Privacy Injunctions

Debate between Lord Davies of Stamford and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Monday 23rd May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, I strongly support the suggestion made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, that the proposed Joint Committee should also examine the parallel dilemma—and it is a very difficult one—of the balance to be struck between parliamentary privilege and the need for Parliament to respect the separation of powers and not to undermine the administration of justice. Surely if the Government propose to bring forward a Bill on parliamentary privilege, it is particularly important that this Joint Committee, which is examining such a closely related matter, should have an opportunity to consider that as well, and the Government should have an opportunity to hear the conclusions of that committee before it frames its proposed legislation.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

As I indicated, it is a draft Bill, so there will be opportunity to consider issues on parliamentary privilege that go wider than the important issues raised here. The terms of reference of the Joint Committee are not yet established, and it would be wrong of me to pre-empt that, but I will certainly draw to the attention of my right honourable friends the comments made in the Chamber today on the importance of parliamentary privilege as it pertains to this particular issue, and it may well be that in these circumstances the committee may want to reflect on that and have its own input into any future draft Bill.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Davies of Stamford and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Monday 7th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, we have had another interesting debate on, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, indicated, the difference between the amendments we are discussing here and those which were debated earlier. I only wish that the strength of the argument deployed by the noble Lord against thresholds had been sufficient to persuade everyone to abstention, even if I was unable to do that, but that did not happen.

The manuscript amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, which would mean that 25 per cent of the electorate would have to vote yes is a reflection of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, which seeks that 33 per cent of the electorate should vote yes. We then have a straightforward 50 per cent eligibility to vote proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, which the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, spoke to, regarding the individual constituent parts of the United Kingdom. I acknowledge also that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, did not speak to the amendment in her name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan.

I think the arguments against thresholds were put very eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, and are a cogent argument as to why the threshold-against turnout, particularly although not exclusively, does not necessarily lead to fairness compared with a straight situation where people are invited to vote and the majority wins. But the proposals that relate to a threshold that the yes vote has to reach are particularly pernicious. Earlier the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, referred to the 40 per cent threshold that was imposed on the Scotland and Wales referendums in 1979. The Welsh referendum did not arise because there was a very strong no vote, but although 64 per cent of the electorate turned out in Scotland and a majority voted in favour of devolution, it was not implemented for another 20 years. It did not settle the question. It left, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said earlier, a bad taste. Of all thresholds, it does not satisfy the electorate and particularly those who campaign and those who would seek a yes vote.

The amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, spoke to on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, would seek a requirement of a majority vote in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, rather than a simple majority of all votes taken together. This is a UK-wide referendum on what the electoral system should be to elect the House of Commons in the United Kingdom Parliament. I believe it transcends particular localities or regions. The pros and cons of the system will be debated and considered by people regardless of where they live.

In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, uttered words of caution against this kind of amendment. He said that,

“to seek to set one nation within that kingdom against another kingdom is neither desirable nor wise”. [Official Report, 20/12/10; col. 827.]

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, rejected this type of amendment because,

“we should do everything to promote coherence in the United Kingdom. That means that, where we are voting on a national voting system, implementation of any referendum should be guided by what the national vote is”.—[Official Report, 20/12/10; cols. 843-4.]

If we were to find, for the sake of argument, that the rest of the United Kingdom—Wales, Northern Ireland and England—had substantially voted in favour of a change yet Scotland had a narrow majority against, it would be unacceptable that that one country with a narrow majority against should effectively exercise a veto over all other parts of the United Kingdom.

Noble Lords who have spoken to their amendments have indicated that they are not going to press them given the vote that was taken earlier. On that basis, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Davies of Stamford and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Tuesday 25th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I was here last night and I heard those interminable statistics. The point is that this is not what we are debating at the moment; we are debating parliamentary constituencies. I have enunciated a principle that the Government consider important for this part of the Bill, and one that we believe would be seriously undermined by the proposal that is implicit in the amendment.

In addition, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, acknowledged in response to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, this also overrules rule 1, and the Committee has debated at considerable length the question of the size of the House of Commons and the fact that the Government’s position is that there should be a House of 600.

The current situation is that there is no hierarchy of rules and there is a flexibility to move away from the aspiration, which is there in the current rules, that the Boundary Commission should go as close to the quota as possible. It was clear from the exchanges that took place in the debate that in fact there is that flexibility to move away that has led to the kind of wide variation that I have just illustrated with the difference between Manchester Central and Glasgow North, and indeed has led to a steady increment over many years, almost invariably in an upward direction, in the number of seats.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I have followed the noble and learned Lord’s course, and I am going to try to be helpful. He is worried that the amendment put forward by my noble friend would conflict with rule 2 on parity; he has made that point and I understand it. Not for the first time, I shall put to him a possible compromise. Would he be prepared to have a provision under which there was a 10 per cent divergence from the electoral quota that was an absolute ceiling and could not under any circumstances be exceeded or broken through, but the Boundary Commission would have the right to breach the 5 per cent ceiling up to 10 per cent in the event that it gave the assurance—the text of which is in my noble friend’s amendment—that it had considered that there were matters of “exceptional importance” that justified that move outside the 5 per cent band?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

That is not far away from the amendment that we debated almost exactly a week ago. Indeed, I have already had discussions with at least one of the noble Lords over this, and I believe that other discussions have flowed on from that between Mr Harper and representatives of the Opposition.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I think there is a misunderstanding. What is new about what I have just said, as against the proposal that we discussed before, would be the incorporation of the phrase “exceptional importance”, drawn from my noble friend’s amendment.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I hear what the noble Lord says, but the point that I was on at the moment is not just that there is no limit on the 10 per cent—I shall come on to the question about exceptional circumstances in a moment—but that the number of 600 could be reached. I think that it was my noble friend Lord Eccles yesterday who raised the question of 630, which is the target aspirational number. Even that varies, though. With the one exception of when the Scottish seats were redistributed following devolution, the number has gone up after every Boundary Commission review.

The noble Lord, Lord Soley, asked about “shall” and “may”. The fact that it is at the Boundary Commission’s discretion whether and to what extent at present it should take into account the factors in rule 5 does not mean that it is able to decide simply to ignore a relevant factor on a whim. The commission cannot just dismiss it. I shall give two reasons why “may” is preferable to “shall”. First, and this reflects back to what I was just saying, the 1986 Act currently has conflicting rules. The British Academy said that,

“the rules set out in the Bill are a very substantial improvement”,

because they are clear and not contradictory. Our fear is that changing “may” could reintroduce conflict between the rules. Secondly, it is important that the independent Boundary Commission has the freedom to use its discretion. Many of the noble Lords moving amendments similar to this have talked about the importance of giving the commission flexibility. I fear that by using “shall” rather than “may”, one takes away with one hand what is perhaps sought to be given with the other.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

There is still confusion here. On that matter, there is a great difference between individual political parties arguing that their cases are of exceptional importance—the noble and learned Lord is absolutely right: they will all say that—and the Boundary Commission sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity and allowing itself to be seduced into accepting that something is exceptional in a majority of cases. That could never happen; the Boundary Commission would not do that. It would be too jealous of its own credibility and integrity to allow a procedure that could be justified only in exceptional circumstances being used in anything more than a very small number of circumstances. There is a great difference there between the impact of this word on the Boundary Commission and the likely arguments—about which I quite agree with the noble and learned Lord—that individual litigants and representatives will make to the Boundary Commission.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, even if one puts aside for a moment the question of public hearings, there is still opportunity under the Bill for representations to be made. The minute you import words such as “exceptional importance”, however the case may be presented, you can bet your life that organised groups such as political parties would find some means of suggesting exceptional importance in almost every constituency. Some have argued that the constituency boundaries should be drawn on the basis of population. We have heard that argument; it was suggested earlier that it would be one way of dealing with the situation, but I hope we have dealt with that in times past.

The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said that this is a modest amendment. However, some of the key principles that the Government have enunciated about what is important in the Bill—for example, that there should be no increase in the size of the House of Commons beyond 600—could be undermined by this amendment. Even if we set aside the question of whether there is a 5 per cent or 10 per cent variation, the amendment would allow for a variation that goes beyond even 10 per cent. That would override the parity of one vote, one value and would almost certainly inhibit the Boundary Commission’s ability to report that it had ensured that the new boundaries were in place for the May 2015 election. It is against the background of these different points being undermined by this modest amendment, as the noble Lord called it, that the Government cannot accept it and I ask him to withdraw it.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Davies of Stamford and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Monday 24th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

As my noble friend Lord Rennard said, there is no limit to the number of special cases. If we move without any other limitation to a 20 per cent band rather than a 10 per cent band, we are moving away from the basic principle of equal value. Broadly speaking, we have followed the provisions of the 1986 Act with regard to local authority boundaries, and while we are keen to avoid being too prescriptive on this issue, there may be some merit in placing a discretionary consideration of wards in the Bill. We certainly want to consider further the elements of these amendments that concern the use of wards. Other amendments have been tabled with regard to wards by the noble Lords, Lord Lipsey and Lord Foulkes, and my noble friends Lord Rennard and Lord Tyler. We want to consider, therefore, the use of wards and to bring back a fully considered response on that on Report since it is an important point. On that basis, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

Before the noble Lord sits down, will he recognise that there will be considerable pleasure in many parts of the House at what he has just said about the recognition of the importance of wards? On a first reading of this Bill, it looked rather strange that other criteria were mentioned in Clause 11(5), such as local authority boundaries and European constituencies, but there was no explicit mention of wards. What he has just said about considering making a specific mention will go a long way to reassuring a lot of people who are concerned with this point.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am grateful for those reassuring remarks from the noble Lord. Not only do wards provide possibilities as building blocks, but their very nature means that local ties are cemented through them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

The factual answer to that factual question is yes, of course I recall that. No one in my constituency over the age of about 40 will have forgotten that. Nevertheless, that issue was resolved happily for all concerned in the context of public inquiries and establishes a very good precedent for them as a way of maintaining, or when necessary restoring, public confidence in the system.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The amendment would restrict the Boundary Commission in drawing up new constituency boundaries by a series of provisions specifying that constituency boundaries may not cross certain local authority or European constituency boundaries. I noted that, when moving his amendment, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, reiterated that he and his colleagues recognised the need for greater equality but seek to put that restriction on to the Boundary Commission in its recommendations.

The Bill provides for the Boundary Commission to take into account local government boundaries, as well as local ties, although that has not been acknowledged in some contributions. As we have said on more than one occasion, that is subject to the principle of equality. We believe that the details of how it does that should be a matter for the Boundary Commission. Just to clarify, a government amendment to the definition of local government boundaries was made in the other place. I re-emphasise that it means that the Boundary Commissions may take unitary authority boundaries into account.

It has been made clear in several contributions, not least that of my noble friend Lord Newton of Braintree but also that of the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, that even under the existing arrangements the Boundary Commission has not exactly achieved what in some people's view might be perfection. The noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, talked about Hamilton being split into two. Even before the current split, there was a previous split between Hamilton North and Bellshill and Hamilton South. An important point, which was made by my noble friend Lord Newton and alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, is that local government is not the sole challenge that Members of Parliament have to deal with. There are health boards, primary healthcare trusts and police divisions. It would be a nightmare, if not an impossibility, to try to ensure that the Member of Parliament had to deal with only one each of police, health and local authorities.

As we mentioned in debates on previous groups, we have sought generally to follow the 1986 Act provisions on local authority boundaries. We want the Boundary Commissions to have flexibility to take account of specific circumstances, but we also recognise that there is some merit in placing discretionary consideration in the hands of the Boundary Commission, including with regard to wards, about which I will say more in a moment.

In its fifth general report, the Boundary Commission for England noted that,

“some wards on the outskirts of towns contained very different communities. For instance, there were occasions where the majority of the electorate of the ward were urban dwellers residing in a very small area of the ward on the edge of a town. However, the small remainder of the ward’s electorate was made up of those living in rural communities some distance from the town”.

That is why we believe there is a reasonable case in certain circumstances for the Boundary Commission to have discretion to split them and why there should not be a prohibition, which would be the effect of at least four of the provisions of the composite amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord.

I repeat that we seek—and this is enshrined in the Bill—to ensure one value for one vote, not to draw up constituencies to suit the administrative convenience of Members of Parliament. I cannot accept that, as the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, proposed, it is somehow impossible for a Member of Parliament to discharge his or her functions if his or her constituency includes more than one local authority. My noble friend Lord Newton of Braintree made that abundantly clear.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Davies of Stamford and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Thursday 20th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I rather suspect that the noble Lord was not listening as attentively as he would normally do, because I said that those constituencies had been excepted because they were dispersed island groups which could not readily be combined with the mainland. By definition, Argyll and Bute is already a set of islands which has been readily combined with the mainland and which over many decades has been represented by very distinguished, hard working Members of Parliament—I think back to Michael Noble and my late noble friend Lady Michie of Gallanach. It is now represented my colleague and honourable friend Mr Alan Reid. The two preserved constituencies are not readily combined with the mainland. If they were to be so combined, they would be part of constituencies whose surface area would be larger than the largest constituency. Let us remember, when we talk about surface area, we are not talking about areas of sea as well, which would not be counted into surface area. The most recent judgment of the Boundary Commission was that the maximum size of a constituency should be what was manageable for constituents and MPs. That is why we brought forward the other rule, rule 4, which sets a physical, geographical size limit, just by sheer reference to manageability. It perhaps cannot stand as a legal principle, but trying to make sure that you do not go beyond a certain extreme of manageability is surely in the interests both of the Member, of whichever party, and the electors, who have to make contact with their Member of Parliament.

I think that it was being implied by the noble and learned Lord that there is some political motivation behind the proposal. As I have said, it is obvious from the extreme geographical position of the two constituencies why they have been exempted. Although Orkney and Shetland has been represented by a Liberal or a Liberal Democrat for the past 61 years, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will acknowledge that, until 1997, the Western Isles had a Labour Member of Parliament—indeed, until 1970, when the late Donald Stewart won the Western Isles, it had been represented by the Labour Party from the 1930s. I am sure that his colleagues in the Labour Party in the Western Isles have no intention of giving up their aspirations for that seat. Our approach is in no way partisan; it is a recognition of geography.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

Is the Minister telling us that, in the coalition’s discussions which gave birth to this Bill, the Liberal Democrats—leader or otherwise—did not insist on these two exemptions in Scotland?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I did not do a deal with anyone with regard to this. I have just paid tribute to the party opposite which recognised the importance of Orkney and Shetland by giving them separate seats in the Scottish Parliament and preserving the Orkney and Shetland Westminster seat. I hope that noble Lords will think that it is not unreasonable that, given the similar circumstances of the Western Isles, they should be included.

There were some important contributions in this debate about the City of London. The amendment was spoken to by my noble friends Lord Brooke and Lord Jenkin, the noble Lords, Lord Myners and Lord Davies of Stamford, and, very persuasively, by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town. I think the important role that the City of London has in the history of this nation is well recognised across the Committee, as is the important financial contribution that the City makes.

As I have indicated, the primary concern of the Bill is to create more equal-sized constituencies, and that is best achieved by keeping exceptions to the minimum. As a result, the Government do not believe that the City of London should appear as an exception. While it is not for me to say what the Boundary Commission for England will do, I hope it might reassure noble Lords to know that the 25 wards in the City of London have fewer than 7,000 electors, which is smaller than some individual wards elsewhere in the country. I therefore suspect that it is unlikely that the City will be split between two constituencies. This is a very obvious case where the rules, particularly rule 5 about where special local ties would be broken by changes in constituencies, would be highly relevant in addressing the Boundary Commission.

The question was raised with regard to the historic nature of the City. The position, as I understand it, is that while Magna Carta protects certain privileges of the City of London, paragraph 628 of volume 12(1) of Halsbury’s Laws of England lists customs of the City that have been certified by the Recorder and recognised by the courts, but does not include anything on Parliament or constituencies. However, there is considerable history here and I would want to do better justice to this issue. I hope that I shall be able to write to the noble Baroness who raised this matter, addressing the point that she made concerning the history of the City as a parliamentary constituency, and I shall seek to do so before Report. As for the name of the constituency, again, that should be a matter for the Boundary Commission. However, I have no doubt that those who feel strongly about any proposal from the commission that affects the City of London will be able to make representations to it. I certainly recognise the importance of the name of the City of London, and we believe that this strikes the best balance between respecting the history of the nation’s communities, including the City of London, and providing equal weight to the votes of those who live in all our communities.

I turn to the question of Edinburgh—

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords—

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

No, I think that we have heard quite a bit on this matter. I turn now to the other capital city, Edinburgh, which was referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Foulkes and Lord Watson of Invergowrie, and indeed, with due deference to his native home, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, declared his interest as a supporter of Heart of Midlothian Football Club—perhaps he just took it that it is a well known fact. If the additional five constituencies all contained in the Edinburgh council area were to be excepted, which would be the consequence of the amendment, from the 5 per cent above or below the rule, they would be projected to diverge on average from the electoral quota by just over 12,300 electors—that is, just over 16 per cent. Again, I do not think that that ties in with the concept of fairness and equal votes, as we believe that constituencies should be broadly of equal size.

I do not believe that there are the geographical challenges that we find in the two constituencies that have been preserved. I know Edinburgh reasonably well and I do not think that there are geographical challenges there that would make it particularly difficult for MPs to see their constituents or for constituents to see their MPs. Nor, indeed, is this a case in which there is an issue of sparsity of population. The noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, mentioned that, for the Boundary Commission, the Edinburgh East constituency had sometimes included and sometimes excluded Musselburgh, which I believe lies administratively in the county of East Lothian. Therefore, Edinburgh has expanded its boundaries in the past for parliamentary purposes.

Ultimately, it will be for the independent Boundary Commission to take account of all the factors. I say this only because I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, said that in every circumstance he would want Edinburgh to have five seats. If Edinburgh, in order to thrive and flourish, as we would all wish to see, merited six seats, I am not sure why in statute we should restrict the number to five. There is a problem in going down that road. However, I have no doubt that the Boundary Commission will be able to secure equality of votes between constituencies within the 5 per cent margin and that Edinburgh’s standing as Scotland’s capital city will in no way be impaired.

I turn to the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn, and supported by others, including the noble Lord, Lord Watson, on Argyll and Bute. As I have already indicated, Argyll and Bute already combines islands and the mainland, which I think distinguishes it from the two that are reserved and which, as I have already indicated, we do not believe could incorporate part of the mainland very readily. Argyll and Bute is already very close to the range that will be required under the Bill. Although I recognise noble Lords’ concern about large areas, I have already referred to the fact that there are rules in the Bill that would ensure that the size did not become unmanageable. It is not just at 13,000 but at between 12,000 and 13,000 square kilometres that there is a sliding scale.

The noble Lord, Lord Watson, mentioned Helensburgh, which is currently part of the Argyll and Bute constituency. I believe that in parliamentary terms it is a recent addition, although in local government terms it has been part of the Argyll and Bute council area for some time. Helensburgh, of course, is historically part of the ancient county of Dunbartonshire, so its boundaries have already changed and it is now familiar as part of Argyll and Bute. I was a sufficiently political anorak in my youth that I can remember when Argyll and Bute did not have Bute and that Bute was part of a north Ayrshire and Bute constituency, so Bute has migrated backwards and forwards. In areas such as these, there has been no fixed boundary. Therefore, given the safeguards to prevent its size becoming too great, and the fact that the islands are already incorporated in the mainland, it would not qualify for a preserved constituency in the same way as the Western Isles and Orkney and Shetland do.

As to the island area of Telford being surrounded by the rest of Shropshire—

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Davies of Stamford and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I would like to draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that there are already within the Bill factors that the Boundary Commission can, if it so wishes and to the extent that it so wishes, take into account. They include special geographical considerations including, particularly, the size, shape and accessibility of a constituency, local ties that would be broken by changes in constituencies, local government boundaries—I will perhaps come back and say something about that because the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, made a lot of the impact on local government boundaries—and also the proposed Rule 4, where the area of constituencies is taken into account so that one does not get constituencies that become unmanageable because of size. The size is set just slightly larger than the largest constituency at the moment.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

Those criteria exist in the Bill, but they are all subject to the 5 per cent limit. That is our argument: the 5 per cent limit is so constraining that it gives the Boundary Commission little flexibility. Why can the Minister not bring himself to trust the Boundary Commission a little more? Surely discrepancies of 10 per cent in the population of different constituencies are not going to be shocking by anybody’s standards.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

This point may be what the noble Lord, Lord Reid, wanted to pick up on. I tried to indicate that we believe that 5 per cent, which is 10 per cent because it is 5 per cent each way of the halfway mark, allows the flexibility to take into account quite legitimate concerns. Some noble Lords were present at earlier debates when former Members of the other place were talking about the importance of the bond between a constituency and a Member. We believe they can be taken into account, bearing in mind the factors that the Boundary Commission is entitled to take into account and the extent that it thinks it should take them into account.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Davies of Stamford and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Wednesday 12th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

It was quite proper that, having indicated a coalition commitment to introducing this legislation and having laid down certain times, the Government should make speedy progress to introduce the Bill. I also believe that it has had more than 40 hours’ consideration in the other place. It has now had approximately forty-nine and a half hours’ consideration in this place with, no doubt, many more hours to come.

The reason why the Government propose reviews every five years is that at present—I think that this has been acknowledged—a review takes place every eight to 12 years. We believe that that leads to boundaries becoming out of date and infrequently refreshed. For example, the movement of electors means that boundaries can get out of date quickly. In 2006, some 59 constituencies were more than 10 per cent larger or smaller than the quota used for the previous review. Three years later, by 2009, the number of constituencies outside that 10 per cent range had almost doubled simply due to the movement of electors. These variations in size make votes unequal. The figures demonstrate how long periods between boundary reviews can exacerbate that imbalance and unfairness.

The noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn, graphically illustrated the life and commitment of Members of Parliament and his comments were echoed by many other noble Lords who have been Members of the other place. However, it is fair to say, as my noble friend Lord Maclennan of Rogart indicated, that the underlying purpose of this Bill is primarily to serve the electors, not the elected. By a similar token, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that there was no consultation with local government on the use that it made of current parliamentary boundaries. However, I do not think that it is beyond the wit of local authorities to find other boundaries within which to deliver administrative services. The important point is that we look to ensure that the Bill is in the interests of electors and represents one vote, one value.

I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, said. His comments on the utility of boundary reviews displayed a refreshing candour. However, I could not agree with his comment about pulling up the roots every five years. The rules that the Bill sets down for the Boundary Commission state at paragraph 5(1)(d) of Schedule 2 on page 10:

“A Boundary Commission may take into account, if and to such extent as they think fit … the inconvenience attendant on such changes”.

That is disapplied for the first review, which is to take place and report by October 2013, because by its very nature—I think that this has been recognised—when one loses 50 seats the upheaval is bound to be greater. But thereafter the Boundary Commission is able to take into account,

“to such extent as they think fit … the inconvenience attendant on such changes”.

My noble friend made a pertinent point when he indicated that the more frequent and regular the review, the less likely it is that there will be any huge change in constituency size. The figures that I cited show that the longer the interval between reviews, the more the figures diverge, which inevitably leads to greater upheaval when the review actually takes place. Indeed, in evidence to the Committee on Standards in Public Life, Professors Butler and McLean indicated back in 2006 that it was possible to have more frequent reviews without significantly impairing their equity.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

As far as I know, in 2006 no one had conceived this extraordinary idea that every time you have a review you have to make sure that all the constituency numbers are within 5 per cent of each other. It is surely the addition of that new rule to the five-year boundary review that will cause the inevitable disruption.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I cannot accept that. If you were to have a longer period, that would lead to greater disruption, but you have to take into account the five-year period and the fact that in reviews after the first one the Boundary Commission has the discretion to take into account any inconveniences attendant on the change, even allowing for the 5 per cent variation. Therefore, I do not believe that it leads to the same degree of upheaval.

I cannot accept the premise that the noble Lords, Lord Howarth and Lord Martin, mentioned that this is somehow a recipe for one-term Members of Parliament. I do not think that that stands up.