Final recommendations - North West region Contents 1. Initial/revised proposals overview p1 6. Sub-region 1: Cumbria p11, recommendations p12 2. Number of representations received p3 7. Sub-region 2: Lancashire p13, recommendations p18 3. Campaigns p5 8. Sub-region 3: Merseyside p20, recommendations p21 4. Major issues p6 9. Sub-region 4: Greater Manchester, the Wirral and Cheshire Greater Manchester p21, recommendations p27 the Wirral p30, recommendations p31 Cheshire p31, recommendations p33 5. Final recommendations p8 Appendix A Initial/revised proposals overview 1. The North West region was allocated 68 constituencies under the initial and revised proposals, a reduction of seven 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 Cumbria 6 5 5 Lancashire 16 14 14 Merseyside (less the 11 10 10 Wirral) Greater Manchester, the 42 39 39 Wirral and Cheshire 2. Under the initial proposals 14 of the existing 75 constituencies were unchanged. The revised proposals retained 13 of the existing constituencies unchanged, (a reduction of one). The theoretical entitlement of 25.37 constituencies in Greater Manchester and 10.34 constituencies in Cheshire meant that both counties had to contain constituencies that crossed their respective county boundaries. Under both sets of proposals it was proposed to have two constituencies ​ that crossed county boundaries. We decided not to propose constituencies that crossed the Greater Manchester ​ boundary in the north with Lancashire. The reasons for this are that there was no requirement for Lancashire to have a 1 constituency that crosses the county boundary with Greater Manchester and, even if this crossing had been proposed it still would be necessary to construct a cross-county constituency between Cheshire and Greater Manchester in the south. 3. We also proposed a minor cross-county constituency between Lancashire and Merseyside in the Southport constituency. This was done primarily to avoid dividing the town of Formby, and to allow more of the town of Crosby (which is currently divided) to be contained in a single constituency - our proposed Sefton Central constituency. In Cumbria and Merseyside (less the Wirral) it was possible to allocate whole number of constituencies. 4. In response to the consultation on the initial proposals and secondary consultation the Commission received over 3,000 representations regarding the North West region. These representations commented on most parts of the region, with the main issues being: ● opposition to the proposed Lancaster and Morecambe and North Lancashire constituencies. Many rejected our arrangement and instead prefered the Conservative party counter-proposals for the North Lancashire region. ● the proposed dissolution of the current Pendle and Ribble Valley constituencies, and the arrangement of the constituencies in the surrounding area. A large letter writing campaign was received from residents of Reedley ward requesting that the Commission return to the configuration they adopted at the 2013 review, where Pendle was kept together and the two neighbouring wards of Briercliffe, and Cliviger and Worsthorne were added to the constituency. ● the inclusion of wards that comprise the town of Lytham St Annes in the initially proposed Blackpool South constituency, rather than the Fylde constituency; residents of the town expressed concerns that they would be marginalised in the new seat, and had no common ground with residents of Blackpool. 2 ● the degree of change made to constituencies on the eastern side of the Greater Manchester area. There were particular objections to the division of Rochdale and Oldham boroughs; and also opposition to the initially proposed Failsworth and Droylsden constituencies. ● the division of the town of Radcliffe between the initially proposed Bury and Farnworth constituencies. ● the two cross-county constituencies of Altrincham and Tatton Park, and Bramhall and Poynton. ● the names and composition of constituencies in the Wirral. 5. In forming their revised proposals for the North West, the Commission altered 27 (40%) of the initially proposed constituencies. Two of these constituencies were only subject to a change of name. Number of representations received 6. In the North West region, the Commission received a total of 986 representations during consultation on the revised proposals, bringing the total number of representations for this region to 4,039. This number includes 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 or revised proposals. 3 Table 1B - Representations received Type of respondents Consultation on revised proposals Total number of representations Member of Parliament 9 88 Official political party 3 30 response Peer from House of Lords 0 3 Local councillor 42 243 Local authority 14 55 Parish or town council 17 69 Other organisation 15 68 Member of the public 886 3,483 Total 986 4,039 7. While many of the representations can be categorised as opposing the Commission’s revised proposals, there has been a large degree of support for certain constituencies across the whole region. These include: all the constituencies in Merseyside and Cumbria, many constituencies in Greater Manchester, the City of Chester, Preston, South Ribble, and Stockport North and Denton. 4 Campaigns 8. As expected, throughout the region, representations from a number of organised campaigns were received. In the North West, these were as follows:- Campaign ID Number Support/ oppose revised proposals Strength (no. of signatories) Keep Morecambe and Lunesdale BCE-51975 Mostly Oppose 891 together in one Parliamentary seat Add Chaderton to the name of the BCE-51948 Oppose name 136 proposed Oldham constituency 9. During the previous consultations the Commission received 14 campaigns in relation to the North West region. The Commission received a similar set of letter writing campaigns (BCE-33223, BCE-33225, BCE-33227, BCE-41163, BCE-41164, and BCE-41165) regarding the Morecambe and Lunesdale constituency during the previous two consultations. At that time it received over 6,000 comments in relation to that campaign, with the vast majority of respondents opposing our proposals. 5 Major issues 10. Major issues that drew objection were as follows: Cumbria ● in Cumbria, there were no issues that could reasonably be categorised as ‘major’; all of the proposed constituencies continue to be broadly supported. Lancashire ● there continues to be strong opposition to the proposed Lancaster and Morecambe constituency. ● a number of representations continue to raise concerns over the large geographical size and lack of unity within the proposed North Lancashire constituency. ● there is still significant opposition to the Pendle and Ribble Valley constituency, with suggestions for a reconfiguration to create a constituency centered on the existing Ribble Valley constituency, and for the existing Pendle constituency to remain intact. Merseyside (less the Wirral, including three West Lancs wards) ● opposition to the inclusion of three West Lancashire borough wards in the proposed Southport constituency. The inclusion of the three West Lancashire Borough wards of Hesketh-with-Becconsall, North Meols, and Tarleton has been opposed to a greater degree than in previous consultation rounds. Those opposed to this constituency focused on the difference in nature between these three wards and the rest of the proposed constituency ● opposition to the dissolution of the existing Liverpool, Walton constituency 6 Greater Manchester, the Wirral, and Cheshire (Cheshire West and Chester, and Cheshire East) ● opposition to the proposed cross-county Altrincham and Knutsford constituency ● the division of the Heatons Wards between the constituencies of Stockport North and Denton and Stockport South and Cheadle ● the inclusion of the Ashton upon Mersey ward in the Stretford and Urmston constituency ● opposition to the configuration, and naming of constituencies in the Oldham Borough local authority area ● opposition to the naming of the Bebington and Heswall constituency ● opposition to the inclusion of the Audlem ward in the Crewe and Nantwich constituency 7 Final recommendations 11. 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 Cumbria Cumbria Cumbria Lancashire Lancashire Lancashire Merseyside (less the Wirral) Merseyside (less the Wirral) Merseyside (less the Wirral) Greater Manchester, the Wirral, and Greater Manchester, the Wirral, and Greater Manchester, the Wirral, and Cheshire (Cheshire West and Chester, Cheshire (Cheshire West and Cheshire (Cheshire West and Chester, and Cheshire East) Chester, and Cheshire East) and Cheshire East) 12. 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. 8 Table 3 - Headline numbers for schemes Schemes Constituencies - ward changes Local authorities