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.
|
