Final Recommendations - East Midlands Region
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Final recommendations - East Midlands region Contents 1. Initial/revised proposals overview p1 6. Sub-region 1: Lincolnshire p10, recommendations p11 2. Number of representations received p3 7. Sub-region 2: Derbyshire p12, recommendations p14 3. Campaigns p4 8. Sub-region 3: Nottingham and Nottinghamshire p15, recommendations p17 Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland p18, recommendations p19 Northamptonshire p20, recommendations, p21 4. Major issues p5 Appendix A 5. Final recommendations p6 Initial/revised proposals overview 1. The East Midlands region was allocated 44 constituencies under the initial and revised proposals, a reduction of two from the existing allocation. In formulating the initial and revised proposals the Commission decided to construct constituencies using the following sub-regions: Table 1A - Constituency allocation Sub-region Existing allocation Allocation under initial Allocation under revised proposals proposals Lincolnshire 7 7 7 Derbyshire and Derby 11 10 10 Leicestershire, Leicester, 28 27 27 Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire, Nottingham and Rutland 2. Under the initial proposals, seven of the existing 46 constituencies were completely unchanged. The revised proposals retained eight of the existing 46 constituencies unchanged - an increase of one. Under both sets of proposals it was proposed to have two constituencies that crossed county boundaries - one between Nottinghamshire and Leicestershire, and another between Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire. In Lincolnshire, and Derbyshire and Derby, it was possible to allocate a whole number of constituencies to each county. 1 3. In response to the consultation on the initial proposals and secondary consultation the Commission received over 1,600 representations regarding the East Midlands region. These representations commented on most parts of the region, with the main issues being: ● opposition to the exclusion of the Bozeat, Finedon, and Harrowden & Sywell wards from the proposed Wellingborough constituency ● opposition to the division of the town of Dronfield between constituencies, and the creation of the two new constituencies of Alfreton and Clay Cross, and Bolsover and Dronfield. ● opposition to the inclusion of the Nottingham City ward of Bilborough in the proposed Broxtowe and Hucknall constituency. Respondents argued that this ward should be included in a constituency based primarily in the City of Nottingham. ● opposition to the two cross-county constituencies of Daventry and Lutterworth, and Loughborough and Rushcliffe South 4. In considering the evidence, the Commission altered 43% of constituencies in the East Midlands region - one of these constituencies was only subject to a change of name. 2 Number of representations received 5. In the East Midlands region, the Commission received a total of 421 representations during consultation on the revised proposals, bringing the total number of representations for this region to 2,048. This number included all those who gave evidence at the public hearings. There were also a number of duplicate representations within this total, as well as representations that made general comments that did not have any bearing on the substance of the initial and revised proposals. Table 1B - Representations received Type of respondents Consultation on revised proposals Total number of representations Member of Parliament 6 53 Official political party 5 23 response Peer from House of Lords 0 0 Local councillor 14 147 Local authority 10 31 Parish or town council 12 67 Other organisation 2 37 3 Member of the public 372 1,690 Total 421 2,048 6. While many of the representations can be categorised as opposing the Commission’s revised proposals, there has been a degree of support for certain constituencies across the whole region. These include, but are not limited to all seven constituencies in Lincolnshire, Bassetlaw, Leicester East, Leicester South, Leicester West and Rutland and Melton. Campaigns 7. In the East Midlands, one organised letter writing campaign was received during the consultation on the revised proposals, the details of which are as follows:- Table 1C - Campaigns Campaign ID Number Support/ oppose initial Strength (no. of proposals signatories) Dale Abbey Village campaign BCE-51412 Oppose 147 8. During the previous consultations the Commission received six campaigns in relation to the East Midlands region. None of these campaigns were put forward again during the consultation on revised proposals. 4 Major issues 9. Major issues that drew objection were as follows:- Lincolnshire ● the inclusion of the Kirkby la Thorpe and South Kyme, and Heckington Rural wards in the proposed Boston and Skegness constituencies ● the inclusion of the town of North Hykeham in the proposed Lincoln constituency Derbyshire and Derby ● the inclusion of the village of Dale Abbey in the proposed Amber Valley constituency ● the inclusion of the town of Belper in the proposed Derbyshire Dales constituency Nottinghamshire and Nottingham ● the inclusion of the Nottingham City wards of Clifton North and Clifton South in the proposed Rushcliffe constituency ● the division of Chilwell between the proposed Nottingham South and Beeston, and Broxtowe and Hucknall constituencies ● the proposal of the cross-county constituency of Loughborough and South Rushcliffe 5 Leicestershire and Leicester and Rutland ● the proposal of the cross-county constituency of Loughborough and South Rushcliffe ● the proposal of the cross-county constituency of Daventry and Lutterworth Northamptonshire ● the inclusion of the (currently divided) Harrowden and Sywell ward, and the Earls Barton ward in the proposed Daventry and Lutterworth constituency ● the exclusion of the Finedon ward from the proposed Wellingborough constituency ● the proposal of the cross-county constituency of Daventry and Lutterworth 6 Final recommendations 10. In light the of the representations and evidence received we have considered whether the revised proposals should be changed. Table 2 - Sub-regions used Initial proposals Revised proposals Final recommendations Lincolnshire Lincolnshire Lincolnshire Derbyshire and Derby Derbyshire and Derby Derbyshire and Derby Leicestershire, Leicester, Leicestershire, Leicester, Leicestershire, Leicester, Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire, Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire, Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire, Nottingham, and Rutland Nottingham, and Rutland Nottingham, and Rutland 11. The final recommendations have been formulated on the same sub-regions used as the initial and revised proposals. No counter-proposals that suggested alternative sub-regions were received during consultation on the revised proposals. At the revised proposals stage, some counter-proposals were received that suggested crossing the regional boundary between Yorkshire and the Humber and the East Midlands, to reconfigure constituencies in Grimsby, and also between the South East and the East Midlands, to reconfigure constituencies in Milton Keynes. We did not recommend any of 7 these proposals as we considered that doing so would not produce a better pattern of constituencies it the East Midlands. Table 3 - Headline numbers for schemes Schemes Constituencies - ward changes Local authorities in Constituencies constituency crossing a county boundary Number Number One-ward Two-to-five Six-ward One Two Three Two Three wholly changed by change ward and more or unchanged rewarding change change more only Initial proposals 7 3 3 11 20 12 22 10 2 0 Revised proposals 8 3 5 10 18 15 23 6 2 0 Final 8 3 5 10 18 15 23 6 2 0 recommendations 12. Under the final recommendations eight of the existing constituencies are unchanged. As in the initial and revised proposals two constituencies are proposed to cross county boundaries. These constituencies are unchanged from the initial and revised proposals. 8 More detailed breakdown of numbers for schemes Table 4 - Final recommendations County Constituencies - ward changes Local authorities Constituencies in constituencies crossing a county boundary Number Number One-ward Two-to-five Six-ward One Two Three Two Three wholly changed by change ward or more or unchanged rewarding change change more only Lincolnshire 2 2 0 1 2 2 4 1 0 0 Derbyshire and 1 0 2 2 5 5 3 2 0 0 Derby Nottinghamshire 2 1 1 1 5 3 6 1 0 0 Leicestershire 3 0 1 3 3 4 5 1 1* 0 with Rutland 9 Northamptonshire 0 0 1 3 3 1 5 1 1** 0 Total 8 3 5 10 18 15 23 6 2 0 *Loughborough and Rushcliffe South is counted as a Leicestershire constituency ** Daventry and Lutterworth is counted as a Northamptonshire constituency Overview 13. In our initial and revised proposals, we divided the East Midlands region into three sub-regions: Lincolnshire; Derbyshire and Derby; and Leicestershire, Leicester, Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire, Nottingham, and Rutland. In general, support was received for the creation of these sub-regions throughout all consultation periods. In previous stages of the consultation, one respondent suggested that Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire be grouped into one sub-region, and that Northamptonshire and Rutland be grouped in another. We rejected this argument as we did not consider that this enabled a better pattern of constituencies in the East Midlands and subsequently received no further counter-proposals that suggested an alternative sub-regional arrangement. Therefore, we recommend no changes to the sub-regions as part of the final recommendations. Sub-region 1 - Lincolnshire 14. Of the seven existing constituencies in Lincolnshire,