Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
40-56)
MR PETER
FACEY, DR
MARTIN STEVEN
AND DR
MICHAEL PINTO-DUSCHINSKY
22 JULY 2010
Q40 Chair: Should all the votes be
cast in the same way of course? There may be different views in
the Isle of Wight on a particular issue and they may be split
through that system.
Mr Facey: That would be an interesting
thing for parliamentarians to try to work out.
Q41 Chair: Dr Steven, any comment
on that?
Dr Steven: Just given what I said
in response to the last question, I would probably view it as
being a sledgehammer to crack a nut and perhaps unnecessary. I
can understand why it is more important for you, as I say, in
the Isle of Wight and I am sympathetic to that. Jenkins actually
discussed this in his report and he talked relatively amusingly
in a passage about how the MPs with the biggest seats would walk
around like prize bulls because they would have the most power.
I suppose that does predate the swipe card where you just put
it in. I suppose in that he was maybe making the serious point
about the practical implications for how that would work.
Q42 Simon Hart: I am going to ask
for an opinion rather than express one, you will be pleased to
hear! What is your view on assessing boundaries on the basis of
registered voters as opposed to constituency population? Is there
an angle we have missed here which we should be pursuing? Secondly,
what, in your view, is a seemly timetable to review safely and
reasonably 649 constituencies and reduce them to 600? What, do
you think, would be a sensible timetable over which that process
should be undertaken?
Mr Facey: Sorry, the first part
of your question was?
Q43 Simon Hart: The distinction between
registered voters in a constituency and the population.
Mr Facey: The reality is that
our current electoral register is not fit for purpose, and let
us be clear about that. There are huge numbers of people, particularly
in some constituencies, and some academics estimate that that
might be as much as 25%, who are not registered in some constituencies
and, therefore, simply using the current electoral register, unless
we are convinced that that register is completely accurate, as
the sole mechanism for deciding constituency size, I think, is
unwise, particularly when this Government, which I congratulated
it on because I campaigned for the change, is committed to changing
the way in which registration works. Therefore, to rush through
a major change using what the Government itself recognises is
an inaccurate electoral register as the sole mechanism to have
for new boundaries could mean that we end up with equally unusable
boundaries at the next election as a result of it. I think it
would be better to use a number of indicators in terms of the
constituency size, and population would be one of them, which
would actually produce more accurate constituencies and probably
constituencies would last longer in terms of having longevity.
Q44 Simon Hart: And the timescale?
Mr Facey: Maybe with the exception
of pre-legislative scrutiny in relation to this Bill, as has kindly
been pointed out to me, I am a great believer that, on the whole,
we need to have proper consultation and ability to actually scrutinise,
and I am concerned that, if we try to rush this, we will have
something which is worse than we have at the moment. I accept
that actually we need fundamental reform in this area. I think
the difficulty is that, if we get it wrong, we will find ourselves
doing this again after the next election in terms of the shapes
of the constituencies and I think it would be extremely traumatic
for Members of Parliament, not that, I have to say, your trauma
is normally my major concern, but I know that, when you have boundary
changes and effectively are reducing 50 seats out of the current
one, it will mean that every single MP will have to effect major
changes. I also am slightly worried that, and do not know why,
we have gone for 600 seats. I would have preferred a debate about
what the function of the House of Commons should be and what the
appropriate number of MPs should be for that function and then
having the debate about the number of constituencies because that,
for me, would seem to be the appropriate order of things, and
I have a slight fear that we have put the cart before the horse,
that we are simply saying that we cut the number and then we discuss
afterwards what the appropriate functions are.
Dr Steven: This is not an electoral
systems matter specifically, so the amount I can say about it
is probably more limited, but the Electoral Reform Society has
in the past written about, and researched, the importance of the
natural quality of a boundary, so people feeling a sense of possession
of where they live, so a constituency like Glasgow Hillhead, the
people know what that means more than they know what Glasgow North
means; there is a significance there. In terms of what you are
alluding to, the idea of going down a more, I suppose, quasi-American
model of almost making it more difficult to vote, and I know that
is not what you are meaning, but sort of tying the boundaries
to, if you like, who actually votes, is probably not one that
we would warm to. I could also say in passing that the American
system has much more of a sort of equal quality and of course
there is also evidence of gerrymandering there, so there are different
issues which probably need to be separated out. I probably cannot
comment on the seemly timetable.
Q45 Simon Hart: I think the answer
to the first part of the question has rather answered the second
part actually.
Dr Pinto-Duschinsky: This is a
subject that I have gone into quite a bit, so I can answer. First,
the political reality of it is that there is a coalition agreement
that the referendum and the equalisation are like two horses bound
in a yoke, and I think it is probably right to say that the Liberal
Democrat side would want to advocate what Peter Facey has advocated,
namely to go faster on the referendum and to go slower, if at
all, on the equalisation. It is interesting how contrasting his
answers are on the speed of the referendum to being slow on the
boundary changes. I think that my own thought is that it is all
a bit too fast. I think that, as far as the boundaries are concerned,
we have a system of redoing boundaries that is one of the slowest
in the world, the Boundary Commission's, and the people who have
studied this a lot, people like David Butler, Professor Iain McLean
and others, are pretty well all agreed, and this is from different
party families, et cetera, that the Boundary Commission's system
has passed its time and that we ought to go to something else.
Now, the Australian system, and we are not talking about the AV,
but redrawing boundaries, has been strongly recommended and I
understand that the British Academy Working Group is looking very
seriously at this over the summer and will come in with recommendations
in September. I think that, if you change the system whereby we
draw up the boundaries, then the experience of Australia is that
it can be done in a year, and it is done in a year because you
have periods of public consultation, but the timetable is set
out and you have the authority that is then with an expert commission,
and I think we need to look very carefully at that method. If
we change the method to one that will allow the process to be
faster, then we have a bit more time to discuss it. Now, let us
come then to the question of how we go into the constituency boundaries.
Now, the whole philosophy of equalisation must be based on the
notion that you have a reasonably reliable and politically neutral
way of reckoning what the population is and, if you had a reckoning
of electorates that itself had an underlying political bias, then
that would be as bad as the bias we have now for other means and,
therefore, I did sympathise with what Jack Straw said in the House
on 5 July and what Tristram Hunt has said in The Guardian
more recently. I think, in practice, the problem is a bit less
than they have made out because there are two problems with the
register. One is people who are left off who should be on, and
this is the problem of under-registration which Jack Straw mentioned
in the House of Commons, but there is another problem which is
of redundant names, people who are on, but should not be there,
either they have moved, died or various other things. Now, the
research that was done really the last time, and this is many
years ago, showed that those numbers were roughly equal. Now,
more recently, we do not have that research about the number of
redundant names. Dr Wilks-Heeg has done some work with the Electoral
Commission and I spoke to him about this. Some of his tables,
and this is my conclusion from his work and not his, suggest that
the places with most under-representation are also the places
where there are the most redundant names, so the problem is somewhat
less than it might be otherwise. Now, having said that and having
said that I think you should take both into account, that does
not mean that there is not a problem, and I think that you then
come to the question of: is there any alternative to the electoral
register as a measure of population? Now, in Australia, they do
use estimated population and that works there. My impression is
that this is more difficult in Britain for technical reasons and
this is because we have a population estimate each year by the
Office of National Statistics that is based on the previous year,
going right back to a Census with certain known adjustments, but
those adjustments only go to local authority level, so, to come
down to ward level, you would have to ask local authorities to
tell you what was going on in the wards, so there is not any ready
way of doing that, so the alternative that is available in Australia
of using population statistics is probably difficult in Britain
and that is why I added my paragraph 34 late last night. However,
there are two other things that you can do with the register.
One is to have a special scheme for encouraging registration in
areas where the register appears to be bad, and I certainly think
that you should do that, and the second is the question of using
other forms of information for registration. There were some legal
objections to that a couple of years ago, but I do think that,
if there are other indicators, like a rent book or some others,
which can make the register better, then we should use those,
so I think that we could use the register, but we must use it
in a very proactive and responsible way in order to take account
of what are legitimate concerns.
Stephen Williams: I want to follow up
what Andrew and Simon were questioning you on. I represent 82,728
electors in a city-centre constituency and I am second to Andrew
around this table, but, because of the under-representation and
because it is a cosmopolitan seat where there are thousands of
asylum-seekers, I represent rather more people than live on the
Isle of Wight, I would say, because a lot of what I do here, what
I advocate, is on their behalf and they cannot vote or they are
not registered to vote, or they are on the register, but they
have moved away a long time ago, so our register is not a perfect
tool for evening up constituencies. I would like to tease out
what Dr Pinto-Duschinsky was just saying which was very interesting.
Given that there are various factors we could build together to
have the building block of a constituency, there might actually
be, and I am thinking off the top of my head here, different tolerance
limits away from the register of electors as the building block
in some seats as to others. I can imagine you are reasonably certain
of who lives there in the same way as the electoral register,
and Anglesey would be another example of an island, but in a city,
and Stoke-on-Trent may be the same, you cannot be that certain,
so maybe there should be different tolerance limits away from
the 75,000 norm, within 5%.
Mrs Laing: This issue of the integrity
of the register and the comprehensiveness of the register is one
that has bothered many of us for a long time, but I will not make
a political point. IVR is now coming in and that will improve
things, or so it is generally accepted, unless any of you experts
suggest otherwise, but this issue of the comprehensiveness and
the accuracy of the register, is it not being overplayed because
we have just fought the General Election on that register which
has certain drawbacks, we know that there are people who are not
registered, we know that, as Dr Pinto-Duschinsky has just said,
there are people who are still on the register who are dead or
who have moved away, we know that those inaccuracies are there,
but nobody is saying that, because of those inaccuracies, the
result of the last General Election is invalid, so how can it
be argued that, because of those inaccuracies, the boundaries
cannot be drawn? Is that a reasonable argument? Should we suspend
democracy entirely until we are sure of the exact accuracy of
the register?
Q46 Sir Peter Soulsby: Accepting
that the Boundary Commission is now perhaps cumbersome and the
approach needs to be changed, do you accept that, whatever the
system of reviewing the boundaries, there does need to be meaningful
and effective local consultation, that this is the opportunity
for local people to have an input into the shape of the areas
and the constituencies that will come from those?
Dr Pinto-Duschinsky: Yes, and
I think it is possible to have that very effectively without going
through our current inquiries which actually, in practice, change
very little. I think that you can have all of the benefits without
the disadvantages of delay. I think that, as far as Stephen's
point is concerned, remember that asylum-seekers may be something
that are your responsibility, as an MP, but presumably they are
not eligible electors, so that, I think, is possibly one of the
weaker points for this debate. If we look at the register and
the problems of the register, we know roughly where the problem
areas are. For example, very much in inner London we have voter
problems in certain conurbations, but in those areas one of the
problems is that they do not spend money on follow-up canvassing,
so, if we look, I imagine there would be about 50 to 100 constituencies
that are potentially problem areas and that we could make sure
that the Government, the Ministry of Justice, required them, as
indeed it is entitled to do by law, to carry out a house-to-house,
or other sufficient, inquiry in which it has not used its powers
of direction before and, if there is any financial argument about
their ability to pay for the canvass, that, I think, should be
carried out. I think they can be given assistance as far as the
use of other data is concerned, which has been objected to by
various people, including the electoral officials on other grounds
when the Audit Commission wanted to do it. Therefore, I think
that we can look for a practical answer that will make those registration
exercises credible. I would prefer to have a year extra to do
it and to do it on the next registration exercise, namely in 2011-12,
but I think we can only do that, we can only afford to wait a
year if we move to an Australian-type system of boundaries because
then at the end of 2011 we could get, by 2012, to the new boundaries,
so that is what I would prefer, to move to the Australian system,
having the actual exercise carried out in a year and the boundaries
ready in two years.
Dr Steven: I cannot comment on
the first two questions as authoritatively as Dr Pinto-Duschinsky,
so I am not going to. I can address Sir Peter's point, though,
about the local consultation just very briefly and say that in
the UK now we have basically multi-level governance with the European
level, Westminster, the devolved and then local of course. I think
again something the Electoral Reform Society has tried to flag
up in the past is consistency. It is quite confusing, I think,
for voters where, if you like, they basically live in the same
constituency roughly for the purposes of certainly three of the
four tiers, but they all have entirely different names, and I
think that dimension is one which needs attention.
Q47 Stephen Williams: There is just
one question I forgot to ask earlier. Do you believe that we should
get rid of the dual franchise that some people have, and students
in universities would be one example and holiday home-owners in
Cornwall, say, would be another, where some people have two MPs
and two votes?
Mr Facey: They are entitled to
vote in two places, but they should not obviously have two votes
because that would be a criminal offence. Also, members of the
Armed Services are in the same category because they can again
also choose to do that. I am not sure, and I do not have a firm
view on, whether or not we should actually change that. I think
particularly for certain groups, like the Armed Services, it would
actually be quite complicated and quite difficult if you simply
went to one form of registration, but it is not something which
I have given any huge amount of thought to. In terms of one of
the areas of people, like asylum-seekers, we should bear in mind
that, because we have one of the largest franchises in the world
in terms of people who are eligible to vote, if you are an asylum-seeker
from a Commonwealth country, so Sierra Leone, then they will be
actually one of your voters because they would be eligible to
vote because they would actually be here and they would then be
on the electoral register, so it is not as clear-cut in terms
of that. In terms of the accuracy, the question of whether that
is a sufficient reason for delay, one of the difficulties is that
I would have much preferred that this were two bills, the referendum
on one side, which is a relatively simple piece of legislation
actually in the last Parliament, and the question of the boundaries
and the size. I understand politically why they are connected,
I am not that naive, but it does cause complications. I am not
saying that we cannot have reform and I am not actually against
more equalised constituencies or a reduction, but the difficulty,
I fear, is that, if we rush this, we will have to do the same
exercise again in the same way in a few years' time straight after
the next election because, effectively, we will have as inaccurate
constituencies as we now have. I just question whether or not
in taking on this issue, because there are already lots of things
in train, that we actually take a little bit more time on it.
I accept that ultimately nobody is going to challenge, and I certainly
would not challenge, the results of the next election, if it is
under new boundaries, on the basis of those boundaries, but I
do have concerns that there is a lot of heat being exercised on
this issue and, if I look at Parliament, there is probably a lot
more heat on this issue than there is on the question about whether
there should be a referendum on an alternative vote which is a
fairly simple change. On the question of consultation, the Government
is dutybound to have consultation on these sorts of issues. It
is important that that consultation is actually meaningful. Now,
one of the problems with consultation traditionally around constituency
boundaries is that they actually have become political exercises
between council groups, political parties, et cetera, and I think
we need to look at how we do that so that we actually get consultation,
not only with political parties, which is important, but also
with actual voters in terms of that. Consultation needs to be
meaningful and, for consultation to be meaningful, particularly
with the electorate, it has to have sufficient time for that to
happen, and that goes across all aspects of government and I would
apply that equally to constituency boundaries.
Chair: Can we move on to fixed-term parliaments.
Q48 Tristram Hunt: In a sense, it
is a rather simple question which is: when the majority of British
parliamentary terms over the last 150 years been at around the
four-year mark and when the vast majority of other international
examples, barring quite a few exceptions, are at or around the
four-year or below mark, what are your views on the five-year
term as opposed to the four-year term?
Dr Steven: On the face of it,
it is slightly incongruous from our comparative perspective and
four years is the convention. I would imagine that it is linked
to the fact that the precedent has often been five years in terms
of, in reality, how long British parliaments have run for, or
I think five, but maybe not, I am just guessing, so yes, on the
face of it, four years for fixed terms would probably be more
obvious.
Mr Facey: I would prefer four
years. I accept that, if we have fixed-term parliaments for five
years, that is a progressive and a good change in terms of having
fixed terms of parliaments, but, if you ask me the question as
to five or four, I think it would make much more sense, in terms
of local elections and devolved assembly elections and everywhere
else we have fixed terms in the United Kingdom, that it is four
in terms of our domestic legislation, that Parliament should fall
in line with that, but I am not going to oppose the change because
it is five rather than four.
Dr Pinto-Duschinsky: The legislation
that we have had is for Parliament to last five years, but with
an option for the Prime Minister to go to the Monarch to ask for
a dissolution before, so that, I suppose, is why that was chosen.
Clearly, in one way, fixed-term parliaments take away a certain
prerogative, possibly an unfair one, of the Government of the
day having a snap election, that it can know the best point for
the economy and certainly the electoral economic cycle, which
has been one that has caused problems in the past, so I can understand
that argument and I think there is something in that. However,
at the end of the day, a government has got to be able to govern
in Parliament, so you can have a fixed Parliament, but, if it
loses a working majority, then the logic is that you have an election
and I think, even if you do have a fixed Parliament, if you were
to reach a situation of deadlock in Parliament, then that would
break down in practice.
Q49 Tristram Hunt: Is it your understanding
that this, well, we will see the legislation this afternoon, that
it binds further parliaments, which is a rather constitutional
innovation in terms of the British system?
Dr Pinto-Duschinsky: Well, the
trouble is that we are going to have this question arising, say,
on a sovereignty bill or anything to do with, say, European legislation,
that, if a Parliament decides that it will bind itself, then under
the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty you only have to have
another vote by an ordinary majority to unbind you. There is a
certain sort of problem of logic there.
Q50 Chair: You are bound until unbound?
Dr Pinto-Duschinsky: Yes, so I
do not know what is the validity. If Parliament says, "We
will need a 90% majority" or whatever, if it then decides
by an ordinary majority to repeal that legislation, then it repeals
it by an ordinary majority.
Mr Turner: Can I just remind you of what
happened in 2001. The General Election, which everybody expected
to take place in May, took place in June and the reason was foot-and-mouth
which was quite a significant problem in a minority of constituencies,
but I do think that that was the genuine reason, and indeed they
moved local elections to June for the same purpose. How do you
see that affecting?
Q51 Chair: I was wondering whether
I would answer that one. I have an answer!
Mr Facey: Your answer would be
better than mine because, I have to admit, it is a question I
had not considered. It is an interesting thing about the British
Constitution that actually, though we are obliged to have an election,
the actual date in terms of when the election is is not fixed.
Parliament is fixed, but actually you can have an election a lot
later, but you just cannot pass any new laws in that time. One
of the problems in our system is that we do confuse a lot the
difference between governing and legislating, so I do not see
a problem where we cannot pass any legislation for an extra month
because we have postponed it, but actually Parliament cannot legislate
for any new laws. At some times, it is actually helpful for us
to think that we have two things which go on, one is governing
and one is legislating, and they are not the same. Simply passing
laws and more and more laws is not necessarily good governance,
and actually you can be a strong government which does not actually
pass more new laws, so I do not think in this circumstance, and
I have not given it a huge amount of thought, that actually it
should be a huge problem. President Obama governs, but does not
actually pass laws; it is the job of Congress to do that.
Q52 Chair: I think we could go beyond
five years with the consent of both Houses, using the 1911 Parliament
Act. That would be my answer, but no doubt I am now going to be
corrected by either Dr Steven or Dr Pinto-Duschinsky!
Dr Pinto-Duschinsky: Woe betide
me! No, I do not think so. Clearly, if we have a fixed-term Parliament,
then considerations, such as the ones you have suggested, would
become more difficult to take account of, which I think is the
point of your question, but I suppose again the issue is whether
the advantage in terms of fairness of a fixed term outweighs certain
other disadvantages. The way that I see it is that, of the three
parts of this Bill, the fixed-term parliaments now is maybe the
least contentious of those, apart from the question of the majority
needed, and I do not see that as decisive because I think in those
hypothetical events it would not be decisive anyway, but I do
slightly disagree with Peter Facey because I think it is not that
the referendum is simple and that the boundaries are complicated,
but I do think we will find that we are not really prepared in
the laws just for a referendum and that we ought not to take for
granted that the PPERA is actually in good shape, because I do
not think it is.
Dr Steven: There is a certain
consistency with looking at this and also looking at the other
aspects because, if we are starting from the premise that there
is a lack of trust or, if you like, the quality of democracy in
Britain needs to be improved, then potentially taking the decision
about when there is a general election out of the hands of one
person, effectively, or the Government and making it more uniform
or standard does have a certain integrity to it. Personally, and
this is my personal view, I do think the reason why the previous
Prime Minister was so damaged politically by his decision not
to go for an election was not because he was perceived to be indecisive,
but because he was perceived to be playing games and he was perceived
to be self-interested, so I think any Prime Minister who, if you
like, has that decision taken off him or her probably outweighs
potential natural disasters or foot-and-mouth situations if you
are going to weigh up the advantages against the disadvantages.
Chair: We are going to move on from fixed-term
parliaments and we will come back to this with our other witnesses
next week. I am going to move forward to the legislative timetable.
Q53 Sir Peter Soulsby: We have already
said quite a lot about the timetable and heard quite a lot from
the witnesses about the legislative programme for this, but what
we have today is a single Bill being published for the referendum
and for the number and size of parliamentary constituencies. Now,
given that that is what we are getting, can I draw together the
evidence you have already given us and just ask you to confirm
that you are all of the opinion that there needs to be a timetable
which allows for that Bill to have proper pre-legislative scrutiny
and full debate before it is pushed through and, notwithstanding
Unlock Democracy's early enthusiasm for a second reading this
side of the recess, actually, now that the two are linked together,
they need to be given the time and the full debate that is necessary?
I see Mr Facey is nodding to that.
Mr Facey: I want a referendum
and I want a fixed date for it as soon as possible because of
earlier experience, as I have said, but we have always argued
that the process of making laws is important and that it needs
to be given as much time as appropriate and, therefore, the same
commitments to pre-legislative scrutiny have to apply in this
case, even if that does mean ultimately that the referendum has
to be moved back, but the whole point about these changes is to
make governance better and you cannot do that if you start then
shredding up the acts of good governance in that process. It is
still really possible to meet the dates, but I do not think at
this stage it is organisations like Unlock Democracy's job to
say that, to get the change, we are going to cut corners in terms
of the democratic process because that would be inappropriate
and it would be wrong.
Q54 Chair: Had we, as a committee,
not moved quickly, it is quite possible there would have been
no evidence-taking or pre-leg scrutiny prior to second reading,
which I think tells a story.
Dr Steven: The Electoral Reform
Society was quite critical of the way in which this whole issue,
well, certainly electoral reform, appeared to come up at the last
minute and at the tail end of the last parliamentary session and
in the so-called `wash-up'. There was something unfortunate about
that, I think. The other thing I would say is that, generally,
if there were as much coverage and awareness of the way in which
Parliament works in this setting, consensual, considered, cross-party,
as there is about Prime Minister's Questions, I think the public
trust of politicians would be improved.
Dr Pinto-Duschinsky: As you will
have gathered, my answer to your question is simply yes, that
it is too early. I would add, though, that I think there is a
genuine lack of preparation going from the side of the Executive
in having answers to some of the questions. I think there are
issues that really need to be looked at more carefully in order
to avoid practical problems and in dealing with good government.
You do have to look at the details in a responsible way, and we
cannot do that by September.
Stephen Williams: I would like to ask
the witnesses whether they think the Scotland Act 1997 and the
Wales Act 1997 were botched legislation and that the Scottish
Parliament and the Welsh Assembly lack legitimacy because the
referenda were both held in September 1997, barely three and a
half months before the recess in between of the Labour Government
taking office?
Nick Boles: I would like to ask you a
question, Chairman.
Chair: Of course.
Nick Boles: My understanding of the reason
for the rush is the fear that the part of the Bill that matters
to my Party, which is the equalisation of boundaries and constituency
sizes, will take too long and will not be ready before an election.
I think that Dr Pinto-Duschinsky has made a very eloquent argument
and a very strong case that, if we change the boundaries in any
way, it seems to be a nonsense and incredibly time-consuming and
expensive, and we could then have more time. Would it be appropriate
for this Committee to make that as a strong representation to
the next Prime Minister that, whilst we are not trying to undercut
the Government's desire to achieve those new boundaries in time
for an election, there might be another process which would achieve
better parliamentary scrutiny and the timetable that we definitely
need?
Chair: If I can briefly interject before
the panel, we have made representations, as the Committee has
heard in its informal meetings and its formal meetings, that there
should be adequate time without slowing down the actual referendum
date, not to delay the legislation, but to actually incorporate
within the legislative timetable sufficient time to do our job
thoroughly.
Nick Boles: It is just the specific point
of the change to the Boundary Commission unlocking that.
Q55 Chair: I would like to consider
that and perhaps we can have a few moments after we rise, but
perhaps we can quickly scoot across the panel who have been extremely
helpful in their contributions today.
Dr Pinto-Duschinsky: On the last
point that was made, I do believe that you can get constituencies
and the reorganisation done earlier than the current timetable
and still start later and that the big gap that is left is because
of this outdated boundary system, so I feel that that is the key
both to more scrutiny and making sure that the changes are made
properly and of getting there early because MPs do need to know
where they stand for their constituencies and constituency parties
well before the next election. We want to change the boundary
system anyway, so now is a very good way of doing that. I do feel,
though, that this Committee has a vital role to play, as does
Parliament, in making sure, not in the principles, but that the
details are fully discussed, so it has been, for me, a privilege
to be able to see this new Committee at work and to congratulate
you and wish you well.
Q56 Chair: Thank you very much.
Dr Steven: The Electoral Reform
Society does not have an official position on the legitimacy of
the Scotland and Wales Acts. I think the second question is for
the Chair and I cannot comment on that, but thank you very much
for inviting the Electoral Reform Society.
Mr Facey: I would definitely not
say that the Scotland and Wales Acts were botched legislation;
it would be very dangerous of me to say so to what is north of
the border. There is something to bear in mind, though, particularly
in relation to Scotland, that the legislation came out of a process
which was actually a lot longer, so it is true that it was very
quick legislation, but the idea that that legislation was kind
of newly drafted in a few months is not actually the case in the
case of Scotland. It is a lesser argument in Wales and elsewhere,
but in Scotland there was a long process which produced that,
and I know some constitutional advocates in Scotland who would
argue that that process was one which lasted 100-odd years in
terms of the changes, so you can have quick legislation which
is good legislation, but there is a kind of rule of thumb which
normally says that the quicker the legislation, the worse the
law at the end of it, normally, and that, therefore, it needs
to be considered. In the case of the referendum, it is something
where actually in the referendum part of this Bill, and of course
we have not actually seen the Bill, there was, effectively, a
draft of that which was in the last Parliament, so that element
again is not actually that particularly quick, but, on the whole,
legislation does need to be scrutinised properly.
Chair: Mr Facey, Dr Steven and Dr Pinto-Duschinsky,
thank you very much. We could have gone on for another hour. The
answers you gave were extremely helpful to us and I will ensure
that the evidence you have given is available to every Member
of Parliament, not merely the members of this Committee. Thank
you so much for coming.
|
