Composition of Parliament

HC Deb 22 June 2004 vol 422 cc332-50WH

2 pm

Andrew George (St. Ives) (LD)

I am pleased to have secured this debate, although I am concerned that it may appear rather presumptuous for any Member to lead a debate from the Back Benches about whether the composition of Parliament is appropriate, or whether we should review how the House of Commons is composed.

I first raised the issue with a ten-minute Bill on 15 October 2003, in a debate entitled "Representation of the People (Consequences of Devolution)". Now that powers have been handed out to the nations of Scotland and Wales, and there is the prospect of handing further powers to the regions of England, in addition to the Greater London authority and the Northern Ireland Assembly, I asked whether it was appropriate for the House of Common to continue to consist of 659 MPs.

People who take a more jocular approach might think that we each have a personal list of people whom we would like to have removed—having raised this debate, no doubt I am at the top of some lists. On a serious note, however, if we are to reconnect with the electorate, we need to consider whether the efficiency that all parties believe we should perpetually aim for in the public services might not be applied in our approach to the House as well.

One of the triggers for my raising the issue was this year's Electoral Commission review of the constituencies in Cornwall. The population of Cornwall is now more than half a million, which gives each of its five constituencies on average an electorate of more than 77,000. According to the Electoral Commission, that means that our constituencies have at least 7,000 people more than the quota. The rapid increase in Cornwall's population in recent years means that we should now have six Members of Parliament. I strongly agree that Cornwall should be proportionately represented in Parliament. However, we would have to consider which bits of each constituency to lose. I represent the west of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, and would rather lose a limb from my body than a square inch of my constituency. I defend every part of my constituency with vigour. Of course the Electoral Commission must complete the review, and of course the sixth Member of Parliament must be fitted in somewhere in Cornwall. However, the problem raises questions, not only for Cornwall but for the rest of the country, about whether we are going about things the right way.

The idea of having 659 MPs is not written in tablets of stone, and was not preordained by God. We can change the situation ourselves; it should be a matter for review, and of course it has been. From 1688 to 1707 there were 513 Members of Parliament—if that can be believed. Given the electoral system in those days, each of those MPs must have known every one of his electors personally. The figures increase over time: from 1707 to 1800 there were 558 Members of Parliament, and from 1801 there were 658 very close to our present number— a level that was maintained after 1826. From 1885 to 1918 there were 670 MPs, and from 1918 to 1922, 707. The number then fluctuated, reaching a low of 625 in the mid-1950s, before rising to our present total of 659.

The reason for my belief that Parliament should take a lead in reviewing the number of Members of Parliament is that if we are keen, as I am, to devolve certain functions and responsibilities of Parliament to other Chambers, whether in Scotland, Wales or elsewhere, we will find that we have less to do here. Therefore, we should review our justification for maintaining 659 MPs. However, I do not wish to reopen the can of worms that is the West Lothian question. Although that touches on important issues, it can be left for other occasions.

We have, of course, gained further layers of elected representatives. Only a week ago had the results of the elections to the European Parliament—another layer of representation that was not in place during most of the history that I have recounted. Then there is discussion about possible elections is to the second Chamber—a matter that I shall return to later if we have time, as it appears that we might.

Part of the political context in which the review takes place is the perpetual drive for efficiency savings in the public sector. The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the Budget his intention to achieve efficiencies by reducing the civil service by at least 40,000; it numbers over half a million at the moment. I understand that the Chancellor might come to the House next week, too, to make a further statement about his spending plans, and possibly about the publication of Sir Peter Gershon's review of the civil service and other matters.

On 8 June, the Financial Times claimed that

Gordon Brown is poised to announce the loss of more than 80,000 public sector jobs when he unveils his review of public spending this summer as the government strives to make big savings on back office functions and the purchase of goods and services. Those savings are likely to go still further. Responsible representatives of all political parties must press for efficiency savings in the public sector. Things do not remain in aspic, and it is incumbent on all of us to achieve such savings when we can.

We cannot do that and be respected by the electorate, or by the civil servants who are losing their jobs, unless we also turn the focus on ourselves, and see what efficiency savings we can make in this place. There is certainly a perception out there that we in the House of Commons lead a charmed and luxurious life—

Nick Harvey (North Devon) (LD)

What?

Andrew George

My hon. Friend questions that—I am sure that his life is one of sackcloth and ashes—but among our constituents there is a perception that we have a luxurious lifestyle in comparison to them, and that we vote ourselves generous pay rises and allowances, and more favourable pensions than we offer them. If we are to reconnect with the people who put us here, we need to gain their respect by acknowledging that we need to consider efficiency savings.

It may help to consider how many people Members of Parliament in other westernised democracies represent.

Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con)

What does the hon. Gentleman make of the fact that the rules on the distribution of seats, in schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, state in paragraph 1(1):

The number of constituencies in Great Britain shall not be substantially greater or less than 613. Yet we have 659 constituencies. Can he explain that?

Andrew George

I suspect that that is a question for the Minister, but that anomaly may be a result of the process of rounding up within certain geographic boundaries that I described earlier in connection with the review of constituencies in Cornwall.

When compared to countries with populations of a similar size, the UK appears to be rather overrepresented. Germany has a population of nearly 82.5 million and 603 Members of Parliament, so each Member represents about 136,000 people. In comparison, the average population that UK Members of Parliament represent is 89,400, although there is, of course, significant variation: I represent a population of about 100,000. Spain has a population of 40 million and 350 representatives, each representing 115,500 people. Similarly, in France 577, Members each represent an average of nearly 103,000 people. Italy has 630 representatives, who each represent an average of 90,000 people, so they are closer to us in that respect. The Netherlands has a population of only 16 million and 150 Members of Parliament, each representing an average of 107,000 people. If I were to extend those comparisons across the Atlantic, the UK would look inappropriately over-represented.

I shall now talk about the financial implications of what I propose. In its annual report, the House of Commons Commission says that each MP costs about £211,000 per annum, including pay, allowances, office costs and so on. I am sure that many of my constituents think that that is just my pay—if only it were—but it covers a range of costs. However, it is not clear whether such an estimate would cover all the implications of reducing the number of MPs, which would include fewer calls on the Library and the Refreshment Department, lower Select Committee expenses and so on.

Based on the House of Commons Commission's estimate, reducing the number of MPs from 659 to about 500 would result in savings of about £40 million per annum. That may sound a lot of money to the public, but in the overall scheme of things it is a relatively small amount. Nevertheless, although it is a small part of overall public expenditure, it is still important and it would better spent on other public services. If we Members of Parliament were to ask our constituents whether they would prefer improved health services and more police on the beat, or an unfeasibly large number of MPs, we would not need to wait for an answer.

The practical implications of reducing the number of MPs need to be studied. I am not sure whether the House would able to scrutinise everything. Indeed, the Government might welcome the idea of fewer MPs, as they would ask fewer questions. However, the Executive would be no less held to account if the number of MPs was significantly reduced, and the opportunities for each Member of Parliament to engage in the high-profile debates on the Floor of the House would be improved.

I represent a rather complex constituency. It has four local authorities, with a single unitary authority—the Isles of Scilly—which makes unique demands, different from those of the mainland. From my experience, it seems that MPs would find it impossible to cope with the work load, and the possible implications of a further increase in the office costs allowance to take account of the need to deal with a larger case load might counterbalance the savings that I have mentioned. In practice, however, the situation would not be unworkable.

While we are concentrating on the implications, I have to say that I am not sure that the collective wisdom of a House with 500 Members would necessarily be much different. I am not sure at what point the marginal benefit of having extra Members contributes significantly to the collective wisdom of the House; perhaps someone should make an objective study of that. At what point would those additional Members make a significant difference? Some might think that their wisdom was sufficient and they would not want to trouble the electorate—they could manage quite happily on their own. However, some Chambers manage with 150, 200 or 300 Members. It would be interesting to compare the level of scrutiny and accountability, what gets missed and what slips through the net in different Parliaments.

While we are talking about collective wisdom, let me add that one of the reasons for having a second Chamber is that it is supposed to provide an opportunity for sober second thoughts about what comes from this House. Although the primary purpose of today's debate is to raise the issue of the composition of the House of Commons, as the Minister who is here is responsible for the policy area, and as it would fall within the title of the debate, it might be worth reflecting on the impact of any House of Lords reform. That issue appears to have been kicked into the rough, if not the long grass, by the Government. The debate so far appears to have been obsessed more with process than product—in other words, how the Members of the House get there, rather than what they do when they have got there.

When the Government wish to bring the issue back to both Houses of Parliament, it is important that they reflect on the purpose of the second House, rather than on their apparent obsession with process. If, as I have argued, the second Chamber is primarily a chamber for sober second thought, it is important that as a result of the process by which the Members get there, it does not become either a cause of logjam or a lapdog for the Executive.

My concern—although not all members of my party would necessarily agree with it—is that if we were to elect all or a majority of Members to the second Chamber, and if the second Chamber's membership did not reflect the Government of the day, it would become a cause of significant logjam. Those Members' democratic origin would also give them a great deal more spirit when it came to taking on the Executive, which would put a significant constraint on the process of government.

Conversely, if the Chamber largely reflected the political persuasion of the Government of the day through an electoral process, it would be more likely to become a lapdog for that Government than the effective constraint and source of reflective analysis that the second Chamber should, and does, provide.

Before the debate, I gave the Minister and his Department a number of questions, which I hope have helped him to frame part of his answer. Has his Department undertaken any kind of review of the composition of Parliament in recent years? Has it looked at that, or undertaken an analysis of it? In the conduct and process of the Government's commitment to devolution, has the subject been raised at all? If it has been raised and assessments have been made, what are the results? Have the Minister and his Department had the opportunity to reflect on the implications of devolution? The West Lothian question certainly prised the issue open, but the question of what justification there is for having 659 Members of Parliament must have arisen among Ministers.

If the Chancellor wants to make the efficiency savings that he says he wants to make in the public sector, he should accept that if we are going to do that to civil servants, we should turn that level of scrutiny and drive for efficiency savings towards this place, and seek to justify the number of Members. If the Minister's Department is going to reintroduce a Lords reform Bill, will he also reflect on the composition of this place, and on the need to ensure that the other place is a Chamber of sober second thought, as I argued a moment ago?

I have spoken to many Members. Some of them sponsored my ten-minute Bill last year and others did not, but they all said, "You're absolutely right," "This must be done," "That's difficult to justify," and so forth, but getting them to stand up and say that in the House of Commons is not easy. However, I still think that we need to ask ourselves difficult questions such as those that I have asked. I hope that, having had the opportunity to look into this matter and reflect on it, the Minister will ensure that in future the Government come back to the House with concrete, worked-out proposals for ensuring that the subject is reviewed as a matter of urgency.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Nicholas Winterton)

Before I call the next speaker, I think that I am entitled to express from the Chair regret that more Members are not present in Westminster Hall to take part in an important debate of fundamental importance to the future of this House. The main Chamber is debating another matter of fundamental importance to the House, so I can only assume that there are more Members there; that, too, is something that could be debated, but not today. Because I have no alternative, I have to call another representative of the Liberal Democrats immediately after the one who opened our debate.

2.27 pm

Nick Harvey (North Devon) (LD)

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I echo your regrets about the small number of Member taking part in the debate and your hope that the reason for that is that they are all busily debating the electoral system, which is also a very important issue.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) on raising this matter. He did so at a timely moment and on the basis of some pertinent and relevant factors. The impact of devolution must certainly be reviewed, and our own workings in this House should be reviewed in the light of it. Devolution is a process that has begun, but it has by no means finished. It is also right that we should look at possible reform of the second Chamber because that has a direct and profound impact on how the House of Commons works and should work.

It is right that we should in any case review our own workings and operations, for some of the reasons that my hon. Friend alluded to. Everybody else in the public service is examining efficiency, and there is no reason why we should be immune from that. Also, although it seems to have been forgotten for the time being—by the Government, at least—the recommendations of the commission chaired by the late Lord Jenkins on the electoral system for this House are gathering dust on a shelf somewhere in a Government Department.

Although I very much sympathise with the general thrust of my hon. Friend's case, I would certainly not wish to see any reduction in the number of Members of our House, unless that were accompanied by a significant change in the electoral system. Some of the grotesque distortions that the current electoral system serves up would be made worse by degree if we were to move to a smaller House of Commons but continue electing it by the first-past-the-poet system—a system that, in my view, corrupts the will of the electorate.

I will start by looking at devolution. So far, we have seen a real and meaningful devolution process in Scotland, a less substantial and rather unsatisfactory measure in Wales, and, in the case of London, something so unsatisfactory as to invite questions about the point of it all.

Later this year, there are to be referendums to see whether the northern regions of England want to set up regional assemblies, whose powers, it would be fair to say, will be broadly comparable to those of the Greater London assembly. As an enthusiastic supporter of devolution in England, I find the Government's proposals for regional devolution timid. It is regrettable that the Government are not looking to devolve meaningful power or the resources that could give effect to the decisions that the exercise of such power would involve. It would not surprise me if there were a negative outcome in the referendums, as those who deplore the whole idea of devolution to the English regions combine with those who would like it to be Far more meaningful and who regard the Government's proposals as such a botch-up as not to warrant active support.

Let me make it clear that I would like much more devolution in England. The British political system is horrendously over-centralised. It is perfectly ludicrous that Members of Parliament should have to raise questions about the administrative and operational details of their local hospitals in the national legislature; it is absurd that we should run the system on that basis. Ministers also have far too much responsibility for micro decision making in individual constituencies. We must go further with the process of devolution, whatever structure we put in place. We might even devolve power to the existing county councils, which would be well capable of exercising much more power, responsibility and authority.

Although my hon. Friend resisted the temptation to go into the West Lothian question, I shall not, because the issue is relevant. It is often said that the answer to the West Lothian question is devolution for the English regions, but that would not answer the question at all, unless the powers that we devolved to them were equivalent to those that we give Scotland or that we might give it in future. Unless one is serious about allowing people in the east midlands to drive on the left while those in the west midlands drive on the right, and about different regions having different criminal law, or East Anglia having different abortion law from the south-west, one must accept that some decisions will still need to be made at the England level, without the assistance—however kindly we may thank them—of our colleagues from Scotland. Some things might also be done on an England and Wales basis, but we need that England tier. It would not be practical, helpful or useful to elect a separate English Parliament, and the public would not welcome one, but there are occasions when those who are elected as Members of Parliament for English constituencies should sit in this House in English session to make decisions that apply only to England.

We also need radical reform of local government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to range widely, but I would be grateful if he could associate his remarks more closely with the composition of Parliament, which is, in fact, the subject of the debate.

Nick Harvey

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have, indeed, allowed me to range widely.

Unless we are inviting the public and the public purse to pay out for more and more political representation, we need to accept that, as we diffuse and disperse power to other places—in local government, regional government, Scotland or Wales—and more people are elected to exercise it, there is a powerful case for reducing the number of Members of Parliament in line with that dispersal of power. It is incumbent on us, for that reason and for reasons of the efficiency of our operations, to respond in that way.

Mr. Heald

When the hon. Gentleman started, he said that he was against reducing the number of Members of Parliament. Now he has said that he thinks that there is a strong case for doing it. If we were to give away powers to regions as he suggests—of course, the Liberals would like to do that in Europe, too—might we not just as well rename this Parliament the UK county council?

Nick Harvey

The hon. Gentleman clearly misheard me. At no stage have I said that I was against reducing the number of Members of this House. I am emphatically in favour of doing so, and that is the entire burden of my remarks. For Parliament to resemble in any way a county council, we would have to be stripped of a great deal more power than would go as a result of my suggestions.

We are, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives has described, one of the largest legislatures in the world. Although there have been some welcome modernisations of our proceedings in recent years, there are far too many of us, and, as a result of that, opportunities for individual MPs to ask Ministers questions or to take part in parliamentary debates are reduced.

It would serve our constituents much better if their Member of Parliament represented a somewhat bigger seat but had more opportunities to raise issues of significance to that seat or area. If we represented larger seats and if the best part of 500 Back Benchers were not competing for opportunities to raise points, our constituents would get a better service.

It is hard to think of anywhere with a larger legislature than this one. I know that the European Parliament has just grown larger than we are. It remains to be seen how efficiently that will operate. The only other example that I am aware of was one of the former Soviet republics, which had just over 700 members in its second chamber. However, it was hardly an advertisement for democracy. Some might say the same of the European Parliament, but to pursue that would be to stray from my brief.

My hon. Friend outlined the situation in various other countries, and pointed out that elected representatives in other countries represent more people than MPs here. It is interesting that the US House of Representatives has only 435 members representing a population four times the size of the population of the UK. Their Senate, of course, has only 100 members.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. David Lammy)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the United States has a federal system and has a much more proximate degree of local and state-based government than this country?

Nick Harvey

I entirely recognise that; it was the purpose of what I have said this afternoon about wanting the UK to develop a comparable system, with far more power exercised nearer to home. That would be a justification for electing fewer Members to this House. Modern technology also lends itself to helping a representative to cover a larger area and a bigger population.

We also need to ask ourselves questions about the role of an MP. I have talked to Scottish colleagues about how having an elected Member of the Scottish Parliament representing the same constituency and being responsible for making representations to Scottish Departments has affected their work load. If there were meaningful devolution to English regions or counties, English Members would experience the same impact. I also have great sympathy with a colleague who once said, after having been in the House for a couple of years, that if he had wanted to be a social worker, he would have gone into social work.

We could do worse than look at the system that operates in some Scandinavian countries, where each parliamentary constituency has, in addition to an elected member of the national legislature, a multi-purpose ombudsman. An individual with an administrative problem, such as not getting their pension through efficiently, takes it to the ombudsman. If someone has a problem in principle—perhaps they do not think that the state pension is large enough—they take it to the elected Member of Parliament. I do not necessarily advocate that system, but examining it would be a worthwhile exercise.

On how our workings might be made more efficient, Government Whips might like to reflect on whether their lives might be,made easier if slightly fewer of the more than 400 Labour Members of Parliament needed occupying all the time. I remember when Francis Pym, who was Chief Government Whip during the 1983 election, expressed the hope, rather foolishly perhaps, that the Government 's majority would not be too large. He discovered after the election that he was no longer a member of that Government. Having more than 400 Members from one party is, frankly, rather ridiculous.

My hon. Friend also rightly touched on the role of the second Chamber. We cannot arrive at a rational view about what the composition of the first Chamber should be without considering the function and composition of the second Chamber. The Government seem completely to have lost their way on that. In 1997, they were committed to serious and fundamental reform of the Lords. They swept out all but 92 of the hereditary peers, but thereafter became lost and confused. We are now invited to settle for a largely—probably even an exclusively—nominated House of Lords, a system that carries through neither the spirit nor the letter of the commitments that the Government made when they were originally elected.

I do not believe that there is any great validity to a nominated House and I probably disagree with my hon. Friend, who said that members of the party might do so. It is debatable whether people who enter the House of Lords on the basis of the useful service rendered have any more validity that those who are several generations down from people who once did so—one could even argue that the intervention of two or three generations made such people more legitimate.

We must ask ourselves what the second Chamber is for. As my hon. Friend said, its purpose is to revise, occasionally to press the brake pedal and to provide checks and balances. The second Chamber should not be able to initiate legislation—it is precisely the power to do so that has allowed the Senate to get the upper hand in the US—nor should it have Ministers in it. If people in the second Chamber are jockeying for position, we will end up with the sort of pork-barrel politics that the public complain the whole system is bedevilled with. Ministers from the House of Commons could, quite sensibly, go to a slimmed-down and modernised second Chamber to answer Questions.

The numbers in the second Chamber should also be small. I had sympathy with the proposal that election to a second Chamber should be for a relatively long term, but that it should not be renewable. We should elect Members for, say, 10 years, perhaps half of them at a time every five years, and they should not be able to seek re-election. That would give us a second Chamber with a detached, robust and independent perspective and members who were not jockeying for position. If we did not want them to be too powerful, we need not give them too many powers. They could have just enough carefully codified powers to enable them to fulfil the brief of revising, pausing and, as my hon. Friend suggested, adding a little wisdom and providing a useful check and balance. Electing half of them every five years at the same time as slimming down the House of Commons might provide a useful escape route for some of those who were squeezed out at the outset.

Andrew George

I do not disagree with my hon. Friend's comments about the shape of the second Chamber. However, I caution him against attaching too many conditions to the revision of the composition of the primary Chamber. He has already made the condition that there should be proportional representation and that the House of Lords should be inextricably linked to the revision. Does he accept that if he adds too much to this shopping bag, he would risk losing the support that we require?

Nick Harvey

My hon. Friend is right, and I do not seek to build a series of conditions. The only one that I would stipulate would be a charge in the electoral system. I am describing the comprehensive constitutional settlement that I would like.

The last matter that has to be analysed is the electoral system, which is being discussed elsewhere. There is on the shelf an official report by an official Government-appointed commission, recommending a change to the electoral system for this House, and making a proposal about what the new system should be. I strongly support the recommendation of a system called AV-plus, with a top-up component—[Interruption] I hear the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) guffawing, but this is not a distant relative of the systems that have been introduced in Scotland, Wales and London.

Mr. Heald

Would the hon. Gentleman care to say a word or two about the d'Hondt principle, while he is on the subject?

Nick Harvey

I shall resist saying anything about the d'Hondt principle, as it is a method used only for dividing on regional list PR systems, which I do not support. We should do away with d'Hondt and its alternatives as a red herring.

The system proposed by the Jenkins commission is a close relative of those used in Scotland, Wales and London. It suggests that the top-up element should be between a sixth and a third of the House of Commons. At a sixth, it would not do a great deal of good in terms of proportionality, but at a third, it could. If we were to have a House of Commons with about 300 Members elected to single-member constituencies and about 150 as a top-up, providing a total of about 450, that would serve our democracy well, and would provide an efficient size of House of Commons, which would work better than the current one. That would be an extremely valuable step forward, although at the outset as many as 200 Members of this House would be squeezed out. At any election some would be retiring anyway, but if others were squeezed out, the concurrent reform of the second Chamber might form a useful parachute for them—I mention that only in parenthesis.

Devolution is not going far or last enough, but it is happening and it is real. As power is devolved and dispersed, the case for there being quite as many of us as there are at the moment becomes weaker. In any case, a smaller House of Commons would be more efficient. MPs would be more effective, because a smaller House would enable us to conduct our business more briskly and in a more businesslike way. We await further Government proposals about the reform of the second Chamber, which is very necessary. The second Chamber is completely ridiculous at the moment, and the Government's proposals for it will not be tenable into the future. Moreover, a slimmed-down, modernised and more efficient second Chamber would work very well alongside a slimmed-down and more efficient House of Commons.

To return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives, however, I would apply one condition: we should not reduce the size of the House without fundamental change to the electoral system. If we move from 659 MPs to 500, which my hon. Friend suggested, or to 450, which I suggest, and continue with the first-past-the-post system, the anomalies and statistical corruptions of that system will become even worse. I therefore very much hope that the Government, who have responsibility for devolution, electoral reform and advancing proposals for the second Chamber, will take all those points on board, and that they will continue to make the progress towards constitutional settlement with which they vigorously began their period in office, but on which they seem to have lost their way of late.

2.52 pm

Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con)

I agree with the previous speakers that it is a bit of a poser that, in 1832, we had 658 Members of Parliament to cover the whole of the United Kingdom, which at that time included Ireland, at a time when we directly governed a third of the world, and we now have 659 MPs at a time when we have lost a good deal of that geographical area as well as particular areas of power: we have lost the empire and we are losing powers to the European Union and the regional assemblies. If the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) had his way, we would also lose powers to the county councils.

There is undoubtedly an argument that one should look at the divisor, or the electoral quota, and see whether reform of the number of MPs is required. The calls for reform started, I believe, with Robert Rhodes James in 1986, and continued with Sir Peter Emery in 1991, Robert Blackburn, the academic, Spencer Batiste in February 1995, and my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) in January 1998. A striking feature of Governments, including the current one, is that they do not seem to have much appetite for this subject. I would be interested to hear whether the Minister will undertake to review the divisor, or the electoral quota, and the rest.

It is odd that the review rules, which were made in 1986, state:

The number of constituencies in Great Britain shall not be substantially greater…than 613", and add:

The number of constituencies in Northern Ireland shall not be greater than 18", which makes 631. Since then, however, Parliament has somehow managed to grow to 659 constituencies. It is, of course, right that some constituencies, such as Isle of Wight, have as many as 100,000 electors. There is a case for considering whether an element of saving can be made by having a smaller number of MPs.

I must make one or two points about how Parliament works. The fact that the Government have a massive majority—there are more than 400 Labour MPs—has affected how we do our business. For example, the Government can boldly say that the House will have only one day to debate important matters such as Iraq even though as many as half of our number want to speak. Indeed, that is what happened; I asked for two days and we were given one. As a result, many Members had no say. The problem is particularly acute for Labour Members because there are so many of them. The same happened with tuition fees; I asked for two days of debate and we were given one. Again, numerous Labour Members were unable to speak. Debates on foundation hospitals and trial by jury saw the same thing happen. When it came to the local government settlement, which used to be an occasion in the parliamentary year, not one Back Bencher was able to speak in the debate despite the fact that I had asked for more time.

We have ended up with an arrogant, manipulative Government with a large majority who are able to do pretty well what they want. The troops meekly go through the Lobbies as required. It is wrong. Not only has Parliament lost a lot of its power to Europe, the other Parliaments and regional assemblies, but the Government are actively manipulating the procedures of the House so that important subjects are not given the necessary debating time.

The sort of matters that we are debating in the House over the next two or three weeks are very light. Members sometimes look at the business that the Government have offered for debate and simply go home. The truth is that we have lost something like three days because the anodyne topics served up by the Government were not what the public wanted.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I have to be even-handed. In a modest and courteous way, I reprimanded the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) for straying from the subject. The Opposition spokesman is doing likewise. I suggest that he relates his remarks directly to the composition of Parliament.

Mr. Heald

I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I was about to say that we do not get many Members of Parliament in the Chamber these days. That is because, as I said, the Government are manipulating the business of the House. The interesting subjects that people want to debate do not get enough time, and the subjects served up for debate do not seem to interest MPs. However, it may be necessary to consider whether we have too many MPs, or at least to review the number.

The hon. Member for North Devon suggested that we move to AV-plus as a way to reduce the number of MPs. He also suggested that we should have an MP plus an ombudsman for each constituency, which would double the numbers.

Nick Harvey

I said that that idea was worth examining. It is operated in Scandinavian countries and is worth thinking about. I was not advocating it as a party policy or personally.

Mr. Heald

The only thing that I would say is that when we are on th doorstep we never hear people asking for a few more politicians. The idea of doubling the numbers by having an MP and an ombudsman is mistaken, bearing in mind the regional assemblies and all the other institutions. It would be difficult to find good people to go into politics because there would be too many jobs. I wonder whether the public think that a sensible way forward; I suggest that they do not.

The hon. Gentleman says that the regional assemblies will not have much power. Notably, we have not seen the Bill that would set up the regional assemblies. On the European constitution, we are told, "You have to pore over this document for months on end before you can have a referendum," but we do not even have to debate the regional assemblies before there is a referendum.

Before I go too far on that tack, if regional assemblies are being set up and they do not have much power, is not it legitimate to ask for the money to be spent instead on another 1,000 police officers in each region? Is it really necessary to have regional representation in Hertfordshire, for example, where I am based, and the eastern region? People ask what is the point of that. There is not much point. People think of themselves as either being from the UK, as being British or English, or as coming from Hertfordshire, but I do not know anybody who thinks of themselves as an easterner, or an "eastern regioner". I do not see what having regional assemblies is going to achieve.

Nick Harvey

In that case, what does the hon. Gentleman think to my alternative suggestion of devolving more power and resources to the county councils as an alternative to creating the regional assemblies?

Mr. Heald

I am very keen on the county councils, but having said that, this is an important sovereign Parliament. There are jobs to be done, and it is wrong that we are constantly trying to give them to somebody else. The public have the idea that MPs count for something and do something useful, at least in their own locality. Once all the responsibilities are removed and given to the county councils, to Europe, and to a Parliament or an assembly here or there, the work of the House will have narrowed to the point where an MP becomes somebody of little use. At that point, the public will be entitled to ask not whether we need 659 MPs, but whether we need any at all.

People do not want that. They want this Parliament to be a powerful and important place where things are decided and dealt with. Certainly, they want a more powerful and import ant place than the body that the hon. Gentleman described. Rather than reducing the numbers of MPs, we ought to ensure that we retain power here, not give too much away and, if possible, repatriate some of th power that we have already lost to Europe.

This has been an engaging debate. When I came into the Chamber I did not have much idea about what the hon. Member for St. Ives would propose, but I congratulate him on securing the debate and giving us an opportunity to consider the composition of the House of Commons.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

We now await the Minister's response with trepidation and interest.

3.3 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. David Lammy)

I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) on securing this debate and on the manner in which he presented his arguments on an important subject. I also congratulate the hon. Members for North Devon (Nick Harvey) and for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) on taking part in the discussion and assisting us with the arguments in different directions. We are preoccupied with the composition of Parliament, but the purpose of our national Parliament is central to any discussion. We have heard comments on a range of issues, but I shall try to deal specifically with the points that the hon. Member for St. Ives so clearly set out.

The hon. Gentleman was concerned that the Government were not giving enough thought to the question of the size of the House. He asked in particular what assessment the Government had made of the justification for retaining so many MPs. I know that he has studied the subject with care; indeed, he introduced a private Member's Bill on the very subject. He will therefore be aware of the importance that successive Governments have attached to ensuring that the size and shape of the House is not determined by the Government of the day. I think that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire alluded to that, although the Conservative Administration chose also not to enter that domain. I suspect that that is because it is difficult to launch a fundamental review of the question without facing the accusation of gerrymandering or attempting to gain some short-term political advantage.

Every time there is a redistribution of seats, those who are badly affected express concern. I am glad that the hon. Member for St. Ives held his hand up and admitted that there had been such redistribution in the south-west of England. Those who lose badly through such changes include some whose seats disappear, and they call for this sort of discussion. However, even those whose constituencies survive and who are not affected may see that wards that traditionally supported them are disappearing, and discussion arises not just of the composition of the House but the role and nature of the boundary commissions, independence and the important relationship between an MP and his or her constituents.

The boundary commissions, of course, do not take such matters into account in making determinations. Their concern is with the overall size of the electorate, and with respecting both the other administrative boundaries and the natural links or barriers in a region. That process, although disruptive and sometimes difficult, engages the minds of MPs in an area where such questions are being determined. I should point out, however, that the UK electorate are not over-burdened with representatives.

International comparison shows that the UK has relatively few tiers of government, even with devolution. When hon. Members list countries with the numbers of electorate per MP, two factors should be borne in mind: one is that the figures are based on the electoral roll. In all constituencies there are many people not on the electoral roll. It is for other nations to determine what qualifies people to be on the electoral roll, and how good their systems are in that respect.

The second factor is that tiers of government should be considered. Some of the countries that the hon. Gentleman mentioned have a federal system, and others have different layers of local government. Some elect to virtually every office. Indeed, some elect their judges. There is a range of different approaches, but that has not been the general state of affairs in this country.

Andrew George

That evidence raises two questions—first, what are the Government doing to ensure that all those who are entitled to be on the electoral register are included on it, if he is implying that the Government are failing in that aim? Secondly, in making the connection between federal states and large population representation by Members of Parliaments, is the Minister acknowledging that as the Government progress further towards devolution of power, the argument for fewer MPs grows stronger? Perhaps the Government should begin to review that question now.

Mr. Lammy

If the hon. Gentleman had let me, I would have gone on to explain that many hon. Members of all parties would then have a powerful discussion about the unique relationship between a constituency MP and his constituents. Give or take a few hundred people, our constituency quota is about 70,000. That relationship is zealously guarded across all sections of the House. There is the nature of our advice surgeries; throughout the country on a Friday evening or a Saturday morning, MPs sit in their constituency offices meeting and engaging with their constituents in a way that is envied around the world.

Mr. Heald

In 1983, the Labour party argued in the famous Foot case that the electoral quota of 70,000 that the Minister referred to should take precedence over county, borough and even geographical boundaries, and that equality in the size of constituencies should be the main feature of the distribution of seats. That would have the effect of limiting the rise in numbers of seats. Are this Labour Government still in favour of that? If so, do they have any plans to change the rules?

Mr. Lammy

A cursory look in "Dod's" will reveal to the hon. Gentleman that I was 11 in 1983 so I cannot speak for what the Labour party was proposing then. However, I can speak for what the Labour Government are proposing now.

What I have to say is of relevance to a question that the hon. Member for St. Ives raised and to my second point on tiers of Government. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is asking me from a sedentary position to give way, but I have not finished what I have to say on this matter.

It is because of the absence of the many layers of government that exist in the federal and state-based systems of other countries that there is that unique relationship between our MPs and their constituents. That quota of about 70,000 means that there is a proximate and powerful relationship between the MP and his constituents in this country, which is unique. In discussions on this subject, Governments must be mindful of that.

Andrew George

If that figure of approximately 70,000 is passionately regarded by constituents and MPs and if it results in a rather magical and very special relationship between MPs in this country and their electors, is the Minister therefore arguing with regard to, for example, the Member for Orkney and Shetland with only 25,000 or 30,000 electors and the MP for the Isle of Wight, that one is very underworked and the other is impossibly overworked and is incapable of making a strong bond with his constituents?

Mr. Lammy

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I think that it was the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire who referred to schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986. It is in that that there is the rule that

The number of constituencies in Great Britain shall not be substantially greater or less than 613 and where the quota of about 70,000 was established. It is important to concentrate on the words "greater or less than". That has meant that in subsequent reviews—and we are now on the fifth review—there has been a ratcheting up of that number.

In rule 5, the strict application of those rules are subject to disparity in the electorate in any particular constituency and a number of other factors. Therefore, there are areas of the country that are sparsely populated where there is one MP with a smaller number of constituents, and some London constituencies have been subject to keeping to borough boundaries. There are differences across the piece, and those are the determinations that the boundary commissions have to make and which the Electoral Commission will have to make.

Another important aspect of the speech of the hon. Member for St. Ives was the impact of devolution and regional government. The change to the number of Scottish Members that will result from applying the same electoral quota in Scotland as in England is a sign that the Government do not shrink from action where they believe it to be justified. Clearly, the circumstances in Scotland were different, particularly in that, for historical reasons, it had a much higher density of MPs than England. The justification for that higher degree of representation lapsed with the ending of the need to pass distinctively Scottish legislation at Westminster.

With that exception, I do not think that a reduction in the number of MPs at Westminster is or should be a product of devolution, because MPs representing constituencies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have a responsibility to their constituents regarding devolved matters. It is not clear—I say this as a Member for a London constituency—whether there is some overlap between constituency MPs and assembly members in areas in which responsibility is devolved, particularly when those responsibilities are strategic, as would be the case with any regional assembly.

For example, in a default assembly, there may be certain determinations in relation to policing numbers. That issue is of national importance to Parliament, but it may well have local or regional implications with which assembly members would want to wrestle and engage—that is certainly the case in London. There may also be planning or strategic transport decisions that impact on both those bodies. Therefore, it is not clear whether case loads will decrease. In that regard, in the words of the Carpenters' song: "We've only just begun" this journey. At this stage, it is clear that there is an important role for Members of Parliament and regional assembly members.

Mr. Heald

I am surprised that the Minister has heard of the Carpenters, given his youthful nature.

The effect of giving precedence to county and borough boundaries is that the number of constituencies will continue to rise; that has been the effect since 1983, when, I think, the Carpenters were around. Do the Government have any plans to review that or to see whether there is a way to limit the rise in the number of constituencies, or are they happy to see it go up to 680 or 700?

Mr. Lammy

All boundary commissions are currently undertaking their fifth review, so it would be inappropriate to launch into an inquiry of that nature in the midst of that. For the reasons that I have outlined, the Government's instinct is to let well alone, but it is important that we revisit those issues from time to time. Of course, it is important that the independent Electoral Commission is well able to comment or report on such issues should it see fit to do so.

The hon. Member for St. Ives argued that we should take a more strategic view of the role of MPs in Parliament. I know that he is a fervent advocate of regional government, although not necessarily in the economic regions into which England is currently divided, and he has made clear his belief in the Cornish people. We are all grateful for the passion with which he has brought the debate to this House.

The Government agree that there is scope for a regional strategic assembly for the south-west region, should it wish it. However, we do not agree that that would have the sort of impact on the role of the MP or of the Westminster Parliament that would lead to a case for reducing MPs' numbers, any more than devolution does.

Andrew George

I am grateful to the Minister for recognising my strong arguments for a Cornish assembly. I confidently predict that the south-west region will never get off the ground because there is, unfortunately, no passion or demand for it, although we continue to favour devolution. However, crucially, the Minister said earlier hat the Government would avoid taking a leading role in opening this can of worms for fear that they would be accused of gerrymandering. Can he at least allow Parliament the time and the framework in which to raise the issue and to resolve it, even if the Government are not prepared to take a lead?

Mr. Lammy

I think that Parliament is, in this debate, giving time to the subject. What I said was that there are difficult issues. I do not hear MPs clamouring for us substantially to reduce our numbers, but it would be wrong for the Government to launch into such an inquiry while four boundary commissions are undertaking reviews. That is the context in which we are having this discussion.

Parliament and central Government will remain responsible for UK-wide matter, such as defence, foreign policy, European policy, relations with international bodies, taxation, the passing of primary and secondary legislation—the things that preoccupy us from week to week. They will also retain responsibility for areas of England-wide importance, such as the NHS and education, and will continue to be responsible for legislation, even in areas in which the regional assemblies have a considerable role to play.

In considering what the right number of MPs is, we need to examine both ends of the spectrum. How many MPs do we need to ensure that we do our jobs properly here, and how many to ensure that we do our jobs properly in our constituencies? The answers may well not be the same, so we have to balance the two sets of considerations. That is one of the issues that feeds into the work of the boundary commissions. We have, for many years, concluded that that balance is best kept with an average constituency size of about 70,000 electors. As our population has increased, that has led to an increase in the number of Members of this House. It is possible to look at the equation from the other end, and to decide that we need a certain number of Members to deliver the objectives of the House. In that case, we might end up with a slightly different number. However, if that method led to an increase in the average number of constituents, that would have to be taken into consideration. That could be the consequence of what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting.

The Government do not agree that we should simply equate a reduction in the number of MPs with efficiency, although, of course, we should always look to improve the service that we offer our constituents. I acknowledge that there are arguments for reducing the number of Members, irrespective of devolution. Fewer Members would mean more opportunities for the remainder to participate on the Floor of the House, and fewer Members who would find no place on a Select Committee, and it would probably reduce pressures on facilities and cost less than is currently the case.

On the other hand, having fewer Members would make those Members more remote from the communities that they serve, which is the point I sought to raise earlier. Personal contact would inevitably be reduced. Hon. Members could have suggested that new technologies might offset that to some extent; for example, some have suggested online surgeries. Clearly there is a role for modern technology, but in all our constituencies there are pockets of social exclusion and issues of access; certainly among the elderly those technologies could go only so far.

I accept that perceived inefficiencies in Parliament may harm the relationship between politicians and the public, but increasing the size of constituencies may make Members more remote, reducing the personal element and their value. The personal link between a Member and his constituency is a central and valued part of our political democracy. It is important that we place that at the centre of the debate. Nevertheless, there is no room for complacency. We welcome the publication of the Modernisation Committee report, "Connecting Parliament with the Public". I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is essential that we take further steps to engage more closely with the electorate and. indeed, the future electorate.

The hon. Gentleman will know that the rules by which the boundary commissions work are set down in the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986. Those rules require them to start from the existing number of seats when devising the quota of constituents for each seat, so an overall reduction in numbers would require primary legislation. The present reduction in the number of Scottish MPs is possible only because Parliament has already agreed to remove the previous statutory minimum number of Scottish MPs and impose instead the same electoral quota as in England. There is no work in progress actively looking at the case for changing the rules to deliver a reduction in the number of MPs, and as all four of the boundary commissions are currently engaged in reviews, that would be wrong at this time.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should approach House of Lords reform by first looking at what we want a second Chamber to do. That has been the Government's approach. It is also important to ensure that, taken together, the powers and the composition of the second Chamber enable it to fulfil its role properly. We believe in a bicameral Parliament, and in that we follow the line of most large, mature democracies. But if we are to make the most of such a bicameral Parliament, we need to find a distinctive role for the second Chamber. In some systems that is easy because of the federal nature of the state and because in the second Chamber there is a role for representing one's constituency. That is not the case in our arrangements, which means that we continually revisit those issues. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have said that we will revisit the issue in our manifesto as the debate continues. He will be aware also of discussions about indirect election and other matters. However, the central nature of the House of Lords is that it is a revising Chamber.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising an important issue. It is rare that we have the opportunity to discuss why we are here in the first place and the nature of what we do. I hope that I have satisfied him in answering his questions, even if I have not been able to go as far as he would in ratcheting down the numbers of Members of Parliament.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I am grateful to the Minister, not only for his reply but for finishing in the nick of time. We now pass on to the next debate, initiated by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather), who is making her second appearance today in Westminster Hall.