Public Document Pack

ELECTORAL REVIEW WORKING PARTY AGENDA

Venue: Bainbridge Room, The Copeland Centre, Catherine Street, Whitehaven. CA28 7SJ Date: Monday, 20th March, 2017 Time: 10.00 am Contact Officer: Clive Willoughby Tel: 01946 598328

1. Apologies for Absence

2. Declarations of Interest

3. Minutes of the Meeting held on 1 March 2017 1 - 4

4. Parliamentary Constituency Boundary Review Consultation 5 - 30

Membership: Councillors Peter Connolly (Chair), John Burns, Yvonne Clarkson, Neil Ferguson, Ian Hill, Bob Kelly and Jean Lewthwaite

Contacts: Direct Dial: 01946 598328 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.copeland.gov.uk This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 3

ELECTORAL REVIEW WORKING PARTY

MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON WEDNESDAY, 1 MARCH 2017

Present: Councillors Peter Connolly, in the Chair; Yvonne Clarkson, Neil Ferguson, Bob Kelly and Jean Lewthwaite.

Officers: Tim Capper (Community Governance Projects Officer) and Clive Willoughby (Member Services Technical Support Officer).

ER19 Apologies for Absence

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Jackie Bowman, John Bowman, David Moore and Gillian Troughton.

ER20 Declarations of Interest

There were no Declarations of Interests made.

ER21 Minutes of the Meeting held on 16 December 2016

RESOLVED - That the minutes of the meeting held on 16 December 2016 be signed by the Chair as a correct record.

ER22 Community Governance Review - Beckermet with Thornhill

Members received an update on the first stage of the Community Governance Review of Beckermet with Thornhill Parish from the Community Governance Projects Officer.

A consultation on the Beckermet with Thornhill review ran for seven weeks to 6 February 2017 during which time details were placed on the Copeland Borough Council’s website, an article was published in the Whitehaven News and letter/email consultation held with Beckermet with Thornhill Parish and Cumbria County Councillors.

No responses to the consultation were received.

Following discussion, it was

RESOLVED – that a) It be noted that there were no responses to the Beckermet with Thornhill review consultation, b) The initial proposals as set out in para 4 of the agenda report be confirmed as the final proposals for publication, c) The draft Community Reorganisation Order be forwarded to the 21 March 2017 meeting of Council for approval.

ER23 Community Governance Review - Parton

Members received an update on the first stage of the Community Governance Review of Parton Parish from the Community Governance Projects Officer.

Page 1 A consultation on the Parton review ran for seven weeks to 6 February 2017 during which time details were placed on the Copeland Borough Council’s website, an article was published in the Whitehaven News and letter/email consultation held with Parton Parish and Cumbria County Councillors.

No responses to the consultation were received.

Following discussion, it was

RESOLVED – that a) It be noted that there were no responses to the Parton review consultation, b) The initial proposals as set out in para 4 of the agenda report be confirmed as the final proposals for publication, c) The draft Community Reorganisation Order be forwarded to the 21 March 2017 meeting of Council for approval.

ER24 Community Governance Review - Seascale

Members received an update on the first stage of the Community Governance Review of Seascale Parish from the Community Governance Projects Officer.

A consultation on the Seascale review ran for seven weeks to 6 February 2017 during which time details were placed on the Copeland Borough Council’s website, an article was published in the Whitehaven News and letter/email consultation held with Seascale Parish and Cumbria County Councillors.

Members were advised that two responses to the consultation had been received (shown in Appendix A and B of the report) and each response was then fully considered by the Working Party.

Appendix A The Working Party felt the content of this response was directed at the current Parish Council and did not offer any meaningful or valid arguments to the consultation. Members were satisfied that the consultation had been adequate. It was suggested that a copy of the response be forwarded to Seascale Parish Council for their attention. In light of this response, Members did not consider it necessary to make any amendment to the proposal.

Appendix B The Working Party felt the content of this response from Mr R Sharman, was his view of the current Parish Council and did not offer any meaningful or valid arguments to the consultation. Members were satisfied that the consultation had been adequate. In light of this response, Members did not consider it necessary to make any amendment to the proposal.

Further discussion followed including whether a figure should be set for a ‘quorum’. Members were advised that this was a decision for the Parish Council and not for this Working Party.

The Working Party was advised that, if agreed, the proposals for Beckermet with Thornhill, Parton and Seascale Parish Councils will be published on the Copeland Borough Council website, which will be within the prescribed timescales.

Page 2 RESOLVED – that a) It be noted that there were two responses to the Seascale review consultation, b) The response shown in Appendix A be forwarded to Seascale Parish Council for their attention, c) The initial proposals as set out in para 4 of the agenda report be confirmed as the final proposals for publication, d) The draft Community Reorganisation Order be forwarded to the 21 March 2017 meeting of Council for approval.

ER25 Date and Time of Next Meeting

The next meeting of the Electoral Review Working Party will be held on Monday 20 March 2017 at 10.00pm in the Bainbridge Room, The Copeland Centre.

The Meeting closed at 10.30 am

Chair

Page 3 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 4

Electoral Review Working Party 20/03/17

PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCY BOUNDARY REVIEW CONSULTATION

PORTFOLIO HOLDER: Councillor David Moore LEAD OFFICER: Pat Graham, Managing Director REPORT AUTHOR: Stephanie Shaw, Electoral Services Manager

Why has this report come to Panel?

To consider the responses to the initial proposals on the review of Parliamentary Constituencies recently published by the Boundary Commission for England.

Recommendation: The responses to the initial proposals are considered and any further representations be made by 27th March 2017.

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Boundary Commission for England (BCE) is an independent and impartial non- departmental public body which is responsible for reviewing Parliamentary constituency boundaries in England.

The BCE has the task of periodically reviewing all the Parliamentary constituencies in England. It is currently conducting a review on the basis of rules set by Parliament in 2011. The rules involve a significant reduction in the number of constituencies in England (from 533 to 501) and require that every constituency must have an electorate that is no smaller than 71,031 and no larger than 78,507.

The North West region currently has 75 constituencies. Of these only 20 have electorates within 5% of the electoral quota. The electorates of 53 constituencies currently fall below the 5% limit, while the electorate of just two constituencies are above.

2. PROPOSALS

2.1 The initial proposals were published on 13th September 2016. These were subject to a 12 week consultation period, ending on 5th December 2016.

2.2 The proposals are for a costal constituency containing the towns of Workington and Whitehaven in the West, extending from the town of Maryport in the north to the River Mite in the South, as shown in the map below.

Page 5 2.3 The proposal is to call this Workington and Whitehaven Constituency.

2.4 Council made representation to support these changes, with the only objection been to the proposed name. The Council suggested two alternatives of West Cumbria Constituency or Whitehaven and Workington Constituency. Our full response is attached at appendix A.

2.5 The BCE has now published all the responses received during the initial consultation period and ask that any further representation on these responses be made by 27 March 2017.

2.6 All responses submitted are shown in full at Appendix B, C and D.

3 CONCLUSION

3.1 The Working Party is asked to:

(i) Consider the responses to the initial proposals made by the Boundary Commission for England (ii) Agree if any further representations needs to be made to the Boundary Commission for England

Page 6 Consultees – Lead executive Member; Managing Director; Director; S151 Officer; Monitoring Officer

Appendix A – Council’s full response Appendix B, C & D – Responses received and published by the BCE

Page 7 This page is intentionally left blank Appendix A

Parliamentary Boundary Review 2018 – Formal Response from Copeland Borough Council.

Copeland Borough Council notes the Boundary Commission proposals for revised parliamentary constituencies covering Copeland and, having considered the effects on the inhabitants of the Borough, wishes to make the following comments on these proposals.

Copeland Borough Council has no objections to the proposed boundary changes that will make up the new Workington and Whitehaven Constituency. However, the Council wishes to raise an objection to the proposed name of Workington and Whitehaven Constituency. The proposed name does not reflect the large geographical area covered in the new constituency. Whilst the two names are the main town centres of the areas there are other towns and villages included within the boundary with their own identities. Therefore the Council wishes to propose an alternative name of West Cumbria Constituency.

Should this name be deemed unsuitable, we wish for further thought to be given to the initial proposal, with the view to having the name appear in alphabetical order i.e. Whitehaven and Workington Constituency. This would also account for the larger number of constituents being within the Borough of Copeland.

The Council also welcomes the proposals to retain the nuclear facilities in West Cumbria within one Constituency boundary. Sellafield site, NDA land holdings, the Low Level Waste Repository and the National Nuclear Laboratory all form the basis of the Centre of Nuclear Excellence, and the Council feels strongly that these should not be divided over two constituencies.

Page 9

Page 10 Appendix B Responses to Initial Proposals received by Boundary Commission for England.

Comment 1. Alexander Parry of Workington Member of public

I believe it is paramount to keep Workington and Maryport together, and I also welcome the addition of Whitehaven. These places are of a very specific demographic that if merged with a more upper class area would provoke unsociable strain on the local community and further economic inequality. In the respect of social and economic factors for the public I believe this is the best outcome for my previous Allerdale constituency.

Comment 2. Anne Harrison of Millom Member of public

Please will you make local authority boundary changes that are coterminous with Health Trust boundaries.

I am recently retired from Adult Social Care and have had firsthand experience of the problems in developing integrated health and social care services when the boundaries of the local authority and health trusts do not match.

My understanding is that the proposed boundary changes in south Copeland will not fully align with the Morecambe Bay Health Trust boundary, i.e. under the new proposals, the area north of Millom Locality up to the River Mite would be outwith Morecambe Bay Trust.

Comment 3 Arthur Lamb of Distington Member of public

I fully support the Boundary Commission proposals for the new West Cumbria seat. Only possible change would be to include Seascale ward in the new Barrow seat.

Comment 4 Brian Kennish of Ravenglass Member of Public

I have lived in Ravenglass for 30 years and can count on one hand the number of times I have visited Barrow which is about 35 miles away.

All my focus for social, economic and political activities is north of here; Whitehaven (17 miles) and Workington (21 miles) are our main shopping and social areas.

I have no trunk road access to Barrow whereas northward the A595 is a trunk road.

In order to keep this our political area I would prefer to be transferred from the proposed Barrow constituency to the Whitehaven and Workington one. To make the change possible you would have to use the River Esk as the boundary. Page 11

Comment 5 Charles Mossop of Egremont Member of Public

I wouldn't be happy about the Workington & Whitehaven areas being merged together under one constituency, and when I say that, I speak for thousands of others who appreciate just how different the areas are, hence the rivalry between the two. I believe that Workington, Cockermouth, and Maryport should be kept together, as they currently are under the Borough of Allerdale, and this is because there's always been a common sense of unity between the 3 towns - throughout history they've always went hand-in-hand together, and it wouldn't be right to split them up. In order to expand the current borough so we'll have less constituencies, I propose that we stretch Allerdale north to border with Aspatria (which I believe should still fall under the Wigton/Carlisle area), west to Penrith, and south-east to Windermere. This means that with Workington, Cockermouth, Maryport, Keswick, Ambleside, and Windermere, 6 key, tourist destinations under one jurisdiction, we have very much a Lakeland borough - this means that the local authorities can work together to get the most out of the area, both economically & environmentally.

As for the area which would become new Copeland, like I said, I strongly oppose Workington being a part of it, but to make up the size, I propose keeping the Milom area within the borough, as it is now, stretching south to border with Barrow-in-Furness - this gives us borough number 2. Then, Barrow should be grouped with Ulverston & Kendal, stretching south to cover the Morecambe & Carnforth area in a third borough. Comment 6 Chris Barwise of Workington Member of public

This should not be allowed to go ahead due to the fact Cumbria is currently under represented due to the fact that the government continuously state that Manchester is "The North" and this is not factually accurate.

The fact that whoever takes over the roll will have a seriously high unsustainable workload for one person and will make it harder for the North West of Cumbria to represented on its many day to day issues, the save the West Cumberland hospital is a good representation of this as it is clear Jamie Reed is not being listened to by the management.

Comment 7 Chris Knowles of Keswick Member of Public

I am pleased that the town of Keswick is now in a more cohesive unit of Allerdale and part of Eden. The previous change linking Keswick with Copeland was a contrived nonsense.

Page 12 Comment 8 Chris Whiteside of Whitehaven

I am a Copeland resident, officer of Copeland Conservative Association and Cumbria Area Conservatives, former Copeland councilor and Conservative parliamentary and mayoral candidate for Copeland. I am writing in as an individual and these comments are about the proposals for Cumbria as a whole.

I support the Boundary Commission proposals for parliamentary constituencies in Cumbria

The geography of Cumbria, particularly the number of lakes and mountains, makes it difficult to assemble five constituencies with a common interest and there are a limited number of ways you can do it.

The first proposals in the last parliament were a classic example of the problems which this challenging geography can cause, including as they did a Copeland and Windermere seat of which the two main components had the highest mountain and deepest lake in England between them and the only direct route running over Hardknott pass, the alternative being a two-hour journey detouring around the lakes and mountains.

It makes far more sense, as in the revised proposals in the last parliament and the BCE's present ones, to put the main West Cumbrian centres of Whitehaven and Workington together. Despite a significant degree of mostly friendly rivalry, there is a significant common interest.

A Carlisle constituency coterminous with Carlisle City Council has very great advantages, this is clearly an area of common interest and a very sensible proposal.

There is historic precedent for a Penrith and Solway constituency, such as the late Willie Whitelaw used to represent.

The main issue of potential debate is therefore the borders of the Workington and Whitehaven constituency and the enlarged Barrow and Furness constituency

Ulverston and the area immediately around it is a unit which should be in the same constituency looks to Barrow more than any other part of the SLDC area does. It is included in the present Barrow and Furness constituency and it makes sense that it should remain part of the new Barrow constituency.

There is also a "Furness Peninsulas" community based along the West Coast Road (A595 & A590 between Barrow, Millom and Sellafield) with people from Barrow travelling to work at Sellafield and people from Millom travelling both south to Barrow to work at BAE and North to Sellafield to work there.

The present proposals have a strong geographical border at Ravenglass and on the river Mite. Shifting the border south to put it between Bootle and the Millom Without borough ward would make much less sense. I have heard it suggested that Black Coombe would form such a barrier, but this feature is to the east of the coastal strip where most of the local population lives. Page 13

There is a very strong case - which I would not oppose - for putting Seascale in with Barrow rather than Workington and Whitehaven. This would put more of the South West Coast community in the same constituency. You would then have the route from Sellafield to Barrow, including Millom, all in one constituency with an MP who would have a locus to speak for people who live along and travel along that route to work. The people who live along and use this route do in a real sense form a natural community and I can certainly see a strong advantage in keeping them together.

Putting Seascale in with Barrow rather than the Workington and Whitehaven seat would be the only change to the BCE proposals I could support. But the proposals are strong as they stand. Comment 9 Colin Thorns of Keswick Member of public

Firstly, I wish to say that I fully support this review of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in the UK. I believe that the disparity between the size of the electorates in the current UK Parliamentary Constituencies has reached the point where, if nothing is done about it, it will undermine parliamentary democracy in this country. Secondly, as a resident of Cumbria, I give my full support to the recognition of Cumbria as a separate sub-region within the NW of England. Unlike other sub-regions within the NW Region, Cumbria is a predominantly rural economy, dependent on farming and tourism, and home two national parks with their own particular issues. Thirdly, I give my full support to the proposed creation of five new Parliamentary Constituencies in Cumbria (as compared to the current six). Fourthly, as a resident of Keswick for the past 11 years, I feel that inclusion of Keswick in the current parliamentary constituency of Copeland has done the town and its constituents no favours. The post heavy industry/mining and industrial nature of the bulk of the Copeland constituency has little in common with the small town of Keswick and its position as the key centre for the northern area of the Lake District National Park. I therefore fully support the inclusion of Keswick within the proposed new parliamentary constituency of Penrith and the Solway. Fifthly, as a past resident of Copeland for twenty-five years before moving to Keswick in 2005, I also welcome the proposed creation of a combined Whitehaven and Workington Parliamentary Constituency. For two long, rivalry between these two major towns i has benefited neither. Hopefully, through uniting them in Parliament, they may begin to work together for the greater good and benefit their constituents.

Comment 10 Dan Cassidy of Pica Member of Public this seems like industrial/sparsely populated areas will lose seats. I can't help but think that although it seems like a fair remit to distribute voters and seats more evenly, there is more than one way to skin a cat and this suits a tory government immensely. less seats in industrial areas that are likely to vote other than tory. If the government is committed to a fairer voting system it would introduce electronic voting to appeal to a younger electorate, and introduce a 'first past the post' system, Similar to the EU referendum. As the gap/amount of rich vs poor widens, the seats won system creates a bias towards the well off. This flies in the face of a Britain were Page 14 everyone's vote is equal. I do not vote tory or labour but I would like a fairer voting system and I don't think that just changing the borders will achieve this. Also, I am not stupid enough to think that any concerns raised in this 'consultation' will be listened to. It's pointless really, you have been given a strict remit by the government that without deep social debate is un arguable. So you cannot say no and it will happen anyway. I guarantee though if for some reason an online voting system/app was on the table, which would be a real risk to the current government being re elected, it would get squashed at the first step. So I hope you feel the despair of the many working class voters that do not have time to fill this form in, I am on the sick today and that is the only reason I can. It would have been very interesting to ask the salary of the person writing this feedback. Because odds are, as you know, quite slim that you will get: anyone on benefits, full time mothers, people working lots of hours at work. I haven't heard you advertising this 'consultation' on popular radio, I heard it on the today program on radio 4, not many of the people I just listed would call radio 4 their regular listen. to be honest I could tell when I listened that it was just an excuse to railroad through changes without sociological considerations. So finally, you have a strict remit that is difficult to argue with but in my opinion will give a disadvantage to areas in poverty. A disadvantage already realised by poor turnouts by those groups. I know it isn't your remit but if the government is so committed to a fair voting system then they need to introduce an easier way for the young and working class to vote. Ie. Connecting a vote tab in hmrc website. And set up an app with similar protocols to online banking. That's all from me!

Comment 11 David Ritson of Seascale Member of Public

By ignoring the 2m people who joined the electoral register for the EU referendum, the boundaries may not be reliable. We need to vastly reduce those unelected in the House of Lords, before reducing those we have a chance to elect/deselect. The decision ignores the wishes of west Cumbrians and it's time WE had more 'bottom up' governance rather than 'top-down' (London centric) power. Statistics are used to claim "fairness", but often do not. We in the so called Northern Powerhouse, need more MP's to swing decisions away from the SE to the North. There seems to be an element of manipulation of the boundaries to favour the Tory party. Deeply unhappy and frustrated. Decisions in our world are dominated by global industry, global financial insitutions, self perpetuating governments, all at the expense of and to the detriment of the ordinary individuals, whose desperate please to influence anything are ignored. I'm not expecting any comments to reap any meaningful changes, so I give up!!

Comment 12 Duncan Poole of Cockermouth Member of Public Very good bit of work. I'm very much in favour of balancing the size of constituencies to achieve even representation (better from a democratic point of view) and of reducing the overall number of MPs.

You should also do some work on reducing the number of peers in the Lords - but unfortunately this probably falls outside your remit!

Page 15

Comment 13 Helen Tucker of Cockermouth Member of Public

The proposal change in size of the new constituency will make it too big - the problems in the south of the county are not those faced by people in the north, or the west. Size does matter!

Comment 14 Ian Jackson of Ulverston Member of Public

As in my location and many other less populated areas, the boundary area covered is vast compared to many other areas. I don`t think this method of dividing up the boundaries is a good method and over a certain size the area`s should at least be split in two.

Comment 15 Jacqueline Gardener of Cockermouth Member of public

I object to the conflation of my constituency with East Cumbria. These areas have nothing in common. West Cumbria has its own particular problems and, if there is to be a joining up of two areas, it would be better to join the two West Cumbrian constituencies. This looks to me as if you are trying to get rid of or water down a traditionally Labour area. Gerrymandering, I believe it is called!

Comment 16 Jill Perry of Maryport On behalf of Green Party

I am writing on behalf of Allerdale and Copeland Green Party in line with proposals of our last meeting 20th October 2016.

We accept that it is a legal requirement to make the parliamentary constituencies rigidly defined by the number of electors, however we find this makes some rural constituencies unmanageably large in area, in particular the Penrith and Solway constituency, which is where most of our membership and electors find themselves. The Workington and Whitehaven constituency, on the other hand, becomes much more manageable. People in sparsely populated areas such as much of Cumbria already suffer from poor access to employment and services. Whilst we are sure that hardworking MPs will do their best, rural electors should not find themselves at a disadvantage in terms of representation as well. Boundary changes should seek to ensure equal access to elected representatives.

We find it unacceptable and undemocratic that the number of elected representatives is being reduced while the number of members of the unelected House of Lords has increased to more than 820.

While changes are being made to the electoral system we consider it an appropriate time to introduce a truly democratic voting system of proportional representation.

Page 16 Comment 17 Keith Gainford of Workington Member of Public

I fully support the proposals for a new Workington/Whitehaven constituency. However I would suggest that Cockermouth and Keswick should be included. These towns have a long time connection to the west coast.

As far as the name is concerned. It would make more sense to call the new constituency, West Cumbria. Comment 18 Leo Saldanha of Ravenglass Member of the public

I wish to state the following in ref to your proposal regarding the northern boundary of the Barrow constituency. The current proposal splits our parish the normal boundary is the river Esk not the river Mite as you have it. Traditionally we were part of Cumberland not Westmoreland or Lancashire. We look to the north, not south to Barrow which is 35 miles away via very poor roads. Our work, shopping, personal contacts etc, are all to the north in most cases. We are a small community of 118 with another 126 in the affected area so would have little effect on overall numbers

Comment 19 Official response from Liberal Democrat party

1. Liberal Democrats are committed to the reform of British politics to make our political systems more representative and more empowering for citizens, which will help them to command greater public confidence. We accept that there may be advantages in reducing the number of MPs, but we believe this should be as part of a reformed and fairer voting system. We continue to argue for proportional representation by introducing the Single Transferable Vote system both for local government and for Westminster elections. We are therefore disappointed that the proposed changes to reduce the number of parliamentary constituencies have been promulgated by government without giving consideration to a much more fundamental change in the voting system.

2. Given the present election system, in which electors choose a single MP for a given constituency area, we think it right to seek to roughly equalise the electorate in each English constituency to give electors an approximately equal level of representation at Westminster, whether based on 533 or 501 constituencies. Any such process of equalisation will necessarily require adjustment to existing constituency boundaries in some areas.

3. West Cumbria Liberal Democrats accept that if there is to be a reduction of constituencies in England to 501, and if the voting system is to remain as it is at present, then we acknowledge (with reservations) the case for reducing the number of constituencies in Cumbria from six to five. This will inevitably entail substantial changes to parliamentary constituency boundaries in Cumbria and the removal of at least one existing constituency.

Page 17 4. We note that some of the proposed new constituencies will cover very large geographical areas, and would point out that in a fairer voting system where Cumbria was represented by 5 MPs elected by STV these awkward geographical problems would disappear.

5. Given the narrow remit of the Boundary Commission for England, with no new proposals for more radical changes to the electoral system, West Cumbria Liberal Democrats endorse, in the interim, the proposal to create a new constituency on the west coast of Cumbria, incorporating parts of the present Copeland and Workington constituencies, provisionally named 'Workington & Whitehaven.'

6. West Cumbria Liberal Democrats consider that the suggested southern boundary of the proposed Workington & Whitehaven constituency has been set too far to the north, with the result that all electors living to the south of Muncaster Fell, including residents of the villages of Ravenglass and Waberthwaite, will fall within the Barrow and Furness constituency. At present there are much closer ties between the electors living in Bootle, Ravenglass and surrounding settlements with Whitehaven and the towns to the north than with Barrow and settlements in Furness to the south. It is accepted that the cultural and social ties with Barrow-in-Furness among communities further south in Copeland, and especially in and around Millom, have been much stronger.

7. Our major modification to the proposals for West Cumbria as set out in the consultation document proposal is that either the whole of the ward of Bootle (1,014 electors) should be included in the new Workington and Whitehaven constituency (which would still allow the constituency electorate to fall within the intended upper limit of 78,507 electors) or alternatively that the new constituency boundary should be redrawn some way to the south of the River Esk. This would allow the west coast communities at Ravenglass, Muncaster, Broad Oak and Waberthwaite to be included within Workington & Whitehaven constituency. This would result in the Copeland District Council ward of Bootle, currently situated wholly within Copeland parliamentary constituency, being divided between the two future constituencies of Barrow & Furness and Workington & Whitehaven. Comment 20 Liz Clegg of Waberthwaite Member of Public

I live on the coastal plain in West Cumbria and, if the boundary changes are made, will be in the northernmost ward of the Barrow Constituency. The local parishes are have a super sparse population and the travelling time to Barrow by road is over an hour. The travelling time north to Whitehaven/Workington (a similar sized conurbation) is 30-40 minutes. The journey to Barrow requires a 25 mile detour around the Duddon Estuary, which is unbridged - unlike most of the estuaries in England.

Socially, most of the population north of Millom look to Whitehaven as their service centre and for healthcare. Millom and its environs traditionally look to Barrow as its service centre, because the public transport links are stronger in that direction.

For fair democracy, an Member of Parliament must be able to reasonably represent all of their constituents. The current proposals will seriously compromise the democratic rights of the population of the Bootle ward. They will be too far from the Constituency base to be reasonably Page 18 represented. It will require a significant journey for either the MP or their constituent to meet.

There is also the problem of considerable differences experienced in the day to day life of the very rural and remote communities of south Copeland and the urban experience of Barrow residents. Again the democratic rights of the rural residents will be comprised by the overwhelming needs (and therefore the MP's attention) more urban and suburban residents in and around Barrow.

The main employer of the population north of Millom is the nuclear site at Sellafield. The supplier of NHS GP care is based at Seascale. Many of the services provided by the local Authorities are provided from the Whitehaven/Workington area. All of which will make the job of representing this small population in these important areas difficult for an MP based well over an hours drive from the organisations concerned.

Therefore can the proposed boundary be changed to put the Bootle Ward into the Whitehaven/Workington constituency, please?

The numbers are small and will not make a significant difference to the electorate in either constituency, but the change will prevent a considerable injustice to the local population by putting them into a constituency which, historically, is aware of their presence.

Comment 21 Margaret Cumming of Kirksanton Member of Public

I support the boundary changes for the proposed Barrow and Furness area. Historically and geologically this area has close associations. The Lord Huddlestones of Millom Castle over saw the area from the Duddon Estuary to the river boundary south of Ravenglass. Later mining industries and ship building at Millom and Barrow in Furness and around the Duddon estuary and Dunnerdale linked the area much of which came under the land and mining rights ownership of Lord Cavendish. References for these can be found in Frank Warriners book of The History of Millom and extracts from The Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquerian and Archeaological Society Journals.

Use of transport links currently for the Millom area tend to be towards Barrow in Furness by road and rail and for access to the M6 rather than north towards Whitehaven. Economical, retail , further education and health services link across and around the Duddon estuary. This estuary itself being an internationally protected site, by encompassing it as a whole in an electoral area members of the public can get better representation on issues covering it rather than bordering it.

However my one major objection is the name of the constituency Barrow and Furness. This is firstly grammatically incorrect as Barrow town's name is Barrow in Furness. Secondly there is the Furness peninusular both of which historically up until 1970s were in Lancashire. The remaining part of the constituency probably nearing 2/3 of the area is NOT in Furness peninsular but is under Copeland and what was Cumberland and is mainly Lake District National Park of which a good part is Dunnerdale, the valley of the Duddon estuary up to Cockly Beck. Could the name of the constituency please reflect this. For example Barrow, Furness and Copeland; Barrow, Furness and Duddon; Barrow, Furness and Dunnerdale; Dunnerdale, Millom and Furness. Page 19

Otherwise the constituents of north of the Duddon estuary are going to be marginalised and ignored again as often has happened due to Millom and surrounding areas geographical isolation with reference to the existing relationship with Whitehaven under Copeland. Comment 22 Michael Cave of Keswick Member of Public support the proposed change Copeland to Penrith and Solway. The new boundary includes areas which have more in common with Keswick.

Comment 23 Mike Harrington of Ravenglass Member of Public

I note that you propose to include Ravenglass in the Barrow and Furness Constituency. Although we are on the Barrow main telephone exchange, most residents of Muncaster Parish have their main contacts for social, domestic, economic, shopping and political interests in the direction of Whitehaven rather than Barrow. I frequently visit Whitehaven but seldom visit Barrow. Our local GP surgery is in Seascale and, for consultant care, we look to the West Cumberland Hospital in Whitehaven. Our present MP for Copeland, Jamie Reed, has responded eagerly more than once to local issues on which we have sought his help. Although I do not support his party, I have great respect for him personally as a MP who is anxious to look after the interests of his constituents. There is no certainty that he will be chosen or elected as MP for the proposed Workington and Whitehaven Constituency but my feeling is that, in that constituency, residents of Ravenglass would gain a sympathetic ear more readily from our MP, whoever he or she is to be, than if we were to become part of the Barrow and Furness Constituency. As members of a constituency whose centre of gravity is much further south and less easy to reach by road or rail, we would be much further out on a limb.

I am Chairman of Muncaster Parish Council but I write this in a private capacity. Muncaster PC's formal opinion will follow. The Parish Council's main dealings are with Copeland BC, based in Whitehaven. It is also a member of various partnerships which again are focused on the area of Copeland Borough to the north of us rather than in the Barrow direction.

*I therefore suggest that the area of Muncaster Parish be included in the proposed Workington and Whitehaven Constituency.* This could be done in one of two ways:

1) Move the southern boundary of the Workington and Whitehaven Constituency to the River Esk, not the River Mite as you propose.

2) From your point of view, that would involve encroachment of the Workington and Whitehaven Constituency into part but not all of the Bootle Ward. You might consider taking the whole of the Bootle Ward into the Workington and Whitehaven Constituency but I cannot answer for the opinions of residents of other parts of the Bootle Ward. Some, in Millom or Silecroft, for instance, may feel that their interests are more akin to those of Barrow residents.

*On balance I consider that the first proposal would serve the interests of the residents of Muncaster Parish better.* From your point of view that would be less tidy administratively but, Page 20 on page 8 of your initial proposals, under Section 7: 'The rules in the legislation', you wrote that the Commission may take into account any local ties that would be broken by changes in constituencies.

I feel strongly that existing local ties, such as those I mentioned earlier, would be seriously weakened by your proposal. Please do not be misled by the fact that Ravenglass is served by the Barrow main telephone exchange. For our daily purposes that is irrelevant.

I therefore strongly urge you to include the Parish of Muncaster in the Workington and Whitehaven Constituency.

Comment 24 Jill Bush Mucaster Parish Council

I write on behalf of Muncaster Parish Council to place a formal objection to the boundary change of moving Ravenglass into the Barrow-in-Furness constituency.

We note from the boundary map Ravenglass sits within a very short distance to the south of the boundary change.

However, our social, domestic and political connections mostly lie north of the River Mite, so the Workington & Whitehaven Constituency would be more appropriate for us.

Much of our employment dependancies lie with Sellafield, both at the nuclear site and at Whitehaven.

Further, with all the proposed changes taking place at Sellafield and affecting our Parish we have, to date, been able to not only support the Parishes closer to Sellafield we have also been able add our voice to the same District Council and MP. With the greatest respect to the Barrow-in- Furness Brough Councils and MP we believe we are best placed to remain within the existing constutency boundaries.

Comment 25 Peter van Zeller of Ravenglass Member of Public

As a longstanding resident of Ravenglass and the Parish of Muncaster for the past 40+ years, I am deeply concerned about the prospective change in future parliamentary representation proposed by the Boundary Commission for this community.

Practically we will be disenfranchised because we would be transferred to the remotest fringes of a constituency centered on Barrow in Furness, with which we share few potential or historic issues and concerns.

Issues particularly important to this community include the nuclear sites at Drigg, Sellafield and potentially in the future Moorside, both for representation on local supervisory bodies, information, influence, employment etc.

Page 21 The outfall from the Drigg Waste Disposal site is into the combined estuary of the Rivers Esk, Mite and Irt, a SSSI and a potential flood zone. It is important that there is a direct and undivided link to Parliament to ultimately resolve issues for this area. Members can be reminded that radiologically suspect samples of mud from this estuary closed one of the capital's busiest streets just before Christmas 1983. The estuary is downwind and down stream from Sellafield, and just as your report supports that the MP representing the nuclear sites and the communities close, including Seascale, so it would be inconsistent to break that with regard to this community.

Our medical provisions are based on West Cumberland Hospital at Whitehaven, which we support against further loss of facilities and specialisations to Carlisle. It takes 25 minutes to reach West Cumberland Hospital and over an hour to reach Furness General at Barrow in Furness.

Our transport issues are also involved with local problems, including the inadequate roads which are the southern access and dispersal route from the Sellafield site along the A595, recently detrunked and highly vulnerable to snow in winter conditions. Our rail links are the only public transport services with Whitehaven 30 minutes away compared with over an hour to Barrow in Furness.

A Barrow based Member of Parliament would find these and other local issues periferal to the interests of an overwhelming number of his other constituents. I fear it would be difficult to raise proper attention to such matters in the context of matters relevant to the Furness region.

Over the past almost half century, I have found our various representatives for the Copeland constituency understanding and supportive whenever I wanted contact about supporting enhancements at a local school, transport matters, preventing immoderate afforestation in the Lakeland foothills and many other concerns raised with them on behalf of the wider public.

Historically the River Esk was the northern boundary of England at the Norman Conquest and Muncaster was part of Scotland for a further century. Ravenglass was the port for the Barony of Egremont. This sense of where it belongs both then and now results from the topology, the great mass of the mountain range of Black Combe. A local proverb from centuries back has that 'Nowt good comes round Black Combe'! These mountains indeed still create a modern enduring social divide, such that south beyond Bootle towards Millom, the natural direction for shopping, work and leisure etc is often southward towards Barrow.

The numbers of the electorate at issue if Ravenglass, Muncaster and Waberthwaite are included in the Whitehaven / Workington constituency will not affect the proportions of the adjoining new constituencies. As the proposed boundary changes are for the indefinite future, it is important that they truely represent the people of the district and their interests, and not as suggested in your consultation document

Comment 26 Roger Putnam of Irton Member of Public

Boundary changes - comments by Roger Putnam speaking as an individual local elector, formerly resident in Ravenglass.

1. I have reservations about the decision to reduce the number of parliamentary constituencies across the UK, and in England by 32 to 501. I do not consider the current number of MPs Page 22 excessive.

2. I think it right to seek to roughly equalise the electorate in each English constituency to give electors an approximately even level of representation at Westminster, whether based on 533 or 501 constituencies. This process of equalisation will necessarily require an adjustment to constituency boundaries in some areas.

3. On the basis that there will be a reduction of constituencies in England to 501, there is then clearly a case for reducing the number of constituencies in Cumbria from six to five.

4. This inevitably entails a substantial change to parliamentary constituency boundaries in Cumbria and the removal of at least one existing constituency.

5. I support the proposal to create a new constituency on the west coast of Cumbria, incorporating parts of the present Copeland and Workington constituencies, provisionally named 'Workington and Whitehaven.' I suggest that better alternative names would be 'West Cumbria'. or 'West Cumbria Coast'.

6. I consider that the suggested southern boundary of the proposed Workington and Whitehaven constituency has been set too far to the north, with the result that all electors living to the south of Muncaster Fell, including residents of the villages of Ravenglass and Waberthwaite, will fall within the Barrow and Furness constituency.

7. Historically, there have been much closer ties between the electors living in Bootle, Ravenglass and surrounding settlements with Whitehaven and the towns to the north than with Barrow and settlements in Furness to the south. Cultural and social ties between communities in and around Millom with Barrow and Furness have traditionally been much stronger.

8. Travel distances (miles) by road from Ravenglass to Whitehaven and Workington are 15 and 20 and from Ravenglass to Barrow-in-Furness 35. Bootle village lies six miles closer to Barrow.

9. My primary and preferred proposal is that the whole of the ward of Bootle (1,014 electors) should be included in the new Workington and Whitehaven constituency, which would still allow the constituency electorate to fall within the suggested upper limit of 78,507.

10. My alternative proposal is that the new constituency boundary should be redrawn some way to the south of the River Esk, thus allowing the west coast communities at Ravenglass, Muncaster, Broad Oak and Waberthwaite to fall within Workington and Whitehaven. This would result in the Copeland District Council ward of Bootle, currently wholly within Copeland parliamentary constituency, being divided between the two future constituencies of Barrow & Furness and Workington & Whitehaven.

Comment 27 Ryszard Petecki of Cockermouth Member of public

I agree with the proposed change as outlined.

Page 23

Comment 28 Sam Stead of Keswick Member of Public

I am fully supportive of the proposed boundary changes with regard to the way they affect Keswick. Currently Keswick is in the Copeland constituency, from which Keswick is geographically, culturally, politically and economically isolated. Quite simply Keswick has little in common with Workington/Whitehaven/Egremont/Millom. The economies and cultures are different. This results in our MP largely campaigning on issues that do not affect Keswick, such as Sellafield and West Cumberland Hospital.

The new boundary changes place Keswick with it's neighbours who we have much more in common with, so I am fully supportive of the proposal.

Comment 29 Sarah Rose of Whitehaven Member of Public I have no objection to the proposals for my area.

Comment 30 Steven Nicolson of Whitehaven Member of Public

These changes will make West Cumbria more isolated more than it already is and we need strong representation to ensure the voice of west cumbria is heard loud and clear in Westminister. We have significant developments that will bear fruit for the whole of the West Coast of Cumbria which will continue to serve the country in providing carbon free energy and a long term solution for the UKs nuclear waste stored at Sellafield. These changes would be catastrophic to this development. Keep Copeland and Allerdale as they are now.

Comment 31 Suzanne Faulkner of Bootle Station Member of Public

As a resident of a very rural community in West Cumbria, I would like to be in the Whitehaven/Workington constituency.

The vast majority of links from Bootle are northwards, better roads, healthcare, more rural communities. We have very little in common, both historically and currently, with the Barrow -in- Furness area, and I feel that an MP from there would be less able to represent our views.

Whichever constituency is decided upon we shall be at the very edge of it, but we look northwards for most of our services and I feel that there is more connection and understanding of our needs in that direction.

Page 24

Comment 32 Tony Grisedale of Harrington Member of Public

Can you tell me why you want to change an historical constituency and join it with another historical consultancy when Workington constituency is tied in with the towns to the north of Workington and towns to the East of Workington by leaving it as it is you would have the desired number of voters there is an old saying if it isn't broken don't fix it so please leave well alone and let us stay the way we are. In addition we have no local affiliation with Whitehaven on an electrol system so again I personally are not in favour of changing our constituency for some bureaucratic whim

Comment 33 Mrs McNamara of Keswick Full response at Appendix C

Comment 34 Bootle Parish Council Full response at Appendix D

Page 25 This page is intentionally left blank Page 27 This page is intentionally left blank Comments on

Boundary Commission Proposals for new Parliamentary Constituencies 2018 from Bootle Parish Council

We believe that the Bootle Ward would better placed in the Whitehaven and Workington Coastal Constituency.

Since the Ward only has 1014 electors this would not breach the rules of overall constituency size making Whitehaven 78253 electors and Barrow 74264.

The current district council (Copeland) is based in Whitehaven and the employment opportunities are focussed northwards for many of the constituents. We recognise that in fact the largest employment is local agriculture and there are other centres in Millom, Barrow in Furness and Ulverston. Development of Employment opportunities is likely to be north focussed with Nugen and other County Plans. Transport links are marginally better to the North, rail journey times to Whitehaven from Bootle are around 35 minutes, to Barrow around 40mins, Road (private car) is similar and there are no buses from Bootle. From Ravenglass in the north of the ward there a definite north skew, rail being about 28 min north and 47min south and even more distorted for road links. There are no commercial bus services, a charity bus can be booked. It most regularly travels north to Shopping or Hospital visits.

For NHS provision, GP surgery in Bootle is a satellite of Seascale, the local hospital is West Cumberland Hospital in Whitehaven and most of the sevice links are to Carlisle not Barrow.

For major shopping locations, Barrow maybe considered preferable to Whitehaven but Workington preferable to Barrow. Local shopping is provided in the village at Bootle and from the north of the Ward Whitehaven or Seascale / Gosforth would be preferred.

An anomaly is present with the current boundary at the south of the Ward as the community of Annaside is built on both sides of the river, while the only road access to it is from Bootle village.

As part of the boundary relocation, we believe this anomaly should be removed by bringing the whole community into the Bootle ward making it co terminus with the Bootle Parish Council Boundary. This would add no more than a dozen electors to the Bootle Ward.

Compiled

E D Faulkner

Chair

Bootle Parish Council

Page 29 This page is intentionally left blank