Memorandum by Cornwall County Council
(WB 14)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Although pleased with some aspects of the process
by which district ward and county electoral division reviews are
undertaken, Cornwall County Council ("the Council")
has fundamental concerns about the outcomes. The criteria for
the reviews need to be reviewed, the emphasis placed on coterminosity
in reviews of county electoral divisions should be reduced significantly
and more weight should be given to locally produced information
about community identity and ties. Electoral equality should rightly
be the main consideration but multi member divisions should only
be created to achieve this where there is compelling evidence
of local support for them. These and other arguments are developed
below.
BACKGROUND
The electoral review of the Council has concluded
recently. The Council understands that the current Parliamentary
inquiry will address issues related to county electoral divisions
as well as district wards and is pleased to have the opportunity
to make representations based on its experiences which it thinks
are shared by many other local authorities, especially county
councils. The comments emphasise the difficulties with the procedure
in areas of the country where there are both county and district
councils.
The Council was satisfied with the structure
of the electoral review process:
1. Although the process is lengthy, in principle
the current system which includes two stages of consultation is
appropriate.
2. Officers of the Boundary Committee and
Electoral Commission were unfailingly polite and helpful.
3. The Boundary Committee accepted an invitation
to visit Cornwall after they had published their draft recommendations.
This enabled them to hear representations from the Council and
visit parts of the county.
4. Both organisations were receptive to evidence
and proposals which the Council submitted about the new size of
the Council and names of electoral divisions.
However, there were many aspects of the substantive
process which the Council feels are unsatisfactory. It has therefore
concluded that the Electoral Commission's statutory criteria are
neither wholly appropriate nor balanced. It wishes to make a series
of points which are set out below grouped by the criterion listed
in the Select Committee's terms of reference to which they relate
best.
A. The need to reflect the identities and
interests of local communities
1. It is desirable that various standard
criteria are met in electoral reviews but the guidance is far
too vague as to the relative weighting to be given to each. While
this allows flexibility, it is unsatisfactory because the Electoral
Commission and the Boundary Committee may have very different
priorities from those making local representations. This means
much time can be wasted and the aim of encouraging locally originated
proposals is frustrated by the perceived disparity between what
councils wish to see and what is "imposed" upon them.
2. When district ward reviews are undertaken,
the process does not provide for the effects on future county
electoral divisions to be taken into account. It does not seem
either that district councils are specifically asked to consider
this when working up proposals for new wards or that county councils
are encouraged to become involved at that stage.
3. It is understood that the rules allow
for multi-member divisions to be restored for county electoral
divisions and it is accepted that there are occasions when they
have considerable local support and are the best option for a
particular area. However, there is likely to be a clash between
introducing these inevitably large geographical units and reflecting
the identities and interests of local communities. It is therefore
considered wrong for the Boundary Committee and Electoral Commission
to seek to impose them in areas where there is no evidence of
local support. The local authorities concerned are best placed
to judge whether multi member divisions will offer improvements
or complications to the way that they operate and should be listened
to much more.
4. Although community identity is meant
to be a criterion, the guidance does not make very clear what
this means in practice or the nature and extent of evidence that
is required. The Boundary Committee criticises the use of socio-economic
and deprivation data to demonstrate differences between areas,
although this seems a perfectly reasonable approach, but offers
very little positive guidance on what arguments would influence
it. For example, it does not seem to appreciate the relevance
of public transport networks. In common with many other county
councils, Cornwall provided detailed evidence about many parts
of the county explaining why particular areas did or did not relate
to each other but this seems to have been ignored. This is probably
a major reason why community considerations have had far too little
influence.
5. Some of the proposals which have been
implemented, contrary to local representations, combine rural
and urban areas together in a single division. An urban-rural
mix fails to reflect the identities and interests of local communities,
as does a mix of rural communities separated by a town. There
are real differences in many of the issues affecting each type
of area and in the appropriate nature of representation. It is
therefore contended that this should generally be avoided. The
Boundary Committee guidance does not reflect these distinctions
sufficiently.
B. The need to secure effective and convenient
local government
1. Current guidance suggests that simultaneous
reviews of district wards and county electoral divisions in the
same area are possible but in practice this never seems to occur.
It would have been much better in Cornwall if the review of county
electoral divisions had taken place at the same time as the review
of district wards with consideration of the impact of each on
the other. The way that the review was undertaken in some districts
made it very difficult subsequently to produce county divisions
that related well to the new district wards.
2. There is also a case for conducting reviews
of parliamentary constituencies, whose boundaries are not currently
taken into account, in a single combined process. That would make
it much more likely that all three boundaries aligned well.
3. Some of the rules for parliamentary reviews
are different from those for local authority reviews and it is
not clear why. In particular, parliamentary reviews are based
on electorates at a base date but local authority reviews follow
projections five years ahead. Parliamentary reviews provide for
a local inquiry but local authority reviews do not.
4. The assertions by the Boundary Committee
in their reports that the absence of coterminosity "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" are speculative, tendentious,
unproven and not necessarily of any great significance.
5. The Guidance states (Paragraph 3.34)
that multi-member divisions would be proposed only where it was
not possible to identify an acceptable single-member solution
and if there were exceptional circumstances. This has definitely
not been the approach taken in Cornwall or, to the best of our
knowledge, in other counties.
6. Furthermore, the Boundary Committee's
standard statement in the introduction to their reports that "we
do not expect to recommend large numbers of multi-member divisions
other than, perhaps, in the more urban areas of a county"
is very misleading because in practice they recommended a large
number, including some in small towns of below 10,000 population
(the new Office for National Statistics threshold for "urban
areas") and others that extended into rural areas.
7. There have been a few exceptional cases
where three member electoral divisions have been imposed. One
of perhaps only three in the whole country is in Cornwall at Penzance.
This has occurred despite strong opposition and the submission
of reasonable alternative proposals supported by all three councils
with responsibility for the area—county, district and town
councils—as well as community organisations, individual
councillors, petitions and survey results. It seems wrong that
this is allowed to happen. It is contended that three member divisions
will prove inappropriate for various socio-economic and practical
reasons and will increase substantially the cost and workload
associated with any by-election.
8. Two and three member divisions will have
the potential to undermine the workings of county councils and
seems to conflict with the developing role for elected members
as community leaders. This is epitomised by a situation where
different members representing the same area hold different views
on, say, future arrangements for children in care.
9. Multi member divisions inevitably increase
the number of parishes in many divisions. Liaison with communities
through parish councils is very important in rural counties like
Cornwall but this is logistically very difficult, particularly
in large rural divisions. This will make it more difficult for
county councillors to liaise with and represent them properly.
10. There was a complete lack of continuity
in the Boundary Committee staff dealing with the Cornwall electoral
divisions and some of them seemed very inexperienced. None of
the officers involved in the early stages were still involved
at the conclusion; this can not have helped the process work well
and did not make the Council feel that any understanding of the
issues in Cornwall was being developed. This was also the experience
of other county councils.
11. The Boundary Committee reports containing
their recommendations record different representations received
concisely but fairly. Some reasoning is given for their recommendations
but this is not very detailed or specific, which makes it hard
to follow or challenge. This lack of local awareness is particularly
unsatisfactory because of the visit to Cornwall which Boundary
Committee officers had made, referred to above.
12. The Council was surprised to learn by
chance that the Boundary Committee does not automatically pass
on representations made to it to the Electoral Commission. This
must limit the ability of the Electoral Commission to assess the
Boundary Committee's proposals effectively.
13. The Electoral Commission does not produce
any written report or give any reasons at all for its decisions.
This is totally unsatisfactory. In the review of electoral divisions
in Cornwall the Electoral Commission changed some of the Boundary
Committee's recommendations in ways which accorded with the wishes
of the Council in some areas but not in others and it was unclear
why different approaches had been taken. It would have been helpful
and more transparent if explanations had been given.
14. The review of electoral divisions in
Cornwall was in probably the last round to be completed. Partly
because of delays, some of which were admittedly unavoidable,
final decisions were not made until 20 January. They were communicated
promptly to the Council but were so late as to cause the district
councils, which have responsibility for preparing electoral registers,
practical difficulties in revising them to the new geography.
The process of selecting candidates was also probably more complicated
for political parties and it would have delayed decisions by potential
Independent councillors about where it was most appropriate for
them to stand.
C. The need to secure equality of representation
1. Although the guidelines and pronouncements
by the Electoral Commission state clearly that their primary aim
is to achieve electoral equality, this is not carried through
in all of their decisions. The rules require them to "have
regard to" various criteria but there is little guidance
on how to balance them if they conflict. This means that conclusions
which the Boundary Committee reach appear inconsistent and lacking
in rigour. In many cases, wrongly in our opinion, coterminosity
is given the greatest weight and it appears that little regard
has been paid to other considerations.
2. When county electoral reviews are undertaken,
although the guidelines do not state that this should be the case,
both the Boundary Committee and the Electoral Commission place
disproportionate weight on the desirability of achieving coterminosity
between district ward and county electoral division boundaries.
The Boundary Committee commented that they "attach considerable
importance to achieving coterminosity between the boundaries of
divisions and wards". One effect is to close down significantly
the options which are available to a county council in preparing
proposals for electoral divisions which comply with the guidelines.
3. The level of coterminosity of around
60% to 80% that the Boundary Committee recommends is not justified
and has no particular validity. A lower figure would give more
flexibility as would a change of definition so that, with at least
equal validity, coterminosity measured the proportion of district
wards completely within one electoral division rather than the
proportion of electoral divisions containing one or more whole
district wards.
4. Equality of representation is unlikely
to be achieved across a large area where individual election candidates
are less well known, particularly Independents without party political
support but who have a strong tradition of representation in Cornwall.
As a result the Council makes the following
suggestions about ways in which it considers that the processes
and criteria could be improved:
1. Combine district ward and county divisional
reviews in areas where they both exist into a single process.
2. When responsibility for parliamentary
boundary reviews transfers to the Electoral Commission, consider
integrating them with local authority reviews.
3. Encourage local authorities to place
even more emphasis on local consultation and advising the Boundary
Committee fully of the outcome so that more weight can be given
to locally produced schemes for which there is evidence of broad
support.
4. Because so many problems have arisen
with the county electoral reviews, the Select Committee may wish
to recommend that the Electoral Commission's future work programme
provides for it to conduct reviews much sooner than in previous
review cycles following new criteria with priority to areas where
they are most needed. This would probably include local authorities
where the recent reviews were particularly controversial, areas
where it is felt that multi member divisions are causing problems
and faster growing areas.
5. The criteria for reviews should be changed
so that there is greater clarity about the weighting and it is
suggested that the criteria of electoral equality and community
identity should be given more weight.
6. Much more positive guidance should be
given about the nature of evidence on community identity that
the Electoral Commission would welcome.
7. Wards and divisions which combine urban
and rural areas should be deterred.
8. Coterminosity should remain a criterion
in county electoral reviews but the weight attached to it should
be lessened greatly, the target percentage of 60% to 80% should
be removed and the definition should change to be a measure of
the proportion of district wards lying wholly within one county
electoral division.
9. Multi member electoral divisions should
only be introduced where there is strong evidence of local support
and viable alternatives are not available.
10. Consideration should be given to removing
the provision for multi member divisions with more than two members.
11. Reviews for local authorities should
be based on existing electorates not projections.
12. There should be provision for local
inquiries on local authority reviews.
13. The Electoral Commission should conduct
an early review of the effect of multi member divisions on the
working of county councils.
14. The Boundary Committee should be required
to make more detailed responses to representations and proper
explanation of its recommendations.
15. The Electoral Commission should be required
to produce a report on each electoral review, summarising representations
and justifying its decisions.
16. The timetables of electoral reviews
should be planned so that they conclude in good time before the
elections when they will take effect.
| 
