Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
160-179)
MR BOB
FARRANCE, MS
LIZ BENSON,
MR HUGH
BUCHANAN AND
MR EDWARD
LEWIS
9 SEPTEMBER 2010
Q160 Simon Hart: Can I just pick
on the point Mr Buchanan said. He used two words, "division"
and "unity", as being factors you take into account
when reaching your conclusions. If the overriding and dominant
feature of the legislation is a numerical one, 75,000 or 2% or
3% either side, to what extent does the division or unity factor
apply?
Mr Buchanan: To the greatest possible
extent within the parameters set down by the law.
Q161 Simon Hart: Can you say anything
more about that?
Mr Buchanan: No I can't. This
will be the first time we will have been conducting a review with
an absolute numerical limit to the number of electors in each
constituency. So whereas, in all previous reviews, a Commission
has been able to set for itself what is an acceptable deviation
from electoral parity by saying, "Well, it really doesn't
make sense to divide this town or this community and, therefore,
we will accept a rather larger electorate than we have anywhere
else in order to retain that unity." The Commission loses
that discretion under the legislation proposed by the Bill.
Q162 Simon Hart: So, does that lead
us automatically to the conclusion that you are going to be—I
am not putting words into your mouth obviously—forced to
make decisions which might divide areas which your instincts,
as a Commission, suggest should not be divided?
Mr Buchanan: In the first part
of my answer I said that we would reflect unity to the greatest
extent possible, whatever the case.
Q163 Simon Hart: With the greatest
respect that could be fairly meaningless, couldn't it? If you
are bound by the numbers you can have a willing stab but you might
not make much progress.
Mr Buchanan: I hope it's not meaningless.
One of the great unknowns of a review under this Bill is what
the public engagement will be. One of the challenges for ourselves
will be in trying to encourage people to understand what the law
allows us to do and doesn't allow us to do. So I think the Commissions
will want—as far as they can within the law—to reflect
communities wherever they can, but clearly that discretion is
reduced from the current position.
Q164 Simon Hart: Thank you. Can I
just turn the spotlight to Wales, for obvious reasons, as it is
an area that interests me. I have one of the relatively few seats,
in Carmarthen, which straddles two local authority boundaries
and, of course, there is 1,000 years of historical cultural difference
between the two counties, which is very difficult to square, so
whatever might happen might be advantageous, you never know. Could
you just suggest what you see as the problems facing your task
in Wales, in particular bearing in mind the Welsh Assembly boundaries
which are going to be decoupled, we understand, as a consequence
or as part of this legislation. I think that would be helpful
to get that. Also, if the Bill does become an Act and you do start
your work relatively soon, what are you going to do and what can
you do before the Welsh Assembly elections in May 2011?
Mr Lewis: Well, we will be doing
nothing in respect of the Assembly elections except, under the
legislation, we will still have the power to complete the interim
reviews. We have commenced several interim reviews in Wales in
order to correct some of the anomalies that we have between parliamentary
and Assembly constituency boundaries. The advantage is not for
parliament, of course, but will be for the Assembly because those
anomalies will be put right. I now understand that the Wales Office
are looking at what happens next if the decoupling takes place.
I believe that Ministers are now considering that there should
be arrangements made for separate Assembly constituency reviews.
I think this obviously relates to the referendum in Wales, in
May 2011, as to whether there will be additional powers to the
Assembly. Then Ministers will have choices to make as to whether,
if there are additional powers, there will be additional Assembly
members to be appointed and then what the basis should be for
that. If there are no additional powers as a result of the referendum,
then it becomes even more important for the current 40 constituencies
to be maintained so that we avoid any demographic drifts taking
place there.
Q165 Simon Hart: That is most useful.
What are the concerns, as you see them? There may be none but
I just wondered, for the record, if there are areas of this process
that apply specifically to Wales that you think need to be highlighted?
Mr Lewis: I do not think that
we have any particular concerns, in that I suppose the legislation
brings advantages in that at the present time we have the issue
of the preserved counties in Wales in which we have to try to
fit the parliamentary constituencies into those boundaries. On
the fifth review we took two preserved counties together, which
was Gwynedd and Clwyd, and in the south Mid Glamorgan and Gwent,
in order for North Wales to avoid the reduction of constituency
in that area, and in South Wales to avoid a wholesale realignment
of constituencies. The preserved counties for parliamentary basis
wasn't a very good idea, so I think the Welsh Commission are pleased
that that doesn't apply, or may not apply, for the next review.
Q166 Chair: Is there a limit currently
on the number of constituencies there could be? If you guys decided
you want to pump it up to 750 across the UK, could you do that?
Mr Buchanan: The current legislation
gives us the current number of constituencies in our territory
as a starting point and rules that result in nearly the same;
perhaps a little bit more.
Chair: And, Mr Farrance, in England?
Mr Farrance: Yes. I think it comes
down to the term, doesn't it, "At the start shall not be
substantially greater or less than 613", which may exercise
a few legal minds as to what "substantially greater"
means.
Q167 Chair: So, you are a bit over
target at the moment at 650 collectively?
Mr Buchanan: 632, because that
is a GB target.
Chair: I see. So, 632 is a bit over optimum
613.
Mr Farrance: In comparison, yes.
Q168 Chair: So, there is an acceptance
that there should be a limit, even if it is a rather rough and
ready one currently. Setting a given specific number is not such
an outrageous thing for the Government to propose. It is well
precedented. It's in the field in which you have been working
but it's none the less a very precise number. So, you could achieve
600 if that were set for you, collectively, without too much difficulty
providing you had the time to do it. Presumably—if you were
told by Government 600 was the number—you could get to that
in two, three or four Boundary Commission reviews relatively comfortably?
Mr Buchanan: In your scenario,
I'm not quite sure what is changing and what is remaining the
same.
Chair: What is changing is the number
from—
Mr Buchanan: And everything else
is remaining the same?
Chair: Yes. You could collectively get
to 600 incrementally without any great difficulty.
Mr Buchanan: I don't think there
would be any particular advantage in doing it incrementally; if
you wanted to make the change then get it over with. The pain
would be just as great, because every constituency would probably
need to be amended if you were going to retain the consistency
that we seek in constituency design.
Mr Lewis: One of the problems,
Chairman, is that under the current rules there is effectively
a ratchet effect in the number of constituencies and we would
need new rules to do what you suggest to bring things down. If
I can refer to the fifth review; the Welsh Commission had a situation
where there could have been a 41st constituency in Wales because
the numbers were quite close, but the Commission took a view that
they would stay at 40. If they had gone to 41 that would have
meant that there would have been an extra Assembly constituency
and there would have been an impact upon the regional membership
of the Assembly as well. So that was quite a challenge for them.
I think new rules would be needed to achieve a downward trend.
Mr Farrance: I think also if you
were to adopt an incremental approach in reduction terms, I think
it has to be recognised that every review will see a large degree
of change because of the 5% parity targets. Also, as the electorate
of England grows—if it continues to grow—and others
stand still, there may be redistribution between the four parts
of the UK. So, with that comes great change.
Q169 Chair: Where I'm trying to get
to is that if you kept the current process of local inquiries
and basing constituencies on community, geographical boundaries
and natural phenomena, that would be a less painful process than
going straight to 600 from 650, but you are saying, "No,
if it needs to be done it can be done quickly," although,
presumably, it can only be done quickly if the local inquiries
and the criteria are amended or abolished?
Mr Farrance: The experiences I've
picked up from the last two reviews in England are that people
do not like change in whatever form it comes. They object to change.
We experienced it where the actual number of constituencies increased
by five at the fourth review and four at the fifth review. So,
if you are reducing you will receive the same degree of complaint
I would imagine. It's about change—people don't like it.
Q170 Chair: You started by saying
every constituency will change. I don't suppose you have any sympathy
at all for the MPs that are going to be fighting each other to
the death over the next three years.
Mr Buchanan: Ultra vires.
Chair: I don't expect you to answer that.
However, the fact that all four of you smiled I think is probably
adequate. Eleanor?
Q171 Eleanor Laing: Yes, I think
you should say that that's ultra vires.
Q172 Eleanor Laing: Before I come
to my questions, just following on from what the Chairman has
just said, would it be right to say that if the principle is that
the number of Members of Parliament is to be reduced to 600 then,
as Macbeth said, "If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere
well it were done quickly.". Might I suggest that there is
no point in prolonging such a process over, say, four boundary
reviews, which would take several decades, and that there would
then be uncertainty ongoing in every single constituency? I know
you cannot comment on the policy but you can confirm that if it
can be done incrementally it can also be done immediately?
Mr Farrance: Immediately after
the fifth general review that the English Commission undertook
it had a look at how the review had gone and also sat down and
talked about the aspects of the rules and the legislation which
perhaps should be changed. The one thing the members then said—and
we have a completely new makeup of the Commission now—was,
"If you're going to make change do it in one big bang rather
than incrementally".
Eleanor Laing: That is a very important
point. Thank you for that answer.
Mr Buchanan: I think the other
thing I would say is that the rules as drafted—and Bob [Mr
Farrance] referred to this before—will mean that there will
be continuing change. If we look back at the situation in Scotland
over the last 10 years, then it leads us to think that every five
years, i.e. at every review, the number of seats in Scotland will
be one less than before.
Q173 Eleanor Laing: Is that because
of population change?
Mr Buchanan: It's largely because
of electorate increase in England, and therefore Scotland's proportion
of the total has been decreasing steadily over the last 10 years.
If that continues then at each review the Scottish Commission
will face the task of designing a different number of constituencies.
If you have a tight parity target and a changed number of constituencies,
then a lot of constituencies have to change to accommodate any
change in overall number.
Mr Farrance: Before we came here
today I had a look back and, between February 1976 and 1 December
2009, the electorate of England has grown by just over 4 million.
Q174 Eleanor Laing: Is it correct
that even in the last 10 years it has increased from 37 million
to 38 million?
Mr Farrance: Yes. Across the period
of time I described, if the Commissions had given full rein to
that, it would have produced an extra 60 constituencies at 4 million.
England's electorate is changing rapidly, and that will affect
the degree of change at every review with a 5% parity target.
Q175 Eleanor Laing: Just for the
record can I ask Mr Buchanan what is the current electorate in
Scotland?
Mr Buchanan: Around about 4 million.
Q176 Eleanor Laing: Thank you.
Can I come on to the actual arithmetic of the
equalisation? We have had debate in parliament this week, and
there was some criticism of the arithmetic being supreme. I think
it is a perfectly reasonable point to take that the arithmetic
should be supreme. Can you confirm that—sorry, I shouldn't
lead the witnesses. Does the 5% variation give sufficient flexibility
to allow your processes to work on, let us say, ward boundaries
rather than having to divide up wards if there was no variation
whatsoever or a 1% variation? Is it the case that the arithmetic
would only be achievable if the unit being used was smaller than
a ward, but if you have a 5% variation does that give sufficient
flexibility?
Mr Farrance: I would say that
the more you screw down the electoral parity target the more difficult
it becomes, particularly if you're using wards to build constituencies.
At the fourth and fifth reviews the Commission, if you like, tightened
its own screw and brought more constituencies closer to the electoral
quota. The earlier conversations about recognising community of
course make hitting a target difficult because no community is
the same size. If you take the Isle of Wight, for example, what
parity target could you achieve to keep the Isle of Wight intact
or other communities around England, be they 20,000 or 70,000
in size? So, it's a difficulty whatever target you choose, but
the more you screw it down the harder it becomes.
Q177 Eleanor Laing: Some of us would
suggest that the Isle of Wight is an exception. Just in normal
constituencies within a large county like Essex, for example,
if you have a 5% variation you can pretty well keep communities
in their natural form?
Mr Buchanan: Well, you mentioned
"communities" there but in your earlier question you
mentioned "wards". Let us be clear, in Scotland wards
will be divided.
Q178 Eleanor Laing: Is that because
wards in Scotland are larger, as it happens, because of the way
local government is constructed?
Mr Buchanan: That is one of the
factors, yes. In Scotland, for the Scottish Parliament review
that the Commission recently completed, there was no absolute
parity limit, but the Commission still took the view that it was
preferable to divide wards and seek other boundaries of social
or physical geography in order to define constituencies.
Q179 Eleanor Laing: So, that precedent
has already been set?
Mr Buchanan: It has in Scotland.
| 
