Local Government Review in the Lancashire County Council Area Research Study Conducted by MORI for The Boundary Committee for England April 2004 Contents Page Introduction 5 Executive Summary 9 1. Attitudes to Local Governance 11 2. Attitudes to Issues under Review 19 3. Preferred Patterns of Local Government 23 Option A 27 Option B 31 Option C 35 4. Preferred New Council Name 39 APPENDICES 1. Option Showcards 2. Research Methodology 3. Definitions of Social Grade and Area 4. Marked-up County-wide Questionnaire 3 Introduction This report presents the findings of research conducted by the MORI Social Research Institute on behalf of The Boundary Committee for England in the Lancashire County Council area. The aim of the research was to establish residents’ views about alternative patterns of unitary local government. Background to the Research In May 2003, the Government announced that a referendum would take place in autumn 2004 in the North East, North West and Yorkshire and the Humber regions on whether there should be elected regional assemblies. The Government indicated that, where a regional assembly is set up, the current two-tier structure of local government - district, borough or city councils (called ‘districts’ in this report) and county councils - should be replaced by a single tier of ‘unitary’ local authorities. In June 2003, the Government directed The Boundary Committee for England (‘the Committee’) to undertake an independent review of local government in two-tier areas in the three regions, with a view to recommending possible unitary structures to be put before affected local people in the autumn 2004 referendum. MORI was commissioned by COI Communications, on behalf of the Committee, to help it gauge local opinion. The research was in two stages. First, in summer 2003, MORI researched local residents’ views about local government and how they identify with their local community. These findings can be found at the Committee’s web site (www.boundarycommittee.org.uk) and MORI’s web site (www.mori.com). The findings were taken into account by the Committee in formulating its draft recommendations for consultation. The second part of the research, which took place in Stage Three of the Committee’s review, has been primarily concerned with residents’ reactions to the Committee’s preliminary proposals and the reasons for local people’s preferences. The findings from the second part of the research are the subject of this report. Coverage of Main Research MORI has undertaken research in all 44 districts in the North East, North West and Yorkshire and the Humber regions. Within each district, at least 300 face-to-face interviews were carried out in-home, between 1 December 2003 and 23 February 2004. A total of 13,676 interviews took place across the three regions. 5 Additional Interviews In addition to the main research described above, the Committee also asked MORI to undertake further research where it considered it needed further evidence. This related to its reviews in Cheshire, Lancashire and North Yorkshire. First, in districts which the Committee identified may be split in the event of local government reorganisation, it asked MORI to interview additional respondents in order to gauge in more detail their views about options which would directly affect them. The districts were Selby (North Yorkshire), Crewe & Nantwich and Vale Royal (Cheshire), and Fylde, Rossendale, West Lancashire and Wyre (Lancashire). A total of some 2,000 interviews took place across these areas. Second, MORI was asked to interview a representative sample of some 300 residents in each of four single-tier councils adjacent to review areas - Sefton, Wigan, Wirral and York. Findings from the additional interviews have been reported separately. Style Protocols in this Report We have adopted a number of protocols throughout this report: • Unless otherwise stated, reference is made to districts rather than towns. For example ‘Chorley’ refers to the Borough Council area of that name, rather than to the town. • Two-tier borough, city or district council areas are referred to as ‘districts.’ • The Boundary Committee for England is referred to as ‘the Committee’. • CC refers to ‘County Council’, BC to ‘Borough Council’ and DC to ‘District Council’. • An asterisk in a table or chart refers to a percentage between zero and 0.5. • Definitions for ‘social grade’, and ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ areas, are provided in Appendix 3. • ‘Review’ refers to the Committee’s review of local government. • Some figures in charts and tables, and in the marked-up questionnaires at Appendix 4 may not add up to 100%. Occasionally figures may also vary by 1%. In both cases, this is due to rounding. The definitive figures may be found in the computer tabulations provided under separate cover. • Base sizes have been given throughout this report. Where the base is under 50, particular caution should be applied when making any inferences. 6 The Lancashire County Council Area 7 This Report This report presents MORI’s findings in the Lancashire County Council area (in the North West region). Reports and data for the other five counties under review have been provided separately. Within each two-tier district, at least 300 face-to-face interviews were carried out in-home between 1 December 2003 and 23 February 2004. A total of 3,676 interviews took place across all two-tier authorities in the Lancashire County Council area. Quotas were set by age, gender and work status using 2001 Census data. Data have been weighted back to the known demographic profile of each district by age, gender and work status. For aggregated county data, findings have also been weighted by the population size of each individual district. The methodology applied in this research, along with showcards showing the options put forward for consultation and a marked-up questionnaire, are set out in the appendices to this report. Full computer tabulations have been provided separately. County-wide reports for each county under review, and summary reports for each district, have also been provided under separate cover. Publication of the Data As part of our standard terms and conditions, the publication of the data in this report is subject to the advance approval of MORI. This would only be refused on the grounds of inaccuracy or misinterpretation of the findings. Mapping The maps in the Introduction and Chapter 3 of this report are reproduced by kind permission of The Boundary Committee for England from those it used during its Stage Three consultations. MORI Contact Details Simon Atkinson, Research Director Renuka Engineer, Senior Research Executive Emma Holloway, Senior Research Executive Paul Samuels, Research Executive Neil Wholey, Senior Research Executive 79-81 Borough Road London SE1 1FY Tel: 020 7347 3000 Fax: 020 7347 3800 Email: [email protected] Internet: www.mori.com © MORI/20362 8 Executive Summary • The most important issues which Lancashire residents consider should be taken into account when deciding how council boundaries should be changed are the quality of services and being responsive to local people’s wishes. Other important factors are the need for accountability to local people and the cost of services. • Respondents were briefed during the interview about the review of local government and shown cards setting out the main patterns of unitary local government on which the Committee consulted (Appendix 1). The options were: - Option A: a unitary council based upon the majority of the County Council area, with part of Rossendale combined with Rochdale and part of Wyre combined with Blackpool; - Option B: seven unitary councils (see p.19 for details); - Option C: eight unitary councils (see p.19 for details). • Overall, preferences are finely balanced between the three options. Each is preferred by around a fifth of residents. • One in seven residents specify, unprompted, a preference for no change. One in four do not have a view (a notably higher proportion than MORI found in the other five counties under review). • The main reason for preferring Option A is the view that it would be more efficient or provide better value for money. For Options B and C, residents’ main reason is that they would like a council which covers a small area. • There is a rather clearer view overall in the county about residents’ least preferred option. Option A is nominated by over a third of residents, the main reason being their preference for a council which does not cover a large area. One in ten residents would least prefer Option B, the main reasons being that it would not reflect local people’s views or identity. One in seven residents would least prefer Option C, the main reason being its perceived lack of efficiency and value for money. • There is considerable variation by district with regards to the most preferred option. However, Option A is the least preferred in all districts with the exception of West Lancashire. • Most Lancashire residents do not claim know a great deal about local government. Two in five residents claim to know a great deal or fair amount about local councils and the services they provide, compared with three in five who know little or nothing at all. • At the time of the interview, just one in seven claimed to know more than a little about the review of local government – nearly half had not heard of it. As might be expected, knowledge of the review tends to be least evident among social grades DE, younger people and those who have moved relatively recently to their area. 9 1. Attitudes to Local Governance Knowledge of Local Government The main purpose of MORI’s survey was to establish residents’ reactions to the Committee’s preliminary proposals for patterns of unitary local government. However, in order to understand residents’ views, a range of contextual questions were also asked – concerned with residents’ knowledge and understanding of local governance and their attitudes towards it.