Herefordshire Conservatives Members of Parliament: Jesse Norman & Bill Wiggin Grove Mill, Wormelow, Herefordshire, HR2 8EG Tel: 01981 541 085 Email: [email protected] Mr A Lawrence Review Officer (Herefordshire) Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76‐86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG 27th August 2012 Dear Mr Lawrence Electoral Review of Herefordshire This is a joint submission on behalf of Hereford & South Herefordshire Conservative Association and North Hereford Conservative Association in response to your letter dated 20th June addressed to the Chief Executive of Herefordshire Council. The Associations are pleased to note that, at its meeting on 20 July 2012, Herefordshire Council endorsed our view that the Council should consist of 54 single member wards and that the Commission is minded to recommend a Council of that size. Single Member wards As previously noted above and in the submission of Hereford & South Herefordshire Conservative Association received by your office on 4th May 2012, it is our strongly held view that single member wards throughout the County are preferable to the current mix of wards returning one, two or three members. Our detailed rationale is set out in the attached Proposals to Local Government Boundary Commission for England: To reduce number of Councillors from 58 to 54 and introduce single member wards for the County of Herefordshire. Annexed to this document are schedules and ward/parish map of Herefordshire showing our joint proposals for the composition of 54 single member wards together with details of the projected electorates in 2018. Herefordshire Conservatives Members of Parliament: Jesse Norman & Bill Wiggin Grove Mill, Wormelow, Herefordshire, HR2 8EG Tel: 01981 541 085 Email: [email protected] We do not believe that there are exceptional factors within the City or Market Towns that make the creation of viable single‐member wards undesirable and, as our schedules show, we have developed a scheme of 54 single member wards that fall within the range plus 13.14 to minus 11.22% of the electoral quota whilst also meeting all of the principles and requirements set out in the Commission’s document, “Electoral reviews – Technical Guidance, July 2012”. In summary, the detailed submission documents attached reflect the identities and interests of local communities; achieve an equality of representation in terms of the number of electors returning each Councillor; provide for effective local government in the County of Herefordshire based on 54 single member wards; preserve existing wards whenever possible and, where that is not possible, involve the minimum charge consistent with achieving a Council of 54 members; unify the component parishes of each Grouped Parish Council within a single ward; respect geographical features that impede communications between communities. On behalf of both Associations, we commend these proposals to the Commission. Yours sincerely Robert Jenrick David Sheppard Chairman Chairman North Herefordshire Hereford & South Herefordshire Conservative Association Conservative Association Attached. 1. PROPOSAL for 54 Single Member wards 2. Summary Data set 3. Detail ward by ward data 4. LGBCE Data 5. Map of Herefordshire showing parishes and proposed wards 6. Map showing proposed variations to NE Quadrant Hereford City 7. Hard copy by post Maps of Hereford City & Market towns with ward proposals prepared by Herefordshire Council Proposals to Local Government Boundary Commission for England To reduce number of Councillors from 58 to 54 and introduce single member wards for the County of Herefordshire Submitted jointly by North Herefordshire Conservative Association and Hereford & South Herefordshire Conservative Association 1 OUR PROPOSAL A Reduction in number of Councillors Early this year we endorsed the position adopted by Herefordshire Council to reduce the number of Councillors from 58 to 54. B The case for Single Member Wards As previously noted and in the submission of Hereford & South Herefordshire Conservative Association received by your office on 4th May 2012, and the parallel submission of North Herefordshire Conservative Association it is our strongly held joint view that single member wards throughout the County are preferable to the current mix of wards returning one, two or three members. Our view is based on a number of factors and can be summarised thus: 1. The case for a council consisting of all single‐members wards is not new, as this extract from the debate on the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 shows: “Single‐member areas can deliver stronger accountability. They provide a strong link between the councillor and his or her electorate and give clarity of leadership to the locality. Calls for single‐member wards are well established. In 1986, the Widdicombe Committee* recommended them, stating that they “provide a strong link between the member and his or her constituent”. In 1995, the Local Government Commission for England supported the Widdicombe recommendations for single‐member wards.” (Hansard. 22 May 2007 : Column 1140) *Committee of Inquiry into the Conduct of Local Authority Business 2. Single‐member wards complement the principles of the Localism agenda in that a single individual is clearly identifiable as the person who can (and should) act as the catalyst for innovation and change within a community. The notion of local champions will grow in importance as more responsibilities are devolved from Whitehall to local councils. 3. Multi‐member wards can lead to confusion in the eyes of the electorate both at the point of voting and subsequently. It is fairly common for a significant minority of electors, despite the efforts of parties and the official notices displayed at polling stations, to claim that they were unaware that they could vote for more than one candidate in multi‐member ward elections. This can distort the outcome of close contests and tends to favour those party candidates in multi‐ member wards who appear first on the ballot paper. 4. Once elected, members for multi‐member wards will either ‘share’ the ward with political opponents or members of the same party. 2 If the ward is split between parties, many electors will tend to ‘play’ one Councillor against another or feel that they improve the chance of resolving their problem by approaching each local Councillor with the same issue – either at the same time or when the first has ‘failed’ to resolve the issue in the way the constituent hoped. This process is costly for the local authority (whether two or three members are each pursuing the same issue at approximately the same time or sequentially) and wasteful of the Councillors’ time as each writes, emails or calls Officers. The successful resolution of an individual case can be delayed by the issue being worked on by different officers or, if the duplicated Councillor involvement is noted, it has been known for some issues to be deftly ‘parked’ by officers who feel the request is unimportant or contrary to their priorities. The ‘confusion’ of duplicated Councillor involvement can be used to obscure the inaction by officers. 5. Cases that are successfully resolved can result in each Councillor claiming the credit for the resolution and it is not unknown for a Councillor who actually contributed little to end up being able to announce the result to the constituent before the colleague who actually led on the issue. This can cause significant bad‐feeling where the Councillors are of opposing parties and even more when they represent the same party. 6. Within multi‐member wards where all Councillors represent the same party, there are generally two models for dealing with case‐work. Either the Councillors themselves sub‐divide the ward geographically (effectively creating single member wards within the ward) or they split issues on a topic basis. If the ward is sub‐divided geographically, the effect is that each Councillor becomes better known within one part of the total ward and, human nature being what it is, regard the area they do not cover as less important. Splitting the work‐load by issue can lead to work‐load imbalances (eg. planning issues generating more work than housing issues) and force Councillors to focus on only a part of the services provided by the Council. Whilst some degree of specialisation and the accumulation of detailed knowledge is desirable, this model tends to limit the ability of each Councillor to contribute across all areas of the Council’s work. 7. Few Councillors in multi‐member wards regularly liaise with their colleagues to avoid the effects of constituents approaching both/all of the Councillors with help on the same problem. Where this does happen, there are specific difficulties when the Councillors represent different parties or where the issue is a complaint about the ‘failure’ of one Councillor to resolve an issue to the satisfaction of the constituent. 3 Sharing information about an individual’s circumstances with political opponents can, on occasion, cause the constituent anguish when they have deliberately chosen not to approach a particular Councillor. 8. For Councillors, the advantage of representing a single‐member ward is that they alone are responsible for the ward and can build their reputation as a local champion/ the person who gets things done. 9. Councillors in single‐member wards who find the needs of their electors irksome are quickly exposed and, generally, ejected from office by the electorate in short‐order as they are unable to ‘hide’ behind the diligence of their colleagues. 10. Good quality candidates are more likely to come forward, if they see that they can have clear cut relationship with and accountability to their electorate. C Broad principles In respect of the existing single‐member wards outside the City of Hereford and the main Market Towns we have, wherever possible, retained existing wards boundaries where those boundaries produce wards that meet the electoral quota. Where changes have been required in the rural areas, we have sought to minimise disruption.