Supplementary written evidence from the
Secretaries to the Boundary Commissions (PVSCB 4A)
Following the evidence session on 14 October,
the Committee asked the Secretaries to the Boundary Commissions
some addition questions in writing. Below are the responses to
these questions.
Q1 Has the Boundary Commission previously
applied different criteria when assessing boundaries in isolated
rural areas, than in urban ones, and if so what were they?
A1 The legislation governing boundary reviews
sets down the rules for constituency design, and each Boundary
Commission applies those rules in a consistent manner across its
area of responsibility. The rules do not differentiate between
urban and rural areas, other than to allow a Commission to take
into account "special geographical considerations, including
in particular the size, shape and accessibility of a constituency".
Commissions have applied this rule to rural constituencies in
various cases, balanced with each of the other rules.
Q2 At what stage will it be possible for representations
to be made on the names proposed for a new constituency?
A2 Names for constituencies form part of
a Commission's proposals in the same way as the boundaries of
constituencies. Therefore, representations can be made on names
in the same way, and at the same stages, as they can be on any
other aspect of a Commission's proposals.
Q3 Is it correct that taking written rather
than oral submissions from local people will be more efficient
and just as effective as the current system of taking oral evidence?
A3 Having only written submissions is different
from the practice in previous reviews. As a result, it is impossible
to predict how it will work in practice. However, the Commissions'
experience during previous reviews has been that almost all major
issues are initially raised in written submissions, and that these
issues are then reiterated and elaborated in oral evidence at
public inquiries.
In Wales, it is necessary to provide Welsh language
translation facilities at each Local Inquiry. At the Fifth Review,
several of those who made their representations through the medium
of Welsh asked to see what had been recorded to ensure that there
had not been any mis-translation. Written submissions in Welsh
were published in that language and English language translations
were made for staff to use as working documents but were not published.
Q4 Is the Boundary Commission for Scotland
aware of the considerable concern that the most recent review
of Scottish Parliament boundaries has created electoral units
which bear no relationship to other electoral divisions (Westminster
seats; local government wards) which may increase voter confusion
and identification with those who represent them?
A4 The Boundary Commission for Scotland
is aware of the difficulties that arise as a result of different
boundaries which are not coterminous. However, the Commission
concluded during its First Periodic Review of Scottish Parliament
Boundaries that the requirement to have 73 Scottish Parliament
constituencies and 59 Westminster constituencies made non-coterminous
boundaries unavoidable. The introduction of multi-member wards,
with larger electorates than their predecessors, meant that wards
could no longer be used as building blocks for constituencies
in all cases. Further explanation is given in paragraphs 1.4 and
2.4 of the Commission's report on the First Periodic Review of
Scottish Parliament Boundaries, which is available in the House
of Commons library, and on the Commission's website.
Bob Farrance
Secretary, Boundary Commission for England
Liz Benson
Secretary, Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland
Hugh Buchanan
Secretary, Boundary Commission for Scotland
Edward Lewis
Secretary, Boundary Commission for Wales
14 September 2010
| 
