01/12/2017 House of Commons

Order! Order! Point of order. As

many of that opinion say aye, the

commentary no. Clear the lobby!

The house sitting in private, as

many of that opinion say aye.

Order!

VS to the right, zero. The noes to

the left, 169.

The ayes to the right, zero. The

noes to the left, 169. The noes have

it.

The clerk will now proceed to read

the orders of the day.

Parliamentary

constituencies Amendment Bill 's

second reading.

Just for the benefit

of the house, a point of order was

raised yesterday regarding the

publication of the parliamentary

constituencies Amendment Bill and I

think it might be helpful to make a

short statement on the matter. The

bill was initially made available in

hard copy online on Wednesday 29th

of November. It was identified on

Thursday morning and brought to the

attention of the Honourable member

for Manchester Gorton. The error

identified was not in any way the

fault of the member. It was an error

made during the manual inputting of

the text into the bill publishing

software. The public Bill office is

taking steps to improve its process

to ensure that this mistake is not

repeated with future bills. The

corrected version of the bill was

available online within 30 minutes

of the error being reported and the

hard copies were made available in

the vote of this within one hour and

ten minutes, five seconds...

LAUGHTER

And I am satisfied there will be no

infringement of the notice to the

requirements of the bill and just as

importantly, the error will not

reflect the debate place. We will

not be entering into any more points

of order on this particular subject.

Thank you Deputy Speaker. Can I

first of all thank you for the

clarification that you have given

this morning. I beg to move that the

parliamentary constituency Amendment

Bill be now read a second time. I am

a new part of parliament, but I have

been in politics for decades. In

this time I have seen trust in our

political system in road. Today,

only 20% of the UK just to

politicians at least to some degree.

The public already sees politicians

as remote, self-interested and

unaccountable. The current boundary

changes would make this worse. The

bill I present today would preserve

the MP constituency link, the power

to scrutinise the executive, and the

strength of our communities. It

would harness the engagement in

elections rather than reinforce the

trend towards disillusionment. This

is a debate about our democracy. I

stand to gain no advantage from the

change I am proposing. Under the

current review my constituency would

stay exactly the same. I am here to

speak for the good of Parliament,

not my own good. I will briefly set

out the five key arguments for my

bill, but I am keen to allow time

for contributions. First, the public

sees politicians as remote. The

boundary changes would take MPs even

further from their constituents. I

am fortunate that I can get from one

end of Manchester in Gorton, to the

other, in half an hour. Many

colleagues come from rural

constituencies that are already a

challenge to travel. As we reduce

the number of MPs, these

constituencies will get bigger. Take

the example of North Lincolnshire.

It would stretch from the edge of

the Lake District to the outskirts

of Blackpool and Preston. -- North

Lancashire. Covering more than half

the county. Practically, the only

argument the government uses to

reduce the number of MPs was to save

money. Apparently, around 13

million. This falls apart when we

consider that the previous two prime

ministers have appointed 260 life

peers between them at a cost of 34

million per year. Why increase the

size of the unelected House of

Lords, if you are really trying to

cut the cost of politics? There are

other ways to save money. Not

embarking on five yearly boundary

reviews that cost around 10 million

each would be a start. Gradually

reducing the number of MPs could

have been another. A drastic and

sudden reduction causes much more

disruption and costs more than is

necessary. Clearly, cost was not the

real motivation. It was an attempt

to gain political advantage. Second,

we cannot reduce... Give me more

time and I will give way to the

gentleman. Secondly, we can't reduce

the number of MPs without reducing

the size of the executive. With the

same proportions of MPs as now, 48%

of Conservatives would be on the

payroll. The job of the backbenchers

of both parties is to scrutinise

legislation and hold the government

to account. Reducing the number of

MPs would tip the balance of power

towards the executive. The charge

that politicians are unaccountable

would only be made stronger and

louder. What we would lose in

independent minded dissenters cannot

be justified by modest cost savings.

I will give way.

On his point about

the House of Lords, I of course was

the minister that try to bring in a

bill to make sure the other house

was elected. It was because the

party opposite wouldn't support the

programme motion that we were not

able to make progress. Let me pick

him up on the cost point. It is

indeed true that more members have

been appointed to the House of

Lords, but since 2010, the cost of

running the other place has actually

fallen each year...

Order. The

Honourable gentleman is hoping to

catch my eye early. I suggest he

saves his speech and she should know

it's short interventions. We have a

long day.

I hear what the Honourable

gentleman is saying, but the bottom

line is, if what we are trying to do

is save costs, why are you putting

more and more unelected people in

the House of Lords? Why are you

getting more and more special

advisers? It doesn't make sense. I

would prefer to have more elected

people.

I thank my honourable friend

for giving way. Would he also accept

what the political and

constitutional select committee said

in 2015, if the government after got

its way that they are trying to get,

it breaks all locational links. It

undermines completely the

representational basis of the house,

which is a very sad day.

I fully

agree with the Honourable gentleman.

Brexit legislation is passing

through Parliament and we are

undergoing one of the most

significant constitutional changes

in decades. We have already seen

from debates over the Henry VIII

powers that ministers will always

attempt to extend their power. At

this point in particular we must

fight to preserve our power of

scrutiny. MPs are taking on more and

more work. We are about to lose 73

MEPs. MPs will have to do absorb

that workload and will be able to

deliver less for our constituents. A

reduction in the number of MPs is a

threat to the power of backbenchers

and the accountability of

government. A healthy democracy

requires us to fight for it over and

over again. That is why my bill will

retain the number of MPs at 650.

Third, accountability is not just an

issue for government, but for

individual MPs as well. Having

boundary reviews every five years

would make is less comfortable for

our constituents as it may change

every election. The MP and

constituency link is one of the best

things about our democracy. We as

MPs have the chance to build a

relationship with our communities

that can span decades. We get to

understand the issues. That

particular to the area. We walk side

by side with our communities as they

change. How can constituents hold us

to account if we are here today and

gone tomorrow? My bill would address

this by retaining the tradition of

boundary reviews every ten years.

Regular enough to keep up with

population changes, not so regular

that MPs become unaccountable to the

people who elect us. Fourth, the

starting point for constituency

should, as much as possible, big

continuity and communities. Clearly

we need to strike a balance here

between, on the one hand, having the

same number of voters in each

constituency so every vote counts

the same. On the other hand, the

constituency boundaries should be

placed around communities. The

strict quota in the current review

has produced some bizarre results.

The coherence of a community

continuity with previous

constituencies and respect for the

boundaries were given a lower

priority than strict adherence to

numbers. This is clearly illustrated

when we look at Crawley. This

constituency has remained unchanged

for 20 years. It is now only 453

votes below the quota, so the new

boundaries would include a ward from

the other side of the motorway in a

different authority. The majority of

the constituency will not change at

each election. This would strike the

right balance and mean each boundary

review will be less disruptive. The

boundary commission have supported

this. In fact, their submission to

the political 's constituency reform

committee said, it would be the main

change they would ask for in any

future review. The commission is

keen to balance the powers of

continuity, the organic nature and

quality. Finally, there will always

be a special case where the rules of

the rest of the country cannot

reasonably be applied. The law

already includes provision for the

Isle of Wight and some Scottish

islands. As part of the Good Friday

Agreement, Northern Ireland has a

special status in our law. I believe

this should extend to fixing its

number of constituencies. My bill

would maintain the status quo by

fixing the number of MPs at 18. It

would maintain the level of

representation they have at the

moment. Brexit has already put

Northern Ireland in an uncertain

position. Without clarity on the

future of their border or a host of

other issues, this would be at least

one way to prevent further

uncertainty. We must do all we can

to maintain the fragile stability in

Northern Ireland, which is

threatened already by Brexit. Trust

in politics is eroding. But right

now we have a choice. The big

opportunity I seek to counter the

erosion of trust is in the 2 million

people and I am hopeful this will

mark a turning point. But this will

only happen if we empower new voters

and encourage participation. The

current boundary review ignores them

entirely. What a slap in the face.

My bill includes these 2 million in

the boundary calculation. It makes

sure their voices are equally

represented. The question for us now

is, do we capture the energy of the

recent elections to include new

voters, keep the constituency link,

the powers of the backbenchers, and

importance of communities? Or do we

plough ahead with current boundary

proposals, unpopular and

unrepresentative as they are?

Constituency boundaries are the

physical building blocks of our

democracy. They should be born of

the organic growth of communities,

not the cold calculation of

politicians. Thank you.

The question

is the bill now be read a second

time. Lucy Allan.

Thank you Deputy

Speaker for calling me to speak in

this important debate. I would like

to congratulate the Honourable

member for Manchester Gorton for

bringing forward this bill. It's in

such an important issue. I would

like to congratulate him for his

excellent and passionate speech that

we have just heard setting out some

of the arguments I believe need a

light shone upon them. There is much

to be commended in the Honourable

member's bill and I think it

highlights some of the weaknesses

that the process that is currently

being undertaken by the boundary

commission actually has. I believe

the current process is in fact

flawed. We are all clear, all of us

here, that this is about

communities. It's about people and

at its essence it is about

democracy. I suspect we all agree in

the democratic principle of equal

representation and that every vote

should be worth the same. I care

very much about this possible, and

that is why I am here today.

All constituencies should as an

objective be of equal size. The

second point we hear from the

government and the commission is

that the objective is to cut costs,

understandably most people would

want to see fewer members of this

place and few members of the other

place as well. Parliament can be

seen to be an inefficient

bureaucracy. There are some 2000

people employed by the House of

Commons that is not include MP's or

our staff and it sometimes looks

like an expensive way of getting

democracy done. I should be

delighted.

Reduce the cost of

politics, if it is not in our power

to control the costs of another

place we should still seek to reduce

the cost of this one.

I thank for

his intervention and he's absolutely

right, we all agree the cost of

politics should be reduced and there

are ways we can do that but I think

democracy is the first principle

that we are duty bound as members of

this place to uphold. The current

proposals do not achieve the

objectives that bought the

government and the boundary

commission state the bill, the

original legislation is intended to

achieve and I think it was

interesting point made about Crawley

and I would like to come on and

speak to this bill from the

perspective of representing a new

town where we have rapidly growing

populations. What is happening in my

constituency shows up the flaws in

the proposals. Populations right

across the country will grow and

shrink at different rates and we

have to take into account

demographics and geography. Telford

are set in the heart of rural

Shropshire and is an excellent

example of a new tone in the rural

hinterland, a former mining town and

its rapid growth is easily predicted

because we are building new ones all

the time and people are moving to

Telford all the time. A key point

that I know others will be raising

in the course of this debate is the

exclusion of voters. In addition to

new people coming to new towns and

populations growing we have had two

quite significant events, in fact

very significant events in the

electoral history of this country.

The EU referendum in 2016 and also

more recently in 2017 we had young

people and I regret to say it, going

wild for Jeremy Corbyn in young

constituencies. These young people

signed up to vote for the very first

time ever, the people in my

constituency who had never voted or

been registered and signed up to

vote for Brexit in 2016 and Jeremy

Corbyn in 2017 and he cannot ignore

these new voters to our registers. I

should be delighted...

Making an

incredibly important point, in my

own constituency of Edinburgh South

in the city of Edinburgh the

population of Edinburgh is exploding

but the number of MP's seeds is

going down which means surely the

changes to the boundaries are making

this place less representative than

more?

That is really important point

and I think there will be many of us

here today who represent

constituencies with a high level of

unregistered voters and I think that

is something the boundary commission

will not and is not prepared to take

into consideration. People who most

need representation are very often

those who are not registered to

vote. You only have to look at the

people who come to my constituency

on a Friday where I should be today

but I feel I should passionately be

here today to represent their

interests, very often my time in

surgery will be devoted to those who

are not registered to vote. Nobody

is suggesting we as representatives

should ignore their voice, no one is

suggesting we should not allow them

to come to our surgeries and I think

it's a fundamental principle but

they should be included in this

whole process. These people count,

we represent them and we have a duty

to make sure they are considered.

For all the consultation, no changes

whatsoever have been made in my

constituency and many others to

reflect any of the points which have

been made and I think there does

need to be some more flexibility and

discretion, reforms are to achieve

the objective they set out to

achieve. I would support them, I

would support the government on this

if the objectives they set out to

achieve for going to be achieved by

the process. We need a process that

has integrity and can be relied upon

to achieve what we are all hoping to

achieve in terms of democracy. I am

the chair, I should be delighted...

Not agree that it's better to

represent a large constituency any

single unitary authority area than

to try to represent a smaller

constituency straddling two Borough

areas where one has two deal with

double the number of chief

executives, police...

Order, short

interventions if I may suggest.

That

is an important point and is one of

the flaws I think exists in the

current process. As the chair of the

new towns all party Parliamentary

group I want to talk a bit more

about those towns which are growing

rapidly and the process needs to

recognise across the country in

terms of changing demographics.

Telford is surrounded by auroral

band of constituencies, leafy,

affluent Conservative constituencies

in rural Shropshire where the

population sizes are shrinking. The

elderly population, young people go

to big cities to work. We see those

constituencies will shrink in size

where is my constituency is

increasingly rapidly growing and

what is proposed by the boundary

commission is that in Telford we

should receive an extra 20,000

constituents of voting age even

though we are already, if we count

all voting age population, we are

already right in the middle of the

thresholds imposed by the current

process. So it makes a mockery of

it.

The local boundary commissions

are allowed to take into account

predictions of population growth and

census data and this would be an

important thing to allow for

parliamentary boundary commissions?

Absolutely right, there needs to be

some discretion and flexibility to

take account of local anomalies.

Now... I have a regular sympathy for

my colleagues opposite because I

serve a population with pockets of

significant deprivation where people

come to see me where they have

nowhere else to go. My weekly

surgeries are fooled despite my best

efforts to get problems resolved

over the phone, of people dealing

with benefits, evictions, complex

lives, tussles with the council,

problems with housing and they are

as I have mentioned earlier

dominated by people not on the

register. The boundary commission is

not that much interested in any of

that and in fact these people are

not registered does not count. I

know the government and boundary

commission would not suggest these

people are excluded by us as

representatives so they should be

included in this process.

Notwithstanding the boundary

commission wanting to add another

20,000 people are voting age to

Telford constituency, it makes it a

super-sized constituency

significantly exceeding the

parameters when all along the

objective is to create

constituencies of equal size. If we

are not going to achieve that why is

this process going ahead? You will

get fewer people seeing their MP and

you could employ extra trained

caseworkers but it will be

Subtitles by Red Bee

Media. Different,

I'm not going to reload all of this

but I want to read out this, it was

necessary to divide Milton Keynes

into two separate constituencies,

that will need to happen in Telford

in the not too distant future but

instead of recognising that we are

adding to the number of voters

because actually we do not have

significant registers voters. It was

an arbitrary date a long time ago in

electoral history and our political

history, 2015 was a very, very long

time ago and I think we now have two

stop and look at this so we can make

a success of ensuring that all

constituencies are properly

represented.

Thank you for giving

way, I am interested to listen to

the points but with the lady agree

that the rapid growth of new towns

makes more sense to have more

regular reviews, for example every

five years rather than every ten

years.

That is an interesting point

but if we look at what is happening

now we are not taking into

consideration the people coming to

my constituency or other new towns

nor indeed are we taking into

account people coming to the houses

which are being built right now and

are almost ready for completion.

There has been a public consultation

and to my mind it has been no such

thing because the boundary

commission is simply taking

submissions from political parties

who have gathered together local

support and are lobbying for an

outcome which supports the political

objectives that benefit them. Again

I think my constituency is a case in

point in this particular issue. To

the point of being absolutely

farcical. The people that are

sending in submissions are all

politically connected and they all

want to see my constituency grow

significantly when it could in fact

stay as it is and be within the

threshold. I cannot understand any

member of the public wanting to see

more, their MP shared among a

greater number of people. I have

come to the end of the remarks I

want to make but I think it's now an

opportunity given is not going to be

an election until 2022 for the

government to have a real look at if

they take this off the table and go

back to the drawing board and get it

right for the future. Why wait until

October 2018 then find the voice of

the house is we do not want the

proposals to go ahead and then start

to look at how we are going to

correct the process. We do need to

update, we need to redraw

boundaries, but we have to get it

right and I think we have an

opportunity now for all sorts of

reasons and that is why I commend

the honourable member for Manchester

Gorton for bringing forward this

bill and the honourable member for I

think Durham North West two brought

it forward indeed last year for the

same musings there is a lack of

flexibility and a failure to

recognise MPs

a very important issue to be raised

in this house privileged of all the

member for Telford and commend her

for the issues she has raised. I

stand here as a member of Parliament

for Birmingham Perry Barr and the

reason I want to reiterate that is

that under these boundary changes is

that that constituency is

essentially torn asunder by the

people who deem this change to be

the right change. This constituency

of Birmingham Perry Barr started off

in 1950 by member of Parliament,

member for Labour. Since then there

has been only two conservatives and

for a maximum period of six years in

that constituency. My immediate

predecessor served for 27 years and

is now in the other place not too

far from here. I stand up to say

this because what the boundary

changes and boundary commission has

done has paid no attention at all

whatsoever to issues raised by the

honourable member for Telford and my

honourable friend for Gorton, taking

the issues of the communities and

live there, like the member for

Telford, they have not taken into

account the amount of people that

are not on the electoral register. I

have lost through the process that

has been initiated by the government

opposite, in terms of electoral

registration, which is cut over 10%

of my constituency just purely...

Where we had a responsibility of the

senior member of the household

having responsibility for

registering people in the household

that has been taken away and what

that does quite maliciously is take

away the vote from young people who

sometimes are not necessarily living

at home, in education are our Dara

Khosrowshahi trying to get on the

we know young people are really

engage in stuff which registers

their vote. The number of young

people has been cut and we have had

a number of drives to try to get

people back on the electoral

register which is a serious point.

If we do not have these boundary

changes in the period we are talking

about, you do not need consensus,

you need a proper system of

registration where are the

responsibility is on the people to

register properly and that is what

this government does not just this

time, they have done it every time

they have the opportunity to look at

boundary changes and whenever they

have been in government. It's a

deliberate ploy to cut the franchise

of people able to elect the people

they want and that is the issue I

want to raise and this tries to

address that, moving the ceiling

from 5% to 10% which is what we are

asking for. If that happens, it's

the reality of what this will is

trying to do and that is why I

wholly support what the member is

saying. In terms of my constituency

and the people not registered, the

bottom half of my constituency are

some of the most deprived

communities.

Given the difficulties of new people

coming into the constituency, older

constituencies in there and younger

constituents not registering because

there isn't the understanding of

what happens with registration.

Those people are then blocked

because they haven't registered from

being able to vote. More

importantly, they are not able to

then get finance for themselves.

When it comes to it, they will

realise what's going on. Not

registering people has a huge effect

on that community. What this

boundary commission has done, they

have torn this constituency asunder.

In Birmingham we have huge awards.

They will change that in February.

-- huge wards. What they have done

to Perry Barr is torn or my

constituency apart. The top half of

the constituency, they have aligned

a ward with Walsall South. If you

understand the community in my

constituency, if you understand the

people of that area, there is a main

dual carriageway that crosses

Walsall South. Those people don't

cross that. They have a combined

community which actually also is

served by Birmingham City Council,

not by Walsall Council stop the

difference it will make to them of

having NMP who is having to

represent two different councils

will be even more difficult for a

member of Parliament to represent,

let alone people understanding where

they want to go to to get the

service they have had before. It

negates any issues the community

has, and tries to lump it on to

another district. Without taking any

care or hindrance about it. My

constituency of Perry Barr, the ward

of Perry Barr, it goes across into

Eddington. If you look at the shape

of these wards, they are long wards

are opposed to being compact. What

happens is the member for Erdington

gets Perry Barr ward. The majority

of people in that ward live far away

from Erdington. They are a small

community. There is no direct bus

route connecting those people at

all. It makes it difficult for

people in Erdington to try to cut

across to the main part of Erdington

to be able to mix that. It puts a

huge amount of people at peril in

their representation. And the way it

divides that community, in the

middle of my constituency, attaching

it to another piece of Birmingham to

do that. My next ward has a mixed

community. That's in Handsworth. It

links to my honourable friend for

West Bromwich East, and again that's

a barrier to cut across from his

constituency into that. It doesn't

make the synergy it should do. The

reason it doesn't make the synergy,

if I put it next to the other ward,

East Handsworth, there have been

real issues in relation to all sorts

of issues, in relation to knife

crime, drugs and shooting incidents

that have taken place. These two

wards have been held together by the

work we have done to unite those

wards. We have managed to cut the

crime down because we have been able

to work together as a unit. Sorry?

Are you seriously suggesting crime

rate relates somehow to how we

allocate constituency boundaries?

It

does. Members might find it funny,

but it's not funny for people living

in those constituencies. Those

people we work together with, if you

look at the crime rates in

Birmingham, they have fallen in that

particular area. When I joined in

2001 there was a huge concern about

a lot of areas in that area.

Particularly in relation to gun

crime. We lost two young women to

gun crime over the Christmas period.

What we have managed to do since

then is put together community

policing. Policing that they have

cut and reduced. I will take this

intervention... I will not take any

more silly interventions from these

people. What that means to my

communities and people in this area,

this is about protecting those

communities. It's about working with

the unity and bond they have formed.

That's what the boundary commission

don't understand, the work in those

communities. That's why I am

passionate about keeping that

community together because of the

work we have done in the last 16 and

a half years with the police,

community, all sorts of

organisations to pull it together.

Other people there are finding it

funny. It's not funny for those

people who have had huge amounts of

issues to deal with. Thankfully over

the last 16 years, working with

organisations and the police, we

have been managed to do that. We

need to continue to hold that

constituency together to support

those people together. I will give

way.

No hilarity in terms of the

point about crime on the side of the

house. It was the fact he was trying

to connect the boundary review with

rising crime. What is the connection

between the two? Nobody can

understand his point.

I don't think

the Honourable member was listening

to me. The connection is about the

communities we have, and what we

want to do is keep them together.

That is the case. They will not be

together under boundary changes

because they will be divided between

two different local authorities. I

will finish. What I'm asking for

here is the understanding that the

Honourable member for Manchester

Gorton has done, it's important to

keep those communities together and

we need to look at how we do that.

The duty of the boundaries

commission is to look after

communities and people. The

government has not provided proper

registration for those communities.

If that was the case, we wouldn't be

looking at these boundary changes.

I'm very grateful. Before I start I

should declare, it's not a strict

interest, but declare an interest as

the minister that took through the

parliamentary voting system and

constituencies act in 2011 will stop

I do feel some obligation to defend

the very sensible proposals that

Parliament legislated for in that

act. As they are under attack from,

I have to say, some of the most

ridiculous arguments I have ever

heard. I will come onto that last

one in the course of my remarks. I

want to thank the Honourable member

for Manchester Gorton for the

opportunity to debate these issues

again. I'm afraid that one or two of

my friends in this house are also

slightly anorak -ish on this

subject. One or two of them are

waving at me. I always enjoy the

opportunity to talk about these

important constitutional matters.

What I will do first is deal with

some of the arguments head on that

the Honourable gentleman made in his

speech. Then I have one or two other

things I wanted to say before I

turned to the bill that is before us

today. The first thing, he talks

about trust in politics. That is

indeed very important. I have to say

that when we first announced these

proposals, Mr Deputy Speaker, we

were legislating for them, and I

have to share something with the

house that I got colleagues will not

find too devastating. When we

announced to the public that one of

our key proposals was to reduce the

number of members of Parliament from

650 to 600, we all would like to

think the people of the UK were

devastated there would be 50 fewer

of us. But for a period of time it

was the single most popular policy

that the coalition government had.

Not to rain on his parade, but if we

had a proposal to abolish Parliament

altogether, people would probably

find that particularly popular.

I

wouldn't go quite as far as that.

There is a serious point about

representation. The idea that the

public were devastated at a modest

reduction in the size of the house,

in the same way that at the other

end of the building, it is the

second largest legislative chamber

in the world after the Chinese

People's Congress. This lower house

of parliament is actually one of the

largest lower houses of parliament,

and our modest proposals to reduce

the number of members of Parliament

from 650 to 600 I thought was a

perfectly sensible step forward. In

the explanatory notes to the bill

which were prepared by the public

bill of this on behalf of the

Honourable member, and I don't quite

know whether this was something put

in by them or by the Honourable

gentleman, but it says in terms of

context, we have made the case that

reducing the number of MPs by 50

says some £13 million per year, £66

million over the course of a

parliament. That might be modest in

terms of the overall amount of

spending we make, but I think the

general public would think saving

£60 million we could spend up more

priorities like the NHS is more

important. In the explanatory notes

he talks about the broader context

and suggests there will be a

reduction in the cost of politics.

The Honourable gentleman alluded to

this in his remarks, associated with

the reduction of the 73 MEPs that

will disappear when we leave the EU.

When we have had debates in this

house on Brexit, and I promise my

colleagues I will only digress

briefly on this subject because we

have plenty more days to come over

the coming weeks, when we make

assertions over what we thought the

referendum result meant, quite often

colleagues say, that wasn't on the

ballot paper. I can honestly say,

and I am sorry we didn't think about

this at the time, but if we said to

voters, when we leave the EU, we

will not have 73 MEPs. If we said to

the same time, we will use that as a

cunning plan to put back in place

the 50 members of Parliament that

are going in the law as legislated,

I think voters might have thought

twice. I am only sorry I didn't

think of that given I was on the

remain side of the argument, to make

that argued in the referendum. We

might have had more success. But I

don't think it's a sensible

argument. And just because there are

no MEPs in place, I think both the

Honourable gentleman and I, and I

may have misheard, but the

Honourable member for Perry Barr

agreed with this, just because there

are no MEPs, doesn't mean suddenly a

lot of extra work comes to this

house. There are quite a lot of

things the European Union does that

MEPs spend all their time doing,

that it would be better if it just

wasn't done at all. We can make

sensible judgments in this house

about what we want the government to

focus on and what we want Parliament

to focus on. But picking up every

single thing that MEPs currently do

isn't very sensible. Of course I

will give way.

On the point of

reducing the cost of democracy,

isn't it the case that the

government, the people on your side,

have stacked the other place by 260

new appointees. So increasing the

cost of democracy by some £34

million.

The raised that. It is

certainly the case that there are

more members of the House of Lords.

There is the ability for members of

the House of Lords to retire. But

funnily enough, when you suggest to

someone who has a life appointment

with a considerable income attached

to it, that they retire, very few of

them choose to do so. But to be

fair, we have seen more of them

retiring than we have done. Although

there are more members of the House

of Lords, and to repeat what I said

in my slightly too long

intervention, we did make an attempt

but Parliament wasn't completely

sold on the idea of reforming the

other place. The fact is, the cost

of running the House of Lords has

fallen since 2010, not increased. It

is true there are more members of

the House of Lords, but the actual

running costs of the House of Lords

has fallen because of the savings

that they have made. I will give

way.

Is he not making the point that

the cost of politics, and the number

of members therefore is not linked.

And therefore his own argument that

the simplest way to cut costs in

this place is to reduce the number

of MPs, is therefore undermined by

his own evidence?

I have made the

point that the other place has

managed to reduce its costs. The

important thing is, they don't have

constituents to represent, and they

have made savings. I have suggested

that we could save the costs by

reducing... Quite modestly we would

still remain a quite large lower

house of parliament compared to many

others in the country. I will give

way.

Extending my right honourable

friend's argument, we would get

greater cost cutting if we cut the

number of lords who do not take

their daily allowance of £300.

I do not want to dial it too much on

the other place because I am still

talking about this, the second part

of the first all argument, the size

of constituencies, talking about the

geographical size and the important

thing to remember in this house is

we represent physical parts of the

country but it's the people in those

constituencies we represent, not the

spaces. Of course the important

thing, and this is the point of my

honourable friend for Telford made

where she agreed with the

proposition as he did, that we

should have seats of broadly equal

numbers of constituents because it's

only then that the weights of those

constituents views are broadly the

same across the country, that was a

proposition exposed by the chartists

many years ago. You obviously do not

want exact electoral equality, you

do have to take into account other

important factors and I will come

onto those. When we put forward the

original registration we set it with

a range of plus or -5% which means

the constituencies can when his then

honourable friend Pat Glass who's no

longer in the house brought forward

a bill almost a year ago, having the

anniversary of Labour's attempts to

go backwards in terms of boundaries

she had a range of plus and -10%

which would have given a 20%

variance and I want to welcome the

fact the honourable gentleman

thought that was too big and has

reduced it that is welcome, if

someone moves in your direction I

think it's churlish not to give them

credit for doing so but I think we

need to stick fairly rigidly to

broad equality, boundary commissions

can take into account a number of

other factors, my constituency

neighbour across the water the

honourable member for Stroud

suggested, I think this was what

they were seeing, that boundary

changes could not take any

consideration, talking about the

things being swept away completely

and of course it's worth going back

the legislation because it's quite

clear that obviously they have two

stick to the rule about broad

equality but they can take into

account special geographical

considerations, they can take into

account local government boundaries

and boundaries of existing

constituencies and any local ties

and any inconveniences attached to

them so they can take all those

factors into account and I have had

a cursory glance Mr Deputy Speaker

because we're not talking about the

specific proposals brought forward

the boundary commissions but I have

had a cursory look at the changes

made and if you look at the evidence

they have taken and the changes they

made between their initial proposals

and their subsequent proposals it is

very clear that many local people

have made clear representations

about the factors I just set out

have made significant changes having

listened to the concerns of local

people but I think the process is

very effective, of course I will

give way.

Will remember agree that

not withstanding the words he has

just spoken there is still the

proposal of a seat which matches

together Devon and Cornwall and is

truly unpopular?

I am very familiar

with this issue, when we were

originally taking the legislation

through, the legislation talked

about was one raised by colleagues

from both Devon and Cornwall and

indeed it was the issue which

prompted my former Right honourable

friend the then member of Parliament

for Whitney and the Prime Minister

to make his unfortunate comment

about the width of the River which I

think got him into hot water with

colleagues from both Devon and

Cornwall and which I think he may

have regretted. But we had a debate

about that and I think my view at

the time was and I recognise it was

not entirely popular, that it's

about making sure areas are properly

represented and one of the solutions

put forward by their members for

Cornwall constituencies was to have

less representation in this house

and I did not think as the then

minister responsible but that was

very sensible. I think people should

be represented properly and it's

worth remembering and I think this

is relevant to the point the

honourable member for petty barmaid

-- for Birmingham Perry Barr made

and there was an intervention from

the back of the house about local

government boundaries and of course

we are not proposing to move

constituents anywhere, if there are

changes to boundaries the

constituents did not move, the

councils they get their services

from do not move, the only

inconvenience in this process is

that heaven forbid we as members of

parliament might possibly have to

talk to an extra local government

chief executive and for myself,

although most of it is coterminous

with the Forest of Dean District

Council and I'll liaise with the

officers and the elected councillors

I do have one order for my

constituency in my borough which I

share with the honourable member for

Tewkesbury I have two spent time

dealing with another set of

councillors and local government

officers and I have to say I do not

find that enormously troublesome and

it causes my constituents know any

inconvenience at all and I expect

they spend all moments at the even

thinking about, I will give away.

One of the problems of the current

boundary review is that in many

areas including mine there have been

local government boundary changes so

now it doesn't even cover the

proposal is coterminous wards so it

even cut in half towards and

allowing more flexibility would our

source of a problem.

There are

complexities with local government

boundaries but I had to say Mr

Deputy Speaker, we are probably the

only people who drive around the

country and see boundaries in front

of us as we cross and I note from my

own point of view as I drive down

the M4 angled pass various signs I

tend to go through the constituency

of my right honourable friend the

Prime Minister and my right

honourable friend the member of

Parliament for walking, but let's be

frank, it's a bit of that only those

of us involved in politics do.

Normal people, they do not see the

country as a succession of

boundaries and I think Mr Deputy

Speaker, I might be doing a

disservice but if I went to speak to

any of my constituents and I asked

them where any of the local

government boundaries were I suspect

most of them could not tell me and

oddly enough I don't think it makes

their lives any less exciting than

fulfilled because they do not know

those things as they might. I will

give way to the honourable member.

I

thank the honourable gentleman for

giving way, we are the only people

in this country who get excited by

boundaries but would he not accept

that people do however identified to

small towns and villages and

identify all commuters in a way that

the 5% threshold in some places

makes difficult to line. There are

examples on both sides of the house

were a small towns and villages and

clusters of communities which

identify as a community and now

split because of that type

threshold.

I do and I accept job to

balance these things. I am very

conscious I have only dealt with the

first argument the honourable

gentleman set out and I want to make

progress so I will try to make a

little more before I take any more

interventions. The second point he

talked about in talking about MEP's

was work award. I dealt with the

cost issue, taking this head-on,

there is a flip side to that which I

think he wants to be very careful

before he goes down this road. It's

about devolution. When we were

bringing forward the proposals we

had to think through how the country

was to be represented and at the

moment certain parts of the United

Kingdom are overrepresented in the

house relative to the level of

population, for example Wales has

more members of Parliament than it

would be entitled to based on its

population and that is why the

proposals I think under either of

our set of proposals to juice the

number of members of Parliament

Wills was entitled to. There were

representations made to me that in

the parts of the United Kingdom

where there are devolved functions

of government, the Scottish

Parliament in Wales and in Northern

Ireland and Scotland, those places

you'd have less representation

because the casework as work aspect

is shared. Hell for example is a

devolved matter -- health for

example is a devolved matter, so the

cases that I as a member of an

English member of Parliament for my

constituencies on the health service

where I will raise those issues with

the Health Secretary who is

responsible for the health set this

in England are dealt with. That is

an argument but it is an argument I

rejected at the time because I felt

we needed to make sure voters in

electing people do this house were

treated evenly. But if you follow

the logic of the honourable

gentleman which is the abolition of

MEP's means more workload falls on

us and therefore there should be

more of us then actually the logic

of the argument is in the parts of

the United Kingdom where there are

devolved governments and Parliament

and devolved assemblies they should

have less representation in this

house because they share the

workload with those members of the

Scottish Parliament and the Welsh

assembly. I think he wants to be a

little cautious before going down

that line of argument because it

might lead him somewhere he would

not want to go. Let me pick up, and

it is a delight to see you now in

the chair Madam Deputy Speaker. One

of the changes the bill would make

to the proposals is to move from

what we suggested which was a

boundary review every Parliament to

one every ten years. I should just

say I had to smile when they talked

about the tradition of boundary

reviews around every ten years, the

reason I smiled is because we have

not had the full boundary review if

we do not get one before the next

general election it will be the

registers of which the next election

will be fall will 22 years old which

means there would be people voting

at the next general election who

were not even born when the register

on which those seats are found were

at there.

Inadvertently said the

registers would be 22 years old but

that is not what he meant, he said

he meant the boundaries would be

based on registers which are 22

years old but the registers will be

completely up-to-date.

Absolutely

right as one would expect from a

distinguished Sykes committee

chairman which covers exactly this

area policy and I am grateful for

that, the beast in the year 2000, we

have not have a boundary for some

considerable time. The reason it is

important is because the honourable

gentleman was talking about the

change which comes with these

reviews. I accept that the first

boundary review which takes place

when we reduce the number of MPs and

the boundary review which takes

place 20 years after the last one is

inevitably one that will have a lot

of change to parliamentary

boundaries I except that as

inevitable. The reason we thought it

was sensible to have a every

Parliament is once you've done the

big change is you then have the

choice, either frequent smaller

changes to parliamentary boundaries

or you have the coalition government

took and the view this house took

when it passed this legislation was

that it was better to have more

frequent changes which were smaller

and I think on balance both before

today and listening to the speech I

still think it's the right balance

because if you move boundary reviews

to once every ten years you are just

going to make sure they are bigger

and more disruptive and I think

smaller but less disruptive ones are

probably to be welcomed, of course I

will give way.

Apologies for my

voice, thank you for giving way, the

issue is not about having a boundary

review, it is the nature of the

question which initiated this which

is a reduction from six and 50 to

600, compare the number of

constituents from 1955 to the

present day we will see a 40%

increase in the number of

constituents being proposed under

this review.

If you look at the size of the

constituencies we have already, and

there are some members of this house

who only represent, if I exclude the

small protected island

constituencies, there are others

represent constituencies... There

are others who represent

constituencies of more than 100,000

voters. They seem to manage

particularly well. I don't think we

will find it enormously challenging.

I see my honourable friend, the

member for Banbury, and I know her

constituency is one of the largest

in the country in terms of

population. Her local authority is

doing a significant amount of

house-building am planning

permission? For house-building,

dealing with the housing crisis,

which means her clinches -- contest

-- constituency is growing. It is

also worth remembering, when I

talked about the size of this house

in terms of a lower house, if you

look around the world we represent

relatively few people compared with

legislators incomparable lower

houses of parliament. I don't think

it is enormously impossible for us

to have slightly more constituents

each on average to represent them we

have at the moment.

We represent

less compared to the parable

legislators. If you look at

Commonwealth legislators that

doesn't seem to be the case. Cyprus,

14,000, Jamaica, 30 4000. If you

look at the Nordic countries... What

evidence is he basing that on? I'm

rather confused.

A narrow view of

the Commonwealth there! Of course.

The obvious example to site is India

which has an average of more than 2

million Electors per representative.

He makes a very good point. I'm not,

of course, proposing we reduced the

size of this Parliament to that

extent. It seems to me if the

legislator in a very similar type of

system is capable of representing 2

million people, I don't think the

rather modest changes we are

proposing should be completely

beyond our weight. I wanted to take

him up on this issue about what he

called, and what others on his side

of the house of God, the 2 million

missing voters. What this refers to

is there was an increase in

electoral legislation. This was

after the 2015 registers were put

together, the ones being used for

the current review. And the

referendum, which was a big

electoral event. The important thing

for the boundary review, and I think

he repeated this, referred to these

missing voters as if they were not

being taken into account. The

important point, and I think this

was what my honourable friend, the

member for North Essex was alluding

too, about the registers being

up-to-date, the important thing for

a Bantry review is not the number of

Electors but it is how those

Electors are distributed across the

country. It is only of the

distribution of those electors has

substantially changed will make a

difference to the number of seeds.

-- seats. I haven't seen an

up-to-date piece of work. But the

excellent Matt sing published a very

interesting paper in 2016. He looked

at this particular objection to our

boundary review, to see whether it

made sense. He looked in a very

detailed, analytical way at the

extra voters that had come onto the

electoral register ahead of the

referendum. To see whether they were

distributed in a way that would

cause a significant change in the

boundary review if the review was

restarted with those registers. And

his conclusion, and it is only a

short conclusion, I think it bears

repeating... He said, amid lots of

misleading claims and counterclaims,

there is a legitimate question about

the effect of the date at which

registration figures were taken. He

said a detailed analysis of these

figures and the subsequent 2 million

increase in registration in the

run-up to the EU referendum provides

the answer. He said the data does

not support, not support, the

suggestion that using the later

version of the register would

materially alter the distribution of

seats. He said it points to a very

even distribution of the 2 million

newly registered voters between

conservative and Labour areas. What

that actually says, Madine Deputy

Speaker, reflects very well on

members of this house. In the run-up

to that very significant event,

which is going to change the

direction, the route that this

country takes, actually members on

both sides of the house, across our

country, did a fantastic job at

either doing registration drives

themselves are so inspiring voters

to get them to register in a pretty

consistent way across the United

Kingdom rather than a partial weight

that may have changed it. So the

fact that some of those voters are

not on the register that is

currently being used for the current

boundary review doesn't materially

affect the distribution of seats

across the country. And in fact...

Of course I will give way.

You have

covered a great deal of ground with

that contribution. I wonder if the

obvious ground will be covered?

After spending £3 million the

government knows this cannot get a

parliamentary majority.

I tend to

take the review, but I prefer to

test the opinion of parliament, and

we may or may not test the opinion

today, so I think the right process

is to do what is set out in the

legislation. The Boundary

Commissions will report by next

October. And then orders will be

brought before this house and the

other place and we will vote on

them. They may get through. They may

not. I don't know the answer. We

haven't even seen the final

proposals from the Boundary

Commissions. In some part of the UK

we have not even seen the final

draft proposal. I think I will test

the opinion of the house in due

course. If we were to take the view

about whether or not the review was

going to get through before we even

started it, I suspect we would never

have a Bantry review, ever in the

house. -- Bantry review. Let me pick

up a point of the honourable

gentleman for Perry Barr mentioned.

He has now disappeared. In urban

areas of the country the building

blocks seem to be larger. I accept

that in the review originally that

was a problem. The review that was

undertaken that did not take place,

it wasn't brought to fruition, that

was a problem, because my

understanding is the kit that the

Boundary Commission for England had

at its disposal, its electronic

computer kit that it uses for doing

the mapping, actually wasn't able to

split up government wards very well.

My understanding is they have fixed

a problem with support from the

Cabinet office and the resources

they have. My understanding is they

are perfectly capable now of

splitting government wards in urban

areas effectively to try to keep

those words together. I am sorry the

honourable gentleman is not here to

listen to the response. Let me

finish this point. And I will take

his intervention. This point about

crime, which effectively the

honourable member for Perry Barr was

about working together. I really

don't understand his argument. That

is why people on this side of the

house were looking slightly amazed.

If I take his example of Birmingham,

he has got a police force which

covers the whole of the West

Midlands, I think I am right in

saying. He has got a city with a

city council and a number of

parliamentary constituencies. My

hunch would be that those members of

parliament in Birmingham do what

members of Parliament do in

Gloucestershire. Funny enough, where

there are common issues that we are

all concerned about, which cross

boundaries, we work together. I see

the honourable gentleman, the member

for Stroud, who of course has meant

that, unfortunately for us on this

side the house, isn't any longer

completely representative by

conservatives. It is democracy.

Absolutely right. I am perfectly

happy on issues where we have common

areas of concern to work with the

honourable gentleman, even though he

represented different political

party. The idea somehow that if you

change parliamentary boundaries and

a particular part of a city or a

particular area happens to be

represented by two different members

of Parliament, the idea that two

members of this house, if they are

dealing with important matters like

crime, the safety of their

constituents, are incapable of

working together with the police and

local authority, I think is frankly

nonsense, Madam Deputy Speaker. That

is why members of the house were

laughing. It is the idea that people

cannot work together to solve these

important problems.

I am grateful to

him forgiving way. Just on that

specific point about Birmingham and

as a West Midlands MP with a very

small constituency, it may be worth

recognising we have the West

Midlands mayor and we are very used

to working together across

boundaries.

My honourable friend

makes a very good point. Devolution

of local government comes back to

the point about work. But again, it

also demonstrates that we have

different areas of the country now

that are grouped together for

different purposes. We have seen

that level of devolution in the West

Midlands. We are seeing very

considerable levels of devolution in

greater Manchester under the mayor,

Andy Burnham, including... I agree.

I'm a great believer. I know the

honourable gentleman is a very

distinguished former local

government leader. I am absolutely

in favour of our level of

devolution. I do think decisions in

this country are too centralised.

And giving important areas of the

country with political leadership

the ability to make more decisions

for themselves is a very welcome

one. But of course there is nothing

that stops people working together.

I was very impressed when I was a

minister in the Department for Work

and Pensions when I visited

Manchester and I met with the

leader, I think he is still the

leader of Trafford Council,

Councillor Sean Anstee, one of the

local government leaders in Greater

Manchester. What he was telling me

about how that worked was that those

local government leaders, even

though they are of different

political persuasions actually have

a shared vision for some of the big

challenges for that area of the

country. They are able to work

together, notwithstanding their

political differences. It seems to

me that what is what blows out of

the water the argument that the

honourable member from Perry Barr

are made about boundaries. It seems

increasingly possible that we can

all work together. I have got a

couple of more points to make that I

planned to make when I came in.

Obviously I have just been dealing

with the five argument is the

honourable gentleman made. I hope

members will feel that I have

adequately dealt with them and be

persuaded. A couple of other things

that are relevant. Just a couple of

points. Then I will say something

about the bill in front of us. There

was quite a bit of discussion about

voter registration. And again, the

honourable gentleman, the member for

Perry Barr, made some allegations

about that. I'm disappointed again

he has not stayed around to listen

to a response. He said that we had

made it a very -- very difficult to

register to vote and that we tried

to drive people off the register.

That is simply not true and not

borne out by the facts. If you look

at the report the Electoral

Commission had done on electoral

registration at the June 2017

election. More than 2.9 million

applications to register to vote

were made in Great Britain between

the Prime Minister's announcement on

the 18th of April, and the deadline

for applications. 96% of those

applications were made using the

online service. As an aside, that

was something that I had the

privilege of kicking off when I was

the Minister for political and

constitutional reform. We

implemented that. That has made it

easier for people to register to

vote. Two thirds of online

applications were made by people

under 34. I don't use 34 as a proxy

for young. It is a fact that was put

in the report. It seems to me the

idea that we have made it difficult

for people to vote, when all you

have to do is use an electronic

device and register online, is not

borne out by the truth.

That is not the case if you are

homeless. That is not the case for a

number of other people that don't

have a fixed abode. Would he

recognise that those people are

disadvantaged with the new system?

No, I would accept that some people

may not be able to use the

electronic method. But they are of

course able to register in the

traditional way. I think I am right

in saying that the minister, when he

speaks, will be able to confirm

this. I think I am right in saying

that many local authorities actually

go to considerable lengths to make

sure the people who may be

disadvantaged are registered to

vote. I know specifically with

homeless people, I know many local

authorities take great efforts to

make sure they are registered. And

of course under the law, those local

authorities have a duty to get as

many people legitimately registered.

This is the other part of the

argument where it was said people

disappeared for the register because

the registration process does two

things, it makes sure the register

is as complete as possible so

everyone who is entitled to vote is

on it but it also deals with making

sure it is accurate and that only

those people eligible to vote, many

of the people who left the register

will be introduced the new system of

voter registration in a sense of not

people at all because many were

people not in those constituencies

any longer, should no longer have

been registered to vote but had not

been removed, some people will no

longer alive but people had not

taken into account. When it comes to

accuracy and this comes back to the

point my honourable friend the

member for North Essex made about

the up-to-date nature of the

register, the current boundaries are

based on electoral registers from

the year 2000 so however imperfect,

the current process may be, if we do

not get this review done and the

boundaries implemented members are

basically saying they are

comfortable for seats to be drawn on

registers which were done in the

year 2000. That would mean at the

next election we have the absurdity

that there would be people voting

who are not alive when the

register's were put together on

which the seats were founded and I

just think... That is absurd and

needs to be changed, of course.

I

thank the honourable member for

giving way, making some interesting

points about the registration

process but would he agree it's

bizarre to be hearing in the

21st-century argument that electoral

registration should be based on the

concept of male headship sub

household?

Absently right, we argued

about this at the time and the

concept of head of household was

invariably the man should be

responsible for registering people

was rather out of date and I think

putting the responsibility on

individuals is an improvement. All

the evidence suggests and the fact

there are a lot of people registered

to vote for the referendum

demonstrates its not a difficult

process. It's a very straightforward

process. The online registration

system is much easier. The only

significant thing that the Electoral

Commission recommended and I think

this is applying the Minister to

reflect on, is that there is one

problem with the current system

which is it's not easy to check

electronically that you are already

registered and a significant

proportion of the people who tried

to get registered for the general

election were people who were

already registered and they were

duplicate registrations and that

puts a burden on registration

officers at a very busy time. I

think there would be sense in

reflecting about whether we can

improve the online system to deal

with that.

I am grateful for giving

way, does he agree with me that the

longer this boundary review is

delayed without being implemented

the greater the unfairness becomes

particularly with ardour to rural

seats which in the main have seen a

large increase in population?

I

think my right honourable friend

makes a very good point, we are not

exactly carrying out this process ID

massively fast pace and the boundary

changes should have come into force

some time ago and it was an unholy

alliance between the official

opposition and the Liberal Democrats

who I have to say in passing, I do

not see any Liberal Democrats here

today which is surprising because

they are normally, they are normally

fascinated beyond all bones of

reasonableness on constitutional

matters and since we have got a

builder for us of a constitutional

nature I am amazed there is not a

single Liberal Democrat here to

debate it. I worked closely with

them in the coalition government and

the one thing Liberal the honourable

gentleman said we finished them off

and I don't think we quite dead,

there are still some left but the

fact is that of those who are still

here I am amazed and none of them

have trouble themselves to come to

Parliament to debate the

constitutional matter. The last

couple of things I want to say

specifically in the builder for us

-- in the bill before us. You are

not in the chair at the beginning of

the debate, the deputy Speaker, the

chairman of ways and Means I thought

did us all a service by stopping us

worrying that a dreadful mistake had

taken place, yesterday when I looked

at the bill before us was astounded

that on St Andrew's Day a bill had

been produced which had seemingly

emitted the entire part of the

United Kingdom known as Scotland and

had inadvertently put Northern

Ireland in Great Britain which is

something we should not do.

Fortunately I heard the excellent

point of error the back order -- the

excellent point of order and a

statement was made that spitting us

all at ease that it had been a

printing error and the official

opposition and one of its spokesman

had inadvertently not wiped out

Scotland and confused were Northern

Ireland went. I am pleased the

chairman of ways and Means could put

us straight. The point I want to

make about the bill is I just want

to point out in 2.2 the honourable

gentleman has widened the variants

from plus and -5% to plus or -7 1/2%

and I touched on that in my opening

remarks, I think it is well Push-Off

Challenge welcome at plus or -10% is

too wide and that was the position

the Labour Party took when we were

doing a legislation and I hope given

he is a

having said we ought to get on and

do this he is suggesting that

instead of the boundary commission

reporting by October of next year

when we could get the boundary

reports in front of this house he is

suggesting we delay boundary review

until October 20 20. I don't

particularly have a problem with

that because under the Fixed-term

Parliaments Act we are not due a

general election until 2022 but I