Constitutional Affairs General Comments The constitution has received much attention from the party over many years and this work is now being rewarded with real progress. Nevertheless we would like to contribute suggestions on the format of the second chamber; the party's preferred voting system; the role of the communications media; the general matter of devolution; and the continuing need for more open government House of Lords We agree entirely that the position of the hereditary peers is anomalous. We agree also that there is an excellent pragmatic case for a second chamber able to review legislation from the Commons and with powers to make the Commons reconsider at least once or twice. We are less sure why the second chamber should "represent the interests of the nations and regions". This seems an attempt to attract some of the legitimacy of the US Senate to the new chamber. Similarly it is not clear why the second chamber rather than MPs,should review the activities of quangos. However our main concern about the second chamber is that if it is to be a reviewing body it must have a membership which is competent, and we are concerned that this could not be guaranteed by elections. We are glad that the party is not proposing a wholly elected chamber though, looking back, it was probably only an intervention by the great Nancy Seear that caused our party to include some non-elected members in our proposals. A wholly elected second chamber will have the same democratic legitimacy as the Commons, which might well lead to a constitutional crisis if a policy similar to the poll tax was re-run. The 1996 constitutional declaration now provides for up to 100 appointed members, that is up to one third of the chamber. Frankly we would like to see this proportion increased, to 49% or even two thirds. Many public bodies contain a mix of experts and elected or "lay" members and this formula usually works well. The "experts" can not go too fast: the lay members have a useful habit of saying "why not". The Constitutional Declaration speaks of the appointed members "offering a broad range of experience ...". Raising the proportion of appointed members would provide for a larger spread of expertise in the house. Whatever happens, we would hope for a much greater number of members with an understanding of the many facets of science and engineering, including business and manufacturing. This knowledge is too thin on the ground in the Commons at present. We believe the party needs to give further thought to the constituencies that might provide or propose the non-elected members. These would include the church, and the law, but hopefully the trade unions, CBI, local government, and the medical, scientific and engineering institutions. Voting Systems We would only make two modest comments on voting. First, STV has many theoretical virtues (and has particular attractions for a third party with about 17% of the national vote!) but our consultations have found support for STV somewhat lukewarm. It is widely seen as complicated; it doesn't guarantee a place for the smaller parties such as the Greens; and as a PR system it relies on the pivotal party being a centre party as in Germany, not on the extremes, as in NZ or Israel. STV has problems too in rural areas where the STV constituencies will be very large. We would hope that we do not reject hybrid schemes, as recently suggested by Jeremy Thorpe, or other compromises which are practical instead of purist. Second, the party should call for studies into voting by computer. There are at least three advantages. First it could be made extremely convenient and should improve turnout. Given an electoral number and personal code there is no technical reason why an elector should not vote from Tesco's or even the home. Second, under STV, approximations must be made to ease manual counting (by the Electoral Reform Society's Newland-Britton method, usually). These would no longer be necessary. Third, and most important of all, it would be easier to vote more often, especially on local matters. It would be possible to have a mixed system for elections, so long as polling clerks logged each electors' number on computer as well as stamping the forms. The Communications Media It is probably uncontroversial to say that MPs and councillors are leaders of their communities rather than mere delegates. It is essential of course that they listen to their constituents but they should not be bound by those views. Both MPs and councillors have a responsibility to "the greater good", and to make judgements that stand the test of time, rather than satisfy the immediate need. We have to recognise however that it is easy to gain votes through populism - by telling the electorate what they want to hear, and by pandering to prejudice. Thank God for Paddy - one of the few politicians brave enough to face down a mob, as in Yeovil recently. Democracy, however, operates in an equilibrium of 3 forces: the judgement of the representatives' MPs, and others; the perception of the people; and the tide of information which flows between them. Tony Benn once said that "information was the oxygen of democracy" and he was correct. By extension however, "misinformation is the toxic fume". In other words if the media presents distorted or exaggerated views, scare stories (a particular hazard for scientists), or downright untruths, it is desperately difficult for the representatives to take the "honest" decision. If the electorate has a flawed understanding of the facts, it can not be expected to make the correct choice when it comes to vote. We need a free independent communications media, but the media must recognize the essential role it has within the democratic process. This means that it has a responsibility for fair, and accurate reporting. We believe the BBC, other TV, and most radio have enviable record for good information, but that this is often far from the case with the national press, and rarely the case with local newspapers. On constitutional grounds therefore we believe the media should have this responsibility written into their codes of practice. As Liberal Democrats we surely can not be content that one prevailing view in our country is that "you can't believe anything you read in the papers". Devolution We again just have two comments. First it seems generally beneficial, as in business, to devolve discretion to the lowest level possible. People have a better sense of ownership of decisions, and almost certainly can be persuaded to put more into the common pot if they will be direct beneficiaries (for example with environmental improvements). However, the party's proposals for regional assemblies sit a little uncomfortably with this. Clearly the regions will not have the powers of the national assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is important for the party to say much more clearly what the regions will DO, and equally important to say how each tier of government is to interact with each other. For example LEAs are charged with administering schools, and yet have to seek authority from government for many minor matters such as the minimum entry numbers at individual schools. Second, though we have reservations about the standards of reporting of parliament, we cannot complain about the quantity. Local government on the other hand is poorly reported. With the coming of digital TV, the option will arise to use surplus channels to televise local council debates. It may not become riveting viewing, but, with good publicity, the most important debates could attract useful audiences and daily or weekly summaries could help educate local electorates. The party should also note the potential of the internet. Already 25% of US homes are connected. The opportunity to inform electors and provide advice via the net is there to be seized. Open Government Of course we support all efforts to make the process of government more transparent. It is said that "what you don't know, you suspect". Frankly an informed electorate is much more likely to give a government or council the benefit of the doubt. We are particularly concerned however about the frequency with which governments tend to "sit on" expert reports, and either fail to publish them or edit them before publication. There was a recent example concerning the E.Coli outbreak when Prof Pennington was surprised to be told that a highly relevant report had been completed 12 months beforehand. The problems are two-fold. First expert reports will be politically neutral, and help parliament make better informed decisions. Second, experts will not give up their valuable time if they suspect it will be wasted. it seems reasonable for government to have 3 months or so to consider a report and work out a response, but Parliament should know of each request and should have the power to bring the report into the public domain. This should include internal "expert" reports, such as that on the Campsfield House detention centre. Contents