Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
150-159)
MR BOB
FARRANCE, MS
LIZ BENSON,
MR HUGH
BUCHANAN AND
MR EDWARD
LEWIS
9 SEPTEMBER 2010
Chair: Welcome Ms Benson, Mr Buchanan,
Mr Farrance and Mr Lewis. Welcome to the Political and Constitutional
Reform Committee. I would like to start the questioning straight
away so that we do not delay you any further; I appreciate you
coming, in some cases quite long distances. Steve Williams?
Q150 Stephen Williams:
Thank you, Chairman. Could I begin by referring to your written
evidence? In paragraph 10 you say that the changes to the total
number of constituencies and the tighter limits on the number
of electives in each constituency will result in a complete redrawing
of constituency boundaries. What do you think the level of disruption
to existing parliamentary constituencies will be? Will every single
constituency effectively need to be changed?
Mr Buchanan: To speak for Scotland,
yes.
Ms Benson: Yes, and to speak for
Northern Ireland, yes.
Mr Lewis: To speak for Wales,
yes.
Mr Farrance: Likewise.
Stephen Williams: So, there is United
Kingdom agreement on that.
Chair: To clarify, every constituency
will be impacted.
Mr Buchanan: With the exception
of Orkney and Shetland and Na-h-Eileanan an Iar.
Q151 Stephen Williams: There are
two reasons why I ask that, Chair: first of all, is that quite
different to previous reviews? I have only taken part in two reviews
in my lifetime and quite a lot of constituencies were left more
or less the same, or in fact completely the same, and only a limited
number were completely altered or abolished whereas this time
you are saying every constituency will change?
Mr Farrance: Yes, I think that's
correct. The effect of setting a parity target, as well as a reduction
at the same time, leads to the inevitability of widespread change
across the whole of the country. On previous occasions there was
no target set, nor a strict parity target, which made it possible
to retain some of the existing constituencies whole, with one
or two local changes.
Q152 Stephen Williams: Given the
human resources and technologies that are available to you at
the moment, and the fact that there needs to be a big bang change
to all 600 if that is what happens as a result of the Bill—all
600 constituencies will be substantially different to what we
are used to now—is that physically possible, or do you need
many more resources in order to deliver the objectives of the
Bill?
Mr Buchanan: I do not think that
the number of changed constituencies is a significant driver to
complexity and cost of the review. You embark on a review, you
assess every constituency—within your area of responsibility—you
publish proposals, you take representations, etc. So a review
is a quantum of work, the fact that every constituency changes,
or a small number of constituencies change, has a very big impact
on yourselves and your party organisations but less of an impact
on our organisations.
Q153 Stephen Williams: In the criteria
that's laid down in the Bill there isn't anything about the level
of disruption to the existing pattern and fabric of constituencies
that we are all used to, journalists are used to and our electors
are used to. At the moment you have the concept of making minimal
changes, or changes that are only absolutely necessary to a constituency
boundary. Do you think the Bill is flawed in any way by not allowing
that minimum disruption?
Mr Farrance: I wouldn't say it's
flawed in that sense. I think it's a case that if you reduce the
number of constituencies by any degree you are going to create
change. It's absolutely necessary. At the same time, the introduction
of a United Kingdom electoral quota will see a marked change in
the number of electors in each constituency. Those factors drive
the change I would say, rather than any flaw that may be in the
Bill.
Q154 Stephen Williams: Just a technical
question about methodology now. As I understand it, the four different
commissions may be using different methodologies to find the building
blocks to build up the new constituencies. Some of you are going
to use postcode data, which I think the Ordnance Survey may be
helping with, and some of you—I think in Wales—are
going to be using existing council wards. Should you not agree
between you a uniform approach?
Mr Buchanan: That would require
uniform local government across the United Kingdom, which as you
know isn't the case. The solutions that we're proposing to developing
constituency proposals in each of our countries reflect the circumstances
that we find in each of the countries. I think one of the reasons
why there have been separate Boundary Commissions in each of the
four countries for the last 65 years is to reflect those local
differences and to allow local factors to be properly built in
to the process.
Q155 Stephen Williams: What I am
curious about, Chairman, is that I think most of us—certainly
in England—when we went through the boundary review 10 years
ago, will have been used to wards being used and not postcodes.
To me—correct me if I am wrong—while a postcode will
tell you the number of households in a particular area you don't
necessarily know how many individuals are within those households.
More importantly in the context of a political number, you don't
know whether all of those householders are electors, which is
the basic building block. So, how do postcodes work in this context?
Mr Buchanan: I think there are
two points there. First point is that we're not using postcodes
as a building block. We're using postcodes as a means of counting
electors, so that where we have to divide a ward in Scotland,
we then look at geography and look at major topographic features—rivers,
railways, roads, areas of housing—patterns that suggest
division or unity. We design constituencies around those, but
when we have done so we then need to know how many electors exist
and that is where the postcodes come in. What we're doing is we're
taking the electoral register where each entry in the register
contains a postcode. That allows us then to aggregate and say,
"For this postcode there are this many electors," and
that allows us then to count electors at a very small level of
aggregation.
Q156 Stephen Williams: I am guessing
by the accents—checking the names—that that is the
practice in Scotland. For the English Boundary Commission this
will be a new way of doing it though, won't it?
Mr Farrance: The English Boundary
Commission has used local government wards since about 1974. The
reasons for that are set out in its previous reports and I think
are clearly well documented. More importantly than that, they
are backed by statute, they're made by statutory instrument, and
the electorates for each ward are readily available from the Electoral
Registration Officers. So, there is no argument about the unit
or the electorate. Clearly the Commission is at a very early stage;
it has only met once since the Bill was published. It will meet
again in October 2010 and has much policy consideration to go
through. We have done some modelling earlier in the year, based
upon the proposals as they were emanating from the Conservative
party, and it appears possible to allocate the correct number
of constituencies using wards. However, it may be necessary to
use a geography below ward level. I think the report from the
academics that was published the other day covers that in some
depth and does so quite clearly, and highlights the difficulties
associated with it in the English sense. Scotland have started
from a different position in terms of their GI solution and, therefore,
they take quite a different approach.
Q157 Stephen Williams: Chairman,
the only structure we will all be familiar with that is lower
than the ward level at the moment are the polling districts, which
are drawn up entirely by local government Electoral Registration
Officers. I asked this in the previous evidence session to the
academics: do you think there should be some statutory protection
for a polling district so that an Electoral Registration Officer
can't come along at a later stage than a boundary review and re-jig
the polling district boundaries?
Mr Farrance: My view on that would
be very much a case of, if it were given that statutory backing
and appeared in the boundary line data set issued by Ordnance
Survey of administrative boundaries, it would be most helpful
to use that. As you quite rightly say, the registers are based
on the polling districts; the electorates, again, are readily
available. It's a digital data set on the mapping that is not
available at the moment.
Mr Lewis: If I could comment about
Wales. First of all I should say we do not have wards for the
principal authorities, they are electoral divisions, and it's
important that you are aware that there is a different term used.
We have an advantage also that all of Wales is divided into community
areas, equivalent to English parishes.
Q158 Stephen Williams: Including
Cardiff?
Mr Lewis: Including Cardiff. Many
of the communities have their community councils or town councils,
and some of those areas are subdivided into community wards for
electoral purposes, so it is possible to get down to a fairly
small area. A place like Cardiff would only have community councils
on the rural periphery and not in the centre.
Ms Benson: If I could say from
a Northern Ireland point of view, in rural areas we have town
lands, which are unique to Ireland. In fact, rural wards are amalgamations
of town lands. So in rural areas we possibly would use town lands
as the sub ward unit where we have to split a ward. In urban areas
the town lands don't have such significance so we would probably
look to something else, like postcodes or census output areas.
Q159 Stephen Williams: This is the
final question I will ask, Chairman. The Bill proposes that these
reviews take place much more frequently—every five years—but
we know that local government reviews will also need to take place
on a periodic basis, and that is not specified at the moment,
and I hope we will have an elected second chamber at some point
very soon as well. Do you think it's going to be sustainable in
the future to have three different boundary reviews taking place
over a decade? We might be permanently giving evidence to boundary
reviews.
Mr Farrance: The English experience
has been very much that the last two reviews have been conducted
against a background of change in local government boundaries.
The last review, which was criticised for the amount of time taken,
followed the periodic electoral review of the Local Government
Boundary Commission which was establishing new wards across England.
So, therefore, the Commission's timetable was set by those new
boundaries. It saw no benefit in submitting a report that was
three quarters based on new ward structures where the other quarter
was ignored. So I think the answer is: we will get on and conduct
a review, whatever is happening in the background, but it's helpful
if there is a settled and stable pattern of local government when
that is happening.
Mr Lewis: I could say, from Wales,
that under the Local Government Act 1972, as amended, there is
a requirement upon the Local Government Boundary Commission to
conduct reviews of electoral arrangements every eight to 10 years,
so there are regular reviews. The advantage we have, of course,
is that the secretariat supports both commissions so we have a
very good idea of what is going on in local government and in
parliamentary terms. So we do have an advantage from a common
cause standpoint.
Mr Farrance: Yes, on that very
point, the English Commission is purely set for parliamentary
work. There is a separate Local Government Boundary Commission,
although I do speak very regularly with my opposite number, so
we're very aware of their work programmes.
Ms Benson: The same goes for Northern
Ireland; we have two separate systems.
Chair: Simon Hart?
| 
