Peer review


With all the sound and fury in the Commons this week, an increasingly interesting clash in the Lords has been rather drowned out.

A Labour peer seems to have found a way of driving the final nail into the coffin of the parliamentary boundary review Conservatives have been pushing for. They complain that the electroral system is weighted in favour of Labour, because Labour constituencies tend to be smaller than Conservative ones, and so they need a far bigger share of the vote than Labour to win a Commons majority.

The boundary review was intended to correct this, and also to cut the number of Commons seats from 650 to 600. It was supposed to be approved by Parliament and brought into effect before the next election in 2015. But that was before a Tory uprising derailed the Lib Dems' drive to create an elected House of Lords. In retaliation, Nick Clegg withdrew support for the boundary changes - which makes it very difficult - near impossible - for them to go ahead.

Lords Strathclyde said the vote, which could have delayed the redrawing of parliamentary constituency boundaries, had been postponed by the government on the advice of officials

At the moment we have a kind of zombie review, shuffling along without any prospect of actually being put into effect. What happened this week was that the Labour peer Lord Hart put down an amendment to the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill, which would have postponed it beyond the next election. The result was an entertaining kerfuffle in the Lords…

First, the clerk of the Parliaments, the top official of the Upper House, ruled that the amendment was out of order, because it was beyond the scope of the ERA bill. Then that ruling was challenged by Lord Hart, who sought counsel's opinion.

His legal advice was that the timing of Boundary Commission recommendations for changes to constituency boundaries "cannot be divorced from electoral registration" and the "conduct and administration of the next general election" and vice versa...and the subject matters of the Parliamentary Voting Systems and Constituencies Act (PVSC), which proposes changes to the number of parliamentary constituencies, and the ERA are "intertwined". So there.

In the Commons, outside opinions would be irrelevant. The Speaker would rule on the basis of advice from the clerks and that would be that; in the Lords, things are different. Peers pride themselves on being self-regulating, and the final decision on the admissibility of Lord Hart's amendment will be for the House. Given Labour and the Liberals were lined up on this, the committee stage debate scheduled for last Wednesday was postponed until next Monday.

And at the last minute (last night) it emerged that the debate had been postponed again. On this occasion the Lords "usual channels" operated by text message, I'm told.

The first postponement produced some sharp exchanges across the floor of the House, and the second will certainly prompt more complaints. Lord Strathclyde, the Leader of the House, can expect demands for him to announce, and stick to, a definite date for the consideration of the bill to resume. It will be interesting to see if he can do so.

But what all this does tell us is the importance the Conservatives continue to place on a measure which could deliver them 20 or so extra seats at the next election.

Their high command clearly believes there is some way to make the boundary review happen, either in the teeth of Lib Dem resistance or by buying the Lib Dems off in some way. If they really thought it was a dead duck, they wouldn't be going to all this trouble.

Mark D'Arcy Article written by Mark D'Arcy Mark D'Arcy Parliamentary correspondent

Week ahead

The Recall of MPs Bill is back in the Commons for further discussion: it could cause parliamentary drama once again.

Read full article

More on This Story

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 9.

    From the Lib-dem website

    [Palimentary renewal] means a smaller chamber, capped, more reasonably, at 600 MPs. It means elections fought on more equally sized constituency boundaries, so that votes aren’t worth more in one part of the country than another. A principle the Chartists were campaigning for back in the 1830s.

    Surely they wouldn't will the end without willing the means.

  • rate this

    Comment number 8.

    Gerrymandering simply.If Hugo Chavez tried to do a similiar thing you can just imagine the bewailment from the likes of the BBC and SKY news.
    This is the one fleeting glimpse of hope this government have left barring some sort of British 911 Game changer to cling onto power.
    And if the Lib Dems decide to prop them up again, then there will more marches and more riots in my opinion.

  • rate this

    Comment number 7.

    In 2010 the Tories needed to take from Labour 50 marginal seats north of the Mid Shires to take an overall majority in the Big Top. They failed as some marginals boundaries were changed by Labour in 2005/2008 to secure critical marginals. Politics is a dirty business for the intellectually and honesty denied tow-rag and why journalists try to moralise and rationalise UK politics is disturbing.

  • rate this

    Comment number 6.

    How babyish can politicians get? This is not be a party political issue. Every few years constituency boundaries need to be revised. In a time of overspending it is reasonable to have fewer paid politicians.

    Anything that prevents this happening on schedule and in an orderly manner only shows how babyish and pathetic some politicians are. Party politics is irrelevant: politicians need grow up!

  • rate this

    Comment number 5.

    To oppose equalising constituency sizes would be patently undemocratic. The LibDems know that and the changes will therefore go ahead.

  • rate this

    Comment number 4.

    One of those which way to call it stories - I am no fan of the principle of the HofL but at the end of the day the Tory's Gerrymandering over this boundary review must be stopped.....

    I would fully support the proposals if they were to be based on the actual population figures for each Constituency....but the Tory proposals are not based on counting the actual populations.....

  • rate this

    Comment number 3.

    How much longer are we to tolerate these unelected, unrepresentative, unaccountable professional scroungers playing a role in the governence of the UK?

  • rate this

    Comment number 2.

    The Lib Dems will cave in as they always do. Nick Clegg has no backbone and will do as he is told by the Tories

  • rate this

    Comment number 1.

    When you referred to a CLASH, here was me thinking that some of these privilaged folks had either went to fisticuffs or the weight challenged brigade had clashed like some super tankers passing in the fog....They are a complete irrellevance much akin to the scots judge who ordered the childrens panel to prepare a report on a school boy murderer!



BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.