Written evidence submitted by Keep Cornwall
Whole (PVSCB 03)
SUMMARY
— The draft Parliamentary Voting System
and Constituencies Bill includes the key principle of achieving
constituencies with very similar sized electorates. It is proposed
that all constituencies throughout the United Kingdom, with a
very small number of exceptions, must be within 5% of the average
UK electorate.
— The rigidity of the Bill means that Cornwall
would inevitably have at least one cross border seat with Devon,
despite its exceptionally distinct Celtic history and culture,
unique geography as a peninsula bounded by the Tamar River, special
constitutional position, and a specific economic profile that
receives EU Convergence Funding.
— Keep Cornwall Whole is a cross-party
campaign group that representing a cross-party and cross-geographical
consensus within Cornwall. It operates in a non-partisan consensual
way and seeks to ensure that the Bill is modified in order to
protect the historic integrity of Cornwall.
— Several other areas with a clear sense
of identity—geographically, socially, culturally, historically
and economically—could also be adversely affected by the
proposal.
— We consider that this would be unreasonable,
and that a better balance can be achieved between numerical equality
and accurate representation of people and place. We suggest a
number of ways of achieving this.
ABOUT US
Keep Cornwall Whole is an organisation set up
by the Town Mayor of Saltash in specific response to this Bill.
Its steering group has representation from all significant political
groups within Cornwall including the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats,
Labour, Mebyon Kernow and the Green Party, as well as Independent
councillors.
It is supported by Cornish Members of Parliament,
local political leaders and Town and Parish Councils, a number
of Cornish cultural organisations, and several hundred registered
supporters of our Facebook Group.
EVIDENCE
1. The Bill currently states that constituencies,
with a small number of exceptions, must have electorates within
5% of quota, which the Boundary Commission currently estimates
to be around 75,500, thus providing a range of 71,725-79,275.
2. As of 1 December 2009, Cornwall's electorate
was 416,166, giving it an "entitlement" of 5.51MPs.
3. This would make it mathematically impossible
for Cornwall to have a whole number of MPs to itself—five
MPs would average 1.10 of quota, and six MPs would average 0.92
of quota.
4. This is not just an issue that concerns
the people of Cornwall. Many other parts of the United Kingdom
could also be adversely affected by the Bill in similar ways,
particularly islands and areas separated by estuaries.
5. For example Ynys Mon had 50,396 local
government electors, or 0.67 of likely quota, and the Isle of
Wight 111,283, or 1.47 of likely quota, and the Wirral, divided
from Liverpool by the Mersey River, 241,570, or 3.21. Thus parts
or all of each of these areas, each of which has a clear geographical
division—a river or sea—as well as a clear identity,
would certainly be joined with parts of other areas.
6. Furthermore, a cursory examination of
the number of electors in each English County demonstrates that
a number of other areas would be likely to have cross-border seats.
Examples of counties that would have to "share" parliamentary
seats could well include Northumberland with Tyne and Wear, Durham
with the former county of Cleveland, Northamptonshire with Bedfordshire,
Norfolk with Cambridgeshire, Shropshire with Herefordshire and
Worcestershire, Warwickshire with Oxfordshire, Wiltshire with
Dorset, and Somerset with Avon. This is aside from issues likely
to be raised within Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, and
with the wards of major cities such as Birmingham which have very
large electorates. This paragraph draws heavily on an article
on the "Polling Report" website.[7]
7. We note that MPs throughout the United
Kingdom have long represented areas that are much more than simply
a group of individuals—they speak for their constituency.
We contend that this is not simply for reasons of geographical
simplicity, and that it follows that their constituency should
wherever possible have a clear identity. If a constituency is
composed of two or three areas with highly different identities,
this will be particularly difficult to achieve and there is a
severe risk that elements of it will go under-represented or indeed
unrepresented.
8. We would further note that effective
constituency representation relies on a degree of constituency
stability as well as local links, and that 5 yearly reviews focused
almost entirely on numbers would greatly weaken this.
9. In the case of Cornwall in particular,
including the Isles of Scilly for parliamentary purposes, we wish
to make a number of specific points as to why it has a very strong
identity, and should not be joined with parts of Devon or Plymouth.
10. The East of Cornwall is made up entirely
up small towns and rural areas, in direct contrast to the City
of Plymouth in particular. Only Bodmin and Saltash have populations
of over 15,000, and none over 20,000. Even compared to small towns
and rural areas in West Devon the nature of the respective towns
and rural areas is quite different to even the casual observer.
11. The Office of National Statistics, when
amending the areas for which it prepares statistics, supported
and implemented, "the separation of Devon and Cornwall into
two separate areas, recognising the very different economic conditions
of the two counties, and Cornwall's sparsity of population, geographical
peripherality and distinct cultural and historical factors reflecting
a Celtic background"
12. Prior to the implementation or Proportional
Representation for European Parliamentary Elections, the Flather
Report from the EU Parliamentary Commission acknowledged a strong
Cornish case to be a separate constituency from "West Plymouth",
particularly in terms of historic and cultural distinctiveness.
13. That Cornwall is a Duchy with a special
constitutional position further sets it apart from the rest of
the UK. Other arrangements that recognise the distinctiveness
of Cornwall include local government boundaries, diocesan boundary,
PCT boundary, the structures of a great many voluntary and charitable
organisations, and European Objective One and Convergence funding.
14. The Cornish Language and the Cornish
Gorsedd are two obvious examples of historical and cultural distinctiveness.
The Language is protected under the European Charter for Regional
or Minority Languages, which amongst its provisions states that:
7.1 In respect of regional or minority languages,
within the territories in which such languages are used and according
to the situation of each language, the Parties shall base their
policies, legislation and practice on the following objectives
and principles:
b. the respect of the geographical area of each
regional or minority language in order to ensure that existing
or new administrative divisions do not constitute an obstacle
to the promotion of the regional or minority language in question.
15. The Objective One and Convergence funding
alluded to above, clearly demonstrates that Cornwall as a whole
faces different economic issues to Devon. These are issues judged
worthy of special funding intervention from the European Union,
which treated Cornwall as a region in its own right.
16. It has been an accepted principal of
ethnic categorisation in recent years that people are of the ethnic
background that they identify themselves as. When residents of
Cornwall have been given the opportunity to state their ethnicity,
significant numbers have considered themselves to be Cornish as
well as British, and there is a very clear geographical area to
accompany that identity.
17. We therefore contend that to join parts
of Cornwall to parts of Devon for parliamentary purposes would
clearly go not only across local boundaries, but also across a
regional boundary, which some in Cornwall consider to be a national
boundary.
18. We do not contend that there are no
links between Cornwall and Devon—clearly there will always
be a need for cross-border co-operation on specific issues. However,
the same is true of a number of counties, regions and even countries
that nevertheless would not be considered appropriate to share
parliamentary representation—for example, several areas
on the border of England and Wales.
19. We would emphasise that were there to
be five or six wholly Cornish Constituencies, the average size
deviation from quota would not differ greatly from 5%—being
approximately 10% or 8% respectively. Therefore Cornwall would
need only a small statistical allowance to accommodate a very
large economic, cultural and social distinction.
20. We would further re-emphasise that Cornwall
is not the only area with special circumstances that would be
affected in this way, albeit we believe it to be the strongest
example, particularly given the historical context.
21. Whilst the Bill does currently allow
the Boundary Commission to consider the following factors
(a) special geographical considerations, including
in particular the size, shape and accessibility of a constituency;
(b) local government boundaries as they exist
on the most recent ordinary council-election day before the review
date;
(c) any local ties that would be broken by changes
in constituencies; and
(d) the inconveniences attendant on such changes.
This is only within the context of the 5% limit.
22. We contend that this 5% limit makes
the notion of special circumstances virtually irrelevant, since
they can apply only with a very narrow numerical tolerance.
RECOMMENDATIONS
23. Whilst the primary aim of our group
is to secure the status of Cornwall as a distinct area for parliamentary
purposes, we recognise a wider point: that this Bill will cause
a large number of distinct areas to have their identity weakened,
and will damage many historic and cultural links, as well as damaging
constituency stability.
24. It is our view that the Bill could,
and should, be modified in order to protect the historic integrity
of Cornwall. Options include the following:
(i) Either: to specify additional areas in the
Bill to be protected, including Cornwall, or
(ii) To amend the Bill to ensure new constituencies
respect "county" boundaries, or
(iii) To amend the Bill such that the Boundary
Commission would be required to propose seats within 5% of the
quota except where special considerations apply to such
an extent that make the 5% limit inappropriate. Such considerations
would include historic, cultural, social, economic, political
and geographical factors.
25. Option (i) would see the position of
a number of places enshrined in the Bill, as has already been
done for Orkney and Shetland, and the Western Isles. In the case
of Ynys Mon or the Isle of Wight this could be done as a single
constituency. In the case of Cornwall, or other multi-member areas
with special circumstances, this could be done by specifying the
total number of MPs within the Bill, and leaving internal boundaries
to the discretion of the Boundary Commission.
26. Option (ii) is self-explanatory. It
ensures some stability and respect of traditional boundaries,
whilst still achieving reasonable electoral equality across both
Cornwall and England.
27. Were the Committee not to favour the
recommendations in paragraphs 24 and 25, we would suggest that
Option (iii) represents a way to achieve a balance between numerical
equality and accurate representation of people and place. This
option would reinstate the Boundary Commission's discretion to
make judgements as to appropriate boundaries without unbreakable
numerical restraints. The clause of the Bill that allows the Boundary
Commission to take certain factors into account, reproduced in
paragraph 19, could be amended to be notwithstanding the 5% limit,
or to ordinarily require a 5% limit but allow for this to be disregarded
in special circumstances. For example, "in circumstances
where the Boundary Commission of England considers these considerations
to be of such over-riding weight that they should take precedence
over the provisions of rule 2, the Commission may determine boundaries
that do not meet the provisions of that rule".
28. Reinstating the Boundary Commission's
discretion in this manner, would also ensure that exceptions to
the 5% rule would be based on the evidence and independent judgement
of the Commission.
29. We have considered, but not recommended,
that the Bill could be amended to allow for a greater degree of
numerical flexibility—for example 10%. However we note that
this course of action, would certainly not encompass the needs
of areas such as Ynys Mon or the Isle of Wight, and would be difficult
to achieve within Cornwall.
We also contend that "special geographic
considerations" can be interpreted in too narrow a way, and
recommend that it be replaced with "special economic, social,
historical, cultural or geographic considerations".
1 September 2010
7 http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/2740 Back
|
