Proceeding contribution from Lord Wallace of Tankerness (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 16 February 2011. It occurred during Debate on bill on Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
My Lords, during the passage of the Bill through your Lordships’ House there was a very important Committee debate on the Isle of Wight. As I indicated on behalf of the Government at that time, the fundamental principle underpinning the Bill is that one elector should mean one vote. At that stage the Bill was subject to only two exceptions. It was our view that a cross-Solent constituency, comprising part of the Isle of Wight and part of the mainland, was practicable as the island does not have the challenging geography of the other preserved constituencies. However, the arguments made in that debate, not least by my noble friend Lord Fowler, carried the day in this House. It did so by some margin and with considerable cross-party and Cross-Bench support. This undoubtedly gave us reason to reflect, and we have come to the view that the case against a cross-Solent constituency is persuasive. That was the objective of the amendment proposed by my noble friends Lord Fowler and Lord Oakeshott. However, their amendment left open the question of whether there should be one seat or two on the island. That was left up to the Boundary Commission for England. There are practical reasons why we have reservations about that. The noble Lords’ amendment did not provide the Boundary Commission for England with any instruction on how it should determine the number of seats to be allocated to the Isle of Wight. Nor was any consequential amendment tabled to deal with the matter. The Government consider that if an exception is to be made for the Isle of Wight, it would be consistent and fair for it to be made on the same basis as for the other preserved constituencies in the Bill. The amendments passed by the other place following a Division provide certainty for the commission by requiring that the island has two seats, and by taking those constituencies outside the formulae for the allocation of seats to parts of the United Kingdom and the calculation of the electoral quota elsewhere in the Bill. Two seats of around 55,000 electors each would be much closer to the electoral quota than one seat of around 110,000. That is consistent with the underlying principle of equality. Furthermore, I understand that the population of the Isle of Wight looks set to increase. Two seats would be likely to move closer to the quota, whereas one seat would move further away from it. It is practical and, as the honourable Member for the Isle of Wight in the other place confirmed in his speech yesterday, it respects the wishes of those who mounted a vocal and, as we have seen, effective campaign to prevent a cross-Solent constituency. I beg to move.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 725 c696-7
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Boundary commissions Constituency size Constituencies Alternative vote Isle of Wight Referendums Voting behaviour
- Legislation
- Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill 2010-12
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 14:51:30 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_716715
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_716715
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_716715