Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

The leader now sees the benefits of the alternative vote, but I do not. It is not a halfway house to a system of proportional representation. Only proportional representation will allow us to manage the emerging multi-party system in the confines of the electoral system. We cannot do it with the current system, but I do not want to be detoured from my main purpose. The second unattractive feature of the Bill is clause 9, to which amendments 259 and 260 apply. It is even more offensive because it is the ““Castration of the Commons”” clause. It states:"““The number of constituencies in the United Kingdom shall be 600.””" It does not say ““590””, ““620”” or ““650””, but ““600.”” It would be interesting to know how the Government reached that figure. Did they have a séance, as they did for the scale of the cuts that were announced this afternoon: ““£240 billion, £120 billion; £600 billion””? Did they split the difference, or did they, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) suggested—I think rightly—arrive at a figure that will lose Labour more seats than the Liberal Democrats? The Liberals had a smaller figure in their manifesto, but it was proposed in the light of a transfer to STV, which the Liberal party has always supported, with three, four or five-Member constituencies, in which the Liberals have a greater chance of getting somebody elected. The smaller figure was not proposed for first past the post or AV. The Government wanted to cut 10% of the seats. Why? Was it an economy measure? Was it to capitalise on the discontent that The Daily Telegraph's revelations about expenses produced, and to say, ““We're getting rid of these greedy so-and-sos and reducing the number of people who sponge on the public purse””? Was it that sort of populism? Is that how they arrived at the figure? We need to know before we can make a judgment.