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


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.





 
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