Select Committee on Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Ninth Report

1 Ward Boundaries

Background

1. The Electoral Commission, through the Boundary Committee for England, inherited the functions of the Local Government Commission for England in 2002. One of its main duties was the implementation of any changes resulting from electoral reviews. Periodic Electoral Reviews, which looked at local government ward boundaries, began in 1996 and ended in 2004, 386 having taken place. The Electoral Commission is currently carrying out a review on the Periodic Electoral Review process, which it expects to publish by November 2005.

2. We decided to look at the issue of local government ward boundaries following the completion of the Periodic Electoral Reviews. We became aware that the statutory criteria used by the Electoral Commission, under section 13(5) of the Local Government Act 1991, as amended by the Local Government for England (Transfer of Functions) Order 2001, in making structural, boundary or electoral changes might bear some examination. This legislation stipulates that Electoral Commission must have regard to the need:

a)  to reflect the identities and interests of local communities,

b)  to secure effective and convenient local government, and

c)  to secure equality of representation.

Our terms of reference for this inquiry asked whether these criteria are appropriate and balanced.

3. We received 14 pieces of written evidence, and took oral evidence from Mr Sam Younger, Chairman of the Electoral Commission, and Ms Pamela Gordon, Chair of the Boundary Committee and Electoral Commissioner. We are grateful to Professor Colin Rallings for the specialist advice he provided. Although we are not able to cover all the points raised in the evidence session in this Report, we hope that the attached transcript will prove helpful.

Statutory Balance

4. It is important that the Electoral Commission and the Boundary Committee for England have statutory backing that is effective when making decisions on ward boundaries. We are not convinced that this is provided by current legislation. Evidence we received suggested two things: that too much weight is given to the criterion of 'equality of representation' and not enough attention is paid to the 'interests and identities of local communities'. Gateshead Council, for example, told us

we are concerned that what might be described as the overriding emphasis on equality can work to the detriment of community identity, at a time when modern local authorities are seeking to work ever more closely with their communities.[1]

The Electoral Commission told us that the legislation as it stands is seen as circular, ie criteria are mutually contradictory so no one knows which, if any, should take prominence.[2]

5. The Electoral Commission prides itself on the progress it has made in reducing the variance in the elector: councillor ratio (the method by which equality of representation is measured) from 6-23%, with regard to current electorate, before the Periodic Electoral Review process, to just 2-7% at the current time. We are, however, worried that this focus has led to some disregard for the other statutory criteria. When we put this to Mr Younger, Chairman of the Electoral Commission, he stated "we have agreed many exceptions where there have been much higher inequalities because of particular community identity arguments".[3] He pointed out that if community interest were to be made the key criterion for making boundary decisions, the Electoral Commission would need guidance on "what, as a result, might then be unacceptable levels of inequality, in terms of representation".[4]

6. We recognise that 'community' is a hard thing to define and that the Electoral Commission is , as Ms Gordon, Chair of the Boundary Committee said, "very dependent on the evidence given to us".[5] However, we believe that "reflecting the identities and interests of local communities" should be given greater prominence in the decisions of the Boundary Committee. Ms Gordon told us

as a tentative sort of guideline, we use the expectation of keeping below ten per cent in variances, except where there is very strong justification. Whether we ought to be a bit more flexible is the difficult one, because how far should we go?[6]

We recognise that the Commission is cautious about exceeding the upper limits of acceptable variance. However, we are concerned that the Electoral Commission is placing too much emphasis on equality by in fact aiming to bring variances well down below its own 10% guide figure. We think that such emphasis is distorting the importance of the equality criteria and that the Boundary Committee should show more flexibility when judging ward size on the elector: councillor ratio. We recommend that future legislation reflect the need for both concentration on absolute equality and more focus on the interests of local communities, and that the Electoral Commission move in this direction pending such legislation.

Timing of reviews

7. The Electoral Commission told us "the programme of [Periodic Electoral Reviews] began with districts in two-tier areas, followed by unitary and metropolitan areas, and finally counties".[7] We were also told that the Commission and the Boundary Committee seek to achieve 60-80% coterminosity (i.e. district ward and county boundaries that match). It therefore seemed strange to us, not to mention potentially confusing for voters, that the reviews were carried out separately. Ms Gordon told us

one of the things we are looking at again in the review is whether, assuming we continue to have two-tier local authorities, it would be possible or desirable to do counties together and the districts within the counties somehow.[8]

We heard that problems had arisen because the district boundaries already set did not allow for county boundaries to match, once council size was taken into consideration. It seems unlikely that this would have been such an issue had the reviews taken place simultaneously and with regard to each other. We would like to see the Electoral Commission's target of 60-80% coterminosity focussed more towards 80%: 60% is too low. We recommend that the next Periodic Electoral Review look at county and district boundaries simultaneously, in order to improve coterminosity between areas and to help voter understanding.

Council Size

8. The Commission also needs to be clearer about its view on council size when carrying out Periodic Electoral Reviews. Mr Younger told us "one area where I think it would be interesting to get some feedback about whether it is worth putting…in the statutory criteria…whether there is anything that should underpin a consideration of council size".[9] New legislation should give the Electoral Commission the power to look systematically at council size and make recommendations accordingly.

Parliamentary constituency boundaries

9. In 2007, the Electoral Commission and Boundary Committee are set to take over the responsibilities of the Parliamentary Boundary Committee. We asked what consideration at present was given to parliamentary constituency boundaries when deciding local government ward boundaries. Ms Gordon told us

we are specifically not required to have regard to parliamentary constituencies. The Parliamentary Boundary Commission does have to have regard to the building blocks that we create in the district wards and county divisions, and they have guidelines as to how they try to stick with those building blocks, but it does not work the other way round.[10]

10. It seems to us a nonsense that the two processes are so disconnected. This cannot continue, particularly as the Boundary Committee will have responsibility for both of them in the near future (and almost definitely before the next round of Periodic Electoral Reviews begins). We recommend that legislation be drawn up, before 2007 if possible, and certainly before a new round of Periodic Electoral Reviews begins, which sets out the responsibilities of the Electoral Commission and the need to have regard for district, county and parliamentary boundaries when carrying out the reviews.

Multi-member wards

11. Since the Local Government Act 2000, it is now possible to have multi-member divisions in counties. These have proved unpopular with voters; their size threatens to break community ties. We asked the Electoral Commission why the reviews had imposed them. Ms Gordon told us

93% of the divisions resulting from our recently completed review of counties are still single-member divisions…We said that we would use [multi-member divisions] only where they offered a better solution in equality and other terms, and we tried to stick very rigorously to that.[11]

We accept that the Electoral Commission created multi-member wards only when necessary, and as a result of consultation. We remain uneasy about the consequences. The Electoral Commission should remain aware of the need to ensure community interest when contemplating the creation of new multi-member wards.

---

1   Ev 32 Back

2   Ev 40 Back

3   Q 13 Back

4   Q 56 Back

5   Q 64 Back

6   Q 13 Back

7   Ev 32 Back

8   Q 45 Back

9   Q 6 Back

10   Q 52 Back

11   Q 55 Back

---

Prepared 7 April 2005