Written evidence submitted by Richard
Burden MP (PVSCB 31)
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 I welcome the Committee's decision to
scrutinise the government's proposals:
— to hold a national referendum on
using the Alternative Vote (AV) system at general elections, to
reduce the size of the House of Commons, and to equalise the size
of parliamentary constituencies, and
— to establish fixed-term Parliaments
of five years.
1.2 This is a brief response to the Select
Committee's call for evidence. I am the Chair of the All Party
Parliamentary Group on Electoral Reform. However, I should emphasise
that I am submitting this response in a personal capacity.
2. SUMMARY
2.1 In this response I argue that:
— the proposal for a referendum on
the Alternative Vote should be supported;
— the proposals to reduce the number
of MPs and the new method suggested to ensure compatibility of
constituency sizes are not acceptable and need to be re-thought;
— the proposal for a referendum on
AV should be in a separate Bill from the one dealing with the
number of MPs and constituency sizes; and
— the introduction of fixed-term Parliaments
is to be welcomed but that scrutiny of the government's plans
is required.
3. REFERENDUM
ON THE
ALTERNATIVE VOTE
3.1 I believe that fundamental reform of
the voting system for the House of Commons is long overdue. My
own preference would be for a broadly proportional system which
maintains the constituency link. I set out my views in a submission
to the Jenkins Commission in the 1990s and they remain the same
today.
3.2 It should not be for politicians to
decide the ways in which should be elected, but the public we
are elected to serve. That is why I fully support the principle
of a referendum.
3.3 To facilitate voter choice, ideally
I would have liked to see a referendum which first gave a straight
"yes" or "no" on the principle of change.
If this produced a "yes" vote, there could then be a
further question or referendum on what kind of replacement system
the electorate would like to see. This could allow voters to express
preferences between different proportional systems and systems
such as AV.
3.4 However, the government has decided
to go down a different route and my preference for a two stage
referendum would not prevent me from supporting a single referendum
if that is what is put before the House.
3.5 Similarly, although my preference would
be for a more proportional system than AV, I believe it is still
very worthwhile to give voters the chance to choose between AV
and the current system. Whether or not one supports greater proportionality
in the relationship between votes cast and seats won in Parliament
as a whole, it is still reasonable to give voters the chance to
opt for a system which ensures that every candidate in a single
member constituency should get 50% of the vote to be elected.
Such a principle at constituency level is valid both in proportionally
based systems and majoritarian ones.
3.6. I therefore support the proposal for a
referendum on AV.
4. REDUCING THE
NUMBER OF
MPS AND
EQUALISING PARLIAMENTARY
CONSTITUENCIES
4.1 I do not support the government's plans
to reduce the number of MPs or the way it is proposing to equalise
parliamentary constituencies in a manner far more restrictive
than the Boundary Commission tries to do in its regular reviews.
4.2 Even after devolution to Scotland, Wales
and Northern Ireland, Britain remains a highly centralised state
with a great deal of power resting with the government in Whitehall.
This—and the absence of a specifically regional tier of
representation in England—means that MPs not only have to
play a significant scrutiny role at national level, they also
have to take on a role of champions for their localities or regions
more prominently than is necessarily the case in other comparable
countries. A growing body of evidence also suggests that the day-to-day
casework role of MPs has grown significantly in recent years and
continues to do so. These and other factors suggest that MPs are,
if anything, trying to spread themselves too thinly to fulfil
all their roles as effectively as they would like. The result
is that very long working hours are regularly undertaken by MPs—in
recesses as well as during times Parliament is sitting.
4.3 Together, all this suggests that cutting
the numbers of MPs in the way suggested by the government is unlikely
to be in the interests of either democracy or the effectiveness
of Parliament.
4.4 The proposal to equalise constituency
sizes in the way suggested by the government presents even more
problems. Few would argue in principle that constituencies should
be of broadly comparable sizes and the Boundary Commission tries
to reflect this in its periodic reviews. However, effective democracy
is not simply about counting electors. It also means recognising
how MPs can actually effectively keep in touch with and represent
their constituents. In this, the characteristics of different
areas—including geographical size, community identities
and a range of other factors—need to be taken into account
alongside voter numbers. Although the government's revised proposals
now recognise this to an extent, more scrutiny should be given
to how far they have got it right.
4.5 Even on the question of numbers, basing
the new boundaries on numbers of electors registered is likely
to discriminate against effective representation in areas with
traditionally low registration rates. Deprived areas and areas
with a large proportion of young residents are likely to be hit
particularly hard. Taken together with the proposal to reduce
the number of MPs overall, this could be a serious problem.
4.6 These kinds of issues require serious
debate and resolution before, not after, the Bill completes its
parliamentary proceedings and changes should be made where necessary.
However, even after the Bill becomes law it is important that
sufficient time is given to draw up the proposed new boundaries,
to consult widely on them and to make changes where necessary.
The existing Boundary Commission procedures may be time consuming
and a little cumbersome, but they at least allow the above to
take place. The tight timescales in the new Bill will make this
very difficult to achieve and the implication in the Bill that
ministers, not the Commission, will be able to shape the final
proposals to be put before Parliament is dangerous.
4.7 Others may take a different view on
the above observations. Indeed, it is even more likely that MPs
may support parts of the Bill's provisions but reject others.
For example, it is entirely possible that MPs may wish to vote
for a referendum on AV and against the reduce and equalise proposal
or vice versa. However, by the time the Bill reaches Third Reading
there will be no opportunity to reflect this in their votes.
4.8 Of course, many Bills involve more than
one proposal on more than one subject and MPs have to make a judgement
on the package as a whole at Third Reading. But different and
distinct issues should only be included in the same Bill for a
good reason. Where constitutional issues are concerned it is particularly
important that Bills are not cobbled together for political convenience.
When it comes to how people are able to choose the government,
not simply which government to choose, elected representatives
should be allowed to make informed and, if necessary, different
decisions about different aspects of the electoral process that
are distinct from one another.
4.9 In this case there is no reason why
an MP's view on an AV referendum should be forced to take second
place to their views on the numbers of MPs and the new approach
to equalising the size of constituencies, any more than the reverse
should be the case. Put another way, there is no reason why these
two proposals should be incorporated into one Bill. The government
should present them in two separate Bills.
5. FIXED-TERM
PARLIAMENTS
5.1 I principle, I am in favour of fixed-term
Parliaments. The government's original proposals requiring a 55%
majority to call a General Election were ill thought out and seemed
to be motivated more by political expediency that either principle
or effective democracy. The revised proposals look like they make
more sense. However, I cannot claim to have looked at the new
proposals in depth and I would certainly commend the Select committee
on its decision to scrutinise the government's plans.
26 August 2010
| 
