---

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

I thank the Minister for his response. I will respond quickly. I would be surprised if it were the Government’s intention to pass legislation that sets out to cross historic county boundaries. One area that has not been debated properly is the size of constituencies. It has not been debated in the context of either the amendments or the Bill as a whole. It is inaccurate to suggest that constituencies would not be reduced by my amendment, which would waive the minimum number for Welsh constituencies. The average size of a constituency would increase by 2,000, which would make a major difference to the number of constituencies and would allow their population to grow. I will respond to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. Sub-paragraph (b) of my proposed new rule 3 states that a constituency boundary must, "““only cross London borough boundaries where absolutely necessary””." It does not say that you cannot cross London borough boundaries. It is perfectly possible, within the constraints of a 72,000 electorate, plus or minus 7.5 per cent, to take these factors into consideration. Paragraph (2) of my proposed new rule 2 states: "““A Boundary Commission may vary the size of constituencies but must ensure that the electorate have any constituency is””," within 7.5 per cent of 72,000 electors. That makes it clear that the primacy of the rule is the equalisation of constituencies and not the reduction in the number of Members of the House. Setting the overall number in the House is important only when one looks at a different electoral system, and in particular at PR. However, I will think about the points that the Minister made and beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 18FA withdrawn. Amendments 18G to 20 not moved. Amendment 20A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List. Amendments 20B and 21 not moved. Amendment 21A Moved by