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


Memorandum by North Yorkshire County Council (WB 06)

  1.  The electoral arrangements for North Yorkshire County Council have just been the subject of review by the Boundary Committee for England, whose final recommendations were published in October, 2004. The review of electoral divisions in the County followed a review of District Council ward boundaries.

  2.  Whilst the three criteria:

    (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

may have been taken into account by the Boundary Committee for England in forming recommendations to the Electoral Commission, it became apparent that securing equality of representation, within plus or minus 10% of the average number of electors per division, was the primary driver for the review and the criterion which had pre-eminence in developing or assessing proposals. If securing equality of electoral representation is the primary criterion, as seems appropriate, it may be helpful if this were made explicit for future reviews and, perhaps, given statutory authority. Whilst acknowledging the importance of electoral equality, the electoral review in North Yorkshire, large parts of which are very sparsely populated, did highlight the particular challenges faced by Councillors who represent very sparsely populated areas as these are, inevitably, very large geographically in order to ensure equality of electorate with the more densely populated areas of the County.

  3.  In addition to the statutory criteria, the Electoral Commission and the Boundary Committee for England also seek to comply with a number of statutory rules set out in schedule 11 to the Local Government Act 1972. Sub-paragraph (2) of that schedule sets out four rules which need to be followed, whilst sub-paragraph (3) also requires that regard be had to:

    (a)  the desirability of fixing boundaries which are and will remain easily identifiable;

    (b)    any local ties which would be broken by the fixing of any particular boundary; and

    (c)  the boundaries of the wards of the districts in the County.

  It has been the experience of North Yorkshire County Council, in the recent review of its electoral arrangements, that the Boundary Committee for England has, in considering appropriate boundaries for the County electoral divisions in the County, given particular consideration to the boundaries of the wards of the districts in the County. Indeed, in its final recommendations report on the future electoral arrangements for North Yorkshire County Council, the Boundary Committee for England says "We attach considerable importance to achieving co-terminosity between the boundaries of divisions and wards."

  4.  Whilst neither the statutory criteria, nor the statutory rules, respectively, give pre-eminence to securing equality of representation and achieving co-terminosity with the boundaries of the wards of the districts in the County, the experience of this Council, in the recent review, was that pre-eminence was given to those two factors. In part, this may be because those two factors are relatively easy to quantify and evaluate, since each can be expressed in terms of mathematical comparators. In contrast, arguments relating to the identities and interests of local communities and local ties which would be broken by the fixing of any particular boundary may be less easy to support with evidence, but are nonetheless of very considerable importance locally. This apparent imbalance in the weight given to some statutory criteria and statutory rules, rather than other such criteria and rules, has led, it is believed, to a feeling in local communities that their interests, identities and opinions are overridden by the process.

  5.  Whilst local communities may recognise that electoral equality is a fundamental democratic principle and that it may be necessary to override local views about community identities and interests, in some cases, in order to ensure that each elector has a vote of approximately equal weight, the case for giving greater weight to achieving co-terminosity between the boundaries of electoral divisions and district wards, than to reflecting the identities of communities, is less easy to understand. This is particularly the case because the `measure' of co-terminosity also seems inappropriate. The case made for achieving co-terminosity rests on minimising elector confusion (and possible disengagement) by ensuring that all electors in a district ward are in the same County electoral division, but no account is taken of the number of electors who would be affected. Thus the effect of separating a single rural parish of, say, 100 electors from one district ward, in order to aggregate it with parishes in another ward, as part of a County electoral division which reflects the identities and interests of local communities, is counted as an absolute loss of co-terminosity in two electoral divisions. There is no attempt to quantify whether thousands or dozens of electors are affected nor to assess what effect, if any, such breaches of co-terminosity have on electors.

  6.  The Boundary Committee for England says "Where wards or groups of wards are not co-terminous with County divisions, this can cause confusion for the electorate at local elections, lead to increased election costs and, in our view, may not be conducive to effective and convenient local Government." Notwithstanding this statement, however, the Boundary Committee for England seeks to secure levels of co-terminosity of only some 60% to 80%. In the experience of this Council, the Boundary Committee achieves that level of co-terminosity, in some cases, only by setting aside the identities and interests of local communities and by making more difficult the achievement of effective and convenient local Government by proposing inappropriate electoral division boundaries. Whilst very high levels of co-terminosity may reduce voter confusion, overriding local community identities to achieve co-terminosity of only 60% may be less justifiable.

  In its response to the Boundary Committee for England's draft recommendations on the future electoral arrangements for this Council, the Council said:

    "Having undertaken this exercise, the County Council is of the opinion that the Boundary Committee for England has carried out a purely mathematical exercise in respect of the review of electoral arrangements within the County and it has shown too little regard for the wishes and interests of local communities. Whilst the County Council recognises that the purpose of a periodic electoral review is to achieve electoral equality, insofar as that is practicable, the County Council believes that it is essential that proper regard is had to the views of local people on issues of community identity and interests. The County Council believes that too much weight has been given, in the current review, to achieving co-terminosity between district wards and the electoral division boundaries. The County Council is also of the view that, if the Boundary Committee for England believes that co-terminosity of district wards and electoral division boundaries is important, in future reviews, rather than working upwards using district council wards as building blocks, it should first review and agree County Council electoral divisions, which could then be sub-divided, subsequently, to form new district wards. As the County Council has indicated earlier in this process, the other option in two tier areas, while the process might be difficult and protracted, would be for future reviews of district wards and electoral division boundaries to be carried out simultaneously, to ensure that all issues of community identity and interests are properly addressed at one time, as this would provide much greater flexibility."

  In a letter to the Electoral Commission, in response to the Boundary Committee for England's final recommendations, the County Council said:

    "Finally, whilst the County Council was very pleased that the Boundary Committee for England responded to the County Council's comments about the boundary between the Upper Dales and Middle Dales electoral divisions, in Richmondshire, by revising that boundary for its final recommendations, the County Council continues to be concerned about some of the divisions which have been created as a result of this review. Some of those concerns relate to divisions which have been created by bringing together very rural areas with areas which have a much greater density of population, solely in order to meet the requirements of electoral equality and, perhaps, of co-terminosity, irrespective of local community identities and interests. The County Council continues to be concerned that other issues which it raised in objection to the draft recommendations have not been addressed and the Boundary Committee for England's final recommendations remain unchanged. A particular example would be the proposed South Selby electoral division, which combines the new district wards of Hemingbrough and Camblesforth which, as the County Council has pointed out, lie on opposite banks of the River Ouse, which can only be crossed by leaving the proposed South Selby division and either travelling through the Selby Barlby and Selby Brayton divisions, in order to cross the Ouse in Selby, or by leaving the County in order to use the A614 near Goole to cross the river."

  7.  Whilst the Committee's new enquiry is into ward boundaries, I hope that these comments relating to a review of County electoral divisions can also be taken into account.





 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2005
Prepared 7 April 2005