Skip to main content

Parliamentary Constituencies (England) Order 2007

Volume 692: debated on Thursday 17 May 2007

rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 26 February be approved.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Boundary Commission for England announced the beginning of its fifth general review of English parliamentary constituencies in February 2000. The Secretary of State received the Boundary Commission’s resulting report on 31 October 2006.

My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the now Ministry of Justice laid the report and the draft order before Parliament on 26 February 2007. This fulfilled the Secretary of State’s obligation under Section 3(5) of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 to lay the order and report before Parliament as soon as may be after receipt of the report. The order will give effect, without modification, to the recommendations made by the Boundary Commission for England in its report.

Before turning to the details of the order, I thank the Boundary Commission for England—the deputy chairman, the honourable Mr Justice Sullivan, and his fellow commissioners, Mr Michael Lewer and Mr Robin Gray—and its expert secretariat for their work in delivering the report.

Under the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, the Boundary Commission for England is required to keep English parliamentary boundaries under constant review and to conduct a general review every eight to 12 years. In reaching its conclusions, the Boundary Commission for England seeks, in line with the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, to create constituencies that, as far as practicable, are contained within and respect county and London borough boundaries and that adhere as closely as possible to the electoral quota, which is a figure calculated by dividing the total electorate in England by the number of English seats in the House of Commons at that time. The figures used in that calculation are taken from the electoral register in force at the time that the commission announces the beginning of its review, which is referred to in the Act as the “enumeration date”. On that basis, the electoral quota for this review was set at 69,935.

Accordingly, the Boundary Commission for England attempted to create constituencies with a parliamentary electorate as close as possible to that number. However, the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 also requires other factors to be taken into account to mitigate the rather arbitrary splitting of natural communities that may result from the application of a mathematical formula alone. These other rules include special geographical, community and transport considerations. Therefore, I ask noble Lords to bear in mind that the Boundary Commission for England, in devising the new constituency boundaries, has had to strike a balance to achieve the best possible outcome.

I am aware that there may be opposition to individual recommendations in the report. Frankly, given the nature of the work, it would be amazing if there were not at least some disagreements during the process. However, in the absence of any evidence of political bias or failure to observe the statutory requirements by the commission, the Government have not seen sufficient reason to alter its recommendations. That is particularly so, given the Boundary Commission for England’s status as an independent, apolitical and impartial body that formulates its recommendations following a lengthy and detailed process of consultation and research within the terms of its remit.

Provisional recommendations of the Boundary Commission for England are publicised locally, and interested parties are invited to give their views. If there was a sufficient objection to a recommendation of the Boundary Commission, public inquiries were held in the local area, where interested parties could submit counterproposals. Independent legal experts chaired these inquiries, considered each objection and counterproposal, and produced a full report, which was then considered by the Boundary Commission for England in formulating revised recommendations. These were again publicised, with a further opportunity for representations to be made on them and considered by the commission before its recommendations were finalised.

In conclusion, the Government are satisfied that the Boundary Commission for England has followed all due procedures in reaching its conclusions and in making its recommendations. We now need to complete the parliamentary process to implement the recommendations. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 26 February be approved. 11th Report from the Statutory Instruments Committee and 14th Report from the Merits Committee.—(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.)

My Lords, I thank the Minister for describing this order. I join him in acknowledging the work that has been done by the Boundary Commission for England over what is now a very long period. It started its work well prior to the last election and the new boundaries will not take effect until the next election, so there is a long space between the enumeration date and the actual implementation of the boundaries, by which time I am sure that all the population figures will have gone completely haywire again. No doubt that will be dealt with at some stage.

I recognise that a lot of work has gone into not only drawing up these boundaries but ensuring that public inquiries were held where appropriate. The result of the order before us today probably has taken a great deal of detailed investigation.

I raise only one matter with the Minister. The order draws attention to the 11th report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. It has now decided that the Boundary Commission for England should not be given to the Electoral Commission as a boundary committee. I have no difficulty with that; I was just wondering whether there was a reason behind it, because I have not found the 11th report of the standards committee. Somebody will smile and produce it for the noble Lord before the end.

My Lords, I also welcome sight of the order today. For those of us involved in the organisation of election campaigns, it helps to have some certainty that we will be on new boundaries. I think I am right in saying that no Government have ever actually altered or tried to modify the recommendations of any Boundary Commission report, although a number of times different Governments have tried to speed up the process or delay implementation of the Boundary Commission’s proposals, perhaps according to their advantage at the time. I wondered whether we would see the order today or whether the Prime Minister-elect might have a sneaky plan for a snap election based on the old boundaries. But with the order today, we and those organising the elections have certainty that we are selecting candidates and fighting on the basis of the new boundaries.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, I have just one question about the Electoral Commission and its responsibility for future Boundary Commission processes. I have always thought that the Boundary Commission process at present is most unsatisfactory—inviting eminent lawyers to chair what is effectively a fight between political parties and other interested representatives as they try to argue about the continuity of constituencies, community links and so on. A number of those claims are often bogus but are then refereed by some senior judge.

When we discussed the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, we supported the principle that the Electoral Commission should consider the process in future. I know that that is now being revisited. Perhaps rightly, the Committee on Standards in Public Life said that the Electoral Commission should focus its attention on a narrower range of subjects, rather than having such a wide remit as we gave it in 2000. I would welcome something like the continuity of the proposal in 2000 that the Electoral Commission should take lead responsibility in considering the process, rather than as in the current Boundary Commission proposals. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us a little on the timing or current thinking about the issue.

My Lords, I am most grateful to the two noble Lords for their welcome of the order. When I was reading it, I thought that nobody could argue that there was any possibility of political interference in the process, because there are so many safeguards written into it.

On the question of transfer to the Electoral Commission, the view is that the matter does not fit with the core functions of the Electoral Commission, on which it should focus. We are considering the timing of the response to the recommendations, and hope to respond by the summer—which is a short time away. Given the answer to those two questions, I commend the order.

On Question, Motion agreed to.