Final recommendations ­ West Midlands Contents 1. Initial/final proposals overview p1 6. Sub­region 1: Coventry and Warwickshire p13, recommendations p15 2. Number of representations received p4 7. Sub­region 2: Solihull p16, recommendations p17 3. Campaigns p5 8. Sub­region 3: Herefordshire, Shropshire (including Telford and Wrekin), and Worcestershire: p17, recommendations p22; and West Midlands (less Coventry and Solihull) p23, recommendations p29 4. Major issues p6 9. Sub­region 4: Staffordshire and Stoke­on­Trent p30, recommendations p33 5. Final proposals recommendations p8 Appendix A Initial/revised proposals overview 1. The West Midlands region was allocated 53 constituencies under the initial and revised proposals, a reduction of six from the existing allocation. In formulating the initial and revised proposals the Commission decided to construct constituencies using the following sub­regions: Table 1A ­ Constituency allocation Sub­region Existing allocation Allocation under initial Allocation under revised proposals proposals Staffordshire (and 12 11 11 Stoke­on­Trent) Herefordshire, Shropshire 47 42 n/a (including Telford and Wrekin), Warwickshire, West Midlands, and Worcestershire Herefordshire, Shropshire n/a n/a 32 (including Telford and Wrekin), West Midlands (excluding Coventry and 1 Solihull), and Worcestershire Coventry and Warwickshire n/a n/a 8 Solihull n/a n/a 2 2. Under the initial proposals seven of the existing 59 constituencies were completely unchanged. The revised proposals retained six of the existing constituencies unchanged. Under the initial proposals there were four constituencies that crossed county boundaries. These were: one cross­county constituency between Worcestershire and Warwickshire (Evesham and South Warwickshire), one between Herefordshire and Shropshire (Ludlow and Leominster), one between Herefordshire and Worcestershire (Malvern and Ledbury), and one between West Midlands and Warwickshire (Shirley and Solihull South). In the revised proposals there continued to be four constituencies that crossed county boundaries: one between West Midlands and Worcestershire (Birmingham Northfield), one between Herefordshire and Shropshire (Ludlow and Leominster), one between Herefordshire and Worcestershire (Malvern and Ledbury), and one between West Midlands and Warwickshire (Coventry South and Kenilworth). 3. In response to the consultation on the initial proposals and secondary consultation the Commission received over 2,100 representations regarding the West Midlands region. These representations commented on most parts of the region, with the main issues being: ● the proposed constituencies of Kenilworth and Leamington, and Warwick and Stratford­on­Avon ­ particularly with regard to the inclusion of the ‘twin towns’ of Warwick and Royal Leamington Spa in different constituencies; 2 ● the proposed division of the Borough of Solihull between constituencies ­ respondents objected to changes made to existing constituencies and, in particular, to the inclusion of Solihull wards in the Coventry West and Meriden constituency; ● the proposed configuration of constituencies in the City of Birmingham; ● the proposed division of the centre of the town of Dudley between constituencies; ● the proposed division of the City of Stoke­on­Trent between constituencies ­ and particularly to the inclusion of Stoke­on­Trent wards in a West Staffordshire constituency; ● the inclusion of the Whittington & Streethay ward in the proposed Tamworth constituency; ● the inclusion of the town of Kidsgrove in the proposed Newcastle­under­Lyme constituency; ● the inclusion of the Shropshire electoral division of Much Wenlock in the proposed Bridgnorth, Wellington and The Wrekin constituency; ● the geographical size of the proposed Ludlow and Leominster constituency; ● the inclusion of the Wychavon District wards of Drakes Broughton, and Norton and Whittington in the proposed Worcester constituency; ● the proposed cross­county constituency of Evesham and South Warwickshire. 4. In considering the evidence received, the Commission altered 77% of the constituencies we initially proposed in the West Midlands region: one of these constituencies was subject only to a change of name (Wolverhampton East and Willenhall). 3 Number of representations received 5. In the West Midlands region, the Commission received a total of 1,095 representations during consultation on the revised proposals, bringing the total number of representations for this region to 3,200. 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 or revised proposals. Table 1B ­ Representations received Type of respondents Consultation on revised proposals Total number of representations Member of Parliament 20 130 Official political party 4 16 response Peer from House of Lords 0 7 Local councillor 55 257 Local authority 10 43 Parish or town council 21 63 Other organisation 21 162 4 Member of the public 964 2,522 Total 1,095 3,200 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 North Warwickshire, Stratford­on­Avon, Warwick and Leamington, Meriden, Solihull, Telford, Worcester, Wyre Forest, and certain constituencies in the Cities of Birmingham and Stoke­on­Trent. Campaigns 7. As expected, throughout the region, representations from a number of organised campaigns were received. In the West Midlands region, these were as follows:­ Table 1C ­ Campaigns Campaign ID Number Support/ oppose initial Strength (no. of proposals signatories) Oppose the proposed boundary BCE­51972 Oppose 1,611 changes in Dudley Keep Bilston United BCE­51961 Support 71 5 Tyburn Boundary Change Survey BCE­51836 Support 134 8. During the previous consultations the Commission received five campaigns in relation to the West Midlands region. Of these, the campaign entitled ‘Keep Bilston United’’ was submitted again during the consultation on the revised proposals. Major issues 9. Major issues that drew objection were as follows:­ Coventry and Warwickshire ● the inclusion of the Borough of Rugby wards of Revel and Binley Woods, and Walston and the Lawfords in the proposed Nuneaton constituency instead of in the Rugby and Southam constituency; ● the inclusion of the District of Warwick ward of Radford Semele in the proposed Rugby and Southam constituency, instead of in Warwick and Leamington; ● the inclusion of the town of Kenilworth in the proposed Coventry South and Kenilworth constituency, and the division of the City of Coventry between constituencies. Solihull ● there were no major issues that drew objection in this sub­region. 6 Herefordshire, Shropshire (including Telford and Wrekin), and Worcestershire ● the inclusion of the town of Alvechurch and the District of Bromsgrove wards in the proposed Redditch constituency; ● the inclusion of the Herefordshire ward of Old Gore in the proposed Malvern and Ledbury constituency, instead of in the Hereford and South Herefordshire constituency; ● the inclusion of District of Malvern Hills wards in the proposed Evesham constituency; ● the inclusion of the Shropshire ward of Much Wenlock in the Ludlow and Leominster constituency; ● the inclusion of the District of Wychavon ward of Norton and Whittington in the proposed Worcester constituency, instead of in Evesham. West Midlands (less Coventry and Solihull) ● the division of the City of Birmingham between constituencies and, in particular, the division of the existing Birmingham, Yardley constituency between three proposed constituencies; ● the division of the Borough of Dudley between constituencies; ● the inclusion of the Borough of Walsall ward of Pleck in the proposed Darlaston and Tipton constituency; ● the inclusion of the District of Bromsgrove wards of Rubery North and Rubery South in the proposed Birmingham Northfield constituency. 7 Staffordshire and Stoke­on­Trent ● the division of the City of Stoke­on­Trent between constituencies and, in particular, the inclusion of the towns of Kidsgrove and Stone, respectively, in the proposed Stoke­on­Trent North and Kidsgrove, and Stoke­on­Trent South and Stone constituencies; ● the inclusion of the District of Lichfield ward of Whittington & Streethay in the proposed Tamworth constituency, instead of in Lichfield; ● the inclusion of the Borough of Stafford ward of Haywood & Hixon in the proposed Lichfield constituency, instead of in Stafford. Final recommendations 10. In light the of the representations and evidence received we have considered whether the revised proposals should be changed. Table 2 ­ Sub­regions used Initial proposals Revised proposals Final recommendations Herefordshire, Shropshire Herefordshire, Shropshire Herefordshire, Shropshire (including Telford and Wrekin), (including Telford and Wrekin), (including Telford and Wrekin), Warwickshire, West Midlands, and Worcestershire, and West Worcestershire, and West Worcestershire Midlands (less Coventry and Midlands (less Coventry and Solihull) Solihull) 8 Coventry and Warwickshire Coventry and Warwickshire Solihull Solihull Staffordshire (and Stoke­on­Trent) Staffordshire (and Stoke­on­Trent) Staffordshire (and Stoke­on­Trent) 11. The final recommendations have been formulated on the same sub­regions used