Memorandum by Nottinghamshire County Council
(WB 08)
SUMMER 2002 START
OF REVIEW
1. The review of the electoral arrangements
for Nottinghamshire began with a meeting held on 9 July 2002 at
County Hall where Committee representatives set out the review
process and answered questions from members of the Council.
2. The purpose of the boundary review was
to ensure that, as far as possible, each person's vote would have
the same value as another's, but without disrupting community
identities.
3. The Committee would consider as the first
stage of the review, the strength of the Council ie, changes,
if any, to the number of Councillors. The Committee would then
consider the number of electoral divisions, boundary changes and
the creation of new divisions, together with the names of these
divisions.
4. The clear recollection from those members
present at this initial meeting was that, although changes in
legislation had allowed the Committee to recommend multi-member
solutions, consideration would only be given in exceptional circumstances.
5. Additionally, the Committee reiterated
this position in its guidance that it did not envisage recommending
a large number of multi-member divisions and that this would be
used only as a last resort.
6. The Local Government Commission for England
had completed Nottinghamshire District boundary reviews in May
2000. This established the basic "building blocks" the
review would use in the creation of each county division, even
though the Committee acknowledged at this first meeting, that
mistakes may have been made in the review of some district boundaries.
7. As far as possible, county divisions
would have to be of a similar size and "co-terminus"
with these district boundaries.
8. Local people, interested parties and
associations were invited to submit their own proposals for changes
to electoral arrangements, by writing to the Committee.
AUTUMN 2002: COUNTY
COUNCIL SUBMISSION
Size of the Council
9. The County Council submitted proposals
for an increase in Council size from 63 to 67 elected members.
10. The Council felt that this increase
in the number of Councillors reflected current and forecast levels
of workload. For example, in addition to the business of running
and scrutinising the County Council's budget of more than £600
million, the Council is represented on 200 external organisations
and partnerships and Councillors are expected to spend more time
responding to the concerns their communities.
11. These proposals for a larger Council,
however, did not attract cross party support. The opposition Conservative
Group put forward their own proposals based on a Council of 55
members: this seemed to wrong-foot the Committee when they appear
to have been expecting cross party agreement.
12. Unsure whether to accept the County
Council's verdict on the required strength of the Council, or
the perfectly valid interpretation by the Conservative Group of
the changes modernisation had made on the demands on County Councillor's
time, the Chief Executive was called on to intervene. The letter,
in which the Chief Executive was asked to provide supplementary
evidence in support of the rival claims, also carried the threat
that if the political groups failed to reach agreement, the Boundary
Committee would be forced to arrive at its own conclusions.
13. This appeared to betray a clear lack
of understanding of both the changes imposed by the Local Government
Act 2000, and their significance on the style and nature of modernised
local government, but also the way in which political groups in
local government operate.
14. It also gave an early indication of
how high handed the Committee could be, and revealed the remote
and rather semi-detached way in which the London based Committee
would proceed with the review.
15. The Committee finally conceded that
new political management arrangements in Nottinghamshire had resulted
in substantial increases in workload for individual Councillors
and accepted the County Council's recommendation for a Council
size of 67 members.
Boundary changes
16. The Council submitted proposals for
a Council of 67 members representing 65 electoral divisions, with
a multi-member arrangement in Hucknall.
17. Despite taking the view that multi member
divisions are inconsistent, impractical, less democratic and confusing
to the electorate, the County Council acknowledged Hucknall as
being a unique case: a traditional working class town with a single
community, largely isolated from the rest of Ashfield by a sparsely
populated rural area, with a total electorate of just 25,000 divided
between four district wards, in which a multi member solution
was the only realistic option.
18. The County Council's proposals stressed
the importance of keeping natural communities together, even where
this sometimes meant a greater disparity in the size of electoral
divisions.
19. Indeed, the proposals followed the spirit
of the Boundary Committee guidance by championing local communities,
with the preservation of existing and long-held community identities
and linkages held to be paramount.
SPRING 2003: BOUNDARY
COMMITTEE'S
DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS
20. The County Council submission was just
one of eleven received by the Committee, including a counter submission
from the opposition Conservative Group (although their submission
recommended only 55 members it was wholly consistent with the
County Council submission that these should be mostly single member
wards).
21. The main proposals in the Committee's
draft recommendations were for:
— Nottinghamshire to have 67 Councillors
representing just 54 divisions (10 councillors in each of Ashfield,
Broxtowe, Gedling, Newark & Sherwood, with nine in Bassetlaw,
Mansfield and Rushcliffe).
— 12 multi member divisions (11 with
two members, one with three).
22. The Committee accepted the County Council's
recommended increase in council size from 63 to 67 councillors.
Yet, in Bassetlaw, Newark & Sherwood and Rushcliffe, the Committee
put forward a combination of its own proposals and locally generated
proposals. In Mansfield the Committee based its proposals entirely
on local schemes. The Committee proposed one three-member division
in Ashfield, two two-member divisions in Broxtowe, four two-member
divisions in both Gedling and Mansfield and one two-member division
in Rushcliffe.
23. Although the Boundary Committee recommendations
were an improvement on the County Council proposals in terms of
electoral equality and coterminosity, (though often only through
the creation of multi-member divisions), they largely sacrificed
communities in favour of a lower variance in size.
24. The Committee draft recommendations
provided a narrative of all the proposals that had been received,
including the County Council submission, yet despite acknowledging
the County Council's well argued evidence, it was often dismissed
without any adequate explanation as to why.
SUMMER 2003: COUNTY
COUNCIL'S
RESPONSE TO
DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS
25. Despite serious reservations, the Council
decided to accept most of the Boundary Committee recommendations,
even where they departed from the original County Council submission.
26. However, the Council could not accept
the number of multi-member divisions (apart from Hucknall), or
the proposed boundary changes in Beeston South, Retford, the Mansfield
division of Oak Tree & Lindhurst, Newark and all of Gedling
apart from Newstead.
27. The Council argued again for a more
coherent and consistent approach across the whole County, based
on community representation over electoral representation and
coterminosity.
28. The Council reiterated its view, that
the original submission reflected the views expressed by the Boundary
Committee representatives at the original meeting held at County
Hall, that multi-member divisions should be considered only where
strong community and geographic evidence points to the establishment
of such divisions.
29. The County Council argued that the Boundary
Committee had too easily resorted to multi-member divisions as
a convenient way of resolving electoral diversity even where this
meant sacrificing natural communities.
30. The County Council was concerned that
the strong arguments made in respect of Hucknall, had been translated
by the Committee as being applicable to other areas of Nottinghamshire.
31. The County Council argued the Boundary
Committee seemed fixated with the requirement for electoral equality,
even though this would destroy natural communities, or would lead
to multi member divisions as the only viable solution.
32. The County Council remains convinced
that single member divisions enhance democracy by offering a direct,
easily identifiable link between the Councillor and his or her
constituents. It is the link which gives the Councillor legitimacy
as an elected representative and makes him or her accountable
to the electorate. Elected members are also given greater opportunity
to develop relationships with their local community.
33. The County Council considers that multi-member
divisions should therefore, have been kept to an absolute minimum,
as the Boundary Committee originally stated in their guidance.
34. The Opposition Conservative Group also
expressed reservations about the Boundary Committee's draft recommendations,
but did not support the County Council's objections, arguing that
these were not backed by any new evidence.
35. The Conservatives therefore, accepted
most of the Boundary Committee's draft recommendations, but submitted
new proposals for Hucknall and the Southwell & Caunton area.
SPRING 2004: BOUNDARY
COMMITTEE'S
FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS
36. The County Council adhered to the Boundary
Committee's timetable to submit a final response to the Boundary
Committee proposals, convening a special meeting of the full Council
on the 17th July, and submitting a full response on the basis
that the Committee would publish their final recommendations on
the 28th October as outlined in the original timetable for the
review.
37. However, because of "staffing difficulties",
the Boundary Committee announced that the date for publication
would be put back to "some time in the spring 2004"—only
a year before the County Council elections.
38. The Chief Executive of Nottinghamshire
County Council urged the Committee in a written letter to clarify
the situation and confirm both a firm date for publication and
a revised timetable for implementation of any boundary changes,
or to accept that the timescale had become too tight to implement,
and to postpone the process until after the May 2005 election.
This was rejected by the Committee.
39. The Committee overlooked all the County
Council's concerns and confirmed its draft recommendations as
final subject to just one amendment. In Newark & Sherwood
district, it proposed transferring Upton parish from the proposed
Farndon & Muskham division into an amended Southwell and Caunton
division, a single, minor amendment despite a concerted campaign
from the County Council, local MP's and local organisations not
to proceed with so many multi-member divisions.
40. The Committees final recommendations
were for a council size of 67, an increase of four, representing
54 divisions, a decrease of nine, recommendations that were endorsed
by the Electoral Commission in the autumn.
SUMMER 2004: COUNTY
COUNCIL'S
RESPONSE TO
FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS
41. Members' of the Council and Officer's
involved in the submission were dismayed by the final recommendations,
not just by the outcome, but the way in which the Committee reached
their decisions.
42. The Committee were remote and often
inconsistent in the way they carried forward the review, reneging
on assurances given at the original meeting, that a multi-member
solution would be adopted only as a last resort.
43. Although the County Council submission
supported a multi member option for Hucknall, the Boundary Committee
should not have taken this as an endorsement of multi member divisions
in principle.
44. The Boundary Committee appear to have
adopted multi-member divisions only as a way of resolving electoral
diversity; a convenient if clumsy way of resolving disparity in
numbers, adopted not as a principle, but a pragmatic solution
only in certain areas.
45. The requirement to achieve coterminosity
with previously determined district ward boundaries, also meant
there was often a fait accompli in defining County electoral divisions
(perhaps future reviews should take place at the same time to
give a fairer reflection of both County and District interests?)
46. Our response to the Committee, backed
up by local MP's, argued for a more coherent and consistent approach
across the whole County based on community representation rather
than a strict adherence to electoral equality. All these arguments
were overlooked.
47. The Committee's approach meant that
there was little or no dialogue or discussion: submissions were
made, proposals were considered, but then largely rejected regardless
of the great wealth of knowledge of the local area evidenced to
them.
48. Indeed, it remains the Council's view
that the Electoral Commission have accepted recommendations on
the basis of negligible evidence and little local knowledge of
local communities in Nottinghamshire.
| 
