Call for Evidence: Referendums in the UK’s Constitutional Experience
The Constitution Committee was appointed “to examine the constitutional implications of all public bills coming before the House; and to keep under review the operation of the constitution”.
The Committee has decided to conduct an inquiry into the role of referendums in the UK’s constitutional experience.
The referendum has become an increasingly familiar feature of the UK’s constitutional landscape in recent years. Yet in contrast with many other countries, including nations such as Australia and New Zealand that share the Westminster tradition of parliamentary sovereignty, the UK’s experience of referendums remains limited. Only one UK-wide referendum has so far been held (in 1975 on the UK’s continuing membership of the European Economic Community). The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 made provision for referendum campaigns and the conduct of referendums, including setting out the statutory responsibilities of the Electoral Commission. This legislation remains largely untested – only one regional or national referendum has taken place since the Act was passed.
In addition, referendums continue to be a focus of political debate. The Labour Party has promised a referendum on the electoral system early in the next Parliament; the Conservatives advocated a referendum on the recently passed Lisbon Treaty; the SNP Government in Scotland has proposed a referendum on Scottish independence in 2010, and the Labour-Plaid Cymru coalition has promised a referendum on the further devolution of powers in Wales. A number of local referendums have also taken place on reform of the system of local government.
Thus the place of the referendum in the UK’s constitutional experience remains unclear. This inquiry aims to tackle this question by analysing: arguments for and against the use of referendums as a democratic and constitutional tool; what place the referendum has or might have in the UK’s system of Parliamentary democracy; the UK’s experience of the referendum; the effectiveness of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, and the statutory role of the Electoral Commission; international case studies of the use of the referendum; and prospects for the future.
The Committee invites interested organisations and individuals to submit written evidence as part of its inquiry, reflecting the guidance given below. Written evidence should reach the Committee as soon as possible and no later than 4 January 2010.
Scope of the Committee's inquiry
In particular, the Committee invites evidence on the following themes:
1. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the referendum as a democratic and constitutional tool?
2. What assessment would you make of the UK’s experience of referendums? What positive or negative features of this experience would you highlight?
3. How does, and how should, the referendum relate to the UK’s system of parliamentary democracy?
4. Is it possible or desirable to define which issues should be subject to a referendum?
5. Should “constitutional issues” be subject to a referendum? If so, how should “constitutional issues” be defined?
6. Is the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA) an effective piece of legislation? How, if at all, could it be improved?
7. Is the role of the Electoral Commission in regard to referendums, as set out in PPERA, appropriate? What assessment would you make of the Electoral Commission’s work in relation to referendums?
8. What comment would you make on key components of a referendum campaign, such as:
· Whether or not there should be any threshold requirements, for instance in terms of the percentage of the vote required, or the level of turnout required, for a vote to be carried;
· the wording of the referendum question (including the appropriateness of multi-option questions);
· the design of the ballot paper;
· whether there should be formal, constitutional triggers for referendums;
· whether a referendum should be indicative or binding;
· whether a referendum should ask broad questions of principle, or refer to specific legislation;
· whether a referendum should precede or follow statutory enactment;
· campaigning organisations and the funding of campaigns;
· Public information campaigns and media coverage;
· Party political activity;
· whether referendums should coincide with other elections or not ;
· the strengths and weaknesses of in-person, postal or electronic forms of voting.
9. How does the referendum relate to other tools such as citizens’ initiatives? Should citizens be able to trigger retrospective referendums?
10. How would you assess the experience of other countries in relation to the use of the referendum? What positive or negative aspects of international experience would you highlight?
Those responding to this call for evidence are not necessarily expected to address all these points but instead to focus on those issues on which they have special expertise or about which they are particularly concerned. Respondents should not feel constrained by the above list from drawing attention to any other points about referendums thought to be of significance to the United Kingdom constitution.
Background
The Committee has appointed Dr John Parkinson, Senior Lecturer, Department of Politics, University of York, to act as Specialist Adviser for the duration of this inquiry.
Written evidence
Please note: This is a public call for evidence. Recipients of this notice are encouraged to draw it to the attention of others who may wish to submit evidence to the inquiry.
Evidence submitted becomes the property of the Committee, and may be printed or circulated by the Committee at any stage. If your evidence is not published, it will in due course be made available to the public in the Parliamentary Archives.
Personal contact details supplied to the Committee will be removed from evidence before publication and from the copy deposited in the Parliamentary Archives. However, personal contact details will be retained by the Committee Office and used for specific purposes relating to the Committee’s work, for instance to seek additional information or to send copies of the Committee’s Report.
Witnesses may publicise their written evidence themselves, but in doing so should indicate that it was prepared for the Committee.
Submissions by e-mail are preferred (as attachments in Word) and should be emailed to constitution@parliament.uk. A single hard copy (single-sided, unbound) should also be sent to The Clerk of the Constitution Committee, House of Lords, London SW1A 0PW.
Evidence should be clearly printed or typed on single sides of A4 paper, unstapled, and should be set out in numbered paragraphs. The submission should be signed and dated, together with a note of the author’s name and status and of whether the evidence is submitted on an individual or corporate basis.
Concise submissions of 1500 words or fewer are preferred. Unless submissions are very short, they should also be accompanied by a single-page summary. Annexes may be submitted, but will not necessarily be published. Relevant material prepared for other purposes (such as reports or submissions to other inquiries and consultations) may be submitted to the Committee for information, but will not be printed. Witnesses who submit original written evidence may be invited to give oral evidence at Westminster; transcripts of such sessions are published and available on the Committee’s website.
Evidence should be addressed to:
The Clerk of the Constitution Committee
House of Lords
London
SW1A 0PW
Email: constitution@parliament.uk
Further information about the Constitution Committee’s work is available from http://www.parliament.uk/hlconstitution.
Committee Membership
Lord Goodlad (Chairman)
Lord Lyell of Markyate
Lord Morris of Aberavon
Lord Norton of Louth
Lord Pannick
Lord Peston
Baroness Quin
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank
Lord Rowlands
Lord Shaw of Northstead
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
Lord Woolf
Posts
