Governance Committee Agenda Item No. 4

28th November 2011

Electoral Review Panel Recommendations on Parliamentary Boundary Review

Report by Head of Legal and Democratic Services

Executive Summary

The Boundary Commission for England is consulting on amendments to Parliamentary boundaries across England and several changes are proposed for West . The Electoral Review Panel has considered the proposals, which go further than strictly necessary to ensure that all constituencies are within 5% of the published electoral quota and has concluded that the County Council should support the minimal change necessary, to three district wards, rather than the six proposed in the consultation.

Recommendation

That the draft response to the Boundary Commission for England’s consultation on Parliamentary boundary changes be approved, as attached at the Appendix.

1. Introduction

1.1 The Boundary Commission for England published its proposed changes on 13th September 2011. The 12-week consultation period closes on 5th December 2011. The number of constituencies in remains unchanged at eight, but a number of changes are proposed to boundaries.

1.2 The Parliamentary Voting and Constituencies Act 2011 introduced rules about the size of constituencies and the overall number of Parliamentary seats. There will be a reduction of 50 MPs across the UK, of which England will lose 31 MPs.

1.3 Constituencies must now be no smaller than 72,810 and no larger than 80,743, so within 5% of the average electoral quota of 76,641. This is a new requirement, as previously quotas were aspirations that did not have to be adhered to. The electoral figures to be used are the 2011 figures, so projections of future growth cannot be taken into consideration. Although the South East will only lose one seat overall, there are significant changes proposed in other parts of the South East, including Hampshire and /Kent. The ward data used by the Commission is at district ward level.

2. West Sussex proposals

2.1 Most of the eight West Sussex constituencies will need some amendment to ensure that the requirements of constituency sizes are met. The only constituencies with no proposed changes are Worthing West and East Worthing and Shoreham (although the latter’s name will change to Worthing East and Shoreham as part of improving national consistency).

2.2 The current Chichester constituency is too large and it is proposed that the wards of Easebourne and Plaistow be moved to Arundel and constituency.

2.3 The current Bognor Regis and Littlehampton constituency is too small and it is proposed that the wards of Barnham and Walberton be moved from Arundel and South Downs to Bognor Regis and Littlehampton.

2.4 The current Crawley constituency is too small and it is proposed that the ward of Worth and Copthorne be moved from Horsham constituency to Crawley constituency. Crawley Down is not proposed for transfer to Worth and Copthorne, although it is part of the parish of Worth, as Horsham constituency would become too small.

2.5 Mid Sussex constituency does not need to be amended, but the Commission proposes moving Bolney ward into Arundel and South Downs.

2.6 The Electoral Review Panel met on 28th September 2011 to consider the proposals.

3. Conclusions of the Electoral Review Panel

3.1. When discussing the proposal to move both Easebourne and Plaistow wards from Chichester constituency to Arundel and South Downs Constituency, the Panel accepted that Plaistow ward had to be moved to ensure that Chichester constituency complied with the 5% rule. Easebourne, however, was not necessary to move. It was considered that Easebourne was naturally aligned to Midhurst and therefore to Chichester constituency. Keeping Easebourne in the Chichester constituency would not significantly impact on the overall shape of either constituency.

3.2 The Panel considered the proposal to move Bolney ward from Mid Sussex constituency to Arundel and South Downs constituency. It was noted that this was not a necessary change, but was proposed by the Boundary Commission to improve the shape of the constituencies. It was agreed that, although this was a valid argument, Bolney was part of Mid Sussex District and was much more closely aligned to Mid Sussex constituency rather than Arundel and South Downs, so Bolney should not be moved.

3.3 The Panel considered the proposal to move Barnham and Walberton wards from Arundel and South Downs constituency to Bognor Regis and Littlehampton constituency. Having agreed that Easebourne and Bolney should remain in their current constituencies, the Panel noted that Walberton had to be retained by Arundel and South Downs constituency to remain compliant with the 5% rule. Barnham seemed the most appropriate ward to move into Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, as it made that constituency large enough and was naturally aligned to Arun District.

3.4 The Panel discussed the proposed to move Copthorne and Worth ward from Horsham constituency to Crawley Constituency. It was acknowledged that this was controversial as it split Worth parish, although it was noted that the district ward already did this. Copthorne and Worth would make Crawley constituency large enough, but moving Crawley Down and Turners Hill as well would make Horsham constituency too small. Consideration was given to alternative solutions. This included considering moving Rusper and Colgate from Horsham constituency instead, but the Panel believed that this was less appropriate and was currently more naturally aligned with Horsham constituency and District.

3.5 Following consideration, it was agreed that more radical options for moving other wards would be unlikely to be acceptable in numerical terms nor particularly desirable for local communities. The Panel was strongly of the view that West Sussex constituencies should not be amended to cross over county boundaries, so options such as aligning Horley with Crawley should not be considered or supported.

3.6 The Panel considered and supported the proposed name change of East Worthing and Shoreham to Worthing East and Shoreham as part of a national drive for consistency.

3.7 A draft response for the Governance Committee’s consideration is attached at the Appendix.

4. Consultation.

4.1 Consultation with other stakeholders has not been carried out as the Boundary Commission for England is running the consultation. The Panel’s report has been sent to all members of the County Council. The only alternative proposal was received from Mr Deedman, as outlined below:

‘Sussex should have been treated as one sub-region to avoid the many strange constituencies proposed for East Sussex. Sussex is an historic area and many organisations cover the whole of Sussex, e.g. Authority (Police and Crime Commissioner), a proposed Sussex Fire Authority, Shadow Sussex Police & Crime Panel, Sussex Partnership NHS Trust, Sussex British Legion, Action in Rural Sussex, Sussex County Cricket Club - the list goes on. And do not forget the of Sussex and of course, introduced by a former Leader, . A Sussex sub-region would allow Hove Constituency to expand into Adur where it represents a continuation of the built-up urban conurbation which would only need to be offset by a small expansion of Arundel & South Downs into an area of Lewes District which already relates to the Hassocks area.’

4.2 As outlined in paragraph 3.5, the Panel was strongly of the view that all West Sussex constituencies should be contained wholly within West Sussex.

5. Equality - Customer Focus Appraisal

A Customer Focus Appraisal is not required for this decision as it is a response to a consultation by an external organisation.

6. Resource Implications and Value for Money

No implications.

7. Risk Management Implications

No implications.

8. Crime and Disorder Act Implications

No implications.

9. Human Rights Act Implications

No implications.

Tony Kershaw Head of Legal and Democratic Services

Contact: Charles Gauntlett (01243 752701)

Background Papers

Report and notes of Electoral Review Panel meeting held on 28th September 2011.

Appendix

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to set out West Sussex County Council’s formal response to the current consultation on Parliamentary boundaries. The County Council welcomes the opportunity to comment on the proposals and appreciates that the Commission is having to work to stricter criteria in electorate numbers than before. It welcomes the retention of eight MPs for West Sussex and that there are no proposals for crossing boundaries with neighbouring local authorities.

The consultation document sets out proposed changes to six district divisions within West Sussex. The County Council recognises that at least three of these are necessary to ensure that Arundel and South Downs, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and Chichester constituencies comply with the electoral quota. It supports the Commission’s proposals to:

• move Plaistow division from Chichester constituency to Arundel and South Downs constituency • move Barnham division from Arundel and South Downs constituency to Bognor Regis and Littlehampton constituency. • move Copthorne and Worth division from Horsham constituency to Crawley constituency.

The County Council does not consider that the other three proposed changes are either necessary or are desirable to local electorates. Namely:

• Easebourne division in Chichester constituency should remain unchanged. Easebourne is strongly aligned to Midhurst, which will remain in Chichester constituency and Easebourne should therefore remain in Chichester also. Retaining Easebourne in Chichester constituency will not breach the electoral quota rules and will not adversely affect the shape of either constituency. • Bolney division in Mid Sussex constituency should remain unchanged. Bolney is part of Mid Sussex district and is naturally considered part of Mid Sussex constituency. Its electorate would consider themselves to be part of Mid Sussex. It is not necessary to move Bolney to comply with the electoral quota, although it is accepted that the shape would be neater if the division were moved. • Given the two arguments above, it would be necessary to retain Walberton division in Arundel and South Downs constituency to ensure that it complies with the electoral quota.

The County Council accepts that, although the moving of Copthorne and Worth division will split Worth Parish, this already occurs at District-level and is necessary to achieve compliance with the electoral quota.

The County Council does not believe that any better solutions can be reached through a more radical reorganisation of constituencies.

Finally, the proposed name change of East Worthing and Shoreham to Worthing East and Shoreham as part of a national drive for consistency is supported.

Yours faithfully,

Mike Coleman Chairman of the Council