Memorandum by The Electoral Commission
(WB 13)
INTRODUCTION
1. The Electoral Commission (the Commission)
welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to the Office of the
Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) Select Committee's inquiry into ward
boundaries.
BACKGROUND
The Electoral Commission
2. The Commission is an independent public
body established on 30 November 2000 under the Political Parties,
Elections and Referendums Act (PPERA) 2000. The corporate purpose
of the Commission is to foster public confidence and participation
in the democratic process within the United Kingdom.
3. The Commission is headed by a Chairman
with four other Commissioners. The Chairman and Commissioners
do not have connections to any political party, nor is the Commission
accountable to the Government. It is funded by and responsible
to Parliament and answerable to the Speaker's Committee.
4. Following the Local Government Commission
for England (Transfer of Functions) Order 2001, the Electoral
Commission took on the functions (with modifications), staff,
property, rights and liabilities of the Local Government Commission
for England (LGCE) under section 18 of the 2000 Act. This constituted
the bulk of the Secretary of State's functions in relation to
local authority electoral arrangements, including responsibility
for implementation of any changes resulting from electoral reviews.
The Boundary Committee for England
5. The Boundary Committee for England (the
BOFE) is a statutory committee of the Commission, and was established
in April 2002, under section 14 of PPERA 2000. The Committee is
headed by an Electoral Commissioner, and currently has four other
Deputy Commissioners.
6. The LGCE started its Periodic Electoral
Review (PER) work in April
1996 under the provisions of the Local Government
Act 1992. In general, the programme of reviews began with districts
in two-tier areas, followed by unitary and metropolitan areas,
and finally counties.
7. The BCFE continued the electoral review
programme on the same basis as that adopted by the former LGCE.
In planning for the PERs in 1995, the LGCE carried out consultation
with stakeholders about the approach and the application of the
statutory criteria. It produced for stakeholders Guidance and
Procedural Advice for PERs, describing the conduct of the
process and the statutory provisions guiding the review. This
has been updated to reflect experience with the PERs in the first
few years and the Government's White Papers on modernising local
government.
8. The Commission adopted the Guidance produced
by the former LGCE, with some amendments to reflect the respective
responsibilities of the BCFE, to undertake reviews and make recommendations,
and the Commission, to take decisions on the BCFE's recommendations.
9. The eight year programme of 386 PERs
throughout England concluded in October 2004. The Commission,
through the BCFE, has begun to monitor the electoral variances
that have arisen in those local authorities where reviews began
between 1996 and 1998. Where significant imbalances have arisen
and are likely to remain, the Commission can direct the BCFE to
undertake Further Electoral Reviews (FERs) and has so far agreed
to do so in seven cases.
EVALUATION OF
THE ELECTORAL
REVIEW PROCESS
10. With the end of the PER programme, the
Commission has begun a comprehensive evaluation of the policies
and processes it has used to guide electoral reviews in England,
with a view to:
— proposing, if necessary, changes
to the way any future electoral reviews might be conducted;
— developing fresh guidance from the
Commission to the BCFE on the factors to be taken into account
in any such reviews.
11. The evaluation includes:
— Examining how the statutory criteria
and rules have been applied;
— Considering the approach taken by
the BCFE on such matters as council size, consultation and communication
in PERs, timetabling reviews and warding;
— Considering the evidence required
to support proposals and decisions;
— Commissioning research and analysis
to support these considerations;
— Engaging with a wide range of stakeholders;
the intention being to produce a consultation paper for distribution
in July 2005.
12. The Commission therefore welcomes the
Select Committee's inquiry into ward boundaries, which will help
it make proposals for the electoral review process for the future.
13. The evaluation is planned to be completed
by early November 2005, at which time the Electoral Commission
will consider potential areas for change to current electoral
review policies and processes. The Commission will consider both
what changes can be introduced within the existing legal framework
and what changes could be introduced only if changes are made
to the legislation in this area.
14. Electoral Commissioners' decisions on
the evaluation will form the basis of revised and updated Guidance.
THE STATUTORY
BACKGROUND TO
PERIODIC ELECTORAL
REVIEWS
The Local Government Acts 1972 and 1992
15. The Local Government Act 1992 ("the
1992 Act") said that PERs should be undertaken at intervals
of not less than 10 years and not more than 15 years. This requirement
was repealed under PPERA 2000, but the Commission still has a
duty, under section 13(4) of the Local Government Act 1992, to
direct the BCFE to undertake electoral reviews of each principal
local authority area in England at periodic intervals. Thus, the
Commission is now responsible for the timetabling of PERs. The
principal local authorities are all the metropolitan and shire
district councils (including unitary councils), county councils
and London boroughs.
16. In considering electoral arrangements,
section 27(2) of the 1992 Act requires the Commission and the
BCFE to have regard, so far as is reasonably practicable, to the
rules set out in Schedule 11 to the Local Government Act 1972
(summary attached at Appendix 1).
Statutory criteria
17. Under section 13(5) of the 1992 Act
(as amended), the BCFE is required, when making recommendations
for any changes to the electoral arrangements of English principal
local authority areas, to have regard to:
(a) the need to reflect the identities and
interests of local communities;
(b) the need to secure effective and convenient
local government;
(c) the need to secure equality of representation;
and
(d) any scheme for elections specified under
section 86 of the Local Government Act 2000 (ie an electoral cycle
scheme).
Race Relations Act 1976
18. Section 71 of the Race Relations Act
1976 provides that every body specified in Schedule 1A (to which
the Commission was added in 2003), shall in carrying out its functions,
have due regard to the need to:
— eliminate unlawful racial discrimination;
— promote equality of opportunity;
and
— promote good relations between persons
of different racial groups.
19. The general duty does not replace or
supersede the Commission's statutory functions or its application
of the statutory criteria, as outlined above in forming its decisions.
But the Commission and the BCFE must have due regard to it in
relation to all relevant functions, which the Commission takes
to include its functions in relation to reviews of electoral arrangements.
The Commission will take the opportunity of its evaluation of
the electoral review process to give further consideration to
the requirements of section 71.
Scope of the BCFE's recommendations
20. When making recommendations to the Commission,
the BCFE may recommend changes to electoral arrangements as specified
in section 14(4) of the 1992 Act. In relation to principal local
authority areas, these cover:
(a) the total number of councillors to be
elected to the council;
(b) the number and boundaries of electoral
areas (wards or divisions);
(c) the number of councillors to be elected
for each electoral area; and
(d) the name of any electoral area.
21. The BCFE may also make recommendations
to the Commission for changes to electoral arrangements within
existing parish and town council areas. These are summarised below:
(a) the number of councillors;
(b) the need for parish wards;
(c) the number and boundaries of any such
wards;
(d) the number of councillors to be elected
for any such ward or, in the case of a common parish (ie where
a number of parishes are grouped under a single parish council),
for each parish; and
(e) the name of any such ward.
Powers retained by the Secretary of State
22. The BCFE is not able to review the administrative
boundaries between local authorities or parishes, or to
consider the establishment of new parish areas. It could do this
only if the Secretary of State were to request the Commission
to provide advice on such matters.
23. The Commission has no power under section
13(4) of the 1992 Act to direct the BCFE to review the electoral
arrangements of the City of London.
24. Unlike the LGCE, the BCFE does not have
power to consider or make recommendations for changes to electoral
cycles. Responsibility for changes to electoral cycles rests with
the Secretary of State, who can exercise powers under section
7 of the Local Government Act 1972 or Part IV of the Local Government
Act 2000.
Stages of a Periodic Electoral Review
| Preliminary stage | Typically 12 weeks
| Informal internal planning and the local authority is first formally notified of the date of review commencement.
|
| Stage One | Typically 12-15 weeks
| Commencement of review and submission of proposals for future electoral arrangements.
|
| Stage Two | Typically 12-16 weeks
| The BCFE considers proposals, determines draft recommendations and prepares draft recommendations report.
|
| Stage Three | Typically 8 weeks
| The BCFE publishes draft recommendations report and invites representations.
|
| Stage Four | Typically 12-16 weeks
| The BCFE considers representations, reaches conclusions on final recommendations and submits a final report to the Commission.
|
| Stage Five | Typically 8-10 weeks
| Interested parties have the opportunity to make representations directly to the Commission on the BCFE's final recommendations, before the recommendations are implemented through an order making process.
|
| | |
25. As the table above indicates, a PER is conducted
as a five-stage process, plus a preliminary stage. During Stage
One and Stage Three the BCFE consults with local authorities,
town and parish councils, members of the public and other interested
parties.
26. At Stage Five the Commission can:
— Agree the recommendations as they stand or require
more advice or information from the BCFE.
— Propose modifications to the recommendations for
the BCFE's agreement or direct the BCFE to reconsider the recommendations.
— Direct the BCFE to conduct a further review and
make revised recommendations.
Questions in relation to the statutory criteria
27. The rest of this submission focuses on the following
questions:
1. Are the statutory criteria and the related rules in
Schedule 11 of the Local Government Act 1972 appropriate for local
government electoral reviews (at the relevant level of local government
they are applied)?
2. If so, could they be better worded?
3. Should there be some steer as to the balance between
them?
4. If so, what should be the weighting?
28. This submission considers each of the criteria in
section 13(5) of the 1992 Act in turn, briefly covering what the
legislation says for each and what approach is currently taken
by the Commission and the BCFE. It then goes on to highlight for
each some of the issues involved and poses some questions for
consideration.
EQUALITY OF
REPRESENTATION
What does the legislation say?
29. Under section 13(5) of the 1992 Act, the BCFE is
required to have regard to the need to secure equality of representation;
and under section 27 of the Act, comply, so far as practicable,
with Schedule 11 to the Local Government Act 1972.
What is the current approach?
30. The BCFE's task is to undertake PERs with a view
to rectifying electoral imbalances that have developed, having
regard to changes in the number and distribution of electors likely
to take place over the next five years, and securing equality
of representation across the whole of a principal local authority's
area.
31. In relation to forecasting, the BCFE asks local authorities
to prepare five-year electorate forecasts, ideally before the
formal commencement of the review (the beginning of Stage One),
so that both the current and forecast figures can be placed on
deposit and made available to local political groups, parish and
town councils, and other interested parties who may wish to make
representations to the BCFE. All such respondents are asked to
measure their proposals against current and forecast electorate
figures.
32. The BCFE begins a review by taking the existing council
size and the total electorate of a local authority area to calculate
the councillor: elector ratio. The BCFE starts from this point,
so that it has an objective electoral equality measure which can
be quantified and monitored over time.
33. It is regarded as a fundamental principle that each
vote has equal value. The Commission and the BCFE's current approach
is to ask local authorities and other interested parties, in formulating
their proposals for electoral schemes, to start from a standpoint
of absolute electoral equality[2]
and only then to make adjustments to reflect other relevant factors,
such as community identity.
34. The Commission takes no account of the outcome in
political terms of electoral reviews. Nevertheless, it recognises
that all reviews have political implications. From experience,
it can be the case that some proposals made to the BCFE may be
intended to result in a particular political outcome, rather than
to simply achieve good electoral equality and be reflective of
community identity and interests. Accordingly, the Commission
and the BCFE place particular emphasis on the need for evidence
in support of proposals.
35. The degree of argument and evidence required for
proposals largely depends on the level of electoral imbalance
which would result from the scheme being proposed. The BCFE has
normally expected to make recommendations which provide for high
levels of electoral equality (and not deteriorating electoral
equality), with variances normally well below 10%.
36. For example, in the 31 district PERs completed in
2003-04, the weighted average ward variance before the PERs ranged
between 6% to 23% on current electorate, and 6% to 24% on five-year
forecasts. Since the PERs, this has fallen within the range of
2% to 7% based on the current electorate, and 2% to 5% on five-year
forecasts.
37. However, sometimes degrees of imbalance must be accepted
in one ward if a reasonable balance is to be achieved elsewhere.
This might arise, for example, in a ward which is at the edge
of a district, separated by natural features from the rest of
the area, or as a consequence of the pattern of communities or
the configuration of communities within parish boundaries.
38. In relation to council size, the Commission
and the BCFE currently:
— Do not assume the existing council size is appropriate.
— Accept diversity in council size and councillor:elector
ratios between authorities.
— Have no view on whether new political management
structures should result in reductions or increases to the number
of councilors.
— Ask local authorities to evidence their submissions
about why the proposed number of councillors is required. This
could cover such things as the political management structure,
role and workload of councillors, social composition and geography
of area represented.
What are the main problems experienced?
Balancing electoral equality with other considerations
39. The task of achieving electoral equality in a PER
is not merely mathematical, for the following reasons:
— recommendations are not based purely on current
electorates; they must take account of changes to the number and
distribution of electors over a five-year period;
— the Commission and the BCFE must have regard to
the desirability of fixing identifiable electoral area boundaries,
and to local ties which might be broken by those boundaries. An
approach which is too rigorously mathematical could harm both
of those interests.
40. During reviews, it can frequently be the case that
a submission demonstrates strong evidence of community identity
or local ties, but the electoral equality component of the submission
is poor or actually provides for electoral imbalances that would
increase over time.
Council size
41. The Commission and the BCFE also experience difficulties
in reaching conclusions on council size when provided with insufficient
evidence. This can be because local authorities in particular
do not take the opportunity to look critically at the size of
the council in relation to the way they organise their business
at a political level (eg by using area committees) and structure
their delivery of services (whether in-house or out-sourced),
and whether any changes are needed. Some submissions seem intended
to result in preserving the status quo.
42. The Commission and the BCFE give consideration to
an authority's proposed council size on its own terms, and do
not compare one local authority with another— in other words,
diversity in councilor:elector ratios is currently accepted. This
raises the issue of whether the Commission should seek to pursue
more common councillor:elector ratios across the country. However,
the approach that has been taken to date considers that each local
authority is different and should be considered in relation to
its individual circumstances.
43. The equality of representation criterion and issues
in relation to council size need to be considered in the context
of the recently launched ODPM document Vibrant Local Leadership
and potential impacts this may have. The document includes proposals
for reinforcing a distinctive role for local councillors, greater
discretion over models of governance, action to attract a more
diverse range of councillors and leaders, and a new approach to
create more mayors with powers to transform major cities.
Electoral forecasts
44. The Commission and the BCFE have found the accuracy
of the forecasts by local authorities to be variable. Recent analysis
has shown that over one third of councils' five-year forecasts
have varied from the actual electorate in the forecast year by
more than 4%.[3]There is
also a much greater tendency for councils to overestimate total
electorate growth. This finding was also evidenced in the LGCE's
Report on electorate forecast accuracy (1995).
45. There has also been some contention that five-year
forecasts ought to be based on population, not electorate figures,
because the electorate may not reflect the overall population.
For instance, certain areas may have an unusually high or low
ratio of children to adults and some areas may contain a large
number of adults who are less likely to or are unable to register
(eg US Air Force personnel in the small district of Forest Heath,
Suffolk).
46. However, the electorate is an actual, not estimated,
figure. Currently population is only an estimate and can be subject
to undercounting in the census (even when the figures are adjusted
for this by ONS). Moreover, there is a lack of non-census based
suitable information sources (in terms of accuracy and completeness)
that could act as proxies for population.
Questions for consideration
47. As a part of its evaluation of the electoral review
process, the Commission is conducting research to support the
building of its evidence base. This includes research it has commissioned
externally into council size to better understand what factors
the Commission should expect to have an impact on council size
and whether it can take a view on whether particular council sizes
are appropriate for local authority areas with similar electorates
or similar characteristics. This research is not due to conclude
until later this year, and will inform the Commission's continued
thinking on this issue in relation to the statutory criterion.
Nonetheless, there are still a number of questions for consideration
in relation to equality of representation, which are listed below:
I. What is the primary purpose of electoral
reviews— is it to secure equality of representation?
II. Should electoral equality be given
priority amongst the statutory criteria?
III. Could equality of representation
be defined by some method, other than using the councillor:elector
ratio?
IV. Should equality of council size be
pursued between local authorities of similar size or type?
V. How can local authorities be encouraged
to look critically at their council sizes objectively, and separately
from the potential political implications?
IDENTITIES AND
INTERESTS OF
LOCAL COMMUNITIES
What does the legislation say?
48. The Commission and the BCFE are required to have
regard to community identity and interests in determining boundaries
of electoral areas and, in drawing boundaries, to take account
of any local ties that would be broken.
What is the current approach?
49. The Commission and the BCFE's approach is to:
— Make clear to potential respondents that while
seeking to keep electoral variance within a reasonable level,
the Commission and the BCFE expect to take account of community
identity in determining wards.
— Seek evidence of community identity or ties from
those making submissions or responding to proposals in support
of them.
— Indicate what evidence might be persuasive, and
that it should be evidence that shows how community identity manifests
itself, such as the presence of services and the extent of the
area using them.
— Include a clear indication in short and long (published)
PER reports of how the BCFE has taken account of the general duty
under the Race Relations Act 1976 in the development of proposed
recommendations; and where issues relating to racial equality
or ethnic communities are raised, specifically addressing the
general duty, and how it relates to those issues, in the body
of the published report.
What are some of the problems experienced?
50. Community identity and local ties are the most commonly
argued factors in many organisations' and individuals' submissions,
and by respondents to published proposals. To a number of respondents,
these factors are more important than electoral equality. Write-in
campaigns sometimes demonstrate the strength of opinion about
where people think they belong.
51. In undertaking reviews, the Commission and the BCFE:
— encounter wide variation in submissions about
what is argued to constitute community identity and interests,
as it means different things to different people;
— have to rely on local respondents to provide information
on community ties and interests. It would be difficult and expensive
for the BCFE to obtain this itself for all areas of the country;
— sometimes accept a greater level of electoral
imbalance because of community identity—for example, because
there is more difficulty in achieving greater electoral equality
in rural areas than there is in built-up areas.
52. In practice, evidence to support proposals both for
drawing boundaries between communities and for grouping communities
is sometimes lacking or at best anecdotal. A number of respondents
unfortunately only assert that a community identity exists or
has existed in the past or that existing ward boundaries have
given rise to some kind of community identity.
53. It is not unknown for the three main political parties
on a council (for example) to generate three totally different
proposals for re-warding an area, all argued as being the best
scheme on community identity grounds. The Commission and the BCFE
then have to come to a view about which scheme, or mix of schemes,
best reflects an appropriate balance of the statutory criteria
in that area.
54. Respondents have not always understood that the sort
of evidence for local ties and community identity which will be
persuasive might be different when drawing boundaries, say for
district council wards with an electorate to councillor ratio
of 1,500 or less in single-member wards, than for larger county
divisions or wards in continuously built up areas, with an electorate
to councillor ratio of more than 3,000 in multi-member wards.
55. Respondents can sometimes argue for a warding arrangement
on the grounds of community identity, without paying any regard
to the effect on electoral imbalances. But in exceptional circumstances,
where there is strong evidence of community ties, the BCFE can
justify electoral areas with variances higher than normal.
56. The Commission and the BCFE need to take an authority-wide
view when making recommendations for a local authority area. Some
respondents may argue community identity and interest for their
particular ward or locality, but this may have knock-on effects
for surrounding wards in respect of securing equality of representation.
57. The need to have due regard to Section 71 of the
Race Relations Act 1976 in exercising the PER function, means
an additional complexity when issues relating to the racial/ethnic
component of community identity are raised in drawing ward boundaries.
The Commission will take the opportunity of its evaluation of
the electoral review process to give further consideration to
the requirements of section 71.
Questions for consideration
58. As a part of its evaluation, the Commission has commissioned
research to better understand whether there is a small range of
indicators that would help to define community identity and interests.
This research is not due to conclude until later this year, and
will inform the Commission's continued thinking on this statutory
criterion. Nonetheless, there are still a number of questions
for consideration in relation to interests and identities of communities,
which are listed below:
I. What weighting should be given to the
community identity and interests statutory criterion against the
equality of representation criterion?
II. How could community identity be defined
for the purposes of electoral reviews, given that the factors
that can demonstrate community identity will necessarily have
to vary between different scales and will change over time?
III. How could effective ways of encouraging
well-evidenced submissions about community identity and interests
be pursued?
EFFECTIVE AND
CONVENIENT LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
What does the legislation say?
59. The Commission and the BCFE are required to have
regard to the need to secure effective and convenient local government
when making its recommendations. The Rules set out in Schedule
11 to the Local Government Act 1972 require, so far as reasonably
practicable:
— County divisions to be entirely within district
council boundaries.
— Each parish ward or unwarded parish to be contained
within a single district ward and/or county division.
What is the current approach?
60. The Commission and the BCFE's approach is to:
— Use parish boundaries as building blocks in areas
that are parished.
— Use its flexibility to split parishes between
district wards by proposing to ward a parish or change the wards
of a parish. This, in some circumstances, can take better account
of community ties, for example, where an urban area has over spilled
into surrounding rural parishes.
— Seek to achieve a coterminosity of district ward
and county division boundaries of between 60% and 80%. Proposals
are expected to indicate the degree of match achieved.
— Seek evidence of effective and convenient local
government from those making submissions or responding to proposals
in support of them.
— Consider the functions of wards for the sole purpose
of electing local authority councillors and not for other purposes.
61. The Commission and BCFE are currently not required
to take account of parliamentary constituency boundaries when
conducting PERs, although wards are used as the building blocks
for parliamentary constituencies.
What are some of the problems experienced?
62. The Commission and the BCFE find that to seek to
minimise electoral imbalances:
— Parishes sometimes have to be warded even though
in some circumstances this does not help the local administration
of elections or representation.
— It cannot always achieve 60% coterminosity of
district, ward and county divisions (eg Worcestershire County
PER where 54% was achieved).
63. In taking account of effective and convenient local
government and the related Rules, the Commission and the BCFE
find that:
— Respondents tend to interpret effective and convenient
local government as access to services and the effect warding
may have on service delivery.
— In relation to electoral reviews, the BCFE also
needs to take account of the effect of ward boundaries and ward
sizes on representation, access to elected representatives and
the administration of elections. These differences in definition
and interpretation can be problematic in the course of reviews.
64. The Commission and the BCFE have also found that
some respondents argue against changes to wards, where the existing
warding arrangements are being used for purposes other than for
the election of local authority councillors. This occurs where
wards are used by Government departments or agencies to measure
such things as social deprivation, statistical analysis, grants
or funding. The Commission has taken the approach that the primary
purpose of wards is for election of local authority councillors,
not for other functions.
65. It could be argued that the effective and convenient
local government criterion has less relevance in relation to electoral
reviews than localgovernment structural reviews. However, some
aspects such as councillor workload can be relevant, particularly
if there is a desire to ensure councillors do not represent wards
which are too large (either in electorate or land area).
66. The Commission and the BCFE pursue 60-80% coterminosity
for a number of reasons. This is because where wards or groups
of wards are not coterminous with county divisions, this could:
— potentially cause confusion for the electorate
at local elections and lead to increased election costs;
— constrain effective liaison and cooperation between
the two tiers of local government in addressing matters of common
concern.
67. However, there are different views among the various
stakeholders in PERs about the value of coterminiosity and to
what level it should be pursued.
Questions for consideration:
68. There are a number of questions for consideration
in relation to effective and convenient local government, which
are listed below:
I. How could effective and convenient
local government be defined for the purposes of electoral reviews,
given that this can mean different things to different people?
II. What weighting or value should be
given to achieving coterminisoity between the boundaries of divisions
and wards?
III. What is the primary purpose of wards?
Should boundary reviews take into account the other functions
of wards as measurement or allocation tools?
ELECTORAL CYCLE
SCHEME
What does the legislation say?
69. As detailed earlier, the responsibility for setting
electoral cycles rests with the Secretary of State. The Commission
and the BCFE must take into account any scheme for elections specified
under section 86 of the Local Government Act 2000 when making
recommendations.
Questions for consideration
70. This statutory criterion is generally one which does
not pose any significant questions for the Commission and the
BCFE. However, this needs to be considered in the context of the
recently launched ODPM document Vibrant Local Leadership,
which includes a proposal to move to whole council elections every
four years for all councils in England. This reflects some of
the recommendations made by the Electoral Commission in its January
2004 report The cycle of local government elections in England.
Should this proposal be implemented, it would have practical implications
for how the Commission sets ward boundaries.
BALANCING THE
STATUTORY CRITERIA
71. The statutory criteria—having regard to identities
and interests of communities, effective and convenient local government
and having a duty to achieve equality of representation—are
not given any weighting in the 1992 Act or elsewhere. Lord Denning's
decision in the Enfield case[4]
(1979) made it clear that electoral equality was not a simple
mathematical test to be applied when the other criteria existed.
Other legal advice over the years on the interpretation of the
criteria and the Rules has supported the view that the Commission
and the BCFE have to reconcile often conflicting factors when
considering proposals and making their recommendations and decisions.
72. The Commission and the BCFE:
— Seek to minimise electoral imbalances by setting
a tolerance on the variance in the electorate to councillor ratio
for individual wards of plus or minus 10% as a guide.
— Do consider and make proposals involving a greater
variance where there is evidence that other factors should prevail.
In some instances, wards with a greater variance are proposed
because of trends in the forecast size of electorates, the pattern
of communities or in the desire to maintain coterminosity.
— Do not set out different tolerances for rural
and urban areas, though in practice, there is less difficulty
in achieving greater electoral equality in built-up areas, than
in rural areas. Different tolerances would be difficult to define
and there is no evidence that any type of area justifies a lower
than average electorate to councillor ratio.
— Do make clear that in choosing between proposals
of equal merit in terms of other factors, they will give preference
to a proposal for a local authority area which minimises the electoral
variance.
73. Fundamentally, the legislation is circular, as all
of the statutory criteria are moderated by each other.
SUMMARY OF
QUESTIONS FOR
CONSIDERATION
74. The Commission hopes that the Select Committee will
find this a helpful overview of the electoral review process and
the issues it raises. The Commission looks forward to the Select
Committee's inquiry, which it expects will provide a good deal
of evidence which will feed into its own wider review of the electoral
review process. In particular, the Commission would welcome the
views of the Select Committee and its witnesses on the issues
and questions which are set out in this submission and which are
summarised in the box below:
I. What is the primary purpose of
electoral reviews—is it to secure equality of representation?
II. Should electoral quality be given
priority amongst the statutory criteria?
III. Could equality of representation
be defined by some method, other than using the councillor:elector
ratio?
IV. Should equality of council size
be pursued between local authorities of similar size or type?
V. How can local authorities be encouraged
to look critically at their council sizes objectively, and separately
from the potential political implications?
VI. What weighting should be given
to the community identity and interest statutory criterion against
the equality of representation criterion?
VII. How could community identity
be defined for the purposes of electoral reviews, given that the
factors that can demonstrate community identity will necessarily
have to vary between different scales and will change over time?
VIII. How could effective ways of
encouraging well-evidenced submissions about community identity
and interests be pursued?
IX. How could effective and convenient
local government be defined for the purposes of electoral reviews,
given that this can mean different things to different people?
X. What weighting or value should
be given to achieving coterminisoity between the boundaries of
divisions and wards?
XI. What is the primary purpose of
wards? Should boundary reviews take into account the other functions
of wards as measurement or allocation tools?
Appendix 1
SUMMARY OF SCHEDULE 11 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972
1. Section 27 of the 1992 Act requires both The Electoral
Commission and the BCFE to comply, so far as practicable, with
Schedule 11 to the Local Government Act 1972 (Rules to be Observed
in Considering Electoral Arrangements). These are summarized as
in the following paragraphs.
COUNTY COUNCILS
2. In relation to county councils, the Rules provide
that, having regard to any changes in the number or distribution
of the local government electors of the county likely to take
place within the period of five years immediately following the
start of the review:
(a) the number of local government electors shall be,
as nearly as may be,[5]
the same in every electoral division of the county;
(b) every electoral division shall lie wholly within a
single district (ie electoral divisions should not cross district
administrative boundaries);
(c) every ward of a civil parish having a parish council,
whether separate or common, shall lie wholly within a single electoral
division (ie no ward of a parish or town council should be divided
by an electoral division boundary);
(d) every parish which is not divided into parish wards
shall lie wholly within a single electoral division.
3. Subject to (a)-(d) above, the Rules provide that regard
should 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.
DISTRICTS AND
LONDON BOROUGHS
4. In relation to districts (metropolitan, shire or unitary)
and London boroughs, the Rules provide that, having regard to
any changes in the number or distribution of the local government
electors of the district or London borough likely to take place
within the period of five years immediately following the start
of the review:
(a) the number of local government electors represented
by each councillor shall be, as nearly as may be, the same in
every ward of the district/borough and London borough;
(b) in a district/borough every ward of a parish having
a parish council shall lie wholly within a single ward of the
district (ie no ward of a parish council should be divided by
a district ward boundary);
(c) in a district/borough every parish which is not divided
into parish wards shall lie wholly within a single ward of the
district.
5. The Rules also provide that, subject to (a)-(c) above,
regard should be had to:
(a) the desirability of fixing ward boundaries which are
and will remain easily identifiable; and
(b) any local ties which would be broken by the fixing
of any particular ward boundary.
PARISH AND
TOWN COUNCILS
6. In relation to parish and town councils, the Rules
provide that, in considering whether a parish should be divided
into wards, regard shall be had to whether:
(a) the number or distribution of electors for the parish
is such as to make a single election of parish councillors impracticable
or inconvenient; and
(b) it is desirable that any area or areas of the parish
should be separately represented on the parish council.
7. Where it is decided to divide any civil parish into
parish wards, in considering the size and boundaries of the wards
and in determining the number of parish councillors to be elected
for each ward, regard shall be had to:
(a) any change in the number or distribution of electors
of the parish that is likely to take place within the period of
five years immediately following the start of the review;
(b) the desirability of fixing boundaries that are and
will remain easily identifiable; and
(c) any local ties that will be broken by the fixing of
any particular boundaries.
8. In addition, the Rules provide that where it is decided
not to divide a parish into parish wards, in determining the number
of councillors to be elected for each parish, regard shall be
had to the number and distribution of electors of the parish,
and any change that is likely to take place within the period
of five years immediately following the fixing of the number of
parish councillors.
2
"Absolute electoral equaiity" is the position where
there is no variance from the average councillor:elector ratio
in any ward or division of an authority, variances from the average
in a particular ward or division are measured in percentage terms. Back
3
This statistic came from a sample of 216 local authorities with
completed PERs, and who used electorate figures with forecast
years between February 2001 and February 2004, inclusive. Back
4
In London Borough of Enfield v Local Government Boundary
Commission for England (1979) 1 All ER 950,953 (upheld in the
House of Lords [1979] 3 All ER 717). Back
5
In London Borough of Enfield v Local Government Boundary
Commission for England (1979) 1 All ER 950, 953 (upheld in the
House of Lords [1979] 3 All ER 717). Back
| 
