Agenda item

To consider the recommendations of the Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries Review Sub-Committee.

The Sub-Committee will be meeting on 10^th November 2011. Its recommendations will be reported to the Committee. The report to be considered by the Sub-Committee is attached under Item 7.

The Committee considered the recommendations of the Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries Review Sub-Committee.

The Sub-Committee had been appointed by the Constitution Committee to consider in detail the Boundary Commission’s proposed review of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries.

The Boundary Commission for England had launched a 12-week consultation on its initial proposals for a reduction in the number of constituencies in England from 533 to 502, of which 68 would be in the North West. The Boundary Commission had to submit formal recommendations to the Government by 1^st October 2013. Local authority wards were seen as the basic building blocks for designing constituencies and the Boundary Commission’s view was that the splitting of wards should therefore be avoided. However, as Cheshire East Council had undergone a Boundary Review in 2011, eight out of the 52 new wards were split between two constituencies by the initial proposals for the North West. Electors from Poynton had been included in the Greater Manchester Sub-Region in a constituency for Poynton and Hazel Grove.

Following informal discussions with members of the Sub-Committee, the Sub-Committee had met formally on 10^th November to consider a draft proposal, together with submissions by Poynton Town Council and David Rutley MP were also circulated for Members’ consideration. The minutes of the Sub-Committee’s meeting were circulated together with a draft response to the Boundary Commission.

It was proposed that the Council’s response would centre on the adverse impact on the 8 new Borough wards, which would be split between two constituencies. The draft response proposed that the 2011 wards should be used instead. The response also objected strongly to the Boundary Commission’s proposal for the former Poynton ward (comprising 11,080 electors) to be included in the Greater Manchester Sub-Region, in a Constituency for Hazel Grove and Poynton. The draft response included an alternative proposal that sought to resolve the issue of splitting the 8 new Borough wards and which brought Poynton back into the Macclesfield constituency and Cheshire and Wirral Sub-Region. The Sub-Committee had approved the draft response subject to it being emphasised that the old wards had not been reviewed since 2001, and that the traditional constituency names should be retained.

The Sub-Committee had noted that the Cabinet proposed the inclusion of a fallback position in the event that the Boundary Commission was not prepared to agree to use the 2011 ward boundaries. The purpose of the fallback position would be to retain the former Poynton ward within the Macclesfield constituency by adjusting the ward composition of the Macclesfield and adjoining constituencies. However, there was a view among members of the Sub-Committee that the inclusion of a fallback position within the response to the Boundary Commission’s initial proposals would make it less likely that the Boundary Commission would consider seriously the Council’s principal substantive objections and counter-proposals by presenting the Commission with an easier option which would not be the Council’s first preference.

The Sub-Committee had resolved that

(1)   subject to (2) below, the draft response to the Boundary Commission’s proposals be approved for submission to the Constitution Committee subject to the specific amendments agreed by the Sub-Committee;

(2)   Cabinet be asked to reconsider its view that a fallback position should be included in the response, and the Officers liaise with Councillor Mason accordingly;

(3)   if necessary, a form of wording for the fallback position be drafted for consideration by the Constitution Committee.

In considering the matter, the Committee noted that there might not be a further opportunity to submit representations to the Boundary Commission at the end of the current consultation period. In the circumstances, further consideration needed to be given to the question of including a fallback position within the Council’s submission.

Council at its meeting on 13^th October 2011 had agreed to delegate to the Constitution Committee the authority to determine the Council’s response to the consultation.

RESOLVED

That the draft response recommended by the Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries Review Sub-Committee be approved and the Borough Solicitor be authorised in consultation with the Chairman to determine the final form of the Council’s response which may or may not include a secondary proposal of the kind initially proposed by the Cabinet.