I realise that the terms of reference of the Committee is only to look at the Keys boundaries, regardless of any possible change to having a directly elected upper chamber. It is a question of when this will happen rather than if. At that stage the remit of the Committee will need extending.
I believe that any recommendations of the Committee should be made on the most accurate figures available and I believe the Committee should use the information gained in the upcoming Census to be as accurate as possible. I have witnessed a large number of people living in my constituency of Glenfaba who were not on the electoral roll before the 2006 election and despite being informed of the fact, were not, for various reasons, willing to complete forms for inclusion on the roll, the most common reason being that they did not wish to be called for jury service. To what extent this affects other constituencies is difficult to gauge but it certainly distorts the numbers on the electoral roll in Glenfaba.
I also believe that the boundary review should take into consideration likely housing developments which are imminent in zoned areas – it would be unwise to make wholesale boundary changes when balances of population are likely to change in the near future.
It is interesting to note that a percentage increase in Glenfaba between 2006 and 2011 is second only to the increase in Peel.
It is clear that simply making Glenfaba and Peel into a two-seat constituency would also put the quota well above the average and this is without taking into account the many more to go on the roll in the near future with the ongoing developments on the edge of Peel. So what might appear to be a quick fix could lead to a greater distortion in the future.
The most fundamental change that is needed to House of Keys representation though, I believe, is equality of representation. We presently have one, two and three-seat constituencies and that means a member of the public in Rushen or Onchan has three members and three votes at an election whereas single constituencies have only one.
It will not be easy or popular to square the circle but I believe a fairer system would have equally represented constituencies. Obviously a large rural area like Glenfaba does not lend itself to alteration as the electorate is spread thinly in the main over a wide area whereas more densely populated areas lend themselves more easily to multiple seat constituencies.
Therefore from a narrow Glenfaba point of view I would encourage the Committee to recommend leaving it as it is – bearing in mind that there are housing developments that will continue to grow the numbers in Glenfaba in the near future. However, when one sees the size of the neighbouring Peel constituency now and how far that is away from the + or – 15% recommended average, it is time to readjust the boundaries.
Having made that observation and recommending that each constituency should heave equal representation, one moves to the logical conclusion that the minimum disruption to the present boundaries would be to propose twelve two-seat constituencies. I believe any larger number than two would put a disproportionate challenge on those representing large rural areas, especially when canvassing for an election. I offer no blueprint for that as the Committee has the full details at its disposal and hopefully will avail themselves of the Census figures when available.
In conclusion, I believe that if 24 single seats was seen to be impractical, two-seat constituencies would be an acceptable way forward. It would be important to make sure such constituencies were balanced and rural representation was protected by careful boundary construction. Where possible traditional voting areas should not be wedded to areas with different services (i.e. town and rural parishes). To give protection to the rural constituencies is the most difficult task in this equation.