Contact: David Hinxman, Head of Democratic Services, tel: 01962 847339;

e-mail [email protected]

1. Introduction

1.1 The Electoral Commission have issued a consultation paper on periodic electoral reviews and have asked for comments by 25 November 2005. The LGA has asked to know what local authorities think by 4 November to inform their response.

1.2 The periodic electoral review of the County Council's electoral divisions was completed in December 2004 and implemented from May 2005. The County Council, as a key community leader, expressed grave concerns about particular elements of the Boundary Committee for England's draft recommendations and the Electoral Commission's final recommendations but no changes to reflect the County Council's wishes were made.

2. The Consultation Paper

2.1. The Consultation Paper poses a number of questions to which responses are suggested here:

Q1) Are the three criteria - having regard to identities and interests of communities; effective and convenient Local Government; and having a duty to achieve equality of representation the most appropriate factors for determining electoral boundaries?

Suggested response:

The three criteria are considered to be appropriate but it is not considered that they be given equal weight if local people do not consider them to be of equal importance. The County Council has always attached great importance to building strong and safe communities, one of its key Corporate Aims, yet their experience of the recent review was that equality of electorate appeared to be given particular prominence. Given the County Council's emphasis on the importance of local communities it follows that a higher level of electoral inequality would be acceptable. The County Council accepts that this is an imprecise science but was disappointed that its serious concerns about community identity were not responded to positively in the recent review.

Q2) What evidence can the Commission use to understand community identity?

Suggested response:

The consultation asks whether community identity can be recognised through the location of public facilities. In this respect it is considered that, as a key community leader, the County Council's views should carry significant weight when the Electoral Commission considers community identity. Public facilities often are located where there is or has been space to provide them. Their location, therefore, may be a factor to be taken into account but it should not be the benchmark for where the core of a community might lie. When built these facilities might have been at the heart of a small community; years later they may serve a much wider catchment if considerable development has taken place.

Q3) How far is it reasonable for the Commission to depart from electoral equality in reaching its decisions?

Suggested response:

It is considered that, as each local authority knows its area well, its views on what is a reasonable level of inequality of electorate should carry significant weight. The figure, therefore, should vary according to local circumstances.

Q4) What evidence can the Commission use to indicate effective and convenient Local Government?

Suggested response:

If community boundaries are right at grass roots level or at Parliamentary constituency level then it follows that putting small building blocks together or dividing large constituencies into smaller blocks should result in electoral boundaries encompassing identifiable communities. Coterminousity does help to ensure that people should not be confused by different boundaries being used at election time, e.g. voting in one place for a district council election but voting in another place for a county council election due to a ward boundary being split for county electoral division boundary purposes as can be the case now. The County Council attaches considerable importance to logical voting arrangements at local government elections so as to engender community engagement.

Q5) Are the criteria the Commission uses to decide when to undertake a further electoral review appropriate? i.e. 30% of wards with a variance in excess of 10% or one ward with a variance of over 30%.

Suggested response:

It is considered that the onus for requiring an electoral review should lie with the local authority. It should know best if electoral changes in a ward or division are impacting adversely on its effectiveness. In addition, however, the electorate affected should have the opportunity to requisition a review if it believes that it is not being served effectively on the grounds of the size of the electorate.

Q6) Should the Commission make plans for another programme of periodic electoral reviews?

Suggested response:

If local authorities were given responsibility for determining whether they considered a review should be undertaken, this would allow the Commission to spend more time on other electoral issues. It may be that as a reserve position, the Commission could take an overview of local authorities' representational arrangements every 10-15 years and request those councils where the Commission believes action is necessary to consider the need for a formal review.

Q7) Should the Commission aim to review two-tier areas - districts and counties - simultaneously or overlap the county review with that of the districts?

Suggested response:

Reviewing the County Council and Hampshire District Councils simultaneously or overlapping them would be a complex exercise but elements of each might have been more straightforward had the recent review in Hampshire overlapped with that of the districts. Ward boundaries and county electoral boundaries could have been considered in tandem. Establishing new district ward boundaries and then almost immediately commencing a county electoral division review meant maintaining public interest in a lengthy procedure for even longer whereas overlapping could demonstrate the inter-relationship of each to the community at large more effectively.

Q8) Should the Commission maintain its current approach to determine council size or give more specific guidance, such as a formula or banding scheme, linked to councils' electorate size and functions?

Suggested response:

It is considered that formulaic solutions are a constraint. The local authority itself is best placed to make recommendations at any time about its electoral arrangements and to give reasons for them. There are many qualitative factors to be taken into account in addition to quantitative measures.

Q9) Should the Commission continue to expect all local authorities to provide five year electorate forecasts?

Suggested response:

This issue concerns research and statistical information which can be obtained from district councils and county councils. This should be consistent and the County Council would welcome advice which the Commission may wish to give in relation to electorate forecasts.

Q10) Should the Commission be prescriptive about the number of councillors per ward or division throughout an area, such as having one councillor per ward or division?

Suggested response:

This issue caused the County Council the greatest concern in the recent review. Unanimously the County Council was of the view that every county electoral division in Hampshire should have one county councillor representing it. The County Council had made no proposals for other than single member constituency representation nor were there other schemes supporting this approach yet the Electoral Commission imposed three two-member divisions on the County Council. The County Council's strong opposition to this is well documented in its decisions made in 2004 in relation to the Periodic Electoral Review. The Electoral Commission should respect local councils' views on their own electoral arrangements or promote single member wards and divisions across the board. Electoral arrangements need to be clearly understood within the community whereas imposing two-member divisions on the County Council has rendered them more complicated and a disincentive to local engagement.

Q11) Should the Commission make any changes to the length and nature of the stages of a Periodic Electoral Review?

Suggested response:

See answer to question 8.

Q12) What can the Commission do to make people more aware of, and get involved in, electoral reviews and the proposals being made?

Suggested response:

Possibly; the Commission could consider using local authorities' own communication channels more positively to put their messages across. IT presents many opportunities.

Q13) Should the name of a ward be open to change without the need for a review by the Boundary Committee for England?

Suggested response:

Yes

Q14) Are there any other changes that the Commission could make to enhance the process for conducting electoral reviews?

Suggested response:

The Committee may consider that the responses above highlight the areas of particular concern or interest to the County Council but members may wish to add to them.

RECOMMENDATION

That the responses to the Electoral Commission Consultation Paper on Periodic Electoral Reviews set out in the report be approved for submission to the Local Government Association and the Electoral Commission subject to any further comments which the Committee may have.

Section 100D Local Government Act 1972 Background Papers

NB the list excludes:

1 Published works.

2 Documents which disclosure exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act.