for me today and in the future.
Q384 Chair: And you'll look at
it through the Committee stage?
Mr Harper: When I first looked
at this issue, I thought that it was a very simple mathematical
question, but actually it is a little more complicated than that,
which is why I gave the response that I did. You need to look
at the size of the Government as a whole. If you just look at
the number of Ministers in the Commons and you shrink that number
in proportion but don't touch the size of the Executive in total,
you would actually have the adverse proposition. What would happen
is that you would then have even more Ministers sitting in the
currently unelected House, which I don't think would be a step
forward. So what we have said is that we have an open mind on
this issue. The Public Administration Committee produced a report
on it before the election, which recommended a reduction. The
PAC is currently producing a report called "What Ministers
Do"—I know that that provoked a certain amount of amusement
in the Chamber when I mentioned it. However, we will have a serious
look at that issue and I think that the Prime Minister and the
Government will have to take a view about the size of the Government
as a whole. Then there is a separate decision to be taken about
the balance between the current two Houses and whatever changes
you might need to make if there was an elected second Chamber.
But we have an open mind on that.
Chair: As a Select Committee, we will
put forward some suggestions for non-controversial and hopefully
straightforward or technical changes. We may try to help on that,
rather than making it a partisan issue. I am sorry. I have abused
my own ruling there. Catherine, would you be fairly speedy? Then,
we will have Simon and I'll have to call it a day.
Q385 Catherine McKinnell: I just
wanted to understand something—it is going back a little
bit to what Nick said. He asked whether you had given any consideration
to what would happen if a mid-term election was called—whether
it would be only for the remainder of that Parliament and how
that would fit in with your proposals on boundary reviews. If
an election is called mid-term, when will the next boundary review
take place?
Mr Harper: Sure. No, that is a
point that has been brought forward. The current proposal is that
we have not attempted to synchronise the processes. What we have
said about the boundary review issue is that there will be one
per Parliament, once every five years. At the moment, those processes
will be synched up. If you have an extraordinary election and
the timetable is different, they won't be synched up. Our view
at the moment is that there is not currently any synchronisation
of those two processes. There is a slightly wider question and
it comes down ultimately to how fast the processes for boundaries
can operate, whether Parliament, in the future, decides to compress
matters still further and whether you explicitly tie a boundary
review to parliamentary terms. You either start it from a certain
period after a general election or you start from when you think
the next election will be, and work backwards. Our view is that,
because our proposals for boundary reviews say that we will have
one every five years, that is significantly more regular than
the current reviews. It might be that, if you had an extraordinary
election, the processes would get out of kilter, if you like.
But because you are having reviews on a more frequent basis, that
is a step forward. There may be a debate in the future about whether
you explicitly want to synchronise the processes, but that is
not something that we felt was that urgent to start with.
Q386 Catherine McKinnell: I have
a follow-up question, if I am allowed to put it. I am thinking—in
the realms of fantasy, but not the impossible—that the boundary
review process could be open to political manipulation to a certain
extent. We are looking at a lot of changes, hopefully, in terms
of our electoral registration and if those changes, after 2015,
indicated that there should be significant changes to the boundaries,
a future Government could untie themselves from that process by
calling a snap election, for example.
Mr Harper: Well, the flaw in your
fantastical proposition, of course, is that the Executive have
already said that Governments will not be able to call snap elections,
and through the Fixed-Term Parliament Bill we will put that into
law. That is the whole point. The only two mechanisms for having
an extraordinary election would be if the Government lost a vote
of confidence in the House of Commons or if two thirds of the
House—by definition, not just the majority party—wanted
to call an election. If you weren't going to a fixed-term Parliament
you could argue the proposition a little more convincingly, but
I think the fixed term removes the ability to play politics with
the timetable. Is there one more?
Chair: No, I think that Simon has kindly
foregone his chance. Thank you, Minister, for hanging on and taking
the last question. It was a two-hour tour de force, if I may say
so, and we appreciate your giving time, particularly so early
in your period as a Minister and at a time when you have two Bills.
Normally Ministers get a little bit of a break-in period, but
you have been plunged into two Bills. Not only are you clearly
on top of those Bills, but we appreciate your sparing the time
to come and see us.
Mr Harper: I am grateful, Chairman.
Thank you for the invitation.
Chair: Thank you so much. We hope we
can see you again in the not-too-distant future.
|
