Final Recommendations - Yorkshire and the Humber
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Final recommendations - Yorkshire and the Humber Contents 1. Initial/revised proposals overview p1 6. Sub-region 1: Humberside p11, recommendations p12 2. Number of representations received p3 7. Sub-region 2: North Yorkshire p13, recommendations p15 3. Campaigns p5 8. Sub-region 3: South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire p16, West Yorkshire p17, recommendations p21 South Yorkshire p23, recommendations p27 4. Major issues p6 Appendix A 5. Final recommendations p7 Initial/revised proposals overview 1. Yorkshire and the Humber was allocated 50 constituencies under the initial and revised proposals, a reduction of four from the existing allocation. In our initial proposals we proposed two sub-regions. Humberside formed a sub-region and the combined area of North Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, and West Yorkshire formed another sub-region. In the revised proposals, we proposed that Humberside and North Yorkshire form two separate sub-regions, with the combined area of South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire forming a third sub-region. In formulating the initial and revised proposals the Commission therefore 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 Humberside 10 9 9 North Yorkshire, South 44 41 n/a Yorkshire, West Yorkshire North Yorkshire 8 n/a 8 South Yorkshire, West 36 n/a 33 Yorkshire 1 2. Under the initial proposals three of the existing 54 constituencies were completely unchanged. The revised proposals retained eight of the existing constituencies unchanged. Under the initial proposals it was proposed to have four constituencies that crossed county boundaries - two between North Yorkshire and West Yorkshire, and two between South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire. In the revised proposals it was proposed to have two constituencies that crossed county boundaries - both between South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire. In Humberside it was possible to allocate a whole number of constituencies to the county. In North Yorkshire, as we treated the county as a separate sub-region in the revised proposals, it was also possible to allocate a whole number of constituencies to the county. 3. In response to the consultation on the initial proposals and secondary consultation the Commission received almost 2,000 representations regarding Yorkshire and the Humber. These representations commented on most parts of the region, with the main issues being: ● The proposed constituencies of Grimsby North and Barton, and Grimsby South and Cleethorpes. Grimsby respondents objected to these constituencies and the perceived division of the town of Grimsby. ● The proposed constituencies covering Kingston upon Hull. A number of alternative counter-proposals for the three Kingston upon Hill constituencies were submitted. ● The proposed Richmond (Yorks) and Thirsk and Malton constituencies. There was strong objection to the inclusion of the Great Ayton ward in the Thirsk and Malton constituency. ● The proposed Selby and Ainsty constituency. Respondents objected to the inclusion of the two District of Selby wards of Byram & Brotherton, and Whitley in two cross-county boundary constituencies, but in particular, the consequential inclusion of the two Borough of Harrogate wards of Boroughbridge and Claro in Selby and Ainsty. ● The proposed constituencies in the City of Sheffield, the consequent effects in the county of not splitting wards in the City, and in particular, the exclusion of the Mosborough and Beighton wards from a Sheffield constituency. 2 ● The division of the Borough of Barnsley acoss six constituencies ● The proposed constituencies in the Borough of Doncaster ● The proposed cross-county boundary constituency of Colne Valley and, in particular, the inclusion of the Borough of Barnsley ward of Penistone West in the constituency. ● The proposed ‘loss’ of the Bradford South constituency and the allocation of wards to surrounding constituencies, particularly the Wibsey, Wyke, Royds and Tong wards. ● To the proposed constituencies in the Borough of Calderdale: Halifax and Calder Valley. 4. In considering the evidence received, the Commission altered 68% of the constituencies in Yorkshire and the Humber; three of these constituencies were subject only to a change of name. Number of representations received 5. In Yorkshire and the Humber, the Commission received a total of 1,076 representations during consultation on the revised proposals, bringing the total number of representations for this region to 3,059. 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 proposals. 3 Table 1B - Representations received Type of respondents Consultation on revised proposals Total number of representations Member of Parliament 7 47 Official political party 8 27 response Peer from House of Lords 1 1 Local councillor 22 226 Local authority 6 17 Parish or town council 13 44 Other organisation 12 104 Member of the public 1,007 2,593 Total 1,076 3,059 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, the constituencies of Bradford South, Harrogate and Knaresborough, Richmond (Yorks), Lower Calder, Upper Calder, and various constituencies in Leeds and Sheffield. 4 Campaigns 7. As expected, throughout the region, representations from a number of organised campaigns were received. In Yorkshire and the Humber, these were as follows:- Table 1C - Campaigns Campaign ID Number Support/ oppose initial Strength (no. of proposals signatories) Boundary Proposals for Calderdale BCE-44904 Support 7 Boundary Proposals for Brighouse BCE-44301 Support 13 and Calderdale Boundary Proposals for the Halifax BCE-44912 Support 5 and Calderdale areas Boundary Proposals for the BCE-44913 Support 6 Sowerby Bridge and Ryburn areas Boundary Changes in South BCE-44914 Support 4 Bradford and Calderdale Mostly Support for revised BCE-49034 Mostly Support 15 proposals - Bradford 5 Oppose Bingley Rural in Bradford BCE-51945 Oppose 10 North Oppose Derringham ward in BCE-51947 Oppose 15 Kingston upon Hull North Great Grimsby constituency BCE-51951 Oppose 99 online, 33 signed 8. During the previous consultations the Commission received five campaigns in relation to Yorkshire and the Humber. None of these campaigns were put forward again during the consultation on the revised proposals, although the Great Grimsby Constituency campaign (BCE-51951) is similar to the Great Grimsby 2Gether campaign (BCE-33230). Major issues 9. Major issues that drew objection were as follows:- Humberside ● The continued division of the town of Grimsby with further requests for the splitting of the Croft Baker ward ● The inclusion of the Derringham ward in the Kingston upon Hull North constituency. 6 North Yorkshire ● The continued inclusion of the Filey ward in the Thirsk and Malton constituency rather than in the Scarborough and Whitby constituency, as in the initial proposals. South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire ● The inclusion of the Dearne South and Dearne North wards in different constituencies and, in particular, the inclusion of Dearne South in Doncaster North ● The division of the Metropolitan Borough of Barnsley between constituencies ● The inclusion of the Penistone West ward in the cross-county constituency of Colne Valley ● The inclusion of the Hemsworth ward in the cross-county constituency constituency of Barnsley East and Hemsworth ● The inclusion of the Bingley Rural ward in the Bradford North constituency, instead of the Shipley constituency ● The inclusion of the Guiseley and Rawdon ward in the Shipley constituency, rather than in a Leeds-based constituency Final recommendations 10. In light the of the representations and evidence received we have considered whether the revised proposals should be changed. 7 Table 2 - Sub-regions used Initial proposals Revised proposals Final recommendations Humberside Humberside Humberside North Yorkshire, West Yorkshire North Yorkshire North Yorkshire and South Yorkshire South Yorkshire and West South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire Yorkshire 11. The final recommendations have been formulated on the same sub-regions used as the revised proposals. North Yorkshire was treated as a sub-region on its own in the revised proposals, whereas it had been included in a sub-region with South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire in the initial proposals. No counter-proposals were received during the consultation on the revised proposals which suggested alternative sub-regions, although a very small number of representations suggested crossing the regional boundary with the East Midlands region in order to create a different pattern of constituencies in the Cleethorpes and Grimsby area. 8 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 3 3 10 20 14 28 21 1 4 0 Revised proposals 8 4 10 20 8 32 18 0 2 0 Final 8 4 10 20 8 32 18 0 2 0 recommendations 12. Under the final recommendations eight of the existing