Memorandum by Gateshead Council (WB 02)
INTRODUCTION
1. Gateshead Council is submitting this
evidence in the light of its experience of the Periodic Electoral
Review of Gateshead carried out in 2002-03. In doing so we do
not seek to reopen the debate on that particular review nor to
be critical of the Boundary Committee for England (BCE). We simply
wish to offer some comments, based on our own experience, which
may be helpful to the Committee.
THE STATUTORY
CRITERIA
2. In its invitation to submit evidence,
the Committee has asked whether the Electoral Commission's statutory
criteria are appropriate and balanced. The criteria are:
— to reflect the identities and interests
of local communities;
— to secure effective and convenient
local government; and
— to secure equality of representation.
3. While Gateshead Council believes that
each of these criteria is certainly an appropriate and proper
matter to take into account, we do not believe that, in practice,
they are balanced. This lack of balance stems from the Electoral
Commission's own guidance:
"We strongly recommend that, in formulating
electoral schemes for submission to the BCE, local authorities
and other interested parties should start from the standpoint
of absolute electoral equality and only then make adjustments
to reflect relevant factors, such as community identity".
(Paragraph 3.15,
April 2002 edition)
4. Thus from the outset, electoral equality
is given a significantly higher weighting than the other two criteria.
The problem is compounded by the fact that the calculation of
equality has to take account of forecast changes in the number
and distribution of electors over the next five years. Clearly
such forecasts have to be made, and no doubt every local authority
uses its best endeavours to make as credible a forecast as circumstances
allow. However, this can lead to an outcome where considerations
of equality, based on forecasts which may or may not be accurate,
outweigh present concerns about local identity.
THE CRITERIA
IN PRACTICE
5. During its Periodic Electoral Review
Gateshead Council experienced an example of the way the criteria
operate in practice that caused a good deal of concern and distress
to local councillors and local people. The community of Dunston,
a distinct community on the western edge of the urban area of
Gateshead, had been a single, self-contained ward since 1974,
a status which reflected its identity as a community. However,
because of electoral imbalances caused by an increase in the population
of a neighbouring area, the Council felt constrained to put forward
a proposal which resulted in the division of Dunston, even though
this provoked an adverse reaction locally. The Council acknowledged
the detriment to community identity but felt that there was no
other way of meeting the Electoral Commission's stringent criteria
on electoral equality.
6. In the event, the BCE put forward a different
proposal, which was ultimately adopted, but again this had the
effect of dividing the community and was opposed by local people.
CONCLUSION
7. We accept that the BCE does not have
an easy task, and we also recognise that electoral equality is
an important criterion in devising a fair electoral system. However,
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. We would therefore ask the
Committee to give serious consideration to the question of how
a better balance can be maintained between the statutory criteria.
|
