Parliamentary Constituencies Bill
Public Bill Committee, 23 June 2020.
(Morning)
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
On a point of order, Sir David. Can I perhaps ask that Members be given priority to sit, so we can hear the evidence?
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
That is what I thought would have been done. Surely the Members should be in the main body.
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Further to that point of order, Sir David. Actually, perhaps the Whip can make room. Thank you, Sir David.
Examination of Witnesses
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
We will now hear from Professor Robert Hazell and Dr Alan Renwick, both from the constitution unit at University College London. We have until 9.55. They are appearing virtually, in audio only. Professor Robert Hazell, can you hear me?
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
We can hear you loud and clear, professor. Dr Alan Renwick, can you hear us?
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
You have probably never taken part in one of these sittings before, and I do not think that any of us have done so in these circumstances, so it is a big learning curve for us all, but please relax and enjoy the sitting. Colleagues are not here to interrogate you. They are trying to get information out of you to enrich the deliberations that the Committee will begin on Thursday. Professor Hazell, would you briefly introduce yourself, please?
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
Dr Renwick, would you introduce yourself, please?
Chloe Smith (Conservative, Norwich North)
Q 135 Professor Hazell and Dr Renwick, thank you very much for joining us. You very kindly supplied some written evidence, and I am sure we have all had a chance to look at your recent blogposts—thank you for those. Could you take us through what you see as the independence of the UK boundary review process, which in your written evidence you describe as
“among the best in the world”?
Cat Smith (Labour, Lancaster and Fleetwood)
Thank you so much, Professor Hazell and Dr Renwick, for giving evidence to the Committee this morning. I want to thank you for your blogpost on 5 June, which was in response to our Second Reading debate, and explore some of the issues that you raise, including that theQ
“safeguards against a government that wanted to interfere are relatively weak.”
Of course I am not suggesting that that is the position of the current Government, but obviously when we legislate we need to safeguard against any interference by future Governments who may wish to interfere with the process.
You explained that you have various concerns about the Bill and you suggest various solutions to strengthen it. What action do you think could be taken to improve the Bill, in order to safeguard us from political interference? Also, can you expand slightly on some of the solutions that you outlined in that blog, for example an amendment perhaps to legislate to bar members of or donors to political parties from appointment to the commission, as is the case with local government?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Q I thank both individuals who are giving evidence this morning for doing so. It is incredibly helpful for our deliberations. I want to press them on the key point of their evidence, which is the importance of the automaticity element of the Bill, to understand why that is central to their evidence, particularly the impact on the democratic process of the three previous reviews being blocked. What has been the impact of that, and why is this matter so important to get right?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Can I ask a supplementary?
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
We have at least six colleagues wishing to ask questions and only 14 minutes left.
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Q I was not particularly pressing on the motivations, although I note Dr Renwick’s response on that. I wanted to ask about the impact. Dr Renwick, you have talked about it being undesirable to have a delay and to appear partial, but were there any further impacts on democracy in this country that you wanted to put on the record?
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
I thank our witnesses for their full answers, but I am afraid we will have to have very brief questions and responses.
Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)
How far should we go in ensuring that whole communities are kept intact when we form a parliamentary constituency boundary, when balanced against trying to achieve equality of the value of someone’s voteQ ?
Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)
Q In order to achieve making sure that communities are kept intact, is it desirable that the Boundary Commission has flexibility and is not kept to a maximum of 5%?
Alec Shelbrooke (Conservative, Elmet and Rothwell)
It is always dangerous to go head to head with an academic, but in terms of the 5% and the 10%, my reading of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe report is that it is a 10% variation between seats, not a 20% variation. May I clarify, Dr Renwick, that when you talk about the 5% difference, that actually gives an overall difference of 10% between seats, whereas a 10% difference would give an overall difference of 20% between seats?Q
Alec Shelbrooke (Conservative, Elmet and Rothwell)
Q To follow that up, given that we are talking about keeping communities together, as the hon. Member for Eltham has said, does the Bill need to give more clarification to the Boundary Commission for England? In Scotland, the system is much more in-depth, with smaller building blocks. I believe that Scottish constituencies do not have as many arguments as the English ones. Do we need to give more guidance about how the constituencies are built, taking into account communities, rather than change the boundary limits based on the electorate?
Chris Matheson (Labour, City of Chester)
Dr Renwick and Professor Hazell, good morning. I have two quick questions. First, the two previous Boundary Commission inquiries, which were not voted on in the end, lacked political support because, I believe, they reduced the number of constituencies from 650 to 600. That did not have overall political support. The proposals would also have meant that some constituencies would simply not have reflected the communities that MPs represented. The Government have now recognised that by reverting back to the number of 650. Is it not therefore a good thing that we have that safety valve of final approval from Parliament to reflect the lack of community cohesion that might be introduced by boundaries that do not reflect community needs?Q
Chris Matheson (Labour, City of Chester)
Q But the opposition was proved right in the end, was it not? I do not mean Her Majesty’s Opposition; rather the opposition across all parties to the previous proposals, which was proved right in the end because we moved away from 600 and back to 650.
Chris Matheson (Labour, City of Chester)
Q Secondly and finally, you are calling for what we have termed automaticity, but you are also suggesting that there are concerns in the current set-up that need to be addressed before automaticity takes place. It is a bit of a chicken and egg situation: which comes first, automaticity or changes in these structures? Are you suggesting that this Bill should include changes to the way that the boundary commission is appointed and set up, or are you suggesting that we should not have automaticity this time, but should legislate for it next time, and use the intervening period to change the structure and appoint any mechanisms needed at the boundary commission?
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
Order. We have three people wanting to ask questions and three minutes left. Mr Linden?
David Linden (Scottish National Party, Glasgow East)
I would like to ask a question about the situation in New Zealand. I was struck by the fact that you said the whole process takes no longer than six months and by what the hon. Member for City of Chester said about safeguards. Clearly, we did not get this right in the legislation to move from 650 to 600. Can you outline any concerns you have about the associated speed, in terms of automaticity and the fact that we are trying to wrap this up within six months? Surely, if we try and ram this through very quickly it is not going to result in good proposals.Q
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
Before that is answered, can we finally have Jane Hunt’s question as well, please?
Jane Hunt (Conservative, Loughborough)
Is it the case that commissioners are led by judges and that they have to declare five years of political activity before they are appointed?Q
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
Professor Hazell and Dr Renwick, on behalf of the Committee, I thank you very much for the time you have spent with us. We all feel cheated that we could not see your faces; nevertheless, we are very grateful for the evidence you have given us.
Examination of Witness
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
To my great relief, our next witness is here in person.
John Spellar (Labour, Warley)
Chair, before we come on to that, we have had several references in evidence to the OSCE report. Would it be possible for the Clerks to get the link for that and send it through to members of the Committee?
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
That is a splendid idea. Thank you for that suggestion. It will be done sooner rather than later.
I am delighted that Chris Williams is here in person. He is the head of elections and field operations for the Green party. We have until 10.20 am for this session, not as was indicated on the Order Paper. Mr Williams, please briefly introduce yourself.
Chloe Smith (Conservative, Norwich North)
Q Mr Williams, thank you for joining us this morning. I thank all the political parties that have given some technical engagement with the Bill in its development. Please set out what you think of the Bill and any particular characteristics you would point to.
Cat Smith (Labour, Lancaster and Fleetwood)
Q Mr Williams, thank you for coming to give evidence before the Committee. To push you slightly further on something you have already alluded to, what are your views on the very tight tolerance limit of 5% in the legislation that we will be moving into scrutiny of on Thursday? How does it relate to those community links, and what issues do you think that very tight tolerance will throw up when it comes to the realities for communities?
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
Just before I turn to Mrs Miller, I want colleagues who are sitting in the Public Gallery to realise that I am aware that they are part of the Committee. If they want to ask a question, they should indicate to me and then speak from the microphone, as Mrs Miller has done.
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Q Thank you very much, Sir David. I thank Mr Williams for coming to give evidence today; it is incredibly helpful to hear from a wide range of political parties. I note that in your introduction, you said you would cover issues in England and Wales, and I thought I detected a slight accent—I do not know whether you come from Wales. I wanted to press you a little further on that, because there are four protected constituencies in the Bill: two constituencies that will be the Isle of Wight, a single constituency in Orkney and the Shetland Islands, and the constituency formerly known as the Western Isles. Do you feel there is an argument to be made for protected constituencies in Wales? Other than Northern Ireland, which I think has its own set of issues, it is the only part of the United Kingdom that does not have protected constituencies.
David Linden (Scottish National Party, Glasgow East)
Q Can I ask you specifically what the Green party’s view is on the distribution of seats that will result from this Bill? It is my understanding—the Committee has been told this previously—that Scotland stands to lose seats, and you have spoken about the 20% drop in Wales. Does the Green party of England and Wales have a view on whether or not that is appropriate, and what that does for the integrity of the Union?
Chris Clarkson (Conservative, Heywood and Middleton)
On the same theme, Wales has roughly the same sized electorate as Greater Manchester, where I am an MP, but we have 27 MPs and Wales has 40, which means that their average electoral quota is 64,546, to 71,780 in Greater Manchester. Why do you think that 30% fewer electors are required to elect an MP in WalesQ ?
Chris Clarkson (Conservative, Heywood and Middleton)
Q So you accept that there has to be a reduction?
Chris Clarkson (Conservative, Heywood and Middleton)
Q What would you say to those in Greater Manchester who feel hard done by, being under-represented at the moment?
Chris Clarkson (Conservative, Heywood and Middleton)
Q But that is at the expense of taking seats from Wales.
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
No other colleagues are indicating that they wish to ask a question so, if that is the case, Mr Williams, before leaving, do you wish to add anything?
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
On behalf of the Committee, we are very grateful for the time that you spent with us. Thank you.
Examination of Witnesses
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
Q Colleagues, as I mentioned earlier, the third witness is no longer able to appear, so we now move to our final witnesses for the morning session: Professor Iain McLean who, again wonderfully, is here physically; and Professor Sir John Curtice, who is appearing virtually. Thank you both for being with us earlier than anticipated. Will you please introduce yourselves?
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
Sir John, your voice is very familiar to us all. Again, at least as Chair, I feel cheated that we cannot see you, but never mind. Just so colleagues realise, you do not have to take the time, but we have until 11.25 am if you so wish.
Chloe Smith (Conservative, Norwich North)
Q Thank you very much indeed, Sir David. Could we have anything better than more time with Professor Maclean and Professor Sir John? This really is a treat—thank you both very much for joining us. Given that we have a little more time, I would like to start with a question to each of you, although I am sure your paths may cross over as the session goes on.
Professor McLean, you began in your introduction by referring to the rules having been put right in the earlier Bill and said that you would not change them again. Could you go into a little more detail on that? I am taking you to mean the rules that we find in schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, which, as you will know, the Bill predominantly leaves unchanged. We—perhaps like you—think that they flexible enough to allow the commissions to do their work, but perhaps you could elaborate on that. If I may, I would then like to ask Sir John a question once Iain has had a chance to speak.
Chloe Smith (Conservative, Norwich North)
Q Thank you very much indeed, Professor McLean. I do not mean to take the role of the Clerk, but I think that I can say that, if it helps, you can take a copy of the Bill and the explanatory notes from the table just behind Mr Efford.
Thank you for that helpful explanation. To clarify it further, do you think that rule 5(1), the list of factors, does a good enough job of providing flexibility to the boundary commissions, given its place in the hierarchy of rules that you have just gone through?
Chloe Smith (Conservative, Norwich North)
Of course. I am still driving at schedule 2 to the 1986 Act, which admittedly you do not have there in your papers.
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
Shall we go over to Sir John to give you time to absorb it all?
Chloe Smith (Conservative, Norwich North)
Q Thank you very much indeed.
Sir John, thank you very much for joining us. I wonder whether you might be able to help us with our understanding of the data used for boundary reviews. They are based on electoral registration data; could you give us your views on the adequacy of that?
Chloe Smith (Conservative, Norwich North)
Q Indeed; there is always discussion to be had about how we can continue to improve the completeness and accuracy of the registers. Not that I would get into an argument with you about trends over time, but my understanding was that those are rising rather than declining—but as you say, that is a different discussion.
Looking at electoral registration data with its ins and outs, as you have just outlined, is it the right kind of data to base boundaries on—as opposed to census data, for example, or other kinds that you could conceive of being collected?
Chloe Smith (Conservative, Norwich North)
Q Understood. Thank you for those opening remarks; that is helpful. Maybe Iain has had a chance to think about the other question I left hanging with him.
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
Order. I am slightly embarrassed, but I have to share with the Committee that the Bill available in the room is the wrong Bill. Quite how that has happened, I do not know. The Clerks will make sure that the right Bill is available for the next sitting. I was completely unaware of that, and unfortunately there is nothing I can do about it, I am afraid. It is a pity. Professor McLean, one of the Committee members will get the right Bill; it is on its way, and everyone will have the copies.
David Linden (Scottish National Party, Glasgow East)
On a point of order, the Bill that I am working from is the one we used for the Second Reading debate. That is not the Bill in the Committee Room. I do not know if I am the only person in the Committee using the Bill from Second Reading. Will you clarify that, Sir David?
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
The ones that were on the table at the side of the room were wrong, but Bills from elsewhere are accurate. I am very sorry about that.
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
On a point of order, Sir David. Could I ask for clarification on the difference between the Bills? Is it material to our discussion? Does it affect the answer we might get from witnesses?
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
My view is that it does not really affect that materially, but I felt that I should place on record the fact that the Bill that we had was not the right one.
Chloe Smith (Conservative, Norwich North)
Further to that point of order, Sir David. The Bill we should be talking about is the Parliamentary Constituencies Bill. The incorrect one is the Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill, a private Member’s Bill put forward by none other than my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone).
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
This is surreal. I thank the Minister for enlightening the Committee. It was an innocent mistake. The hon. Member for the City of Chester has kindly now made sure that we all have the correct Bill. Professor McLean, are you now in a position to respond?
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
There we are: the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Wellingborough inadvertently got some further scrutiny from the Committee.
Cat Smith (Labour, Lancaster and Fleetwood)
Q I direct my question to Professor Sir John Curtice. I would like to ask about the mathematical accuracy of the boundaries that we are drawing up. Obviously, I do not think anyone would disagree that we would like constituencies to be as equally represented as possible, but I have quite a lot of concern that the data that we are using is not accurate, because the electoral register, as you said in your previous answer, is about 85% complete. A huge proportion of people are missing from electoral registers. Can you see any opportunity in the Bill, Sir John, to increase the accuracy of the data that we are working from? Do you have an opinion about the best source of data to use in drawing up constituencies, so that they could be sized most accurately?
Cat Smith (Labour, Lancaster and Fleetwood)
Q For the purpose of drawing boundaries, where it is most important that there be as much accuracy as possible, would combining other sources of information be a way of improving the accuracy of the electoral roll? Perhaps, for example, data held by the Department for Work and Pensions could be added to that on a register, to ensure that it was more accurate. Obviously, that would not be applied in elections; it would just be for the purpose of drawing constituency boundaries, so that the original data source could be made more accurate.
Cat Smith (Labour, Lancaster and Fleetwood)
Q I will direct a question to Professor McLean, who I hope now has the right Bill in front of him. Back in 2010, Professor, you wrote an article for The Guardian about the boundary review commencing then. I was interested to see that in it, you progressed the argument that the most accurate way to ensure that every vote counted equally would be to move towards proportional representation. That is outside the scope of the Bill, but it shows up the conflict that we have. Would not the way for every vote in the United Kingdom to count equally be to have just one constituency—the United Kingdom—and a system of proportional representation, even though that comes into conflict with the communities that we represent? Ultimately, if we are to maintain the constituency link, we have to have a percentage variance between seats; we cannot have every single seat with exactly the same number of electors. It is a question of where we draw the line.
How can that balance be struck? Is the 5% tolerance most appropriate, or if we are not moving towards a system of proportional representation, should there be a larger tolerance, so that community ties are considered more important?
John Spellar (Labour, Warley)
Q Should we have districts?
Alec Shelbrooke (Conservative, Elmet and Rothwell)
Q Gentlemen, thank you for giving your time today. As you have probably picked up from reading previous reports, one of the issues this evidence inquiry is trying to get to the bottom of is how we are going to advise the commissions about the best way to do these boundaries.
Building on what you have just said, Professor McLean, about keeping the right size and in terms of communities, about which one can always argue, can we look at rule 5(1)(c) in the 1986 Act, which is about keeping boundaries in existing constituencies? My question, to both witnesses, is about whether the Bill needs to have some clarifications put in it, especially around what we are struggling with regarding the Boundary Commission for England. The evidence from the Boundary Commission for England was pretty much, “We are always going to try and do it with wards, and we will just get the numbers to work.” That overrides almost all the rules in clause 5, including geographic considerations. I gave the example of a North Yorkshire ward that one can only get to by completely leaving the constituency and spending a considerable amount of time on the road, but it would make the numbers work.
Can I probe your minds on the resistance to building outside of the wards, or, in other words, splitting wards down, as they do in Scotland, in order to try to keep existing communities together? What are your views on the different definitions of county constituencies and borough constituencies? How does that play into the building of constituencies? Does the Bill need further guidance to try to equalise the United Kingdom’s approach to how it builds constituencies, with the gold standard of Scotland being a good example?
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
Would you like to ask that to both witnesses?
Alec Shelbrooke (Conservative, Elmet and Rothwell)
Yes or whoever feels it is more appropriate for them to answer it.
Alec Shelbrooke (Conservative, Elmet and Rothwell)
Q One reason we are probing how constituencies are built is because there is removal of parliamentary oversight. It needs to be done properly the first time. You rightly referenced the size of the wards in Birmingham. I am a West Yorkshire MP. There are two councils in West Yorkshire, Kirklees and Leeds—out of the five councils—where the wards are far too big not to be split.
This comes down to guidance. As you pointed out, the large wards and the way they are managed in Scotland has allowed a more detailed approach. When you get to the arguments of whether it should be plus or minus 10% or 5%, I am seeking your view as to whether the arguments about the variations can be overcome by the guidance, which goes more explicitly to the Boundary Commission for England in splitting wards.
In the past, there has been a habit of them trying to form some strange shapes, like American congressional districts, just to get the numbers right, forming very strange communities. They have almost always then changed the first draft significantly in the second draft. The guidance that will go in this Bill, especially for the Boundary Commission for England, should try to avoid that situation.
The parliamentary oversight is going, which I believe is the correct thing to do. But we must get this right the first time and use this Bill to iron out these issues. Is this Bill strong enough, in terms of the Boundary Commission for England, to construct constituencies, which have an eye to what has gone on in the past, but do not end up with peculiar shapes and communities just to make the numbers work?
Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)
Q Professor Sir John, how much does locality and shared common experience in a community influence how individuals vote?
Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)
Q If a community has a shared experience—perhaps, for instance, the “red wall” seats that people have talked about a lot since the last election—and wants to express a collective view through the ballot box, is it not important that those communities are connected and represented in a cohesive and clearly identifiable way, where they have common characteristics, so that their votes will count?
Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)
Q But if those views are diluted because communities are divided up in a mathematical exercise, do people not become frustrated because their collective view, brought about by their collective experiences in a locality, cannot be represented?
Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)
Q That may well be true. Nonetheless, the community has an opportunity to make those representations to the Boundary Commission.
Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)
Q That is true. There are communities within boundaries, but it is important that they are not subdivided, just to satisfy a tight, rigid, mathematical exercise, is it not?
Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)
Q My final point would be that, in that case, should we not allow the Boundary Commission more flexibility than the 5%, in order to meet those concerns, where there is a genuine expression of concern from a local community?
Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)
Q Can I turn to Professor McLean? Do we need more than a calculator to map out our parliamentary boundaries?
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
Before asking Mrs Miller to put her question, in a moment the Division bell will ring. Please stand to observe a minute’s silence for those murdered in Reading.
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Q We have had some powerful evidence that parliamentary boundaries are to a greater or lesser extent an artificial construct, although rules are put in place to try to acknowledge issues, which should be taken into account. I want to probe further something that Sir John talked about earlier. Because we are dealing with boundaries that are 20 years out of date, this will be a disruptive redistribution.
What comments can be made about trying to future-proof any proposals, to take into account any proposed developments and house building, while noting that those cannot be taken into any analysis of the quota? Do our experts have any views on whether that should be taken into account with regards to the geographical boundaries, so as to avoid unnecessary disruption in the future?
David Linden (Scottish National Party, Glasgow East)
Q Thank you to our witnesses for their evidence thus far. Professor Curtice was probably right to say that we should focus on things in the Bill. The two major things are going from 600 seats to 650, and parliamentary approval. To take the first issue in a question to both witnesses, why do you think that the Government changed their position, going from 600 seats to 650?
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
We have just 15 minutes left, but you wanted to come back, Mr Linden.
David Linden (Scottish National Party, Glasgow East)
Q Of all the things that are embarrassing about the mother of Parliaments I do not think that is the one that would come top of my list. Can I ask specifically about the distribution of seats, and the idea that based on what is before us there would be a reduction in the number of seats for Scotland and Wales? Professor Curtice mentioned that it was a destructive process. Would you go so far as to say that that would impact on the harmony of the Union?
Bim Afolami (Conservative, Hitchin and Harpenden)
Professor McLean, you mentioned that you felt it would be difficult for the preference of existing constituencies to be kept to if we keep within the 5% quota, because there would need to be quite a substantial revision, and Professor Curtice made similar remarks. Could you expand a little on your analysis of how that might shake out? In terms of our recent electoral history, where do you think this disruption will rank?Q
Bim Afolami (Conservative, Hitchin and Harpenden)
Q Do you both think we will end up with more cross-county constituencies, particularly in the south-east of England?
Bim Afolami (Conservative, Hitchin and Harpenden)
It is not a proper county anyway.
Bim Afolami (Conservative, Hitchin and Harpenden)
Q One final question, if I may. We have talked a lot about the automaticity of this and how Parliament does not have the ability to vote it down. Bearing that in mind, do you both have a sense of how you feel the boundary commissioners might behave differently now that they would almost have a bit more freedom because of Parliament’s not having its ability to vote it down? Do you think they will behave differently in their judgments? They are obviously very professional people and will do their work as best they can, but we all live in the real world and we know that if we think that Parliament has the ability to vote it down, that might affect how radical the final findings we present are.
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
I would like to take the two final questions together because we have only three minutes left. First, Mr Matheson and then Mr Clarkson.
Chris Matheson (Labour, City of Chester)
Q Thank you, Sir David. I will be brief. We have talked about automaticity and the House of Commons using its political interests to reject proposals from the boundary commissions in the past. Is there not a danger, however, that the instructions given to boundary commissions at the outset through the legislation will also have political considerations in them based upon who has the majority in the House of Commons at the time, and therefore a further return to the boundary commission at the end gives a safety valve to perhaps counterbalance the political considerations that might have outweighed the criteria given to the boundary commissions.
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
Thank you. Now Mr Clarkson.
Chris Clarkson (Conservative, Heywood and Middleton)
It is fine, Chair. My question is far too long for the time we have left.
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
Splendid. Witnesses?
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
On that final note, which the Committee will have time to reflect on, on behalf of everyone, I thank you, Professor MacLean, and you, Sir John, for the time you have spent with the Committee. We have greatly enjoyed listening to you both.
(Afternoon)
Examination of Witness
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
We will now hear from Peter Stanyon, chief executive of the Association of Electoral Administrators, and we have until 2.30 pm for this session. Mr Stanyon, would you briefly introduce yourself to the Committee, please?
Chloe Smith (Conservative, Norwich North)
Q182 Peter, thank you so much for joining us this afternoon. It is excellent for the Committee to have the benefit of your expertise. I wonder if I might start with two questions. The first is very general. Could you talk us through what the work of a boundary review, and after a boundary review, looks like from your perspective? To take an example, the next boundary review will finish by July 2023. Could you talk us through what will then have to happen to implement those boundaries?
Chloe Smith (Conservative, Norwich North)
Q Thank you very much, Peter. To introduce a term that we will come on to in Committee, we often talk about the Gould principle, meaning six months of preparation time for administrators and others at the working level before an election takes place. Will you explain the value of that for administrators, and why six months is a helpful amount of time for you?
Cat Smith (Labour, Lancaster and Fleetwood)
If this boundary review were to throw up some significant boundary changes—which would not be unexpected, given that, certainly in England, the data from the last Q review was from 2000—and given the principle of a bare minimum of six months between any major change and elections, what period would be the most appropriate or comfortable for electoral administrators to go from completion of a boundary review to an election based on that set of boundaries?
Cat Smith (Labour, Lancaster and Fleetwood)
Q On registers and their accuracy and completeness, we know that no electoral register is either 100% accurate or 100% complete. Obviously, there is a discrepancy between the numbers in the December 2019 register and those in the March 2020 register. Can you say something about that? We have heard different figures, but the difference between the number of people on the December 2019 register, at the time of the general election, and the number on the March 2020 register may be in the hundreds of thousands. People will have fallen off the register between December and March, so could you explain why that might be? [Interruption.] Did you hear the end of my question, Peter? I was just finishing when the bell started.
Alec Shelbrooke (Conservative, Elmet and Rothwell)
Peter, I wonder whether you can describe polling districts and polling stations in more detail. You took me slightly by surprise. You said that when you have constituency boundary changes, you then have to do a review of polling stations and polling districts. I am slightly unclear about what that means and why that is. Is it because you might have a split polling district, or is it just par for the course? Can you give us more detail on that part of your statement? How does it play into constituency changes?Q
Alec Shelbrooke (Conservative, Elmet and Rothwell)
Q To clarify, are you speaking about the review that takes place if a polling district is split in a constituency? Some polling districts might be dropped out of a constituency—some polling districts are coming in and some are being dropped—so you are splitting wards. Is it about redoing polling districts if a polling district is split? I am slightly unclear about the meaning of the exercise if the polling districts have not changed, even if they may have changed constituencies.
Alec Shelbrooke (Conservative, Elmet and Rothwell)
Thank you, Peter—that makes sense.
Chris Matheson (Labour, City of Chester)
May I first follow on from the question asked by the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell about polling districts? When a local authority makes polling districts, is it simply an administrative process done on numbers and geography? Is there political or democratic input into that? How does it work?Q
Chris Matheson (Labour, City of Chester)
Q My own constituency of City of Chester has split wards, with some shared with Ellesmere Port and Neston and one shared with Eddisbury. What administrative difficulties or issues do you have to deal with in terms of split wards? Let me ask a further question: imagine you are an administrator and the Boundary Commission has given you a couple of constituencies in your area that share wards. Do you roll your eyes and think, “Oh God, that’s a bit more work for us,” or is it quite easy to get on with split wards between different constituencies?
Chris Clarkson (Conservative, Heywood and Middleton)
Peter, the Bill allows you to consider ward changes that have not necessarily come into effect yet. For example, in Salford, where I used to be a councillor, there has been a boundary review that should have come into force in May, but obviously the election has been delayed. Considering that, is there a preference about which set of boundaries you use? Do you find the newer, updated boundaries more useful for keeping electorates within quota and drawing more coherent seats?Q
Chris Clarkson (Conservative, Heywood and Middleton)
Q If there were a situation where you could draw more coherency from the old set of boundaries, would you ever use a mix and match approach? Using the example of Salford again, most of the changes are in the east of the city, where the population has gone up quite a bit. The west is relatively unchanged, so you could leave the seat of Worsley and Eccles South pretty much intact, but you would need to heavily redraw Salford and Eccles.
Chris Clarkson (Conservative, Heywood and Middleton)
Q Is it fair to say that an element of the disruptive change that will be an inevitable part of this review will be down to the fact that local electoral geography has changed substantially over the last 20 years?
Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)
Hi Peter. What are the additional problems that are created for electoral registration officers when a constituency goes into two local authority areas that are under the purview of different local authorities and EROs?Q
Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)
Q For local administration purposes, would it be better to go to sub-ward level to keep a constituency coterminous within a local authority area than to go across two local authority areas?
Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)
Q Are there any sources of information that electoral registration officers would like to have access to and that they currently cannot access, which would assist them in maintaining an accurate electoral register?
Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)
Q Has your association identified the sources that you would like to be able to access?
Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)
Q Is the simple answer to the question that yes, there are sources that you would like access to?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Thank you for your evidence, Peter. If you mentioned this earlier I did not catch it, but we have been talking a lot Q about polling districts. Could you confirm how often, on average, polling districts actually change? I have been an MP for 15 years and I could probably count two or three times we have had changes in polling districts, which should always be as a result of boundary changes for wards. Is that typical, or are they usually more regular than that?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Q I raise this because the boundary commission talked about how difficult it would be to look at polling districts as a unit of currency, as it were, because they change so often. How could those changes be better monitored? Iain McLean mentioned the need for more investment in geographic information systems. Is that a problem, or are the two issues separate?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Q Would more investment in GIS help?
Jane Hunt (Conservative, Loughborough)
Thank you for your contribution so far, Peter. I will also ask you about polling districts, and will declare an interest at this stage: in addition to being a Member of Parliament I am also a borough councillor at Charnwood Borough Council, Quorn and Mountsorrel Castle. I will talk about Quorn. In Quorn, there are two polling districts. The reason there are two—and the reason they are where they are—is that we have a football club at one end of the village and a village hall at the other end, and they are the polling stations. Is that the kind of thing that happens across the country? What is your advice on that? Do the locations of the polling stations denote polling districts as opposed to something else?Q
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
Colleagues, I know there are more questions to ask, but I must end the session now. On behalf of the Committee, Peter, I thank you for your time and the evidence you have provided. We are very grateful.
Examination of Witnesses
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
We will now hear from Andrew Scallan, who is the deputy chair of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England. Andrew, please introduce yourself.
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
I shall stop reading out the script as it appears in front of me.
Chloe Smith (Conservative, Norwich North)
Q Andrew, thank you for joining for joining us. One element of the Bill in front of us seeks to help parliamentary constituency boundaries and local government boundaries to come together as best they can. Obviously, that task will never be entirely complete, but we have endeavoured to accommodate the most up-to-date boundaries from the local government side. We have used the word “prospective”. Please talk the Committee through what that means for your side of that work and how you envisage that we can be as well co-ordinated as possible.
Chloe Smith (Conservative, Norwich North)
Q Thank you. It is very helpful to have the breadth of that on record. Drilling down into what it means to talk about prospective boundaries from the local government side, please talk through that definition for the Committee and what that might look like this year, for example.
Cat Smith (Labour, Lancaster and Fleetwood)
Q Andrew, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England presents its report to Parliament under the negative procedure. That strikes a balance between the independence of your work and the scrutiny we conduct as MPs. For local government boundaries, do you feel there is a good balance between that independence and parliamentary scrutiny?
Cat Smith (Labour, Lancaster and Fleetwood)
Q I think you would argue that the local government boundary reviews are done in a robust and fair way. That obviously decides the electoral wards for local government, but it is not the same process for polling districts. Do you have any concerns about the idea of using polling districts as a potential building block for parliamentary constituencies?
Alec Shelbrooke (Conservative, Elmet and Rothwell)
Q Before I move on to other things, what causes a polling district change? I think you have touched on some areas. What governs your construction of a ward? Why do you do your ward reviews, and what are you looking at when you construct new ward boundaries?
Alec Shelbrooke (Conservative, Elmet and Rothwell)
Q My experience in the city of Leeds, which I represent, is that polling district changes have been splitting polling districts when they have become too big, rather than creating new boundaries. Is that your overall experience? What I am really driving at is that there is a lot of discussion in this Committee about the construction of constituencies and using wards, and obviously the Bill allows for the future shape of wards to be taken into account when being built. As you say in paragraph 27 of your written evidence, you are concerned about your timetables not being rushed. You say:
“Whilst we support the concept of using the most up-to-date local government boundaries, the Committee will appreciate our concern that doing so should not, unintentionally, compromise the independence and integrity”
of our review programme, which I entirely agree with. Is it your opinion that it is vital for the boundary commission to try to stick to wards, or do you think that is irrelevant? It is useful, but with your five-year timetable and their eight-year timetable and things moving apart, do you think it really matters to constituents if the ward boundaries change and do not quite match constituency boundaries? Do you think that we are trying to blend a round hole and a square hole together?
Ben Lake (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Mr Scallan, thank you for giving us your time this afternoon. As you will detect from the accent, I might be about to tread on some unfamiliar territory. I was wondering whether you might be able to comment on something about Cornwall. I appreciate that the work of the Local Government Boundary Commission is unlikely to have to address any cross-Tamar local government wards, but you mentioned that you have inevitably undertaken quite a lot of discussion and consultation with local communities across England as part of your main work. I was wondering whether a strong sentiment, or any sentiment for that matter, to maintain the territorial integrity of Cornwall is something that you have picked up in your work.Q
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
If there are no other questions from Committee members, I thank you, Mr Scallan, for the time you have spent with us. We are most appreciative of the evidence you have given us.
Examination of Witness
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
Q We now move on to Mr Hughes. I have learned my lesson; please introduce yourself.
Chloe Smith (Conservative, Norwich North)
Q Welcome, Mr Hughes. It is great to have you here this afternoon. I am indeed going to take you up on the opportunity of talking a little bit about New Zealand with you. Would you start by giving us some general reflections on how the system currently in operation in the UK, and that which is envisaged to come into operation through the Bill, compare to that of New Zealand?
Chloe Smith (Conservative, Norwich North)
Q Thank you very much indeed, Mr Hughes. That is a very helpful depth of detail that we had not managed to get from any other witness in their international comparisons. Could I add one more comparison to that list? I understand that New Zealand does what we refer to here as automaticity. To use your own words, given that there is a political dimension to the process, and given, as you say, that no industry really gets the luxury of being able to set its own rules, is that not a good thing?
Chloe Smith (Conservative, Norwich North)
Q Thank you; that is a helpful suggestion. I know that the four Boundary Commissions are listening very carefully to these witness sessions and so may well have a moment to give some thought to that as a method.
Can I round off my international comparison questions by checking whether New Zealand or any other countries that you are aware of also run with a judge-led process, securing a high level of independence, as we do in this country?
Cat Smith (Labour, Lancaster and Fleetwood)
Q Mr Hughes, thank you for giving evidence to the Committee this afternoon. Do you feel that the balance is right between community ties and the 5% tolerance in the Bill?
Chris Clarkson (Conservative, Heywood and Middleton)
Q I should put it on the record that I am a member of the Electoral Reform Society. I wanted that to be out there.
I want to pick up on a couple of points that have been raised. In terms of the 5% electoral quota and splitting communities, going back to the Maori electorates—which I think are arrived at by dividing the South Island’s population by 16 and then applying to the Maori electoral register—they do lead to some splitting of communities and they still stay within the 5% boundary. Is that correct? I am thinking, for example, of Te Tai Tonga, which covers the entire South Island and only part of Wellington.
Chris Clarkson (Conservative, Heywood and Middleton)
Q In your experience, do you think that has compromised the quality of the representation those Members of Parliament give?
Chris Clarkson (Conservative, Heywood and Middleton)
Q I know the ERS’s preferred system would be the single transferable vote. Were such a system to be adopted—for example, the hon. Member for Glasgow East mentioned the slightly bizarre size of the Highland North seat, which was based on the 600 review —theoretically, there could be an entire seat covering the entire Highlands. We are just electing three Members. Would that be an appropriate system for Britain?
Chris Clarkson (Conservative, Heywood and Middleton)
Q I have one quick follow-up. Assuming that we stay with the current system, which will be the case, would you not accept that having more equalised electorates is fairer to the electorate than having wildly disparate ones? I am thinking of Greater Manchester, for which I am an MP, where you have electorates ranging from 63,000 to 95,000.
Chris Clarkson (Conservative, Heywood and Middleton)
Q Setting aside what we would prefer the system to be, do you agree that, for the current system, more equalised electorates would be fairer?
David Linden (Scottish National Party, Glasgow East)
I am very grateful to you, Mr Hughes, for your appearance before the Committee today. One of the things in which the Electoral Reform Society is interested is, essentially, the health of British democracy. Can you expand a little on your thoughts about the distribution of seats between the four nations of the UK, commenting specifically on the fact that under these proposals both Scotland and Wales would have less representation in the House of Commons?Q
David Linden (Scottish National Party, Glasgow East)
Q My final question follows on from what the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton said about the size of constituencies. You may have seen from some of the questions that I have asked in previous sittings of this Committee that a lot of people in Scotland were frankly outraged at the proposal for a Highland North constituency, which would have been utterly unmanageable for any MP; I mean, the current Ross, Skye and Lochaber constituency is already far, far too big. Does the ERS have any views about reducing the current 12,000 sq km guideline to try to ensure slightly more manageable constituencies and a slightly closer relationship between the electors and their MP?
Laura Farris (Conservative, Newbury)
Thank you, Darren, for giving evidence to usQ .
One of the things we heard this morning was that US congressional districts had close to zero margin of deviation around population size, and one of the points that you made was that when people buy a house, or look on Zoopla, they are not given information about their political constituency, but they are given other very local information, for example school proximity. I just wondered whether there was any sort of empirical basis that you had in mind when you said that you thought that the 5% range, if I can call it that, was not sufficient.
Laura Farris (Conservative, Newbury)
Q We heard evidence from Professor Iain McLean this morning, who said that one of the risks of the local ties argument is that, depending on whose hands that argument is in, it can be politicised in a different way, and what the Conservatives, Labour party or Liberal Democrats might determine to be local ties would vary according to which of them you ask. Do you agree with that analysis? If you do, do you think it supports the idea of a threshold being set somewhere?
Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)
Q Thanks, Darren, for giving evidence this afternoon. Following on from that, do you think that the Boundary Commission is incapable of telling the difference between political opportunism and genuine community concern about parliamentary boundaries and local representation?
Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)
Q Do you have examples of where things went wrong, where local representations were dressed up in such a way as to influence the outcome, which brought about something that was regretted later? You do not have any examples of where local representation has forced errors in boundaries.
Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)
Q Can I ask about how we devise the electoral register? Do you think there should be any changes to the way we do that, and any sources of information that are currently denied EROs, that they should be able to access to help them create an accurate list?
Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)
Q Earlier you mentioned that you favoured 650 MPs. You were concerned about going down to 600 and giving the payroll a greater proportional say. You also in answer to the Minister made a reference to political interference. Was Parliament right to stop the number being cut down to 600, or was that political interference—or was trying to go down to 600 actually the political interference? I am not sure what point you were making.
Alec Shelbrooke (Conservative, Elmet and Rothwell)
Q Why is there an assumption that all adults want to be on the electoral register?
Alec Shelbrooke (Conservative, Elmet and Rothwell)
Q Have you asked the people who do not want to be registered why they do not want to be registered?
Ben Lake (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Q Thank you, Mr Hughes, for your evidence this afternoon. It has been interesting to learn a bit more about the system in New Zealand. On that point, can I briefly clarify one thing? Am I right to understand that when the equivalent of the Boundary Commission in New Zealand approaches establishing boundaries for constituencies, it takes into account the actual population, as opposed to the number of registered electors?
Ben Lake (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Q In that sense, would I be right to infer that student populations would be assigned, as it were, for the purpose of drawing the boundaries, to where they are at the university?
Ben Lake (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Q My final question is on something that has already been touched on by some of my colleagues, in terms of representing rural areas. Beyond the Maori electorate and constituencies, does the boundary commission in New Zealand take into account any other factors, such as rurality? How does it cope with what I imagine are quite large constituencies, particularly in the South Island? Is that catered for by the list system, or is it something that is considered when drawing up the boundaries?
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
If there are no other questions from Committee members, I thank Mr Hughes very much indeed for his evidence. We are very grateful.
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
We now move on to one of our colleagues, Gavin Robinson. Gavin, we know what you look like, but we cannot see you. Will you please introduce yourself and tell us why you are giving us evidence?
Chloe Smith (Conservative, Norwich North)
Q Welcome to our Committee, Gavin. I am not sure that I could reach your shoulder to tap you on it, so it is great to have you with us virtually, at least to get me out of that. May I invite you to give the perspective of the parties in Northern Ireland? I make that plural, if you do not mind, because in preparation for the Bill I have reached out to all the Northern Ireland parties to be even-handed, and I am sure that you can give us some broad insights that go across the piece of what this looks like from the parties’ perspective in Northern Ireland.
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
Gavin, may I interrupt you for a minute? There is a three-minute suspension. We cannot hear what you are saying clearly, so please hang on until the bell has stopped ringing.
Chloe Smith (Conservative, Norwich North)
Q Thank you, Gavin. Will you go into the next level of detail, to do with how the rules given to the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland helped to bring about their review?
Cat Smith (Labour, Lancaster and Fleetwood)
Q Thank you for giving evidence, Gavin. Do you feel that a commitment to protecting the 18 seats in Northern Ireland without a similar protection for Scotland and Wales compromises the integrity of the Union in the longer run?
Cat Smith (Labour, Lancaster and Fleetwood)
Q Finally, is there anything else in the Bill that the DUP has any concerns about?
David Linden (Scottish National Party, Glasgow East)
Q I am grateful to Mr Robinson for appearing before the Committee. He is obviously a Unionist, and I am not, but can he see the fundamental problem that people in Scotland and Wales may have in seeing Northern Ireland getting to keep its 18 seats while they get lesser representation in the House of Commons, from a Unionist point of view?
David Linden (Scottish National Party, Glasgow East)
Q Can I draw your attention to new clause 7, which I have tabled? I appreciate that you may not have it in front of you. That new clause seeks to initiate a bit of debate about the application of rule 7, not just in Northern Ireland but other constituencies. Is there any circumstance in which you could envisage the application of rule 7 being helpful for other parts of the UK, not just Northern Ireland?
David Linden (Scottish National Party, Glasgow East)
Q One final question if I may, which is perhaps slightly mischievous. Obviously, in the last Parliament, the Government had a very different view on how many seats there should be in the House of Commons, namely that there should be 600. It is well known and on record that the DUP was opposed to that, and was part of a confidence and supply agreement. Did the DUP and the Government ever discuss those proposals, and is that perhaps why Orders in Council did not come forward in the last Parliament?
David Linden (Scottish National Party, Glasgow East)
Thank you, Mr Robinson.
Chloe Smith (Conservative, Norwich North)
Q Gavin, I want to round out our session with one quite small piece of detail, but one that we have not managed to touch on with any other witness yet. That is the way in which the constituencies of the Northern Ireland Assembly are directly tied to UK parliamentary constituencies.
As you will have seen from a close reading, this Bill makes provision for a buffer period between recommendations from a boundary review that would come into effect for the UK, and the point at which the Northern Ireland Assembly constituencies would change to reflect those new boundaries. I wonder if you might be able to give us a little more insight into the impact of such a scenario—that is, what effect not having that kind of buffer and protection would have on constituencies and electors in Northern Ireland.
Chloe Smith (Conservative, Norwich North)
Q Thank you. I seek to get on the record your thoughts on the vanilla scenario, if you like, of those moments in the future when Northern Ireland Assembly elections might be scheduled to clash with, or come close to, UK parliamentary elections, and on the way in which the buffer provision seeks to give some ease to administrators, campaigners and citizens in Northern Ireland from those two things being unmanageably close together. If you have not had a chance to think through that, please do not feel the need to comment further, but if you have, that will be interesting to the Committee.
Chloe Smith (Conservative, Norwich North)
Thank you very much indeed. I was keen for the Committee to note that, so I appreciate your help on that.
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
There are no other questions from the Committee to our witness. Gavin, I thank you very much indeed for enlightening us on the views of your party on the Bill and for sharing how other parties in Northern Ireland feel about this particular piece of legislation.
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
Q I owe you an apology, Dr Larner, because I have had you waiting an awful long time for this call. There was a moment in our proceedings this afternoon where it appeared that we could have had a gap, so I am grateful that you have been on standby for so long. I hope you have not been bored but enthused by our proceedings. Dr Larner, would you please say something about yourself?
Chloe Smith (Conservative, Norwich North)
Q Thank you very much for joining us, Dr Larner. We really appreciate it. It is great that we have had the chance to hear from you and from your colleague, Professor Wyn Jones, last week. I will keep it extremely general at the outset. Will you give us your view on the provisions in the Bill and say whether you support them or not?
Cat Smith (Labour, Lancaster and Fleetwood)
Q As you have outlined, Dr Larner, it is expected that we will see some big changes to the constituencies in Wales, and with that we will see new boundaries drawn, probably around communities that look very different. How important do you feel community identity and having communities together in one constituency are when it comes to that balance between keeping communities together and the electoral tolerance of 5%?
Cat Smith (Labour, Lancaster and Fleetwood)
Q To follow up on that, for those of us who are not Welsh, could you say whether people, particularly in the Welsh valleys, identify predominantly with the valley they live in? Could you just expand slightly on that?
Cat Smith (Labour, Lancaster and Fleetwood)
Q I can quite relate to that, as a Lancashire MP who will have solidarity with Yorkshire when faced with a southerner. A slightly different but perhaps similar final question on identity: there are parts of Wales that have a higher percentage of first language Welsh speakers than others. Do you feel that the Bill would be strengthened by and benefit from an amendment that has been tabled to take note also of people’s language when drawing community identities? I suppose I am asking whether Welsh language counts as part of an identity.
Cat Smith (Labour, Lancaster and Fleetwood)
Diolch.
Ben Lake (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Q Diolch, Dr Larner. I suppose we have had quite a bit of discussion, not just today, but last week, about the best way of allocating seats between the four nations of the UK. I wonder whether you have any views about the balance the Bill strikes as it is and whether there are any better ways to strike that balance
Ben Lake (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Q Thank you, Dr Larner. I would agree with you. I tried to test the patience of the Chair last week by approaching Lords reform, but I will not do it again. I think that the point you made about the salami-sliced nature of devolution in Wales is important for consideration within the scope of the Bill when it comes to the allocation of seats between the nations.
The panellist from the Liberal Democrats suggested that there should be no reduction in the number of seats without further devolution. I think his point was that the devolution settlements across the UK—especially if we compare Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland—are very different. There are perhaps more policy issues decided in Westminster that directly impact Wales.
A recent change that I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on is the UK leaving the European Union. Things that were previously decided on a European level, where Wales had four MEPs, are now being decided at Westminster. Some aspects of that touch, indirectly or directly, touch on policy fields that are commonly considered to be devolved to Wales. Should this new dynamic, now that the UK has left the European Union, in which more things will be directly or indirectly influenced at Westminster, be borne in mind when we allocate seats across the nations of the UK?
Ben Lake (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)
Q Finally, some of my colleagues would argue that a fair way of allocating seats across the UK is purely to look at population or the number of electors, and that is a valid point. I was asked last week by a colleague of yours, Professor Wyn Jones, whether there was any logic in maintaining the over-representation of Wales in the House of Commons based purely on population. Since 2001, the population of Wales increased by about 5% to 2011 and again by another couple of hundred thousand to this year. It is projected to increase yet again by 2028, but in all likelihood, due to the relatively slower rate of increase than in England, Wales will continue to lose seats.
The automaticity of the Bill, should it pass, would mean that Wales would not only lose eight seats in this particular review but a further couple of seats at the next review, unless something drastic happens and everybody wants to live in Wales—there is a welcome in the hillsides, by the way. Should that scenario come to pass—I appreciate it is a hypothetical scenario at the moment—could it have any impact on sentiments within Wales and perhaps attitudes towards the Union?
Chris Matheson (Labour, City of Chester)
Q Good afternoon, Dr Larner. I am the MP for the City of Chester, so I share a street with Wales. One side of the appropriately named Boundary Lane is England and the other is Wales. If I think about the areas of north-east Wales that abut the border, I am told that there is a sense within those areas close to mine that perhaps because of the geographical separation from Cardiff, they look to England—to Manchester, Liverpool and Chester—more than down to Cardiff and the south. Do you have any sense that that is the case and do you therefore have a sense as to whether Welshness, if you like, or looking to Cardiff for political leadership, is regionalised?
Chris Matheson (Labour, City of Chester)
Q Secondly, Wales has some centres of population but it also has areas of sparsity, and some serious geographical issues that a boundary commission review would need to take into account. I made that point to Professor Wyn Jones as well, but I would be grateful for your take.
We have already heard about the south Wales valleys and there are parts of Snowdonia that are very mountainous. I suspect that Wales is more badly affected by losing so many seats because we are focusing solely on the numbers, and that the areas of sparsity and the geographical barriers would lead to much larger constituencies in area. How would you strike a balance between geography, sparsity, rurality and numbers?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Q Thank you, Dr Larner, for your evidence today. It is incredibly helpful in the Committee’s deliberations.
Under these provisions there are four protected constituencies, as you know: two are on the Isle of Wight, near my own constituency of Basingstoke, and two are in Scotland, but there are none in Wales. When the proposal was to reduce to 600 constituencies, it was difficult to give protection to Ynys Môn, yet under this proposal it is easier to do so and stay closer to the potential threshold for constituency sizes. I have tabled an amendment to that affect, which I do not know whether you have had a chance to look at. Can you see any problems with introducing such an amendment into this legislation? I declare an interest as I was brought up in south Wales.
Bim Afolami (Conservative, Hitchin and Harpenden)
Dr Larner, you mentioned at the beginning that you studied electoral and voting behaviour. In the evidence sessions we have heard a lot about the impact on people when they feel that local ties are not respected or that their community is being broken up by a constituency boundary.Q
Have you come across any evidence from the last few boundary reviews on what a more disruptive boundary review does to voting behaviour, as regards the parties or candidates people vote for, or whether they vote at all?
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
Dr Larner, you waited a long time, but the Committee had plenty of questions for you, and we are very grateful for the time you spent with us. Thank you.
Examination of witnesses
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
Colleagues, we come to our final session this afternoon. We have Dr Rossiter and Professor Charles Pattie. Could you please introduce yourselves, gentlemen?
Chloe Smith (Conservative, Norwich North)
Q Thank you both for joining us. I salute you for your combined seven or eight decades of work on these matters. It strikes me that you are extremely well placed to help us have a very down-to-earth conversation, and to remove some of the high-falutin’ terms that get used sometimes in these matters.
I noted that you and your late colleague, Professor Ron Johnston—we send you our condolences on his loss—looked into claims of bias in prior reviews. You were very clear that there is a function here for levelling the playing field by ensuring updated and equal boundaries. Could you please go into that?
Chloe Smith (Conservative, Norwich North)
Q Thank you very much. You concluded with an argument in favour of regular reviews and, I suppose, getting on with it. As you pointed out, the age of the data that currently holds sway is in itself an argument for moving ahead to the first of a new series of reviews, and establishing a series from there.
Cat Smith (Labour, Lancaster and Fleetwood)
Q I would like to start by passing on my condolences to you both after the unexpected death of your colleague Ron Johnston. There is an argument to be had about where the balance lies between drawing constituency boundaries that look like the communities that people recognise around them, and the electoral quota and the flexibility to stray either side of it. The Bill proposes a variance in the electoral quota of 5%. What do you think the number should be to strike that balance between community and constituencies of equal size?
Cat Smith (Labour, Lancaster and Fleetwood)
Q Dr Rossiter, do you have anything to add?
Cat Smith (Labour, Lancaster and Fleetwood)
Q Dr Rossiter, I hope I am not putting words in your mouth, but would a way to solve that involve some level of tolerance over the total number of constituencies that need to be drawn up? The Bill fixes that number at 650. Is there an argument for giving the commission the flexibility to go as close to 650 as possible while respecting community ties?
Cat Smith (Labour, Lancaster and Fleetwood)
Q Finally, are there any other opportunities to strengthen or improve the Bill in Committee?
Bim Afolami (Conservative, Hitchin and Harpenden)
Q I suppose that this question is for both of you. If you think back to previous reviews that have taken place—admittedly, obviously, under different rules—to what degree of magnitude do you think this review will end up changing the existing constituencies?
Bim Afolami (Conservative, Hitchin and Harpenden)
Q That is interesting. Out of interest—I could go and check this now, but I do not have it in front of me—on the 2018 review, which obviously did not happen, for various reasons that we have discussed already, what percentage of seats underwent what you would consider major revision?
David Linden (Scottish National Party, Glasgow East)
Q Thank you very much, Professor Pattie and Dr Rossiter, for coming before the Committee. I have a couple of questions that I want to explore with you. You may have seen in previous oral evidence there has been some discussion of the idea of the building blocks for constituencies, whether those are used by polling districts or wards. Can you offer a view on that? Perhaps Professor Pattie would start off.
David Linden (Scottish National Party, Glasgow East)
Q Continuing the theme of geography, although I appreciate that you will not necessarily have the amendment paper in front of you, I have tabled new clause 5, which looks specifically at the highland constituencies and that limit of 12,000 sq km. I have asked this question of other witnesses before the Committee. Can you offer any thoughts on ways in which to manage constituencies so that they are slightly more manageable for Members? I think that most people would agree that having a constituency of 12,000 sq km is somewhat unsustainable. In my name, I have tabled a new clause to say that it should be 9,000 sq km, for example. Do either of you have a view of that, in terms of the management of constituencies?
Chris Clarkson (Conservative, Heywood and Middleton)
Q This is for both our witnesses, but I will start with Dr Rossiter. Do you agree that reaching electoral equality is important not just between regions but within regions? I will take the example of between regions first.
At the moment, Wales has an electoral quota of about 54,500, as opposed to about 72,000 in the north-west. Within Greater Manchester, where I am an MP, the number ranges from about 63,000 to 95,000. To take the concept that you just put forward of not splitting communities, in my borough are two seats that are prettily evenly divided: mine is Heywood and Middleton, and the neighbouring one is called Rochdale. From the sound of things, they are self-contained communities, but, in reality, I represent about a third of Rochdale. If you were not to split the communities, my neighbour would represent 103,000 people to my 57,000. Taking that to the logical extreme, do you not accept that, at some point, you will have to split some communities in order to achieve electoral equality?
Beyond that, talking about disruption in future reviews, would you accept that, to a degree, splitting wards would minimise that, reducing the amount of absolute disruption? Most of the disruption that will come from this review relies on the fact that the electoral figures we are using are 20 years out of date.
Chris Clarkson (Conservative, Heywood and Middleton)
Q To take that thread, if we are not being too precious about communities, why is a 7% or 8% variance better than a 5% variance? Surely it is better to get closer to the mean.
Chris Clarkson (Conservative, Heywood and Middleton)
Q Less disruption is less work for the Boundary Commissions, rather than electoral equality.
Chris Clarkson (Conservative, Heywood and Middleton)
Q I take the academic point, Professor Pattie, but I think it would be quite a hard sell on the doorsteps to tell some of my constituents that 20,000 extra voters are required because it will save somebody a bit of work.
Chris Clarkson (Conservative, Heywood and Middleton)
But it is at the moment.
Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)
Q I am not sure which of the two of you I am aiming this question at, but how much does locality and the experience of living in a community influence the way people vote? Does it bring outcomes where people vote collectively in a similar pattern?
Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)
Q Could it lead to frustration? We do not keep clearly identifiable communities with common characteristics integral within parliamentary representation, but their voices could be lost because they cannot vote collectively in response to the experience of living in their particular locality.
Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)
Q I was going to come on to that, so you have segued to it nicely. To come within the 5%, or whatever we finish up setting in this piece of legislation, requires either taking a piece of a ward—going to sub-ward level within a local authority area—or going across that local authority boundary. Would you suggest that it is better to go to a sub-ward level and stay within the local authority area, rather than having constituencies span two or more local authority areas?
Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)
Thank you.
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
Are there any other questions from Committee Members to put to our two witnesses? If there are no other questions, I would like to thank Dr Rossiter and Professor Pattie for the evidence you have given us this afternoon. We are very grateful. I am grateful to Members for their cooperation during this virtual session in these somewhat unusual proceedings.