01/12/2017

0:00:38 > 0:00:53Order! Order! Point of order. As many of that opinion say aye, the

0:00:53 > 0:00:58commentary no. Clear the lobby!

0:02:00 > 0:02:07The house sitting in private, as many of that opinion say aye.

0:11:03 > 0:11:04Order!

0:11:14 > 0:11:20VS to the right, zero. The noes to the left, 169.

0:11:26 > 0:11:35The ayes to the right, zero. The noes to the left, 169. The noes have

0:11:35 > 0:11:38it.

0:11:41 > 0:11:46The clerk will now proceed to read the orders of the day.Parliamentary

0:11:46 > 0:11:51constituencies Amendment Bill 's second reading.Just for the benefit

0:11:51 > 0:11:55of the house, a point of order was raised yesterday regarding the

0:11:55 > 0:12:01publication of the parliamentary constituencies Amendment Bill and I

0:12:01 > 0:12:05think it might be helpful to make a short statement on the matter. The

0:12:05 > 0:12:08bill was initially made available in hard copy online on Wednesday 29th

0:12:08 > 0:12:19of November. It was identified on Thursday morning and brought to the

0:12:19 > 0:12:22attention of the Honourable member for Manchester Gorton. The error

0:12:22 > 0:12:27identified was not in any way the fault of the member. It was an error

0:12:27 > 0:12:30made during the manual inputting of the text into the bill publishing

0:12:30 > 0:12:34software. The public Bill office is taking steps to improve its process

0:12:34 > 0:12:39to ensure that this mistake is not repeated with future bills. The

0:12:39 > 0:12:43corrected version of the bill was available online within 30 minutes

0:12:43 > 0:12:47of the error being reported and the hard copies were made available in

0:12:47 > 0:12:56the vote of this within one hour and ten minutes, five seconds...

0:12:56 > 0:12:58LAUGHTER And I am satisfied there will be no

0:12:58 > 0:13:01infringement of the notice to the requirements of the bill and just as

0:13:01 > 0:13:07importantly, the error will not reflect the debate place. We will

0:13:07 > 0:13:14not be entering into any more points of order on this particular subject.

0:13:17 > 0:13:20Thank you Deputy Speaker. Can I first of all thank you for the

0:13:20 > 0:13:27clarification that you have given this morning. I beg to move that the

0:13:27 > 0:13:31parliamentary constituency Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I am

0:13:31 > 0:13:37a new part of parliament, but I have been in politics for decades. In

0:13:37 > 0:13:42this time I have seen trust in our political system in road. Today,

0:13:42 > 0:13:47only 20% of the UK just to politicians at least to some degree.

0:13:47 > 0:13:51The public already sees politicians as remote, self-interested and

0:13:51 > 0:14:00unaccountable. The current boundary changes would make this worse. The

0:14:00 > 0:14:05bill I present today would preserve the MP constituency link, the power

0:14:05 > 0:14:10to scrutinise the executive, and the strength of our communities. It

0:14:10 > 0:14:16would harness the engagement in elections rather than reinforce the

0:14:16 > 0:14:25trend towards disillusionment. This is a debate about our democracy. I

0:14:25 > 0:14:31stand to gain no advantage from the change I am proposing. Under the

0:14:31 > 0:14:35current review my constituency would stay exactly the same. I am here to

0:14:35 > 0:14:42speak for the good of Parliament, not my own good. I will briefly set

0:14:42 > 0:14:47out the five key arguments for my bill, but I am keen to allow time

0:14:47 > 0:14:54for contributions. First, the public sees politicians as remote. The

0:14:54 > 0:15:00boundary changes would take MPs even further from their constituents. I

0:15:00 > 0:15:04am fortunate that I can get from one end of Manchester in Gorton, to the

0:15:04 > 0:15:10other, in half an hour. Many colleagues come from rural

0:15:10 > 0:15:17constituencies that are already a challenge to travel. As we reduce

0:15:17 > 0:15:20the number of MPs, these constituencies will get bigger. Take

0:15:20 > 0:15:25the example of North Lincolnshire. It would stretch from the edge of

0:15:25 > 0:15:31the Lake District to the outskirts of Blackpool and Preston. -- North

0:15:31 > 0:15:39Lancashire. Covering more than half the county. Practically, the only

0:15:39 > 0:15:42argument the government uses to reduce the number of MPs was to save

0:15:42 > 0:15:50money. Apparently, around 13 million. This falls apart when we

0:15:50 > 0:15:56consider that the previous two prime ministers have appointed 260 life

0:15:56 > 0:16:08peers between them at a cost of 34 million per year. Why increase the

0:16:08 > 0:16:11size of the unelected House of Lords, if you are really trying to

0:16:11 > 0:16:21cut the cost of politics? There are other ways to save money. Not

0:16:21 > 0:16:24embarking on five yearly boundary reviews that cost around 10 million

0:16:24 > 0:16:30each would be a start. Gradually reducing the number of MPs could

0:16:30 > 0:16:35have been another. A drastic and sudden reduction causes much more

0:16:35 > 0:16:41disruption and costs more than is necessary. Clearly, cost was not the

0:16:41 > 0:16:47real motivation. It was an attempt to gain political advantage. Second,

0:16:47 > 0:16:53we cannot reduce... Give me more time and I will give way to the

0:16:53 > 0:17:00gentleman. Secondly, we can't reduce the number of MPs without reducing

0:17:00 > 0:17:09the size of the executive. With the same proportions of MPs as now, 48%

0:17:09 > 0:17:13of Conservatives would be on the payroll. The job of the backbenchers

0:17:13 > 0:17:19of both parties is to scrutinise legislation and hold the government

0:17:19 > 0:17:24to account. Reducing the number of MPs would tip the balance of power

0:17:24 > 0:17:27towards the executive. The charge that politicians are unaccountable

0:17:27 > 0:17:34would only be made stronger and louder. What we would lose in

0:17:34 > 0:17:38independent minded dissenters cannot be justified by modest cost savings.

0:17:38 > 0:17:44I will give way.On his point about the House of Lords, I of course was

0:17:44 > 0:17:48the minister that try to bring in a bill to make sure the other house

0:17:48 > 0:17:53was elected. It was because the party opposite wouldn't support the

0:17:53 > 0:18:00programme motion that we were not able to make progress. Let me pick

0:18:00 > 0:18:05him up on the cost point. It is indeed true that more members have

0:18:05 > 0:18:10been appointed to the House of Lords, but since 2010, the cost of

0:18:10 > 0:18:17running the other place has actually fallen each year...Order. The

0:18:17 > 0:18:21Honourable gentleman is hoping to catch my eye early. I suggest he

0:18:21 > 0:18:24saves his speech and she should know it's short interventions. We have a

0:18:24 > 0:18:33long day.I hear what the Honourable gentleman is saying, but the bottom

0:18:33 > 0:18:39line is, if what we are trying to do is save costs, why are you putting

0:18:39 > 0:18:43more and more unelected people in the House of Lords? Why are you

0:18:43 > 0:18:46getting more and more special advisers? It doesn't make sense. I

0:18:46 > 0:18:56would prefer to have more elected people.I thank my honourable friend

0:18:56 > 0:19:04for giving way. Would he also accept what the political and

0:19:04 > 0:19:07constitutional select committee said in 2015, if the government after got

0:19:07 > 0:19:13its way that they are trying to get, it breaks all locational links. It

0:19:13 > 0:19:17undermines completely the representational basis of the house,

0:19:17 > 0:19:25which is a very sad day.I fully agree with the Honourable gentleman.

0:19:25 > 0:19:27Brexit legislation is passing through Parliament and we are

0:19:27 > 0:19:33undergoing one of the most significant constitutional changes

0:19:33 > 0:19:37in decades. We have already seen from debates over the Henry VIII

0:19:37 > 0:19:42powers that ministers will always attempt to extend their power. At

0:19:42 > 0:19:45this point in particular we must fight to preserve our power of

0:19:45 > 0:19:54scrutiny. MPs are taking on more and more work. We are about to lose 73

0:19:54 > 0:19:59MEPs. MPs will have to do absorb that workload and will be able to

0:19:59 > 0:20:04deliver less for our constituents. A reduction in the number of MPs is a

0:20:04 > 0:20:07threat to the power of backbenchers and the accountability of

0:20:07 > 0:20:13government. A healthy democracy requires us to fight for it over and

0:20:13 > 0:20:24over again. That is why my bill will retain the number of MPs at 650.

0:20:24 > 0:20:28Third, accountability is not just an issue for government, but for

0:20:28 > 0:20:32individual MPs as well. Having boundary reviews every five years

0:20:32 > 0:20:39would make is less comfortable for our constituents as it may change

0:20:39 > 0:20:43every election. The MP and constituency link is one of the best

0:20:43 > 0:20:48things about our democracy. We as MPs have the chance to build a

0:20:48 > 0:20:52relationship with our communities that can span decades. We get to

0:20:52 > 0:20:59understand the issues. That particular to the area. We walk side

0:20:59 > 0:21:04by side with our communities as they change. How can constituents hold us

0:21:04 > 0:21:12to account if we are here today and gone tomorrow? My bill would address

0:21:12 > 0:21:17this by retaining the tradition of boundary reviews every ten years.

0:21:17 > 0:21:21Regular enough to keep up with population changes, not so regular

0:21:21 > 0:21:29that MPs become unaccountable to the people who elect us. Fourth, the

0:21:29 > 0:21:33starting point for constituency should, as much as possible, big

0:21:33 > 0:21:40continuity and communities. Clearly we need to strike a balance here

0:21:40 > 0:21:44between, on the one hand, having the same number of voters in each

0:21:44 > 0:21:48constituency so every vote counts the same. On the other hand, the

0:21:48 > 0:21:53constituency boundaries should be placed around communities. The

0:21:53 > 0:21:57strict quota in the current review has produced some bizarre results.

0:21:57 > 0:22:03The coherence of a community continuity with previous

0:22:03 > 0:22:07constituencies and respect for the boundaries were given a lower

0:22:07 > 0:22:11priority than strict adherence to numbers. This is clearly illustrated

0:22:11 > 0:22:16when we look at Crawley. This constituency has remained unchanged

0:22:16 > 0:22:24for 20 years. It is now only 453 votes below the quota, so the new

0:22:24 > 0:22:31boundaries would include a ward from the other side of the motorway in a

0:22:31 > 0:22:40different authority. The majority of the constituency will not change at

0:22:40 > 0:22:45each election. This would strike the right balance and mean each boundary

0:22:45 > 0:22:49review will be less disruptive. The boundary commission have supported

0:22:49 > 0:22:55this. In fact, their submission to the political 's constituency reform

0:22:55 > 0:22:59committee said, it would be the main change they would ask for in any

0:22:59 > 0:23:06future review. The commission is keen to balance the powers of

0:23:06 > 0:23:12continuity, the organic nature and quality. Finally, there will always

0:23:12 > 0:23:15be a special case where the rules of the rest of the country cannot

0:23:15 > 0:23:20reasonably be applied. The law already includes provision for the

0:23:20 > 0:23:29Isle of Wight and some Scottish islands. As part of the Good Friday

0:23:29 > 0:23:33Agreement, Northern Ireland has a special status in our law. I believe

0:23:33 > 0:23:39this should extend to fixing its number of constituencies. My bill

0:23:39 > 0:23:44would maintain the status quo by fixing the number of MPs at 18. It

0:23:44 > 0:23:46would maintain the level of representation they have at the

0:23:46 > 0:23:52moment. Brexit has already put Northern Ireland in an uncertain

0:23:52 > 0:23:56position. Without clarity on the future of their border or a host of

0:23:56 > 0:24:00other issues, this would be at least one way to prevent further

0:24:00 > 0:24:07uncertainty. We must do all we can to maintain the fragile stability in

0:24:07 > 0:24:12Northern Ireland, which is threatened already by Brexit. Trust

0:24:12 > 0:24:18in politics is eroding. But right now we have a choice. The big

0:24:18 > 0:24:26opportunity I seek to counter the erosion of trust is in the 2 million

0:24:26 > 0:24:31people and I am hopeful this will mark a turning point. But this will

0:24:31 > 0:24:36only happen if we empower new voters and encourage participation. The

0:24:36 > 0:24:44current boundary review ignores them entirely. What a slap in the face.

0:24:44 > 0:24:49My bill includes these 2 million in the boundary calculation. It makes

0:24:49 > 0:24:54sure their voices are equally represented. The question for us now

0:24:54 > 0:24:59is, do we capture the energy of the recent elections to include new

0:24:59 > 0:25:05voters, keep the constituency link, the powers of the backbenchers, and

0:25:05 > 0:25:11importance of communities? Or do we plough ahead with current boundary

0:25:11 > 0:25:14proposals, unpopular and unrepresentative as they are?

0:25:14 > 0:25:17Constituency boundaries are the physical building blocks of our

0:25:17 > 0:25:22democracy. They should be born of the organic growth of communities,

0:25:22 > 0:25:28not the cold calculation of politicians. Thank you.The question

0:25:28 > 0:25:34is the bill now be read a second time. Lucy Allan.Thank you Deputy

0:25:34 > 0:25:38Speaker for calling me to speak in this important debate. I would like

0:25:38 > 0:25:41to congratulate the Honourable member for Manchester Gorton for

0:25:41 > 0:25:44bringing forward this bill. It's in such an important issue. I would

0:25:44 > 0:25:48like to congratulate him for his excellent and passionate speech that

0:25:48 > 0:25:51we have just heard setting out some of the arguments I believe need a

0:25:51 > 0:25:56light shone upon them. There is much to be commended in the Honourable

0:25:56 > 0:26:00member's bill and I think it highlights some of the weaknesses

0:26:00 > 0:26:04that the process that is currently being undertaken by the boundary

0:26:04 > 0:26:08commission actually has. I believe the current process is in fact

0:26:08 > 0:26:12flawed. We are all clear, all of us here, that this is about

0:26:12 > 0:26:17communities. It's about people and at its essence it is about

0:26:17 > 0:26:24democracy. I suspect we all agree in the democratic principle of equal

0:26:24 > 0:26:28representation and that every vote should be worth the same. I care

0:26:28 > 0:26:36very much about this possible, and that is why I am here today.

0:26:36 > 0:26:40All constituencies should as an objective be of equal size. The

0:26:40 > 0:26:43second point we hear from the government and the commission is

0:26:43 > 0:26:47that the objective is to cut costs, understandably most people would

0:26:47 > 0:26:51want to see fewer members of this place and few members of the other

0:26:51 > 0:26:59place as well. Parliament can be seen to be an inefficient

0:26:59 > 0:27:02bureaucracy. There are some 2000 people employed by the House of

0:27:02 > 0:27:06Commons that is not include MP's or our staff and it sometimes looks

0:27:06 > 0:27:10like an expensive way of getting democracy done. I should be

0:27:10 > 0:27:17delighted.Reduce the cost of politics, if it is not in our power

0:27:17 > 0:27:20to control the costs of another place we should still seek to reduce

0:27:20 > 0:27:26the cost of this one.I thank for his intervention and he's absolutely

0:27:26 > 0:27:29right, we all agree the cost of politics should be reduced and there

0:27:29 > 0:27:33are ways we can do that but I think democracy is the first principle

0:27:33 > 0:27:39that we are duty bound as members of this place to uphold. The current

0:27:39 > 0:27:41proposals do not achieve the objectives that bought the

0:27:41 > 0:27:48government and the boundary commission state the bill, the

0:27:48 > 0:27:51original legislation is intended to achieve and I think it was

0:27:51 > 0:27:58interesting point made about Crawley and I would like to come on and

0:27:58 > 0:28:00speak to this bill from the perspective of representing a new

0:28:00 > 0:28:07town where we have rapidly growing populations. What is happening in my

0:28:07 > 0:28:11constituency shows up the flaws in the proposals. Populations right

0:28:11 > 0:28:15across the country will grow and shrink at different rates and we

0:28:15 > 0:28:19have to take into account demographics and geography. Telford

0:28:19 > 0:28:24are set in the heart of rural Shropshire and is an excellent

0:28:24 > 0:28:30example of a new tone in the rural hinterland, a former mining town and

0:28:30 > 0:28:32its rapid growth is easily predicted because we are building new ones all

0:28:32 > 0:28:37the time and people are moving to Telford all the time. A key point

0:28:37 > 0:28:41that I know others will be raising in the course of this debate is the

0:28:41 > 0:28:48exclusion of voters. In addition to new people coming to new towns and

0:28:48 > 0:28:53populations growing we have had two quite significant events, in fact

0:28:53 > 0:28:56very significant events in the electoral history of this country.

0:28:56 > 0:29:01The EU referendum in 2016 and also more recently in 2017 we had young

0:29:01 > 0:29:06people and I regret to say it, going wild for Jeremy Corbyn in young

0:29:06 > 0:29:11constituencies. These young people signed up to vote for the very first

0:29:11 > 0:29:15time ever, the people in my constituency who had never voted or

0:29:15 > 0:29:19been registered and signed up to vote for Brexit in 2016 and Jeremy

0:29:19 > 0:29:25Corbyn in 2017 and he cannot ignore these new voters to our registers. I

0:29:25 > 0:29:32should be delighted...Making an incredibly important point, in my

0:29:32 > 0:29:36own constituency of Edinburgh South in the city of Edinburgh the

0:29:36 > 0:29:40population of Edinburgh is exploding but the number of MP's seeds is

0:29:40 > 0:29:43going down which means surely the changes to the boundaries are making

0:29:43 > 0:29:49this place less representative than more?That is really important point

0:29:49 > 0:29:53and I think there will be many of us here today who represent

0:29:53 > 0:29:57constituencies with a high level of unregistered voters and I think that

0:29:57 > 0:30:00is something the boundary commission will not and is not prepared to take

0:30:00 > 0:30:06into consideration. People who most need representation are very often

0:30:06 > 0:30:10those who are not registered to vote. You only have to look at the

0:30:10 > 0:30:13people who come to my constituency on a Friday where I should be today

0:30:13 > 0:30:18but I feel I should passionately be here today to represent their

0:30:18 > 0:30:22interests, very often my time in surgery will be devoted to those who

0:30:22 > 0:30:26are not registered to vote. Nobody is suggesting we as representatives

0:30:26 > 0:30:29should ignore their voice, no one is suggesting we should not allow them

0:30:29 > 0:30:33to come to our surgeries and I think it's a fundamental principle but

0:30:33 > 0:30:39they should be included in this whole process. These people count,

0:30:39 > 0:30:44we represent them and we have a duty to make sure they are considered.

0:30:44 > 0:30:52For all the consultation, no changes whatsoever have been made in my

0:30:52 > 0:30:55constituency and many others to reflect any of the points which have

0:30:55 > 0:31:03been made and I think there does need to be some more flexibility and

0:31:03 > 0:31:05discretion, reforms are to achieve the objective they set out to

0:31:05 > 0:31:10achieve. I would support them, I would support the government on this

0:31:10 > 0:31:13if the objectives they set out to achieve for going to be achieved by

0:31:13 > 0:31:17the process. We need a process that has integrity and can be relied upon

0:31:17 > 0:31:22to achieve what we are all hoping to achieve in terms of democracy. I am

0:31:22 > 0:31:31the chair, I should be delighted... Not agree that it's better to

0:31:31 > 0:31:34represent a large constituency any single unitary authority area than

0:31:34 > 0:31:41to try to represent a smaller constituency straddling two Borough

0:31:41 > 0:31:47areas where one has two deal with double the number of chief

0:31:47 > 0:31:58executives, police...Order, short interventions if I may suggest.That

0:31:58 > 0:32:01is an important point and is one of the flaws I think exists in the

0:32:01 > 0:32:09current process. As the chair of the new towns all party Parliamentary

0:32:09 > 0:32:12group I want to talk a bit more about those towns which are growing

0:32:12 > 0:32:16rapidly and the process needs to recognise across the country in

0:32:16 > 0:32:23terms of changing demographics. Telford is surrounded by auroral

0:32:23 > 0:32:29band of constituencies, leafy, affluent Conservative constituencies

0:32:29 > 0:32:34in rural Shropshire where the population sizes are shrinking. The

0:32:34 > 0:32:40elderly population, young people go to big cities to work. We see those

0:32:40 > 0:32:44constituencies will shrink in size where is my constituency is

0:32:44 > 0:32:48increasingly rapidly growing and what is proposed by the boundary

0:32:48 > 0:32:53commission is that in Telford we should receive an extra 20,000

0:32:53 > 0:32:57constituents of voting age even though we are already, if we count

0:32:57 > 0:33:01all voting age population, we are already right in the middle of the

0:33:01 > 0:33:04thresholds imposed by the current process. So it makes a mockery of

0:33:04 > 0:33:15it.The local boundary commissions are allowed to take into account

0:33:15 > 0:33:19predictions of population growth and census data and this would be an

0:33:19 > 0:33:24important thing to allow for parliamentary boundary commissions?

0:33:24 > 0:33:27Absolutely right, there needs to be some discretion and flexibility to

0:33:27 > 0:33:37take account of local anomalies. Now... I have a regular sympathy for

0:33:37 > 0:33:42my colleagues opposite because I serve a population with pockets of

0:33:42 > 0:33:45significant deprivation where people come to see me where they have

0:33:45 > 0:33:49nowhere else to go. My weekly surgeries are fooled despite my best

0:33:49 > 0:33:55efforts to get problems resolved over the phone, of people dealing

0:33:55 > 0:33:58with benefits, evictions, complex lives, tussles with the council,

0:33:58 > 0:34:03problems with housing and they are as I have mentioned earlier

0:34:03 > 0:34:06dominated by people not on the register. The boundary commission is

0:34:06 > 0:34:10not that much interested in any of that and in fact these people are

0:34:10 > 0:34:16not registered does not count. I know the government and boundary

0:34:16 > 0:34:20commission would not suggest these people are excluded by us as

0:34:20 > 0:34:26representatives so they should be included in this process.

0:34:26 > 0:34:28Notwithstanding the boundary commission wanting to add another

0:34:28 > 0:34:3520,000 people are voting age to Telford constituency, it makes it a

0:34:35 > 0:34:37super-sized constituency significantly exceeding the

0:34:37 > 0:34:41parameters when all along the objective is to create

0:34:41 > 0:34:44constituencies of equal size. If we are not going to achieve that why is

0:34:44 > 0:34:49this process going ahead? You will get fewer people seeing their MP and

0:34:49 > 0:34:55you could employ extra trained caseworkers but it will be

0:34:56 > 0:34:57Subtitles by Red Bee Media. Different,

0:35:06 > 0:35:14I'm not going to reload all of this but I want to read out this, it was

0:35:14 > 0:35:17necessary to divide Milton Keynes into two separate constituencies,

0:35:17 > 0:35:21that will need to happen in Telford in the not too distant future but

0:35:21 > 0:35:25instead of recognising that we are adding to the number of voters

0:35:25 > 0:35:32because actually we do not have significant registers voters. It was

0:35:32 > 0:35:36an arbitrary date a long time ago in electoral history and our political

0:35:36 > 0:35:40history, 2015 was a very, very long time ago and I think we now have two

0:35:40 > 0:35:47stop and look at this so we can make a success of ensuring that all

0:35:47 > 0:35:52constituencies are properly represented.Thank you for giving

0:35:52 > 0:35:56way, I am interested to listen to the points but with the lady agree

0:35:56 > 0:36:01that the rapid growth of new towns makes more sense to have more

0:36:01 > 0:36:04regular reviews, for example every five years rather than every ten

0:36:04 > 0:36:08years.That is an interesting point but if we look at what is happening

0:36:08 > 0:36:12now we are not taking into consideration the people coming to

0:36:12 > 0:36:16my constituency or other new towns nor indeed are we taking into

0:36:16 > 0:36:19account people coming to the houses which are being built right now and

0:36:19 > 0:36:24are almost ready for completion. There has been a public consultation

0:36:24 > 0:36:29and to my mind it has been no such thing because the boundary

0:36:29 > 0:36:30commission is simply taking submissions from political parties

0:36:30 > 0:36:37who have gathered together local support and are lobbying for an

0:36:37 > 0:36:42outcome which supports the political objectives that benefit them. Again

0:36:42 > 0:36:48I think my constituency is a case in point in this particular issue. To

0:36:48 > 0:36:52the point of being absolutely farcical. The people that are

0:36:52 > 0:36:56sending in submissions are all politically connected and they all

0:36:56 > 0:36:59want to see my constituency grow significantly when it could in fact

0:36:59 > 0:37:04stay as it is and be within the threshold. I cannot understand any

0:37:04 > 0:37:09member of the public wanting to see more, their MP shared among a

0:37:09 > 0:37:13greater number of people. I have come to the end of the remarks I

0:37:13 > 0:37:18want to make but I think it's now an opportunity given is not going to be

0:37:18 > 0:37:23an election until 2022 for the government to have a real look at if

0:37:23 > 0:37:26they take this off the table and go back to the drawing board and get it

0:37:26 > 0:37:31right for the future. Why wait until October 2018 then find the voice of

0:37:31 > 0:37:34the house is we do not want the proposals to go ahead and then start

0:37:34 > 0:37:39to look at how we are going to correct the process. We do need to

0:37:39 > 0:37:42update, we need to redraw boundaries, but we have to get it

0:37:42 > 0:37:45right and I think we have an opportunity now for all sorts of

0:37:45 > 0:37:49reasons and that is why I commend the honourable member for Manchester

0:37:49 > 0:37:55Gorton for bringing forward this bill and the honourable member for I

0:37:55 > 0:37:58think Durham North West two brought it forward indeed last year for the

0:37:58 > 0:38:03same musings there is a lack of flexibility and a failure to

0:38:03 > 0:38:13recognise MPs

0:38:23 > 0:38:28a very important issue to be raised in this house privileged of all the

0:38:28 > 0:38:34member for Telford and commend her for the issues she has raised. I

0:38:34 > 0:38:38stand here as a member of Parliament for Birmingham Perry Barr and the

0:38:38 > 0:38:42reason I want to reiterate that is that under these boundary changes is

0:38:42 > 0:38:46that that constituency is essentially torn asunder by the

0:38:46 > 0:38:53people who deem this change to be the right change. This constituency

0:38:53 > 0:39:00of Birmingham Perry Barr started off in 1950 by member of Parliament,

0:39:00 > 0:39:07member for Labour. Since then there has been only two conservatives and

0:39:07 > 0:39:13for a maximum period of six years in that constituency. My immediate

0:39:13 > 0:39:19predecessor served for 27 years and is now in the other place not too

0:39:19 > 0:39:25far from here. I stand up to say this because what the boundary

0:39:25 > 0:39:30changes and boundary commission has done has paid no attention at all

0:39:30 > 0:39:33whatsoever to issues raised by the honourable member for Telford and my

0:39:33 > 0:39:40honourable friend for Gorton, taking the issues of the communities and

0:39:40 > 0:39:44live there, like the member for Telford, they have not taken into

0:39:44 > 0:39:50account the amount of people that are not on the electoral register. I

0:39:50 > 0:39:55have lost through the process that has been initiated by the government

0:39:55 > 0:40:00opposite, in terms of electoral registration, which is cut over 10%

0:40:00 > 0:40:08of my constituency just purely... Where we had a responsibility of the

0:40:08 > 0:40:12senior member of the household having responsibility for

0:40:12 > 0:40:14registering people in the household that has been taken away and what

0:40:14 > 0:40:21that does quite maliciously is take away the vote from young people who

0:40:21 > 0:40:30sometimes are not necessarily living at home, in education are our Dara

0:40:30 > 0:40:31Khosrowshahi trying to get on the

0:40:34 > 0:40:47we know young people are really engage in stuff which registers

0:40:47 > 0:40:51their vote. The number of young people has been cut and we have had

0:40:51 > 0:40:55a number of drives to try to get people back on the electoral

0:40:55 > 0:40:59register which is a serious point. If we do not have these boundary

0:40:59 > 0:41:04changes in the period we are talking about, you do not need consensus,

0:41:04 > 0:41:08you need a proper system of registration where are the

0:41:08 > 0:41:12responsibility is on the people to register properly and that is what

0:41:12 > 0:41:15this government does not just this time, they have done it every time

0:41:15 > 0:41:18they have the opportunity to look at boundary changes and whenever they

0:41:18 > 0:41:23have been in government. It's a deliberate ploy to cut the franchise

0:41:23 > 0:41:26of people able to elect the people they want and that is the issue I

0:41:26 > 0:41:31want to raise and this tries to address that, moving the ceiling

0:41:31 > 0:41:36from 5% to 10% which is what we are asking for. If that happens, it's

0:41:36 > 0:41:41the reality of what this will is trying to do and that is why I

0:41:41 > 0:41:45wholly support what the member is saying. In terms of my constituency

0:41:45 > 0:41:51and the people not registered, the bottom half of my constituency are

0:41:51 > 0:41:53some of the most deprived communities.

0:42:05 > 0:42:09Given the difficulties of new people coming into the constituency, older

0:42:09 > 0:42:13constituencies in there and younger constituents not registering because

0:42:13 > 0:42:16there isn't the understanding of what happens with registration.

0:42:16 > 0:42:19Those people are then blocked because they haven't registered from

0:42:19 > 0:42:24being able to vote. More importantly, they are not able to

0:42:24 > 0:42:28then get finance for themselves. When it comes to it, they will

0:42:28 > 0:42:32realise what's going on. Not registering people has a huge effect

0:42:32 > 0:42:37on that community. What this boundary commission has done, they

0:42:37 > 0:42:42have torn this constituency asunder. In Birmingham we have huge awards.

0:42:42 > 0:42:49They will change that in February. -- huge wards. What they have done

0:42:49 > 0:42:54to Perry Barr is torn or my constituency apart. The top half of

0:42:54 > 0:43:07the constituency, they have aligned a ward with Walsall South. If you

0:43:07 > 0:43:12understand the community in my constituency, if you understand the

0:43:12 > 0:43:16people of that area, there is a main dual carriageway that crosses

0:43:16 > 0:43:25Walsall South. Those people don't cross that. They have a combined

0:43:25 > 0:43:30community which actually also is served by Birmingham City Council,

0:43:30 > 0:43:35not by Walsall Council stop the difference it will make to them of

0:43:35 > 0:43:39having NMP who is having to represent two different councils

0:43:39 > 0:43:43will be even more difficult for a member of Parliament to represent,

0:43:43 > 0:43:46let alone people understanding where they want to go to to get the

0:43:46 > 0:43:51service they have had before. It negates any issues the community

0:43:51 > 0:43:56has, and tries to lump it on to another district. Without taking any

0:43:56 > 0:44:04care or hindrance about it. My constituency of Perry Barr, the ward

0:44:04 > 0:44:10of Perry Barr, it goes across into Eddington. If you look at the shape

0:44:10 > 0:44:19of these wards, they are long wards are opposed to being compact. What

0:44:19 > 0:44:28happens is the member for Erdington gets Perry Barr ward. The majority

0:44:28 > 0:44:37of people in that ward live far away from Erdington. They are a small

0:44:37 > 0:44:42community. There is no direct bus route connecting those people at

0:44:42 > 0:44:47all. It makes it difficult for people in Erdington to try to cut

0:44:47 > 0:44:52across to the main part of Erdington to be able to mix that. It puts a

0:44:52 > 0:44:59huge amount of people at peril in their representation. And the way it

0:44:59 > 0:45:02divides that community, in the middle of my constituency, attaching

0:45:02 > 0:45:10it to another piece of Birmingham to do that. My next ward has a mixed

0:45:10 > 0:45:19community. That's in Handsworth. It links to my honourable friend for

0:45:19 > 0:45:29West Bromwich East, and again that's a barrier to cut across from his

0:45:29 > 0:45:33constituency into that. It doesn't make the synergy it should do. The

0:45:33 > 0:45:39reason it doesn't make the synergy, if I put it next to the other ward,

0:45:39 > 0:45:43East Handsworth, there have been real issues in relation to all sorts

0:45:43 > 0:45:49of issues, in relation to knife crime, drugs and shooting incidents

0:45:49 > 0:45:57that have taken place. These two wards have been held together by the

0:45:57 > 0:46:01work we have done to unite those wards. We have managed to cut the

0:46:01 > 0:46:10crime down because we have been able to work together as a unit. Sorry?

0:46:10 > 0:46:13Are you seriously suggesting crime rate relates somehow to how we

0:46:13 > 0:46:20allocate constituency boundaries?It does. Members might find it funny,

0:46:20 > 0:46:23but it's not funny for people living in those constituencies. Those

0:46:23 > 0:46:31people we work together with, if you look at the crime rates in

0:46:31 > 0:46:35Birmingham, they have fallen in that particular area. When I joined in

0:46:35 > 0:46:392001 there was a huge concern about a lot of areas in that area.

0:46:39 > 0:46:47Particularly in relation to gun crime. We lost two young women to

0:46:47 > 0:46:50gun crime over the Christmas period. What we have managed to do since

0:46:50 > 0:46:54then is put together community policing. Policing that they have

0:46:54 > 0:47:01cut and reduced. I will take this intervention... I will not take any

0:47:01 > 0:47:06more silly interventions from these people. What that means to my

0:47:06 > 0:47:10communities and people in this area, this is about protecting those

0:47:10 > 0:47:13communities. It's about working with the unity and bond they have formed.

0:47:13 > 0:47:19That's what the boundary commission don't understand, the work in those

0:47:19 > 0:47:22communities. That's why I am passionate about keeping that

0:47:22 > 0:47:24community together because of the work we have done in the last 16 and

0:47:24 > 0:47:28a half years with the police, community, all sorts of

0:47:28 > 0:47:32organisations to pull it together. Other people there are finding it

0:47:32 > 0:47:36funny. It's not funny for those people who have had huge amounts of

0:47:36 > 0:47:40issues to deal with. Thankfully over the last 16 years, working with

0:47:40 > 0:47:44organisations and the police, we have been managed to do that. We

0:47:44 > 0:47:47need to continue to hold that constituency together to support

0:47:47 > 0:47:52those people together. I will give way.No hilarity in terms of the

0:47:52 > 0:47:56point about crime on the side of the house. It was the fact he was trying

0:47:56 > 0:48:01to connect the boundary review with rising crime. What is the connection

0:48:01 > 0:48:06between the two? Nobody can understand his point.I don't think

0:48:06 > 0:48:10the Honourable member was listening to me. The connection is about the

0:48:10 > 0:48:13communities we have, and what we want to do is keep them together.

0:48:13 > 0:48:18That is the case. They will not be together under boundary changes

0:48:18 > 0:48:23because they will be divided between two different local authorities. I

0:48:23 > 0:48:33will finish. What I'm asking for here is the understanding that the

0:48:33 > 0:48:35Honourable member for Manchester Gorton has done, it's important to

0:48:35 > 0:48:38keep those communities together and we need to look at how we do that.

0:48:38 > 0:48:41The duty of the boundaries commission is to look after

0:48:41 > 0:48:45communities and people. The government has not provided proper

0:48:45 > 0:48:49registration for those communities. If that was the case, we wouldn't be

0:48:49 > 0:48:59looking at these boundary changes. I'm very grateful. Before I start I

0:48:59 > 0:49:03should declare, it's not a strict interest, but declare an interest as

0:49:03 > 0:49:07the minister that took through the parliamentary voting system and

0:49:07 > 0:49:13constituencies act in 2011 will stop I do feel some obligation to defend

0:49:13 > 0:49:18the very sensible proposals that Parliament legislated for in that

0:49:18 > 0:49:24act. As they are under attack from, I have to say, some of the most

0:49:24 > 0:49:28ridiculous arguments I have ever heard. I will come onto that last

0:49:28 > 0:49:33one in the course of my remarks. I want to thank the Honourable member

0:49:33 > 0:49:35for Manchester Gorton for the opportunity to debate these issues

0:49:35 > 0:49:42again. I'm afraid that one or two of my friends in this house are also

0:49:42 > 0:49:50slightly anorak -ish on this subject. One or two of them are

0:49:50 > 0:49:54waving at me. I always enjoy the opportunity to talk about these

0:49:54 > 0:50:01important constitutional matters. What I will do first is deal with

0:50:01 > 0:50:05some of the arguments head on that the Honourable gentleman made in his

0:50:05 > 0:50:09speech. Then I have one or two other things I wanted to say before I

0:50:09 > 0:50:15turned to the bill that is before us today. The first thing, he talks

0:50:15 > 0:50:20about trust in politics. That is indeed very important. I have to say

0:50:20 > 0:50:25that when we first announced these proposals, Mr Deputy Speaker, we

0:50:25 > 0:50:28were legislating for them, and I have to share something with the

0:50:28 > 0:50:31house that I got colleagues will not find too devastating. When we

0:50:31 > 0:50:35announced to the public that one of our key proposals was to reduce the

0:50:35 > 0:50:42number of members of Parliament from 650 to 600, we all would like to

0:50:42 > 0:50:45think the people of the UK were devastated there would be 50 fewer

0:50:45 > 0:50:50of us. But for a period of time it was the single most popular policy

0:50:50 > 0:50:58that the coalition government had. Not to rain on his parade, but if we

0:50:58 > 0:51:03had a proposal to abolish Parliament altogether, people would probably

0:51:03 > 0:51:06find that particularly popular.I wouldn't go quite as far as that.

0:51:06 > 0:51:10There is a serious point about representation. The idea that the

0:51:10 > 0:51:14public were devastated at a modest reduction in the size of the house,

0:51:14 > 0:51:18in the same way that at the other end of the building, it is the

0:51:18 > 0:51:22second largest legislative chamber in the world after the Chinese

0:51:22 > 0:51:30People's Congress. This lower house of parliament is actually one of the

0:51:30 > 0:51:33largest lower houses of parliament, and our modest proposals to reduce

0:51:33 > 0:51:39the number of members of Parliament from 650 to 600 I thought was a

0:51:39 > 0:51:47perfectly sensible step forward. In the explanatory notes to the bill

0:51:47 > 0:51:51which were prepared by the public bill of this on behalf of the

0:51:51 > 0:51:57Honourable member, and I don't quite know whether this was something put

0:51:57 > 0:52:02in by them or by the Honourable gentleman, but it says in terms of

0:52:02 > 0:52:08context, we have made the case that reducing the number of MPs by 50

0:52:08 > 0:52:12says some £13 million per year, £66 million over the course of a

0:52:12 > 0:52:16parliament. That might be modest in terms of the overall amount of

0:52:16 > 0:52:21spending we make, but I think the general public would think saving

0:52:21 > 0:52:25£60 million we could spend up more priorities like the NHS is more

0:52:25 > 0:52:29important. In the explanatory notes he talks about the broader context

0:52:29 > 0:52:33and suggests there will be a reduction in the cost of politics.

0:52:33 > 0:52:37The Honourable gentleman alluded to this in his remarks, associated with

0:52:37 > 0:52:43the reduction of the 73 MEPs that will disappear when we leave the EU.

0:52:43 > 0:52:49When we have had debates in this house on Brexit, and I promise my

0:52:49 > 0:52:52colleagues I will only digress briefly on this subject because we

0:52:52 > 0:52:56have plenty more days to come over the coming weeks, when we make

0:52:56 > 0:53:00assertions over what we thought the referendum result meant, quite often

0:53:00 > 0:53:04colleagues say, that wasn't on the ballot paper. I can honestly say,

0:53:04 > 0:53:09and I am sorry we didn't think about this at the time, but if we said to

0:53:09 > 0:53:14voters, when we leave the EU, we will not have 73 MEPs. If we said to

0:53:14 > 0:53:20the same time, we will use that as a cunning plan to put back in place

0:53:20 > 0:53:23the 50 members of Parliament that are going in the law as legislated,

0:53:23 > 0:53:27I think voters might have thought twice. I am only sorry I didn't

0:53:27 > 0:53:31think of that given I was on the remain side of the argument, to make

0:53:31 > 0:53:35that argued in the referendum. We might have had more success. But I

0:53:35 > 0:53:40don't think it's a sensible argument. And just because there are

0:53:40 > 0:53:45no MEPs in place, I think both the Honourable gentleman and I, and I

0:53:45 > 0:53:48may have misheard, but the Honourable member for Perry Barr

0:53:48 > 0:53:52agreed with this, just because there are no MEPs, doesn't mean suddenly a

0:53:52 > 0:53:55lot of extra work comes to this house. There are quite a lot of

0:53:55 > 0:53:59things the European Union does that MEPs spend all their time doing,

0:53:59 > 0:54:04that it would be better if it just wasn't done at all. We can make

0:54:04 > 0:54:07sensible judgments in this house about what we want the government to

0:54:07 > 0:54:12focus on and what we want Parliament to focus on. But picking up every

0:54:12 > 0:54:15single thing that MEPs currently do isn't very sensible. Of course I

0:54:15 > 0:54:21will give way.On the point of reducing the cost of democracy,

0:54:21 > 0:54:27isn't it the case that the government, the people on your side,

0:54:27 > 0:54:36have stacked the other place by 260 new appointees. So increasing the

0:54:36 > 0:54:41cost of democracy by some £34 million.The raised that. It is

0:54:41 > 0:54:48certainly the case that there are more members of the House of Lords.

0:54:48 > 0:54:52There is the ability for members of the House of Lords to retire. But

0:54:52 > 0:54:56funnily enough, when you suggest to someone who has a life appointment

0:54:56 > 0:55:00with a considerable income attached to it, that they retire, very few of

0:55:00 > 0:55:04them choose to do so. But to be fair, we have seen more of them

0:55:04 > 0:55:12retiring than we have done. Although there are more members of the House

0:55:12 > 0:55:17of Lords, and to repeat what I said in my slightly too long

0:55:17 > 0:55:20intervention, we did make an attempt but Parliament wasn't completely

0:55:20 > 0:55:24sold on the idea of reforming the other place. The fact is, the cost

0:55:24 > 0:55:29of running the House of Lords has fallen since 2010, not increased. It

0:55:29 > 0:55:33is true there are more members of the House of Lords, but the actual

0:55:33 > 0:55:37running costs of the House of Lords has fallen because of the savings

0:55:37 > 0:55:44that they have made. I will give way.Is he not making the point that

0:55:44 > 0:55:48the cost of politics, and the number of members therefore is not linked.

0:55:48 > 0:55:51And therefore his own argument that the simplest way to cut costs in

0:55:51 > 0:55:55this place is to reduce the number of MPs, is therefore undermined by

0:55:55 > 0:56:00his own evidence?I have made the point that the other place has

0:56:00 > 0:56:06managed to reduce its costs. The important thing is, they don't have

0:56:06 > 0:56:09constituents to represent, and they have made savings. I have suggested

0:56:09 > 0:56:16that we could save the costs by reducing... Quite modestly we would

0:56:16 > 0:56:19still remain a quite large lower house of parliament compared to many

0:56:19 > 0:56:31others in the country. I will give way.Extending my right honourable

0:56:31 > 0:56:38friend's argument, we would get greater cost cutting if we cut the

0:56:38 > 0:56:41number of lords who do not take their daily allowance of £300.

0:56:45 > 0:56:52I do not want to dial it too much on the other place because I am still

0:56:52 > 0:56:58talking about this, the second part of the first all argument, the size

0:56:58 > 0:57:04of constituencies, talking about the geographical size and the important

0:57:04 > 0:57:11thing to remember in this house is we represent physical parts of the

0:57:11 > 0:57:15country but it's the people in those constituencies we represent, not the

0:57:15 > 0:57:21spaces. Of course the important thing, and this is the point of my

0:57:21 > 0:57:25honourable friend for Telford made where she agreed with the

0:57:25 > 0:57:28proposition as he did, that we should have seats of broadly equal

0:57:28 > 0:57:36numbers of constituents because it's only then that the weights of those

0:57:36 > 0:57:40constituents views are broadly the same across the country, that was a

0:57:40 > 0:57:46proposition exposed by the chartists many years ago. You obviously do not

0:57:46 > 0:57:54want exact electoral equality, you do have to take into account other

0:57:54 > 0:58:00important factors and I will come onto those. When we put forward the

0:58:00 > 0:58:04original registration we set it with a range of plus or -5% which means

0:58:04 > 0:58:15the constituencies can when his then honourable friend Pat Glass who's no

0:58:15 > 0:58:21longer in the house brought forward a bill almost a year ago, having the

0:58:21 > 0:58:29anniversary of Labour's attempts to go backwards in terms of boundaries

0:58:29 > 0:58:33she had a range of plus and -10% which would have given a 20%

0:58:33 > 0:58:37variance and I want to welcome the fact the honourable gentleman

0:58:37 > 0:58:47thought that was too big and has reduced it that is welcome, if

0:58:47 > 0:58:50someone moves in your direction I think it's churlish not to give them

0:58:50 > 0:58:55credit for doing so but I think we need to stick fairly rigidly to

0:58:55 > 0:59:00broad equality, boundary commissions can take into account a number of

0:59:00 > 0:59:03other factors, my constituency neighbour across the water the

0:59:03 > 0:59:06honourable member for Stroud suggested, I think this was what

0:59:06 > 0:59:13they were seeing, that boundary changes could not take any

0:59:13 > 0:59:17consideration, talking about the things being swept away completely

0:59:17 > 0:59:21and of course it's worth going back the legislation because it's quite

0:59:21 > 0:59:27clear that obviously they have two stick to the rule about broad

0:59:27 > 0:59:31equality but they can take into account special geographical

0:59:31 > 0:59:35considerations, they can take into account local government boundaries

0:59:35 > 0:59:38and boundaries of existing constituencies and any local ties

0:59:38 > 0:59:42and any inconveniences attached to them so they can take all those

0:59:42 > 0:59:47factors into account and I have had a cursory glance Mr Deputy Speaker

0:59:47 > 0:59:50because we're not talking about the specific proposals brought forward

0:59:50 > 0:59:55the boundary commissions but I have had a cursory look at the changes

0:59:55 > 1:00:00made and if you look at the evidence they have taken and the changes they

1:00:00 > 1:00:04made between their initial proposals and their subsequent proposals it is

1:00:04 > 1:00:09very clear that many local people have made clear representations

1:00:09 > 1:00:16about the factors I just set out have made significant changes having

1:00:16 > 1:00:20listened to the concerns of local people but I think the process is

1:00:20 > 1:00:24very effective, of course I will give way.Will remember agree that

1:00:24 > 1:00:27not withstanding the words he has just spoken there is still the

1:00:27 > 1:00:33proposal of a seat which matches together Devon and Cornwall and is

1:00:33 > 1:00:40truly unpopular?I am very familiar with this issue, when we were

1:00:40 > 1:00:43originally taking the legislation through, the legislation talked

1:00:43 > 1:00:54about was one raised by colleagues from both Devon and Cornwall and

1:00:54 > 1:00:57indeed it was the issue which prompted my former Right honourable

1:00:57 > 1:01:01friend the then member of Parliament for Whitney and the Prime Minister

1:01:01 > 1:01:06to make his unfortunate comment about the width of the River which I

1:01:06 > 1:01:11think got him into hot water with colleagues from both Devon and

1:01:11 > 1:01:15Cornwall and which I think he may have regretted. But we had a debate

1:01:15 > 1:01:20about that and I think my view at the time was and I recognise it was

1:01:20 > 1:01:26not entirely popular, that it's about making sure areas are properly

1:01:26 > 1:01:31represented and one of the solutions put forward by their members for

1:01:31 > 1:01:33Cornwall constituencies was to have less representation in this house

1:01:33 > 1:01:38and I did not think as the then minister responsible but that was

1:01:38 > 1:01:41very sensible. I think people should be represented properly and it's

1:01:41 > 1:01:44worth remembering and I think this is relevant to the point the

1:01:44 > 1:01:51honourable member for petty barmaid -- for Birmingham Perry Barr made

1:01:51 > 1:01:55and there was an intervention from the back of the house about local

1:01:55 > 1:02:00government boundaries and of course we are not proposing to move

1:02:00 > 1:02:05constituents anywhere, if there are changes to boundaries the

1:02:05 > 1:02:09constituents did not move, the councils they get their services

1:02:09 > 1:02:12from do not move, the only inconvenience in this process is

1:02:12 > 1:02:17that heaven forbid we as members of parliament might possibly have to

1:02:17 > 1:02:22talk to an extra local government chief executive and for myself,

1:02:22 > 1:02:31although most of it is coterminous with the Forest of Dean District

1:02:31 > 1:02:34Council and I'll liaise with the officers and the elected councillors

1:02:34 > 1:02:42I do have one order for my constituency in my borough which I

1:02:42 > 1:02:55share with the honourable member for Tewkesbury I have two spent time

1:02:55 > 1:03:00dealing with another set of councillors and local government

1:03:00 > 1:03:05officers and I have to say I do not find that enormously troublesome and

1:03:05 > 1:03:09it causes my constituents know any inconvenience at all and I expect

1:03:09 > 1:03:16they spend all moments at the even thinking about, I will give away.

1:03:16 > 1:03:20One of the problems of the current boundary review is that in many

1:03:20 > 1:03:24areas including mine there have been local government boundary changes so

1:03:24 > 1:03:30now it doesn't even cover the proposal is coterminous wards so it

1:03:30 > 1:03:36even cut in half towards and allowing more flexibility would our

1:03:36 > 1:03:44source of a problem.There are complexities with local government

1:03:44 > 1:03:53boundaries but I had to say Mr Deputy Speaker, we are probably the

1:03:53 > 1:03:58only people who drive around the country and see boundaries in front

1:03:58 > 1:04:03of us as we cross and I note from my own point of view as I drive down

1:04:03 > 1:04:07the M4 angled pass various signs I tend to go through the constituency

1:04:07 > 1:04:09of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and my right

1:04:09 > 1:04:17honourable friend the member of Parliament for walking, but let's be

1:04:17 > 1:04:24frank, it's a bit of that only those of us involved in politics do.

1:04:24 > 1:04:29Normal people, they do not see the country as a succession of

1:04:29 > 1:04:33boundaries and I think Mr Deputy Speaker, I might be doing a

1:04:33 > 1:04:37disservice but if I went to speak to any of my constituents and I asked

1:04:37 > 1:04:40them where any of the local government boundaries were I suspect

1:04:40 > 1:04:44most of them could not tell me and oddly enough I don't think it makes

1:04:44 > 1:04:49their lives any less exciting than fulfilled because they do not know

1:04:49 > 1:04:55those things as they might. I will give way to the honourable member.I

1:04:55 > 1:04:58thank the honourable gentleman for giving way, we are the only people

1:04:58 > 1:05:03in this country who get excited by boundaries but would he not accept

1:05:03 > 1:05:07that people do however identified to small towns and villages and

1:05:07 > 1:05:12identify all commuters in a way that the 5% threshold in some places

1:05:12 > 1:05:16makes difficult to line. There are examples on both sides of the house

1:05:16 > 1:05:20were a small towns and villages and clusters of communities which

1:05:20 > 1:05:22identify as a community and now split because of that type

1:05:22 > 1:05:30threshold.I do and I accept job to balance these things. I am very

1:05:30 > 1:05:33conscious I have only dealt with the first argument the honourable

1:05:33 > 1:05:37gentleman set out and I want to make progress so I will try to make a

1:05:37 > 1:05:41little more before I take any more interventions. The second point he

1:05:41 > 1:05:48talked about in talking about MEP's was work award. I dealt with the

1:05:48 > 1:05:55cost issue, taking this head-on, there is a flip side to that which I

1:05:55 > 1:05:58think he wants to be very careful before he goes down this road. It's

1:05:58 > 1:06:07about devolution. When we were bringing forward the proposals we

1:06:07 > 1:06:12had to think through how the country was to be represented and at the

1:06:12 > 1:06:16moment certain parts of the United Kingdom are overrepresented in the

1:06:16 > 1:06:20house relative to the level of population, for example Wales has

1:06:20 > 1:06:25more members of Parliament than it would be entitled to based on its

1:06:25 > 1:06:29population and that is why the proposals I think under either of

1:06:29 > 1:06:34our set of proposals to juice the number of members of Parliament

1:06:34 > 1:06:39Wills was entitled to. There were representations made to me that in

1:06:39 > 1:06:45the parts of the United Kingdom where there are devolved functions

1:06:45 > 1:06:50of government, the Scottish Parliament in Wales and in Northern

1:06:50 > 1:06:53Ireland and Scotland, those places you'd have less representation

1:06:53 > 1:07:02because the casework as work aspect is shared. Hell for example is a

1:07:02 > 1:07:09devolved matter -- health for example is a devolved matter, so the

1:07:09 > 1:07:12cases that I as a member of an English member of Parliament for my

1:07:12 > 1:07:16constituencies on the health service where I will raise those issues with

1:07:16 > 1:07:19the Health Secretary who is responsible for the health set this

1:07:19 > 1:07:25in England are dealt with. That is an argument but it is an argument I

1:07:25 > 1:07:30rejected at the time because I felt we needed to make sure voters in

1:07:30 > 1:07:34electing people do this house were treated evenly. But if you follow

1:07:34 > 1:07:39the logic of the honourable gentleman which is the abolition of

1:07:39 > 1:07:43MEP's means more workload falls on us and therefore there should be

1:07:43 > 1:07:47more of us then actually the logic of the argument is in the parts of

1:07:47 > 1:07:53the United Kingdom where there are devolved governments and Parliament

1:07:53 > 1:07:56and devolved assemblies they should have less representation in this

1:07:56 > 1:08:00house because they share the workload with those members of the

1:08:00 > 1:08:05Scottish Parliament and the Welsh assembly. I think he wants to be a

1:08:05 > 1:08:09little cautious before going down that line of argument because it

1:08:09 > 1:08:15might lead him somewhere he would not want to go. Let me pick up, and

1:08:15 > 1:08:22it is a delight to see you now in the chair Madam Deputy Speaker. One

1:08:22 > 1:08:25of the changes the bill would make to the proposals is to move from

1:08:25 > 1:08:29what we suggested which was a boundary review every Parliament to

1:08:29 > 1:08:37one every ten years. I should just say I had to smile when they talked

1:08:37 > 1:08:41about the tradition of boundary reviews around every ten years, the

1:08:41 > 1:08:50reason I smiled is because we have not had the full boundary review if

1:08:50 > 1:08:53we do not get one before the next general election it will be the

1:08:53 > 1:09:02registers of which the next election will be fall will 22 years old which

1:09:02 > 1:09:06means there would be people voting at the next general election who

1:09:06 > 1:09:12were not even born when the register on which those seats are found were

1:09:12 > 1:09:18at there.Inadvertently said the registers would be 22 years old but

1:09:18 > 1:09:22that is not what he meant, he said he meant the boundaries would be

1:09:22 > 1:09:27based on registers which are 22 years old but the registers will be

1:09:27 > 1:09:31completely up-to-date.Absolutely right as one would expect from a

1:09:31 > 1:09:34distinguished Sykes committee chairman which covers exactly this

1:09:34 > 1:09:47area policy and I am grateful for that, the beast in the year 2000, we

1:09:47 > 1:09:54have not have a boundary for some considerable time. The reason it is

1:09:54 > 1:09:57important is because the honourable gentleman was talking about the

1:09:57 > 1:10:02change which comes with these reviews. I accept that the first

1:10:02 > 1:10:08boundary review which takes place when we reduce the number of MPs and

1:10:08 > 1:10:14the boundary review which takes place 20 years after the last one is

1:10:14 > 1:10:19inevitably one that will have a lot of change to parliamentary

1:10:19 > 1:10:23boundaries I except that as inevitable. The reason we thought it

1:10:23 > 1:10:26was sensible to have a every Parliament is once you've done the

1:10:26 > 1:10:32big change is you then have the choice, either frequent smaller

1:10:32 > 1:10:42changes to parliamentary boundaries or you have the coalition government

1:10:42 > 1:10:46took and the view this house took when it passed this legislation was

1:10:46 > 1:10:52that it was better to have more frequent changes which were smaller

1:10:52 > 1:10:57and I think on balance both before today and listening to the speech I

1:10:57 > 1:11:04still think it's the right balance because if you move boundary reviews

1:11:04 > 1:11:07to once every ten years you are just going to make sure they are bigger

1:11:07 > 1:11:14and more disruptive and I think smaller but less disruptive ones are

1:11:14 > 1:11:18probably to be welcomed, of course I will give way.Apologies for my

1:11:18 > 1:11:22voice, thank you for giving way, the issue is not about having a boundary

1:11:22 > 1:11:26review, it is the nature of the question which initiated this which

1:11:26 > 1:11:31is a reduction from six and 50 to 600, compare the number of

1:11:31 > 1:11:35constituents from 1955 to the present day we will see a 40%

1:11:35 > 1:11:37increase in the number of constituents being proposed under

1:11:37 > 1:11:44this review.

1:11:44 > 1:11:49If you look at the size of the constituencies we have already, and

1:11:49 > 1:11:55there are some members of this house who only represent, if I exclude the

1:11:55 > 1:12:01small protected island constituencies, there are others

1:12:01 > 1:12:08represent constituencies... There are others who represent

1:12:08 > 1:12:11constituencies of more than 100,000 voters. They seem to manage

1:12:11 > 1:12:16particularly well. I don't think we will find it enormously challenging.

1:12:16 > 1:12:20I see my honourable friend, the member for Banbury, and I know her

1:12:20 > 1:12:24constituency is one of the largest in the country in terms of

1:12:24 > 1:12:28population. Her local authority is doing a significant amount of

1:12:28 > 1:12:29house-building am planning permission? For house-building,

1:12:29 > 1:12:34dealing with the housing crisis, which means her clinches -- contest

1:12:34 > 1:12:42-- constituency is growing. It is also worth remembering, when I

1:12:42 > 1:12:46talked about the size of this house in terms of a lower house, if you

1:12:46 > 1:12:52look around the world we represent relatively few people compared with

1:12:52 > 1:12:55legislators incomparable lower houses of parliament. I don't think

1:12:55 > 1:13:00it is enormously impossible for us to have slightly more constituents

1:13:00 > 1:13:05each on average to represent them we have at the moment.We represent

1:13:05 > 1:13:11less compared to the parable legislators. If you look at

1:13:11 > 1:13:16Commonwealth legislators that doesn't seem to be the case. Cyprus,

1:13:16 > 1:13:2114,000, Jamaica, 30 4000. If you look at the Nordic countries... What

1:13:21 > 1:13:27evidence is he basing that on? I'm rather confused.A narrow view of

1:13:27 > 1:13:39the Commonwealth there! Of course. The obvious example to site is India

1:13:39 > 1:13:52which has an average of more than 2 million Electors per representative.

1:13:52 > 1:13:58He makes a very good point. I'm not, of course, proposing we reduced the

1:13:58 > 1:14:03size of this Parliament to that extent. It seems to me if the

1:14:03 > 1:14:08legislator in a very similar type of system is capable of representing 2

1:14:08 > 1:14:12million people, I don't think the rather modest changes we are

1:14:12 > 1:14:19proposing should be completely beyond our weight. I wanted to take

1:14:19 > 1:14:26him up on this issue about what he called, and what others on his side

1:14:26 > 1:14:33of the house of God, the 2 million missing voters. What this refers to

1:14:33 > 1:14:39is there was an increase in electoral legislation. This was

1:14:39 > 1:14:43after the 2015 registers were put together, the ones being used for

1:14:43 > 1:14:50the current review. And the referendum, which was a big

1:14:50 > 1:14:54electoral event. The important thing for the boundary review, and I think

1:14:54 > 1:15:01he repeated this, referred to these missing voters as if they were not

1:15:01 > 1:15:04being taken into account. The important point, and I think this

1:15:04 > 1:15:09was what my honourable friend, the member for North Essex was alluding

1:15:09 > 1:15:12too, about the registers being up-to-date, the important thing for

1:15:12 > 1:15:15a Bantry review is not the number of Electors but it is how those

1:15:15 > 1:15:21Electors are distributed across the country. It is only of the

1:15:21 > 1:15:23distribution of those electors has substantially changed will make a

1:15:23 > 1:15:29difference to the number of seeds. -- seats. I haven't seen an

1:15:29 > 1:15:36up-to-date piece of work. But the excellent Matt sing published a very

1:15:36 > 1:15:43interesting paper in 2016. He looked at this particular objection to our

1:15:43 > 1:15:47boundary review, to see whether it made sense. He looked in a very

1:15:47 > 1:15:53detailed, analytical way at the extra voters that had come onto the

1:15:53 > 1:16:00electoral register ahead of the referendum. To see whether they were

1:16:00 > 1:16:04distributed in a way that would cause a significant change in the

1:16:04 > 1:16:09boundary review if the review was restarted with those registers. And

1:16:09 > 1:16:12his conclusion, and it is only a short conclusion, I think it bears

1:16:12 > 1:16:19repeating... He said, amid lots of misleading claims and counterclaims,

1:16:19 > 1:16:23there is a legitimate question about the effect of the date at which

1:16:23 > 1:16:28registration figures were taken. He said a detailed analysis of these

1:16:28 > 1:16:31figures and the subsequent 2 million increase in registration in the

1:16:31 > 1:16:37run-up to the EU referendum provides the answer. He said the data does

1:16:37 > 1:16:42not support, not support, the suggestion that using the later

1:16:42 > 1:16:45version of the register would materially alter the distribution of

1:16:45 > 1:16:53seats. He said it points to a very even distribution of the 2 million

1:16:53 > 1:16:57newly registered voters between conservative and Labour areas. What

1:16:57 > 1:17:00that actually says, Madine Deputy Speaker, reflects very well on

1:17:00 > 1:17:06members of this house. In the run-up to that very significant event,

1:17:06 > 1:17:11which is going to change the direction, the route that this

1:17:11 > 1:17:16country takes, actually members on both sides of the house, across our

1:17:16 > 1:17:21country, did a fantastic job at either doing registration drives

1:17:21 > 1:17:26themselves are so inspiring voters to get them to register in a pretty

1:17:26 > 1:17:29consistent way across the United Kingdom rather than a partial weight

1:17:29 > 1:17:34that may have changed it. So the fact that some of those voters are

1:17:34 > 1:17:37not on the register that is currently being used for the current

1:17:37 > 1:17:43boundary review doesn't materially affect the distribution of seats

1:17:43 > 1:17:49across the country. And in fact... Of course I will give way.You have

1:17:49 > 1:17:53covered a great deal of ground with that contribution. I wonder if the

1:17:53 > 1:17:58obvious ground will be covered? After spending £3 million the

1:17:58 > 1:18:03government knows this cannot get a parliamentary majority.I tend to

1:18:03 > 1:18:10take the review, but I prefer to test the opinion of parliament, and

1:18:10 > 1:18:15we may or may not test the opinion today, so I think the right process

1:18:15 > 1:18:22is to do what is set out in the legislation. The Boundary

1:18:22 > 1:18:29Commissions will report by next October. And then orders will be

1:18:29 > 1:18:31brought before this house and the other place and we will vote on

1:18:31 > 1:18:36them. They may get through. They may not. I don't know the answer. We

1:18:36 > 1:18:39haven't even seen the final proposals from the Boundary

1:18:39 > 1:18:43Commissions. In some part of the UK we have not even seen the final

1:18:43 > 1:18:49draft proposal. I think I will test the opinion of the house in due

1:18:49 > 1:18:55course. If we were to take the view about whether or not the review was

1:18:55 > 1:18:58going to get through before we even started it, I suspect we would never

1:18:58 > 1:19:06have a Bantry review, ever in the house. -- Bantry review. Let me pick

1:19:06 > 1:19:08up a point of the honourable gentleman for Perry Barr mentioned.

1:19:08 > 1:19:20He has now disappeared. In urban areas of the country the building

1:19:20 > 1:19:27blocks seem to be larger. I accept that in the review originally that

1:19:27 > 1:19:35was a problem. The review that was undertaken that did not take place,

1:19:35 > 1:19:41it wasn't brought to fruition, that was a problem, because my

1:19:41 > 1:19:43understanding is the kit that the Boundary Commission for England had

1:19:43 > 1:19:49at its disposal, its electronic computer kit that it uses for doing

1:19:49 > 1:19:54the mapping, actually wasn't able to split up government wards very well.

1:19:54 > 1:19:57My understanding is they have fixed a problem with support from the

1:19:57 > 1:20:02Cabinet office and the resources they have. My understanding is they

1:20:02 > 1:20:05are perfectly capable now of splitting government wards in urban

1:20:05 > 1:20:12areas effectively to try to keep those words together. I am sorry the

1:20:12 > 1:20:15honourable gentleman is not here to listen to the response. Let me

1:20:15 > 1:20:21finish this point. And I will take his intervention. This point about

1:20:21 > 1:20:24crime, which effectively the honourable member for Perry Barr was

1:20:24 > 1:20:30about working together. I really don't understand his argument. That

1:20:30 > 1:20:35is why people on this side of the house were looking slightly amazed.

1:20:35 > 1:20:39If I take his example of Birmingham, he has got a police force which

1:20:39 > 1:20:42covers the whole of the West Midlands, I think I am right in

1:20:42 > 1:20:46saying. He has got a city with a city council and a number of

1:20:46 > 1:20:50parliamentary constituencies. My hunch would be that those members of

1:20:50 > 1:20:56parliament in Birmingham do what members of Parliament do in

1:20:56 > 1:20:59Gloucestershire. Funny enough, where there are common issues that we are

1:20:59 > 1:21:06all concerned about, which cross boundaries, we work together. I see

1:21:06 > 1:21:12the honourable gentleman, the member for Stroud, who of course has meant

1:21:12 > 1:21:17that, unfortunately for us on this side the house, isn't any longer

1:21:17 > 1:21:23completely representative by conservatives. It is democracy.

1:21:23 > 1:21:26Absolutely right. I am perfectly happy on issues where we have common

1:21:26 > 1:21:31areas of concern to work with the honourable gentleman, even though he

1:21:31 > 1:21:35represented different political party. The idea somehow that if you

1:21:35 > 1:21:41change parliamentary boundaries and a particular part of a city or a

1:21:41 > 1:21:44particular area happens to be represented by two different members

1:21:44 > 1:21:47of Parliament, the idea that two members of this house, if they are

1:21:47 > 1:21:51dealing with important matters like crime, the safety of their

1:21:51 > 1:21:55constituents, are incapable of working together with the police and

1:21:55 > 1:21:59local authority, I think is frankly nonsense, Madam Deputy Speaker. That

1:21:59 > 1:22:03is why members of the house were laughing. It is the idea that people

1:22:03 > 1:22:09cannot work together to solve these important problems.I am grateful to

1:22:09 > 1:22:17him forgiving way. Just on that specific point about Birmingham and

1:22:17 > 1:22:20as a West Midlands MP with a very small constituency, it may be worth

1:22:20 > 1:22:25recognising we have the West Midlands mayor and we are very used

1:22:25 > 1:22:29to working together across boundaries.My honourable friend

1:22:29 > 1:22:33makes a very good point. Devolution of local government comes back to

1:22:33 > 1:22:37the point about work. But again, it also demonstrates that we have

1:22:37 > 1:22:42different areas of the country now that are grouped together for

1:22:42 > 1:22:45different purposes. We have seen that level of devolution in the West

1:22:45 > 1:22:50Midlands. We are seeing very considerable levels of devolution in

1:22:50 > 1:22:57greater Manchester under the mayor, Andy Burnham, including... I agree.

1:22:57 > 1:23:01I'm a great believer. I know the honourable gentleman is a very

1:23:01 > 1:23:05distinguished former local government leader. I am absolutely

1:23:05 > 1:23:09in favour of our level of devolution. I do think decisions in

1:23:09 > 1:23:13this country are too centralised. And giving important areas of the

1:23:13 > 1:23:16country with political leadership the ability to make more decisions

1:23:16 > 1:23:20for themselves is a very welcome one. But of course there is nothing

1:23:20 > 1:23:25that stops people working together. I was very impressed when I was a

1:23:25 > 1:23:28minister in the Department for Work and Pensions when I visited

1:23:28 > 1:23:33Manchester and I met with the leader, I think he is still the

1:23:33 > 1:23:38leader of Trafford Council, Councillor Sean Anstee, one of the

1:23:38 > 1:23:40local government leaders in Greater Manchester. What he was telling me

1:23:40 > 1:23:44about how that worked was that those local government leaders, even

1:23:44 > 1:23:48though they are of different political persuasions actually have

1:23:48 > 1:23:52a shared vision for some of the big challenges for that area of the

1:23:52 > 1:23:56country. They are able to work together, notwithstanding their

1:23:56 > 1:24:00political differences. It seems to me that what is what blows out of

1:24:00 > 1:24:03the water the argument that the honourable member from Perry Barr

1:24:03 > 1:24:08are made about boundaries. It seems increasingly possible that we can

1:24:08 > 1:24:12all work together. I have got a couple of more points to make that I

1:24:12 > 1:24:16planned to make when I came in. Obviously I have just been dealing

1:24:16 > 1:24:19with the five argument is the honourable gentleman made. I hope

1:24:19 > 1:24:26members will feel that I have adequately dealt with them and be

1:24:26 > 1:24:29persuaded. A couple of other things that are relevant. Just a couple of

1:24:29 > 1:24:37points. Then I will say something about the bill in front of us. There

1:24:37 > 1:24:41was quite a bit of discussion about voter registration. And again, the

1:24:41 > 1:24:45honourable gentleman, the member for Perry Barr, made some allegations

1:24:45 > 1:24:48about that. I'm disappointed again he has not stayed around to listen

1:24:48 > 1:24:54to a response. He said that we had made it a very -- very difficult to

1:24:54 > 1:24:59register to vote and that we tried to drive people off the register.

1:24:59 > 1:25:03That is simply not true and not borne out by the facts. If you look

1:25:03 > 1:25:05at the report the Electoral Commission had done on electoral

1:25:05 > 1:25:14registration at the June 2017 election. More than 2.9 million

1:25:14 > 1:25:18applications to register to vote were made in Great Britain between

1:25:18 > 1:25:22the Prime Minister's announcement on the 18th of April, and the deadline

1:25:22 > 1:25:28for applications. 96% of those applications were made using the

1:25:28 > 1:25:31online service. As an aside, that was something that I had the

1:25:31 > 1:25:36privilege of kicking off when I was the Minister for political and

1:25:36 > 1:25:40constitutional reform. We implemented that. That has made it

1:25:40 > 1:25:44easier for people to register to vote. Two thirds of online

1:25:44 > 1:25:49applications were made by people under 34. I don't use 34 as a proxy

1:25:49 > 1:25:53for young. It is a fact that was put in the report. It seems to me the

1:25:53 > 1:25:56idea that we have made it difficult for people to vote, when all you

1:25:56 > 1:26:00have to do is use an electronic device and register online, is not

1:26:00 > 1:26:04borne out by the truth. That is not the case if you are

1:26:04 > 1:26:09homeless. That is not the case for a number of other people that don't

1:26:09 > 1:26:12have a fixed abode. Would he recognise that those people are

1:26:12 > 1:26:17disadvantaged with the new system? No, I would accept that some people

1:26:17 > 1:26:20may not be able to use the electronic method. But they are of

1:26:20 > 1:26:27course able to register in the traditional way. I think I am right

1:26:27 > 1:26:31in saying that the minister, when he speaks, will be able to confirm

1:26:31 > 1:26:35this. I think I am right in saying that many local authorities actually

1:26:35 > 1:26:38go to considerable lengths to make sure the people who may be

1:26:38 > 1:26:42disadvantaged are registered to vote. I know specifically with

1:26:42 > 1:26:44homeless people, I know many local authorities take great efforts to

1:26:44 > 1:26:49make sure they are registered. And of course under the law, those local

1:26:49 > 1:26:58authorities have a duty to get as many people legitimately registered.

1:26:59 > 1:27:02This is the other part of the argument where it was said people

1:27:02 > 1:27:06disappeared for the register because the registration process does two

1:27:06 > 1:27:10things, it makes sure the register is as complete as possible so

1:27:10 > 1:27:15everyone who is entitled to vote is on it but it also deals with making

1:27:15 > 1:27:21sure it is accurate and that only those people eligible to vote, many

1:27:21 > 1:27:27of the people who left the register will be introduced the new system of

1:27:27 > 1:27:32voter registration in a sense of not people at all because many were

1:27:32 > 1:27:35people not in those constituencies any longer, should no longer have

1:27:35 > 1:27:39been registered to vote but had not been removed, some people will no

1:27:39 > 1:27:45longer alive but people had not taken into account. When it comes to

1:27:45 > 1:27:48accuracy and this comes back to the point my honourable friend the

1:27:48 > 1:27:53member for North Essex made about the up-to-date nature of the

1:27:53 > 1:27:56register, the current boundaries are based on electoral registers from

1:27:56 > 1:28:04the year 2000 so however imperfect, the current process may be, if we do

1:28:04 > 1:28:08not get this review done and the boundaries implemented members are

1:28:08 > 1:28:12basically saying they are comfortable for seats to be drawn on

1:28:12 > 1:28:16registers which were done in the year 2000. That would mean at the

1:28:16 > 1:28:19next election we have the absurdity that there would be people voting

1:28:19 > 1:28:27who are not alive when the register's were put together on

1:28:27 > 1:28:32which the seats were founded and I just think... That is absurd and

1:28:32 > 1:28:37needs to be changed, of course.I thank the honourable member for

1:28:37 > 1:28:40giving way, making some interesting points about the registration

1:28:40 > 1:28:44process but would he agree it's bizarre to be hearing in the

1:28:44 > 1:28:4721st-century argument that electoral registration should be based on the

1:28:47 > 1:28:57concept of male headship sub household?Absently right, we argued

1:28:57 > 1:29:00about this at the time and the concept of head of household was

1:29:00 > 1:29:05invariably the man should be responsible for registering people

1:29:05 > 1:29:10was rather out of date and I think putting the responsibility on

1:29:10 > 1:29:13individuals is an improvement. All the evidence suggests and the fact

1:29:13 > 1:29:17there are a lot of people registered to vote for the referendum

1:29:17 > 1:29:22demonstrates its not a difficult process. It's a very straightforward

1:29:22 > 1:29:26process. The online registration system is much easier. The only

1:29:26 > 1:29:31significant thing that the Electoral Commission recommended and I think

1:29:31 > 1:29:36this is applying the Minister to reflect on, is that there is one

1:29:36 > 1:29:39problem with the current system which is it's not easy to check

1:29:39 > 1:29:43electronically that you are already registered and a significant

1:29:43 > 1:29:47proportion of the people who tried to get registered for the general

1:29:47 > 1:29:52election were people who were already registered and they were

1:29:52 > 1:29:57duplicate registrations and that puts a burden on registration

1:29:57 > 1:30:01officers at a very busy time. I think there would be sense in

1:30:01 > 1:30:03reflecting about whether we can improve the online system to deal

1:30:03 > 1:30:11with that.I am grateful for giving way, does he agree with me that the

1:30:11 > 1:30:15longer this boundary review is delayed without being implemented

1:30:15 > 1:30:20the greater the unfairness becomes particularly with ardour to rural

1:30:20 > 1:30:26seats which in the main have seen a large increase in population?I

1:30:26 > 1:30:30think my right honourable friend makes a very good point, we are not

1:30:30 > 1:30:35exactly carrying out this process ID massively fast pace and the boundary

1:30:35 > 1:30:39changes should have come into force some time ago and it was an unholy

1:30:39 > 1:30:43alliance between the official opposition and the Liberal Democrats

1:30:43 > 1:30:47who I have to say in passing, I do not see any Liberal Democrats here

1:30:47 > 1:30:52today which is surprising because they are normally, they are normally

1:30:52 > 1:31:00fascinated beyond all bones of reasonableness on constitutional

1:31:00 > 1:31:06matters and since we have got a builder for us of a constitutional

1:31:06 > 1:31:10nature I am amazed there is not a single Liberal Democrat here to

1:31:10 > 1:31:14debate it. I worked closely with them in the coalition government and

1:31:14 > 1:31:20the one thing Liberal the honourable gentleman said we finished them off

1:31:20 > 1:31:24and I don't think we quite dead, there are still some left but the

1:31:24 > 1:31:28fact is that of those who are still here I am amazed and none of them

1:31:28 > 1:31:31have trouble themselves to come to Parliament to debate the

1:31:31 > 1:31:34constitutional matter. The last couple of things I want to say

1:31:34 > 1:31:44specifically in the builder for us -- in the bill before us. You are

1:31:44 > 1:31:48not in the chair at the beginning of the debate, the deputy Speaker, the

1:31:48 > 1:31:55chairman of ways and Means I thought did us all a service by stopping us

1:31:55 > 1:31:58worrying that a dreadful mistake had taken place, yesterday when I looked

1:31:58 > 1:32:06at the bill before us was astounded that on St Andrew's Day a bill had

1:32:06 > 1:32:09been produced which had seemingly emitted the entire part of the

1:32:09 > 1:32:20United Kingdom known as Scotland and had inadvertently put Northern

1:32:20 > 1:32:28Ireland in Great Britain which is something we should not do.

1:32:28 > 1:32:37Fortunately I heard the excellent point of error the back order -- the

1:32:37 > 1:32:41excellent point of order and a statement was made that spitting us

1:32:41 > 1:32:48all at ease that it had been a printing error and the official

1:32:48 > 1:32:53opposition and one of its spokesman had inadvertently not wiped out

1:32:53 > 1:32:57Scotland and confused were Northern Ireland went. I am pleased the

1:32:57 > 1:33:00chairman of ways and Means could put us straight. The point I want to

1:33:00 > 1:33:12make about the bill is I just want to point out in 2.2 the honourable

1:33:12 > 1:33:22gentleman has widened the variants from plus and -5% to plus or -7 1/2%

1:33:22 > 1:33:28and I touched on that in my opening remarks, I think it is well Push-Off

1:33:28 > 1:33:32Challenge welcome at plus or -10% is too wide and that was the position

1:33:32 > 1:33:35the Labour Party took when we were doing a legislation and I hope given

1:33:35 > 1:33:46he is a

1:33:59 > 1:34:03having said we ought to get on and do this he is suggesting that

1:34:03 > 1:34:07instead of the boundary commission reporting by October of next year

1:34:07 > 1:34:11when we could get the boundary reports in front of this house he is

1:34:11 > 1:34:18suggesting we delay boundary review until October 20 20. I don't

1:34:18 > 1:34:22particularly have a problem with that because under the Fixed-term

1:34:22 > 1:34:26Parliaments Act we are not due a general election until 2022 but I

1:34:26 > 1:34:29think it was the position of the party opposite that they wanted a

1:34:29 > 1:34:32general election as quickly as possible therefore delaying the

1:34:32 > 1:34:37boundary review by a further two seems to be a problem. The final

1:34:37 > 1:34:44point I wanted to put on record, it is in the bill, but I just thought

1:34:44 > 1:34:48it is worth making the point there are significant financial provisions

1:34:48 > 1:34:52in the bill because they spend money in two ways, they increase the

1:34:52 > 1:34:56number of members of Parliament from that currently set out in the

1:34:56 > 1:34:59present law and because the present law would reduce the number of

1:34:59 > 1:35:02members of Parliament there is a significant cost involved in that

1:35:02 > 1:35:06and of course because they would necessitate another boundary review

1:35:06 > 1:35:11taking place on top of the one that is almost complete they have a

1:35:11 > 1:35:14significant cost and I note in the explanatory notes that therefore

1:35:14 > 1:35:17this bill if it is to make further progress would require a money

1:35:17 > 1:35:22resolution. So that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think I have dealt

1:35:22 > 1:35:26combines a play with all of the arguments the honourable gentleman

1:35:26 > 1:35:30put forward so I hope if the opinion of the house is tested colleagues

1:35:30 > 1:35:36are persuaded not to give it a second reading and I thank the house

1:35:36 > 1:35:45for its indulgence.Some of us have greatness thrust upon us, I only

1:35:45 > 1:35:50came in to observe this debate but sadly my honourable friend the

1:35:50 > 1:35:54member for Lancaster and Fleetwood has taken ill and I am sure the

1:35:54 > 1:35:59whole house will wish her a speedy recovery. It is a pleasure to follow

1:35:59 > 1:36:04the right honourable gentleman the member for the Forest of Dean, I

1:36:04 > 1:36:07suspect he has a vested interest having been the minister who took

1:36:07 > 1:36:14through the original proposals and he wants to preserve his legacy. I

1:36:14 > 1:36:19get a sense of deja vu Madam Deputy Speaker because of course I was the

1:36:19 > 1:36:24Shadow Cabinet office minister this time last year and I remember the

1:36:24 > 1:36:28right Honourable member making the same speech and I hope the house

1:36:28 > 1:36:34forgives me because I will be doing almost the same myself. Madam Deputy

1:36:34 > 1:36:38Speaker I am grateful to my honourable friend the member for

1:36:38 > 1:36:42Manchester Gorton for bringing forward this bill. I think we are

1:36:42 > 1:36:45all largely in agreement that a review is needed. Updating

1:36:45 > 1:36:51boundaries is a vital part of the functioning of our electoral system.

1:36:51 > 1:36:55However it must proceed in a way which benefits are all democracy and

1:36:55 > 1:37:02not just the short-term interests of one particular party. We only

1:37:02 > 1:37:06opposition side strongly oppose a reduction in the number of

1:37:06 > 1:37:10parliamentary constituencies and we welcome measures in this bill to

1:37:10 > 1:37:15maintain the size of the House of Commons at 650 members. Correcting a

1:37:15 > 1:37:22decision taken by the coalition government for a House of Commons of

1:37:22 > 1:37:26600 members. A purely arbitrary number for which no logical case has

1:37:26 > 1:37:33been made and the cynic in me would suggest that it was chosen purely

1:37:33 > 1:37:40for political advantage. The lack of clarity from the government has

1:37:40 > 1:37:44concerned many across the chamber. I will give way.

1:37:44 > 1:37:48>> weather-mac: I am grateful, the logical case is that it is less and

1:37:48 > 1:38:00therefore the costs will be less, is that not logical?I will come onto

1:38:00 > 1:38:03those points because the cost of politics is already being cut in a

1:38:03 > 1:38:07number of ways and the duty on this house is to ensure that the

1:38:07 > 1:38:13government is held to account and my concerns about this particular

1:38:13 > 1:38:19proposal is that it lessens scrutiny on the government of the day and

1:38:19 > 1:38:23that might not in future be a Conservative government and I would

1:38:23 > 1:38:27hope that the honourable gentleman would want to preserve his rights

1:38:27 > 1:38:32when he's sitting on the side of the house to hold the future Labour

1:38:32 > 1:38:39government to account. Madam Deputy Speaker, the lack of clarity has

1:38:39 > 1:38:43concerned many across this chamber. The current boundary review is

1:38:43 > 1:38:47proceeding in accordance with legislation, however according to

1:38:47 > 1:38:51three senior sources quoted in The Times the plan is likely to be

1:38:51 > 1:38:56scrapped due to a lack of support from the Conservative benches.

1:38:56 > 1:39:03Perhaps demonstrating that this, that this is going to be the latest

1:39:03 > 1:39:07casualty following the Prime Minister's failure to win a majority

1:39:07 > 1:39:12in June. If the review is going to be ditched then I say to the

1:39:12 > 1:39:18government stop wasting public money. This is a sure rad. Let's

1:39:18 > 1:39:22ditch the review now, and let's start a fresh review based on the

1:39:22 > 1:39:28principles we can all agree on. Because suggestions that this is

1:39:28 > 1:39:32being done to cut the cost of politics are red herrings. The claim

1:39:32 > 1:39:38of savings, I will not give way again, they claimed savings of £30

1:39:38 > 1:39:44million per year is dwarfed by the £34 million annual cost of the 260

1:39:44 > 1:39:49extra peers appointed by the former Prime Minister and can the

1:39:49 > 1:39:52government seriously talk about cutting the cost of politics after

1:39:52 > 1:40:00offering billion pounds to the DUP? The contradictions in the government

1:40:00 > 1:40:04arguments are so blatant it's insulting. This bill put forward by

1:40:04 > 1:40:09my honourable friend the member for Manchester Gorton would also see

1:40:09 > 1:40:13potential savings by requiring the boundary commissions to report every

1:40:13 > 1:40:18ten years rather than every five years. The government claims that a

1:40:18 > 1:40:22reduction will bring the number of MPs down into line with that of

1:40:22 > 1:40:34similar size legislatures. By cutting the number of MPs and making

1:40:34 > 1:40:40their constituencies bigger and more remote the government in danger the

1:40:40 > 1:40:45current MP constituency link. That is envied by democracies across the

1:40:45 > 1:40:51world. I will not give way again because there are many members who

1:40:51 > 1:40:56want to speak in this debate. Cutting 50 MPs also represents a

1:40:56 > 1:41:03crisis of scrutiny, I concern raised by the Electoral Reform Society.

1:41:03 > 1:41:06Under current proposals the reduction would be made entirely

1:41:06 > 1:41:10from the backbenches and the honourable lady in the PPS bench can

1:41:10 > 1:41:18shake her head but there are no proposals to register number of

1:41:18 > 1:41:24ministers. This would only increase executive dominance in a parliament

1:41:24 > 1:41:29of 600 and undermine the influence of scrutiny from the backbenches. I

1:41:29 > 1:41:34will not give way. And as our great nation prepares to leave the

1:41:34 > 1:41:38European Union the need for parliamentary scrutiny, and I know

1:41:38 > 1:41:41it is unfashionable on the benches opposite who will not even take part

1:41:41 > 1:41:46in opposition day debate votes, but the need for parliamentary scrutiny

1:41:46 > 1:41:47has never been greater.

1:41:47 > 1:41:53scrutiny has never been greater.

1:41:53 > 1:41:57We are also losing 73 members of the European Parliament. That is cutting

1:41:57 > 1:42:03the cost of politics. We will be taking on more powers, more

1:42:03 > 1:42:06responsibilities, more legislative work. And it is right that we have

1:42:06 > 1:42:12the ability to do that without hindrance. That is another reason

1:42:12 > 1:42:20why we oppose the reduction in the number of MPs. I want to touch

1:42:20 > 1:42:23briefly on Northern Ireland. I am aware that are Northern Ireland

1:42:23 > 1:42:29colleagues have raised concerns. It could potentially undermine the

1:42:29 > 1:42:36political stability in the province. My honourable friend for Manchester

1:42:36 > 1:42:40Golden has clearly listened and responded accordingly. We on this

1:42:40 > 1:42:45side welcome measures in the build to have a fixed allocation of 18

1:42:45 > 1:42:49members of this house, and to keep the protected areas already

1:42:49 > 1:42:54legislated for in 2011. Our opposition is shared by many. The

1:42:54 > 1:42:58Hansard Society found no rationale for the government's decision,

1:42:58 > 1:43:01noting that there was a real concern that the numbers had been plucked

1:43:01 > 1:43:08from thin air, 600 simply being a neat number. The political and

1:43:08 > 1:43:11constitutional reform committee called on the government to reverse

1:43:11 > 1:43:15the decision. The committee stated that there had been a complete

1:43:15 > 1:43:22absence of consultation or research into the impact on members' roles

1:43:22 > 1:43:29and functions. On the electoral roll, constituencies must reflect

1:43:29 > 1:43:34the communities they serve. This government may try to stack the deck

1:43:34 > 1:43:38in their favour by drawing boundaries based on the December

1:43:38 > 1:43:442015 electoral register, but since then, over 2 million more people

1:43:44 > 1:43:46have been added to the electoral role following the increase in the

1:43:46 > 1:43:54EU referendum and at the 2017 general election. It is easy for the

1:43:54 > 1:43:58right Honourable member for the Forest of Dean to say that the first

1:43:58 > 1:44:02review would result in major changes and subsequent reviews there would

1:44:02 > 1:44:08be minor changes. But that depends where the additional registration

1:44:08 > 1:44:13has taken place. In Bristol West, in the run-up to the general election,

1:44:13 > 1:44:18there was a 12% increase in registration. Similar large

1:44:18 > 1:44:22increases in Leeds Central, Leeds South West, Bethnal Green,

1:44:22 > 1:44:27Wolverhampton South East... 1.1 million additional voters were added

1:44:27 > 1:44:33to the register in this year alone. And a third of those were in London

1:44:33 > 1:44:39and the South East. So if you have concentrations of increases, you

1:44:39 > 1:44:44have the domino effect that we have all been subject to in this first

1:44:44 > 1:44:51major review. So subsequent reviews will also be pretty extensive. And I

1:44:51 > 1:44:58just want to conclude by saying that any constitutional changes should be

1:44:58 > 1:45:05done fairly and with everyone given a voice. This is not what the

1:45:05 > 1:45:09government and the boundary review has done. We therefore welcome the

1:45:09 > 1:45:17bill which addresses these failings and sets an electorate calculation

1:45:17 > 1:45:22using the 2017 electoral roll. It has been clear from the start that

1:45:22 > 1:45:27the government have only been interested in a political advantage,

1:45:27 > 1:45:31rather than what is in the best interest of this country. We

1:45:31 > 1:45:35therefore welcome this bill. It will address the failings of this

1:45:35 > 1:45:40government and ensure a fresh boundary review can go ahead in a

1:45:40 > 1:45:46way that benefits our democracy and not just the narrow interests of the

1:45:46 > 1:45:54Conservative Party. Mr Bernard Jenkin.Thank you, Madam

1:45:54 > 1:45:57Deputy Speaker. In answer to the honourable member for Denton and

1:45:57 > 1:46:02Reddish who has just sat down, in answer to the honourable member for

1:46:02 > 1:46:07Denton and Reddish who has just sat down, I would simply point out he

1:46:07 > 1:46:12accuses us of pursuing political advantage. Actually, we are pursuing

1:46:12 > 1:46:17a fairer distribution of constituencies, which may be to our

1:46:17 > 1:46:22advantage, but I'm afraid I think that puts this side of the house on

1:46:22 > 1:46:30the moral high ground, not defending the present distribution of

1:46:30 > 1:46:35constituencies, which is clearly unfair. I will return to that point.

1:46:35 > 1:46:38I do congratulate the honourable member firm Manchester Gorton in his

1:46:38 > 1:46:43place, for having moved this bill. We are all a little suspicious he

1:46:43 > 1:46:48might have had some help. The enthusiasm of the opposition front

1:46:48 > 1:46:54bench for this bill suggests that... We all like co-operating with our

1:46:54 > 1:46:58colleagues in this house, don't we? The remit of the Constitutional

1:46:58 > 1:47:02affairs committee includes the requirement to consider

1:47:02 > 1:47:06constitutional matters. This includes parliamentary elections and

1:47:06 > 1:47:10boundaries. I draw the house's attention to the report issued by

1:47:10 > 1:47:14her predecessor committee, the public Administration select

1:47:14 > 1:47:21committee, in the 2010 Parliament, entitled, smaller government, what

1:47:21 > 1:47:25do ministers do? This addresses the consequences of reducing the size of

1:47:25 > 1:47:28the House of Commons on the relationship between the House of

1:47:28 > 1:47:31Commons and the government, which has already been touched upon. I

1:47:31 > 1:47:36will return to this later. The views I express today are my own. But I

1:47:36 > 1:47:40approach consideration of this bill in the spirit of the core purpose,

1:47:40 > 1:47:47namely to conduct robust scrutiny to create conditions where the public

1:47:47 > 1:47:52can have justified confidence in public services and government. This

1:47:52 > 1:47:55leads me immediately to express concern about one key provision of

1:47:55 > 1:48:01the bill. The house can note with satisfaction, and I think my

1:48:01 > 1:48:04honourable friend from the Forest of Dean, right Honourable friend,

1:48:04 > 1:48:09should accept this with satisfaction. The new bill accepts a

1:48:09 > 1:48:14number of key principles established in the 2011 act. It accepts that the

1:48:14 > 1:48:17size of the House of Commons should be restricted to a defined number.

1:48:17 > 1:48:23That has never been the case before. Preventing a return to the so-called

1:48:23 > 1:48:25ratchet effect, which tended to increase the size of the house as

1:48:25 > 1:48:31the population grows. It accepts the principle of an electoral quota over

1:48:31 > 1:48:34any other statutory factor in determining the size of a

1:48:34 > 1:48:38constituency. It accepts the 2011 revision of the consultation process

1:48:38 > 1:48:44and a rib removal of interim reviews. -- removal. I ask myself

1:48:44 > 1:48:50why it doesn't accept by the deviation from quotas should be

1:48:50 > 1:48:58limited to 5% rather than changing it to 7.5%? If one believes in

1:48:58 > 1:49:02electoral equality and fairness, then the existing 5% -- achieves

1:49:02 > 1:49:10this more effectively than 7.5%. For a demographic reasons, why the

1:49:10 > 1:49:15disparity in constituency sizes has historically favoured the Labour

1:49:15 > 1:49:18Party in England. The fact that this bill does not propose returning to

1:49:18 > 1:49:24the 10% deviation implicitly concedes the substance of the

1:49:24 > 1:49:32equality argument that the Labour Party previously supported. That the

1:49:32 > 1:49:3610% deviation was unfair. The fact that the Boundary Commission has for

1:49:36 > 1:49:40the most part completed its recommendations for new boundaries,

1:49:40 > 1:49:42allowing only 5% deviation, also confirms this is perfectly

1:49:42 > 1:49:51achievable. Now to propose a 7.5% will simply turn the clock back

1:49:51 > 1:49:56against against -- again against a fairer voting system. Unless the

1:49:56 > 1:50:00proposal of the bill could somehow argue that 7.5% is actually fairer,

1:50:00 > 1:50:05and therefore will command more public confidence, he should concede

1:50:05 > 1:50:08the 5% deviation should be maintained. Of course there will be

1:50:08 > 1:50:12some communities who feel they were put into the wrong constituency.

1:50:12 > 1:50:17This always occurs, whatever the rules say. And let me just say, I

1:50:17 > 1:50:21can be personally completely neutral on this point, the constituency I've

1:50:21 > 1:50:26represent is not just the same more or less as it will be after these

1:50:26 > 1:50:31boundary changes, though I sadly would lose Harwich, the town of

1:50:31 > 1:50:36Harwich itself, but the constituency that Samuel Pepys represented when

1:50:36 > 1:50:41he was first elected in 1679 is almost identical to the shape of the

1:50:41 > 1:50:54constituency I've represent today. I'm not going to leave my diaries!

1:50:54 > 1:50:57Those of us that have coastal constituencies, I think we are

1:50:57 > 1:51:02innocent bystanders to some of the turbulence that affects

1:51:02 > 1:51:07constituencies inland. I think we should sympathise with that. I

1:51:07 > 1:51:10thought the point made by the honourable member for Perry Barr,

1:51:10 > 1:51:15not in his place at the moment, is not to be dismissed. We do like to

1:51:15 > 1:51:20be elected and to serve as leaders in our communities. If those

1:51:20 > 1:51:24communities are not coherent, it does make it more difficult. But

1:51:24 > 1:51:28let's be absolutely clear. That is an ancillary purpose of being

1:51:28 > 1:51:34elected a member of Parliament. Our primary job is to represent in the

1:51:34 > 1:51:37national interest and our constituents in Parliament, not to

1:51:37 > 1:51:41represent Parliament in our constituencies. Sometimes I think in

1:51:41 > 1:51:46many of these debates about the role of MPs we tend to lose sight, and

1:51:46 > 1:51:52others tends to lose sight of our primary purpose. The present

1:51:52 > 1:51:59legislation has provided for exceptions, such as the four Island

1:51:59 > 1:52:01constituencies and geographically large consistencies. That is

1:52:01 > 1:52:05accepted in the bill. But the 5% rule has been accepted in nearly

1:52:05 > 1:52:09every other part of the country. Perhaps the Labour supporters of

1:52:09 > 1:52:16this bill do in fact prefer the 7.5% deviation. Precisely because they

1:52:16 > 1:52:22believe it may advantage their party. I fully accept that my

1:52:22 > 1:52:29party... I fully accept that my party is keen on the 5% but only

1:52:29 > 1:52:34because it reduces potential unfair electoral disadvantage. It cannot be

1:52:34 > 1:52:39argued we have made the electoral system that is fair. On the use of

1:52:39 > 1:52:42more up-to-date electoral data, I have considerably more sympathy with

1:52:42 > 1:52:47the bill. There is no doubt that the fresher the date of the better. But

1:52:47 > 1:52:50I'd take the point raised by my honourable friend for the Forest of

1:52:50 > 1:52:56Dean, it which, in the tangle of his rather long speech, this was by far

1:52:56 > 1:53:02the most important point. We can't jump at this opportunity to change

1:53:02 > 1:53:12the legislation until we are certain that the other insurmountable

1:53:12 > 1:53:17problems caused by the cancellation of the current boundary review. I

1:53:17 > 1:53:22can assure my right honourable friend and the Minister that we will

1:53:22 > 1:53:25be taking evidence from the Boundary Commissions in the New Year and will

1:53:25 > 1:53:29be asking them for a clear advice on this question. I am sure our

1:53:29 > 1:53:33questions will want to pick up many of the points raised today. On the

1:53:33 > 1:53:38size of the House of Commons, I am actually rather sympathetic with the

1:53:38 > 1:53:45retention of 650 constituencies. We have heard in evidence how Brexit

1:53:45 > 1:53:49means that part of government are having to increase their resources

1:53:49 > 1:53:51to manage their responsibilities that have been repatriated from the

1:53:51 > 1:53:55EU. This will give MPs more responsibilities as well. And more

1:53:55 > 1:54:02powers. Not less. More UK government activities to scrutinise, more areas

1:54:02 > 1:54:06of policy to consider, which are a direct responsibility of government

1:54:06 > 1:54:11because more legislation. As we leave the EU, we are also conducting

1:54:11 > 1:54:15an enquiry into the consequences for devolution in the UK. This is

1:54:15 > 1:54:25leading me to consider... First, this devolution of primary

1:54:25 > 1:54:29legislative powers only applies to a relatively small part of the

1:54:29 > 1:54:32population. There is no devolution of legislative powers in England,

1:54:32 > 1:54:36which is 85% of the UK population. And therefore, no meaningful

1:54:36 > 1:54:42reduction in responsibilities at least English MPs. The present size

1:54:42 > 1:54:45of the house already reflects a reduction of representation in

1:54:45 > 1:54:49Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. And thirdly, it is becoming

1:54:49 > 1:54:52apparent that devolution within the UK is far from being finished

1:54:52 > 1:54:57business. Again I would refer to a report produced just this week

1:54:57 > 1:55:04entitled devolution and leaving the EU, matters to consider. Devolution

1:55:04 > 1:55:09has previously been considered a binary question. Either powers are

1:55:09 > 1:55:16preserved or devolved. On matters like agriculture and environmental

1:55:16 > 1:55:18protection, we find there are powers we have to share between

1:55:18 > 1:55:27Westminster, Holyrood macro -- Holyrood, Stormont and Cardiff.

1:55:27 > 1:55:31There is no interparliamentary machinery. This is necessary to

1:55:31 > 1:55:35provide reassurance and proper procedures for resolving

1:55:35 > 1:55:37disagreements, and for scrutinising these agreements. And failure to

1:55:37 > 1:55:42resolve these agreements amicably can become toxic, as we are seeing

1:55:42 > 1:55:55in the debate over clause 11, the EU Withdrawal Bill.

1:55:55 > 1:56:02This brutal only be resolved when there is understanding between --

1:56:02 > 1:56:07this will only work if there is an understanding between ministers.

1:56:07 > 1:56:09Such institutional machinery will take up the time and energy of

1:56:09 > 1:56:15ministers and MPs and will be prominently required, as we see is

1:56:15 > 1:56:19common in other decentralised nations. -- permanently required.

1:56:19 > 1:56:25Now was not the time to address parliamentary capacity. The member

1:56:25 > 1:56:29for Forest of Dean referred to the fact that this House is one of the

1:56:29 > 1:56:36largest law houses, that's a false comparison, simply because the House

1:56:36 > 1:56:39of Lords is not elected. We argue only elected part of this

1:56:39 > 1:56:53Parliament. -- we regularly. In France, there is an elected Senate

1:56:53 > 1:57:00of 348 members. There are 925 elected parliamentarians serving the

1:57:00 > 1:57:04whole of France. We don't have that comparable number in this House and

1:57:04 > 1:57:11we are not planning to. The number of MPs in the House of Commons has

1:57:11 > 1:57:16not been below 600 and 8000, when our population was considerably

1:57:16 > 1:57:22smaller than it is today. After the Republic of Ireland seeded in 1921,

1:57:22 > 1:57:27the number dropped to 615. But this was when the Government was spending

1:57:27 > 1:57:32well under 30% of GDP, much of that on foreign affairs on defence.

1:57:32 > 1:57:39Little Welford, no NHS. Little new legislation. Far fewer public

1:57:39 > 1:57:45bodies. The workload of the Government has increased. The vast

1:57:45 > 1:57:57majority of members are full-time parliamentarians. Full-time. This is

1:57:57 > 1:58:04increased around two dozen per year in the 1950s, 3000 or more per year.

1:58:04 > 1:58:08Brexit means there will be war. If we're going to stick to its present

1:58:08 > 1:58:16size of the House of 600 and... If not going to stick to the present

1:58:16 > 1:58:22size of 650 MPs, then the 2011 act, which reduces the present House to

1:58:22 > 1:58:29600, sits ill on our statute book, unless we also address the

1:58:29 > 1:58:37consequences for the number of ministers. My predecessor as chair,

1:58:37 > 1:58:41tawny white, red concerns about the numbers of ministers in Government

1:58:41 > 1:58:47and the impact of this on the payroll Haven Baulk Avenue. This

1:58:47 > 1:58:57report was entitled Too Many Ministers. . The number of ministers

1:58:57 > 1:59:02has doubled from 60 to 120, the rate of increased particularly marked for

1:59:02 > 1:59:09those below Cabinet level. Further enquiry in 2011 and a smaller

1:59:09 > 1:59:20Government, what ministers do? The art has a larger in 2010, the ratio

1:59:20 > 1:59:28of ministers in the House of Commons was 1- outcome 31-14 in Spain and

1:59:28 > 1:59:321-29 in France. The increase in the number of ministers has several

1:59:32 > 1:59:37detrimental effects. I appreciate this is not a popular topic amongst

1:59:37 > 1:59:47MPs these days, with ambitious MPs that were to become members of the

1:59:47 > 1:59:51Cabinet. This is of a speedy one of the reasons why the number of

1:59:51 > 1:59:55ministers has increased. -- this has obviously been one of the reasons.

1:59:55 > 1:59:59There are downsides, it adds to the cost of politics. More ministers

1:59:59 > 2:00:06make more decisions more complicated. Why has the Cabinet

2:00:06 > 2:00:19grown in size? It blurs size of sensibility. Those hold a Government

2:00:19 > 2:00:23job are expected to vote with the Government resign and the increase

2:00:23 > 2:00:29in the number of ministers undermines this. If we reject this

2:00:29 > 2:00:33bill and copy size of the House of Commons, let's agree at least that

2:00:33 > 2:00:38the number of ministers should be reduced pro rata saw that the ratio

2:00:38 > 2:00:47does not get worse. In 2011, there was a reduction and they should be a

2:00:47 > 2:00:51corresponding reduction in the number of ministers. -- the

2:00:51 > 2:00:56recommendations of a reduction and if they are put into place, there

2:00:56 > 2:01:04should be a corresponding reduction. There is a limit to 95 in terms of

2:01:04 > 2:01:13the number of ministers. The ministerial and other salaries act

2:01:13 > 2:01:15limited number of ministerial salaries that can be paid to a total

2:01:15 > 2:01:22of 109. This does not limit Prime Minister aerial partridge in other

2:01:22 > 2:01:30ways. I'm paid whips and other informal appointments. -- such as

2:01:30 > 2:01:35whips who are not paid. It doesn't limit the number of unpaid ministers

2:01:35 > 2:01:41that can sit. There is also such a thing as a new breed of quasi

2:01:41 > 2:01:43minister, the important of nonexecutive directors of

2:01:43 > 2:01:46ministerial departments. This has become a pathway to becoming a

2:01:46 > 2:01:51minister. A great number of those fully a valuable role. There is no

2:01:51 > 2:01:59lack of capacity for Prime Minister is to be able to influence and

2:01:59 > 2:02:05control Government departments. This is not the reason that we need to

2:02:05 > 2:02:11maintain the number of ministers. We need a reduction of ministers and

2:02:11 > 2:02:15the House of Commons by just 7%. I think this is an important

2:02:15 > 2:02:20principle. Should we make this a condition of inventing the 2018

2:02:20 > 2:02:24boundaries review at 600 seats? I'll leave that question hanging in the

2:02:24 > 2:02:28air. If the reduction is made without reducing the number of

2:02:28 > 2:02:34ministers, the percentage of MPs that are ministers rises from 14.6

2:02:34 > 2:02:41to 15.8, more significantly, paid represent 30% of Conservative MPs.

2:02:41 > 2:02:48Between the parties, this would become 33%, and one third of the

2:02:48 > 2:02:52Government's MPs being paid by the Government. We are meant to against

2:02:52 > 2:03:02bribery -- and corruption these days but this is an example of that.

2:03:02 > 2:03:08There could be appointing a larger number of ministers from outside the

2:03:08 > 2:03:11House of Commons, increasing the number of ministers from the other

2:03:11 > 2:03:14place or appointing ministers not members of either House. It's only a

2:03:14 > 2:03:19convention that ministers are member of Parliament. A conclusion, I

2:03:19 > 2:03:24cannot support the bill as it stands but I do regret my party has become

2:03:24 > 2:03:26impaled on this commitment to reduce the number of MPs and House of

2:03:26 > 2:03:29Commons because I did not seek colleagues any product they House

2:03:29 > 2:03:35hanging around without enough to do, I also regret that this reduction

2:03:35 > 2:03:42goes out in a de facto reducing, patronage. -- reducing Government

2:03:42 > 2:03:48patronage. If they could do it in time for 2022 general election,

2:03:48 > 2:03:53allowing for a 5% reduction against the electoral quota, I would hazard

2:03:53 > 2:03:58a guess that a majority in this House would settle for that. It

2:03:58 > 2:04:01would help us to continue to be the challenge of our workload, it would

2:04:01 > 2:04:09be less destructive and it would not covertly increased the patronage of

2:04:09 > 2:04:17Government in this House.David Drew.It's a pleasure to follow the

2:04:17 > 2:04:25honourable gentleman for hurricane of physics. It was interesting here

2:04:25 > 2:04:30your my neighbour's contribution. We wave at one another from across the

2:04:30 > 2:04:35River Severn. It's both interesting and somewhat ironic that both his

2:04:35 > 2:04:38colleagues didn't seem to agree with him as much as I'm going to disagree

2:04:38 > 2:04:42with him. Perhaps it's because he was a member of the executive and

2:04:42 > 2:04:46some of us haven't had that opportunity. I shall keep my remarks

2:04:46 > 2:04:55much briefer than he did but I want to make a contribution because,

2:04:55 > 2:04:59quite have the, I support my honourable friend, the member for

2:04:59 > 2:05:05Manchester Gorton, I think it is right and proper that we keep the

2:05:05 > 2:05:12size of this House as it is. It's somewhat ludicrous that, with an

2:05:12 > 2:05:15ever-increasing population from terrorism, we seem to be reducing

2:05:15 > 2:05:23the representative numbers of this House. -- population for whatever

2:05:23 > 2:05:27reason. It is important to look at how we save money. There are other

2:05:27 > 2:05:31and better ways in which we can do this, not least in which some of us

2:05:31 > 2:05:36would argue it include scrapping the House of Lords. That would be for

2:05:36 > 2:05:42another day, another debate. My argumentstarts with the fact that,

2:05:42 > 2:05:47contrary to what my ordinary neighbour said, I was stopped by

2:05:47 > 2:05:52some difference of hunting, which is now in the Cotswolds constituency,

2:05:52 > 2:05:59begging me to take a kiss on my path, asking -- to take up a case on

2:05:59 > 2:06:04their behalf, asking me to help them. I argued the case for keeping

2:06:04 > 2:06:10Richard Hatton as part of strong. You can hardly describe

2:06:10 > 2:06:19Minchinhampton as the bastion of socialism. This probably as strong a

2:06:19 > 2:06:22conservative would I have with the mega- citrusy. I feel that

2:06:22 > 2:06:26locational representation matters in this place. It matters more than we

2:06:26 > 2:06:31think it does to the people outside. They like to know who the MPS, they

2:06:31 > 2:06:36may not always agree with them, we may not always be of the same party

2:06:36 > 2:06:39but they know enough when they come to us with their problems who we

2:06:39 > 2:06:45are, what we can do and what we should do. The relationship to our

2:06:45 > 2:06:51local authority matters. If the proposals go through, as they are

2:06:51 > 2:06:59currently constituted, the Stroud district, only 110,000 people, will

2:06:59 > 2:07:03be repetitive by three different MPs. I think this leads to confusion

2:07:03 > 2:07:10and bitterness because people want to know who the MPS and they want to

2:07:10 > 2:07:14have a relationship with the local authority. I will give way briefly.

2:07:14 > 2:07:17He seems to make a case for having no elections at all and I find that

2:07:17 > 2:07:25somewhat bizarre.Somebody has stood in seven parliamentary elections and

2:07:25 > 2:07:29knows his every better than the honourable gentleman, as take that

2:07:29 > 2:07:34as a slight rather than a positive intervention. -- as somebody who has

2:07:34 > 2:07:39stood in seven parliamentary elections diagnosis area. Geography

2:07:39 > 2:07:49matters, ties to any of the matters, -- ties to and area matters. I

2:07:49 > 2:07:55couldn't represent any other area, no other area would have me! I am

2:07:55 > 2:08:00quite simply the MP for Stroud. I would never stand for anybody else

2:08:00 > 2:08:04because I believe that's what I'm best at, that's what I think I can

2:08:04 > 2:08:09even stubble job, I'd been elected four times, lost four times but I'm

2:08:09 > 2:08:15ahead at the moment. -- I think I do a reasonable job, I've been elected.

2:08:15 > 2:08:21It didn't help my predecessor, who lifted constituency office, which

2:08:21 > 2:08:29went down rather badly with his constituencies. -- who moved his

2:08:29 > 2:08:32constituency office. There is something to be said, it was always

2:08:32 > 2:08:35the case that geographical representation was a stronger hold

2:08:35 > 2:08:42on the way in which we were decided on the electoral pollution ships,

2:08:42 > 2:08:47than purely by numbers. -- the way in which we decided on a electoral

2:08:47 > 2:08:53relationships, don't cruelly by numbers. We may as well go by the

2:08:53 > 2:08:56Soviet system, they don't have names just a number for these

2:08:56 > 2:09:10constituencies. It has been referred to already, the 2015 political and

2:09:10 > 2:09:14constitutional reform committee, which established, I have to say,

2:09:14 > 2:09:19the Government's approach in the way it was wanting to reduce the number

2:09:19 > 2:09:25of MPs. -- which savaged, I have to say. We shouldn't just look at the

2:09:25 > 2:09:34numbers. It argued a cause for 10% service, which I would adjective. --

2:09:34 > 2:09:37I don't mind representing more people. I won't give window because

2:09:37 > 2:09:43other people want to speak. I would rather other people in this

2:09:43 > 2:09:56district. That means all electors... And it is important that we tried

2:09:56 > 2:09:59those relationships together. Anything undermining them I think is

2:09:59 > 2:10:05a thing and undermines very briefly. I thank the honourable member of a

2:10:05 > 2:10:10giveaway.Does he concede that it is impossible for an MP to give another

2:10:10 > 2:10:14level of service that has half the amount of constituents? He is

2:10:14 > 2:10:19actually doing down our democracy by suggesting that we continue to

2:10:19 > 2:10:22increase the variation between constituencies.The honest answer is

2:10:22 > 2:10:28no. And it up to my colleagues representing urban constituencies I

2:10:28 > 2:10:31know that their casework, which consists of much more on the

2:10:31 > 2:10:39immigration front than I would, that will take them and all fully long --

2:10:39 > 2:10:43and of the greater amount of time that I would many of the cases I

2:10:43 > 2:10:51deal with. It does appear that -- it doesn't mean that I end up with an

2:10:51 > 2:10:53easier load. Constituencies have different profiles and we should

2:10:53 > 2:10:58reflect that. I want to bring my remarks to a speedy conclusion

2:10:58 > 2:11:01because... I'm not giving away any more. I think it's important that

2:11:01 > 2:11:06this bill is given proper airtime, I could argue that point but the

2:11:06 > 2:11:13tempers of variance. But more than anything it is important that we

2:11:13 > 2:11:17have a proper debate on the appropriate numbers, referred about

2:11:17 > 2:11:23the arguments about the executive Bruce backbenchers, -- the executive

2:11:23 > 2:11:28versus backbenchers. It's important to look at the importance of

2:11:28 > 2:11:32locational representation so that people know who they elect, whether

2:11:32 > 2:11:37their parish council, District Council, county council, MP, because

2:11:37 > 2:11:46it would not be any peace any more, that line of accountability follows.

2:11:46 > 2:11:52Anything undermining this is a jolly bad thing.

2:11:52 > 2:11:59It is about power to rather than power over. That is about how we

2:11:59 > 2:12:06evolve representation. I get very worried when we come up with a

2:12:06 > 2:12:09figure plucked out of the air and we tell people that that is not

2:12:09 > 2:12:15important in terms of who represents them and comes from. So I will very

2:12:15 > 2:12:20much support this bill. Hopefully we will have a proper debate at

2:12:20 > 2:12:28committee and report stage. But I think it is right as all members, as

2:12:28 > 2:12:33Labour recognise, that we have got in the current arrangement is the

2:12:33 > 2:12:38wrong arrangements. It is a pleasure to have a chance to

2:12:38 > 2:12:46speak in this debate, to follow two of my constituency neighbours. My

2:12:46 > 2:12:51right honourable member might -- my right honourable friend from the

2:12:51 > 2:13:00first team made a very good speech. I may not be as fluent or have the

2:13:00 > 2:13:05same stamina! I will return to some of the points my neighbour in Stroud

2:13:05 > 2:13:11made. I can't agree with him on a couple of points he made about

2:13:11 > 2:13:14geographical representation. I was thought the primary rivers and --

2:13:14 > 2:13:20reason for these boundary changes was to have more equal sized

2:13:20 > 2:13:22constituencies sora constituents could be more fairly represented in

2:13:22 > 2:13:34this place. There are huge variances. That has had the effect

2:13:34 > 2:13:38of making some people's vote count more or less than others, depending

2:13:38 > 2:13:43on where they live. Clearly equal representation in this place is a

2:13:43 > 2:13:52fundamental democratic principle. It is proper boundaries reflect that.

2:13:52 > 2:13:56In my own constituency the electorate is around 68,000

2:13:56 > 2:14:00electrics. In the neighbouring constituency of the Cotswolds, that

2:14:00 > 2:14:07is around 80,000. My neighbour from Stroud is around 80 3000. While I

2:14:07 > 2:14:14understand there are bigger variances around the country, there

2:14:14 > 2:14:18is a 50,000 -- 15,000 variants between two neighbouring

2:14:18 > 2:14:25constituencies. I have a large constituency insurer geographical

2:14:25 > 2:14:32terms. Thornbury and Yate is larger than Kingswood, the constituency of

2:14:32 > 2:14:39the Minister and the front bench, and another constituency in the

2:14:39 > 2:14:46region. I echo the point that surely the job of a member of Parliament is

2:14:46 > 2:14:50to represent the people who live in that constituency and not the land

2:14:50 > 2:14:56in that constituency. It is the people that matter. I completely

2:14:56 > 2:15:01endorse there are a number of very small exceptions to this rule been

2:15:01 > 2:15:06discussed, Shetland, the Isle of Wight... But surely the people of

2:15:06 > 2:15:11Stroud and the Cotswolds deserve the same representation that the people

2:15:11 > 2:15:19of Thornbury in Yate get. We talked a lot about local representation.

2:15:19 > 2:15:23The local town of Charfield, which no doubt he knows very well, which

2:15:23 > 2:15:27has close link to some towns in his own constituency, share a lot of

2:15:27 > 2:15:31local services and local identity. And of course in the proposed

2:15:31 > 2:15:37boundary changes they would become part of the same constituency. And I

2:15:37 > 2:15:44do think that is right, that people in those towns don't consider, when

2:15:44 > 2:15:48they go and use the GP in his constituency, like my constituents

2:15:48 > 2:15:52will use the shops in Wootton, they do not think about which local

2:15:52 > 2:15:56authority area it falls under. They think about the links in the

2:15:56 > 2:15:59community. I think it is right that under these new proposals we should

2:15:59 > 2:16:02also remember that a number of communities will be strengthened and

2:16:02 > 2:16:06brought together. It is not dividing communities that already exist. A

2:16:06 > 2:16:10lot of them will be improved by the current proposals that have been

2:16:10 > 2:16:14brought forward. Until that has been recognised in some of the public

2:16:14 > 2:16:18consultations, we look at the wards, perhaps, of Berkeley, which is brass

2:16:18 > 2:16:24one of the most conservative wards in both constituencies that we have

2:16:24 > 2:16:27combined, and perhaps even my honourable friend from the Forest of

2:16:27 > 2:16:34Dean as well. That was originally proposed to be part of a new

2:16:34 > 2:16:38constituency that largely forms part of Thornbury and Yate. Now it is

2:16:38 > 2:16:46proposed to move it back into the Stroud constituency. That is

2:16:46 > 2:16:50reflecting proper public consultation. It goes to show how,

2:16:50 > 2:16:54in that independent process, rather than a politically driven process,

2:16:54 > 2:16:57it is a positive thing. It is not particularly beneficial for either

2:16:57 > 2:17:03of the members of Parliament to represent those seats. I do accept a

2:17:03 > 2:17:08number of people have made point about the number moving to 600 not

2:17:08 > 2:17:13been perfect in itself. 650 is certainly not perfect. There has

2:17:13 > 2:17:24been some debate about the current provision that reviews be held every

2:17:24 > 2:17:29five years. The proposal in this bill is that that would be changed

2:17:29 > 2:17:33to ten years. I accept there are arguments around cost. Part of the

2:17:33 > 2:17:37reason I support boundary changes every five years is that I agree

2:17:37 > 2:17:40with my honourable friend, that surely it is better to have smaller

2:17:40 > 2:17:43and more frequent reviews that take into account the changes of the

2:17:43 > 2:17:49electorate, rather than what has happened over time, which is rather

2:17:49 > 2:17:52significant movement in the boundary changes, because they are so

2:17:52 > 2:17:57infrequent. Especially when we look at semirural areas that are

2:17:57 > 2:18:01expanding and taking on development. I look at the West of England, which

2:18:01 > 2:18:05is supposed to have 105,000 new homes between now and 2036. There

2:18:05 > 2:18:11are thousands of houses proposed. I talked about Charfield already. That

2:18:11 > 2:18:18is expecting -- expected to double in size if the proposals go through.

2:18:18 > 2:18:25These areas have larger changes because of development proposals. I

2:18:25 > 2:18:29think more regular reviews would be better able to take those changes

2:18:29 > 2:18:32into account, as development speed up in the years ahead in these types

2:18:32 > 2:18:40of areas. I want to perhaps touch on cost as well. I know a number of

2:18:40 > 2:18:47colleagues have discussed the cost saving element of this legislation.

2:18:47 > 2:18:55It is clearly very important. While not the primary focus of this bill.

2:18:55 > 2:19:01The primary focus is to address the imbalance of representation between

2:19:01 > 2:19:04constituencies. Reducing the cost of politics should be an important

2:19:04 > 2:19:09factor. We have heard a number of figures about what can be saved and

2:19:09 > 2:19:16pensions and allowances alone. And I think this should be just part of

2:19:16 > 2:19:21the effort to reduce the cost of politics more generally. We have

2:19:21 > 2:19:25seen pay freezes in recent years. Some local councils are taking a lot

2:19:25 > 2:19:29of action to reduce the elected number of officials as well. I look

2:19:29 > 2:19:32of my own local authority who are leading the way by reducing the

2:19:32 > 2:19:37number of district councillors by more than 10% in the next year. I do

2:19:37 > 2:19:43also put on record my appreciation of the work that South

2:19:43 > 2:19:51Gloucestershire Council has done by reducing and saving more than

2:19:51 > 2:19:56£100,000 a year just in council allowances alone. I just also want

2:19:56 > 2:20:01to make the point that was tossed on earlier, associated costs if we

2:20:01 > 2:20:06abandon this review at the current point. There have been so far more

2:20:06 > 2:20:11than 500 hours of public hearings, with the involvement of more than 20

2:20:11 > 2:20:16members of staff, 21 Assistant Commissioners and 14 videographers.

2:20:16 > 2:20:19There have been numerous public hearings across England. And the

2:20:19 > 2:20:23cost of scrapping all of that and redrawing the boundaries on the

2:20:23 > 2:20:27basis of this completely new proposal presumably run into many

2:20:27 > 2:20:30millions of pounds. I have had no proper estimate about how much that

2:20:30 > 2:20:34would cost. Where that money would come from and what the final bill

2:20:34 > 2:20:43would be. The bill that is being proposed today, that we are

2:20:43 > 2:20:48discussing, is repetition of what parties have done in the previous

2:20:48 > 2:20:53parliaments, with the sole aim to simply push away these proposals so

2:20:53 > 2:20:56that we can have the next general election and presumably the next one

2:20:56 > 2:21:00after that and after that, on the current boundaries, with boundaries

2:21:00 > 2:21:06that are based on figures, as mentioned, over 20 years out of

2:21:06 > 2:21:10date. I think that would be a genuine outrage to do that. The

2:21:10 > 2:21:14boundary review is conducted by the Boundary Commission, completely

2:21:14 > 2:21:23independent and partial, compliance with legal requirements and not

2:21:23 > 2:21:27political considerations is its priority. We would be ensuring that

2:21:27 > 2:21:31our constituents would not be fairly represented in this place and would

2:21:31 > 2:21:36not be equally and fairly hard. It would be a regressive step if this

2:21:36 > 2:21:40bill were to move forward. The central point here is that the votes

2:21:40 > 2:21:43of constituents should carry equal weight. If we do not have seeds of

2:21:43 > 2:21:48the same size, some constituencies are in effect being disenfranchised

2:21:48 > 2:21:51and do not have the same voice in this house. A big point was made

2:21:51 > 2:21:55about trust at the start of this debate. I don't think it will do

2:21:55 > 2:21:59anything to engender trust in politics, politicians and this

2:21:59 > 2:22:03place, if a party political move by the Labour Party to kick boundary

2:22:03 > 2:22:05changes into the long grass because they are worried about fighting

2:22:05 > 2:22:09another election on these boundaries, rather than fulfilling a

2:22:09 > 2:22:15manifesto commitment in the last two conservative manifestos. I say to

2:22:15 > 2:22:19the Labour Party, if the answer to a question is 50 more members of

2:22:19 > 2:22:25Parliament, they are asking the wrong question.

2:22:25 > 2:22:32May I try to answer the right question? Why the only measure the

2:22:32 > 2:22:36government is pushing on the reform of our disfigured electoral system

2:22:36 > 2:22:47is this question that we give them an advantage in numbers. I have got

2:22:47 > 2:22:51a vested interest in this which I will declare. I constituency will

2:22:51 > 2:22:58disappear if this bill goes through. -- my constituency. I've got a

2:22:58 > 2:23:01little regret that it will interrupt my promising parliamentary career

2:23:01 > 2:23:05just as I am beginning to get the hang of how this place works! That

2:23:05 > 2:23:11is not the reason I am speaking. It is revealing that the chair of the

2:23:11 > 2:23:19public administration committee had to hark back to 2010 to give us an

2:23:19 > 2:23:23example to quote on what was useful reform. I have been on the committee

2:23:23 > 2:23:31for three parliaments. I know that we've got at the moment a reputation

2:23:31 > 2:23:37which was described by the member for Manchester Gorton, is crucial.

2:23:37 > 2:23:44That is what we are about. The few people who are not watching, who are

2:23:44 > 2:23:49all in Nottingham this morning looking at these soporific exchanges

2:23:49 > 2:23:52were having here, may be surprised that we are being self-indulgent on

2:23:52 > 2:23:59this. We do have a reputation that fell to rock bottom when the

2:23:59 > 2:24:05expenses scandal took place. Our reputation is now subterranean. It

2:24:05 > 2:24:10is no worse than that. That is what we should be addressing. The

2:24:10 > 2:24:15weaknesses in our system. If we want every vote to count, we can do that

2:24:15 > 2:24:21with a PR system. We need a system that is fair, that represents the

2:24:21 > 2:24:26views of the people. In Wales for two parliaments in my time here, the

2:24:26 > 2:24:36Conservative Party won 20% of the vote in Wales. Outrageous. If they

2:24:36 > 2:24:40had the PR system in the United States, we would have been spared

2:24:40 > 2:24:45having a president who behaves like a petulant child. And we would have

2:24:45 > 2:24:49been saved the anger that we expressed yesterday. That is the

2:24:49 > 2:24:53major one. But there are other scandals that are certain to happen.

2:24:53 > 2:24:59What happened to the system of disciplining ministers? We had a

2:24:59 > 2:25:03system established under Gordon Brown in which two ministers were

2:25:03 > 2:25:10called under the adviser of ministerial interests. But since the

2:25:10 > 2:25:17Conservative government have taken over, that job has been subsumed

2:25:17 > 2:25:22against the ministry, and people are being judged, not by the adviser,

2:25:22 > 2:25:28whose job it is, but by civil servants and others. And in some

2:25:28 > 2:25:34cases, this happened, and we have a process now of absolution by

2:25:34 > 2:25:36resignation, that two ministers have resigned in order to conceal what

2:25:36 > 2:25:41they were accused of doing. One of them was accused of having meetings

2:25:41 > 2:25:51with Mossad outside a ministerial role. And another was accused of

2:25:51 > 2:25:53possibly considering money for international aid to the Israeli

2:25:53 > 2:25:59army. Those two people have lost their jobs. But they weren't

2:25:59 > 2:26:03disgraced in the way that they should have been. We have the case

2:26:03 > 2:26:09of two ministers giving £3 million to a charity which was the one that

2:26:09 > 2:26:15was favoured by the previous Prime Minister.

2:26:16 > 2:26:20I thank the honourable member for giving way. I am concerned we are

2:26:20 > 2:26:24going off the topic, would as an important one disgusting. I would

2:26:24 > 2:26:28like to get back to that. He says that he wants to make boards can't

2:26:28 > 2:26:35want. -- which is an important one that we are discussing.I accept

2:26:35 > 2:26:41entirely the logic behind this bill and the arithmetic there. All I am

2:26:41 > 2:26:46saying is that we have a massive programme of reform that is urgent

2:26:46 > 2:26:50and essential, the other part of this, the point I was going to say

2:26:50 > 2:26:57the other time, the two ministers who threw away £3 million to a very

2:26:57 > 2:27:01dodgy charity that went broke three days later, those ministers were

2:27:01 > 2:27:05never called to account by the Prime Minister, which should have been

2:27:05 > 2:27:13done. We have to reform this system, we need reform in Aqaba as well, a

2:27:13 > 2:27:20system where ministers, former generals, others, can be...Very

2:27:20 > 2:27:24good of the honourable gentleman to sit down when I raised my feet. What

2:27:24 > 2:27:30I was going to say politely, who is extremely experienced and extras, is