‘...somewhat more disruptive than we had in mind’ (Mark Field MP): Progress with Drawing the UK’s New Constituency Map Ron Johnston, Charles Pattie and David Rossiter

OR ‘I agree with some of our MPs that some proposals are mad and insane’ (Baroness Warsi)

1. Background – then and now 2. The initial proposals – how different? 3. What might have been? 4. Public consultation – then and now 5. The public hearings – what happened? 6. Future uncertain

THE BACKGROUND At previous reviews since 1958, organic criteria prevailed over arithmetic – although constituencies had to be recommended whose electorates were ‘as equal as practicable’, having MPs who represented distinct communities was more important. Always some exceptions, but.... In addition, assumption was that change would be minimal unless necessary. Continuity in representing places the core principle.

BUT NOW The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 requires that all UK Constituencies with four exceptions have electorates within +/-5% of the national quota of 76,641 (i.e. between 72,810 and 80,473). Given that unbreakable constraint then organic criteria can be taken into account (though not – in this review – inconveniences that would be caused by changes).

AT THE SAME TIME The number of MPs reduced from 650 to 600 so Northern Ireland loses 2 (18-16), Scotland loses 7 (59- 52), Wales 10 (40-30), and England 31 ( ) which together with the equality constraint will mean wholesale change to the country’s electoral map. AND it must be completed by October 2013 (Fixed Term link) with a revised Public Consultation procedure

THE INITIAL PROPOSALS

HOW MUCH CHANGE: ENGLAND Of the current 533 constituencies, 200 have electorates within the range 72,810-80,473. BUT of those, only 78 recommended for no change. In a further 77 cases the existing constituency remains intact, but additional wards added to bring it within the size constraints. So substantial change in c.70% of all current constituencies.

MEASURING CHANGE Change IndexNC Old to New New from Old NC – no change (all of wards together in 2007 together again in 2011 proposals): the larger the index, the greater the change

VERY DIFFERENT FROM 2007? Change IndexNC Old to New New from Old NC – no change (all of wards together in 2007 together again in 2011 proposals): the larger the index, the greater the change

CHANGE BY COUNTRY: 2011 Change IndexNC Old to New England Scotland N Ireland New from Old England Scotland N Ireland NC – no change (all of wards together in 2007 together again in 2011 proposals): the larger the index, the greater the change

WHAT SORT OF ‘BIG CHANGE’? OLD CONSTITUENCIES Ilford South - electorate 2011, 86,401, distributed to: Ilford North35.3% East Ham22.4% Barking and Dagenham21.3% Wanstead and Woodford21.1% Basildon and Billericay – electorate 2011, 65,673, distributed to: Billericay and Great Dunmow51.0% Basildon and Thurrock East49.0%

WHAT SORT OF ‘BIG CHANGE’? NEW CONSTITUENCIES Beverley electorate 73,614, drawn from East Yorkshire50.3% Beverley and Holderness49.7% Brixton – 2011 electorate 77,575, drawn from Dulwich and West Norwood37.0% Vauxhall37.8% Streatham25.2%

WHERE IS THE PROPOSED CHANGE? Old Constituencies NCLWRNCNC+ East East Midlands London Northeast Northwest Southeast Southwest West Midlands Yorks/Humber TOTAL N – number of constituencies; CL – constituencies to lose; WR – constituencies within size range; NC – constituencies not to be changed; NC+ constituencies not changed but wards added

AND WHICH PARTY SUFFERS MOST? NWRNCNC+ Conservative Labour LibDem Other2200 TOTAL

CHANGE INDEX - I Old to New Change IndexNC East EMidlands London NorthEast NorthWest SouthEast SouthWest WMidlands Yorks/Humb

CHANGE INDEX - II New from Old Change IndexNC East EMidlands London NorthEast NorthWest SouthEast SouthWest WMidlands Yorks/Humb

THE INDIVIDUAL CONSQUENCES Anticipated The expected border crossings The squeeze The edge effects Less anticipated The non-communities

BORDER CROSSINGS: LONDON 32 boroughs (excluding City of London) 37 of proposed 68 constituencies involve wards from two boroughs; 11 boroughs lack a single seat comprising wards drawn from that borough alone (Brent split five ways) Only 3 boroughs have no wards in a constituency containing wards from another borough Several borders (Lambeth-Wandsworth; Croydon- Sutton; Brent-Harrow) crossed more than once.

THE SQUEEZE Within a constrained space constituencies built from the edges inwards – those in the middle ‘crushed’ if there is a seat to be lost e.g. Tatton in Cheshire, 65,200 electors – 68.7% to Northwich, 31.3% to Macclesfield Witham in Essex, 67,451 electors – 53.9% to Braintree and Witham, 25.0% to Maldon, 21.2% to North East Essex

THE EDGE EFFECT Where either a coastline, a national boundary or a regional boundary (Act suggested these be used, BCE consulted and decided to use them) it may be that odd-shaped constituencies result: e.g. Berwick and Morpeth: old Berwick only 55,785 electors, long coastal strip (Hexham – 60,499 – coming in from west!) Christchurch (69,008) along SW and SE border through Bournemouth suburbs

ADD A BIT ON TO MAKE UP THE NUMBERS A constituency slightly too small so add a bit on from another – sometimes no physical link let alone community of interest: Forest of Dean (currently 68,703) hemmed in by Wales, West Midlands, one ward each from two neighbours, including city centre of Gloucester (Tewkesbury also has a northern Gloucester suburb); Mersey Banks – two wards from Halton, north of river with Cheshire wards – no bridge there. Henley (80,320) – Radley ward (1,982) added from Vale of White Horse District – no direct link across Thames to rest of constituency (Abingdon and Oxford North, 79,704) – an orphan ward

THE LESS-ANTICIPATED In many urban areas, wards relatively large so that not possible to create constituencies that are combinations of wards e.g. Leeds 541,763 electors = ‘entitlement’ 7.1 constituencies – could have allocated seven but not possible given ward sizes (28, averaging 13,500) SO – either, split wards (polling districts) OR – cross boundaries into places with smaller wards

THE LEEDS SOLUTION Three constituencies entirely within Leeds (North, North East, South East [5 wards each]) Guiseley and Yeadon – 3 Leeds wards, 2 Bradford Leeds South and Outwood – 3 Leeds wards, 2 Wakefield Leeds South West and Morley – 4 Leeds wards, 1 Kirklees Leeds West and Pudsey –4 Leeds ward, 1 Bradford Leeds North West and Nidderdale – 4 Leeds wards and 5 (rural) Harrogate wards Two others cross the W/N Yorks boundary (Selby and Castleford; Wakefield East and Pontefract)

THE WIDER CONSEQUENCES? SOUTH AND WEST OF LEEDS Much of rest of West Yorkshire split so that several independent towns, long with their own representation, no longer have – e.g.: Batley, Dewsbury and Wakefield Batley West and Dewsbury West wards together in Mirfield constituency Birstall (Batley suburb) in Bradford South and Cleckheaton Batley East in Leeds South West and Morley Dewsbury East and South in Dewsbury and Wakefield West Wakefield East in Wakefield East and Pontefract

THE WIDER CONSEQUENCES? NORTH AND EAST OF LEEDS County of North Yorkshire, including York, currently has eight constituencies all within the size range – widely expected that these would not be changed But because three seats created crossing out of the West Yorkshire metropolitan county (Leeds North West and Nidderdale; Selby and Castleford – includes three Wakefield wards; Wakefield East and Pontefract – includes two Selby wards) all but one of them have been substantially altered.

THE NORTH YORKSHIRE CARVE-UP Scarborough and Whitby – unchanged Skipton and Ripon – 91% Skipton and Ripon, 9% Leeds North West and Harrogate York Central – 100% York Central York Outer – 87% York Outer, 8% Malton, 4% York Central Thirsk and Malton – 79% Malton, 21% Richmond and Thirsk Richmond – 76% Richmond and Thirsk, 15% Malton, 9% Skipton and Ripon Harrogate and Knaresborough – 97% Harrogate and Knaresborough, 3% Leeds North West and Nidderdale Selby and Ainsty – 60% Selby and Castleford, 19% York Outer, 10% Harrogate and Knaresborough, 9% Wakefield East and Pontefract, 3% Leeds North West and Nidderdale

IN SUMMARY In general change is much more extensive than at previous reviews, much of which was inevitable because of the arithmetic requirement Many more constituencies than previously that combine areas with little in common: the organic tradition in British Parliamentary representation – the representation of communities – has been very substantially downgraded. Many settlements split between constituencies for the first time. Has this been exacerbated by the unwillingness to split wards in some urban areas?

WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN

Fit for purpose? Wards as building blocks for redistricting under the new legislation

A few electors in the wrong place

The five hazards 1Limited constituency range7,663 2Fractional entitlement Large ward size7,897 4Nwards / Nseats non-integer 9.5 5Low variability in ward size 7,438 – 8,472

This very substantial increase in ward electorates, together with the requirement that the electorate of each constituency is within 5% of the United Kingdom electoral quota, makes it impracticable in this Review to create constituencies by simply aggregating electoral wards. Policies and Procedures paragraph The BCS response

The BCE response In the absence of exceptional and compelling circumstances – having regard to the specific factors identified in Rule 5 – it would not be appropriate to divide wards in cases where it is possible to construct constituencies that meet the statutory electorate range without dividing them. A Guide to the 2013 Review paragraph 31

Factors (Rule 5) and Interpretation (Rule 9) A Boundary Commission may take into account, if and to such extent as they think fit – (a) special geographical considerations, including in particular the size, shape and accessibility of a constituency; (b) local government boundaries as they exist on the most recent ordinary council-election day before the review date [in England, the boundaries of counties and their electoral divisions, districts and their wards, London boroughs and their wards and the City of London]; (c) boundaries of existing constituencies; (d) any local ties that would be broken by changes in constituencies; (e) the inconveniences attendant on such changes. Rules for redistribution of seats (Schedule 2 to the Act)

Size, shape and accessibility

Measuring the boundary rules Existing seats We measure compliance through the concept of suboptimally placed (SP) electors Divided wards Local authorities SP

Counterfactual One BCS policy applied to Mainland Scotland BCS SP with respect to existing seats1,125,20129% SP with respect to local authorities 328,783 8% SP with respect to divided wards 119,340 3% Out of a total electorate of 3,873,387

Counterfactual One BCE policy applied to Mainland Scotland BCS Sim BCE SP with respect to existing seats1,125,2011,398,269 SP with respect to local authorities 328, ,239 SP with respect to divided wards 119,340 0 Out of a total electorate of 3,873,387

Counterfactual Two BCE policy applied to Metropolitan England BCE SP with respect to existing seats4,231,60831% SP with respect to local authorities 1,621,93012% SP with respect to divided wards 0 Out of a total electorate of 13,557,934

Counterfactual Two Whereas BCS divided wards on an ad hoc basis, BCE indicated quite early in the review process that if it did prove necessary to divide wards they would use polling districts (Newsletter, March 2011, paragraph 17). Accordingly we have adopted this approach for our simulation. BCS policy applied to Metropolitan England * * BCE Sim BCS SP with respect to existing seats4,231,6082,210,000 SP with respect to local authorities 1,621, ,000 SP with respect to divided wards 0 190,000 Out of a total electorate of 13,557,934

Fit for purpose? Number of wards Ward electorate Metropolitan England

PUBLIC CONSULTATION – THEN AND NOW

HOW IT WAS 1.Proposals published county-by-county – many small number of seats (10->); 2.Four weeks for written representations; 3.Public Inquiry if negatives received; 4.Revised recommendations - round we go again [on average, took a year]

PUBLIC CONSULTATION: WHAT THE BILL PROPOSED 1. Proposals published – entire country (Scotland – 50 seats, Wales – 30 seats, Northern Ireland – 18 seats); nine regions (England seats). 2. Twelve weeks for written representations; 3. NO PUBLIC INQUIRY BUT Labour didn’t like it, nor did cross-bench peers, so amended in Lords to get Bill through;

PUBLIC CONSULTATION: WHAT THE ACT REQUIRES 1. Publication – as before; 2. Twelve weeks for written representations; 3. Public hearings, during weeks 5-10 of that period – maximum 5 per country/region; maximum 2 days; non- confrontational 4. Publication all written representations plus transcripts of hearings; 5. Four weeks for comments on those; 6. Assistant Commissioners’ reports; 7. Commission publishes revised proposals; 8. Eight weeks for written representations; 9. Commission produces final proposals.

THE PUBLIC HEARINGS

WHAT HAPPENED - ENGLAND 1.Lead hearing – first in each region – each party had forty minutes to present its comments and alternatives for whole region; 2.Everybody else limited to 15 minutes; 3.Majority of those who spoke (85% in London – five hearings) had a party affiliation: MPs, party officials, local councillors etc. 4.Commission said 1100 spoke - enabled it to ‘gain a real insight into what people think’? Did it – or more of the same; party dominated, if politer and shorter?

WHAT THE PARTIES PROPOSED, LONDON: AND WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN Change IndexNC Old to New BC Conservative Labour LibDem Us New from Old BC Conservative Labour LibDem Us

WHAT HAPPENED – SCOTLAND AND NI 1.Attendance very small. 2.Belfast – only one party made formal oral submission; the Alliance 3.Scotland – SNP silent! Commissions got it right? Still the written submissions to come – Ballymena.

BUT WILL THERE BE MUCH CHANGE? ‘All the parties will need to reorganise their local branches to map onto the new constituency boundaries. They can now start planning for this, because most of the proposed constituencies are likely to be the final ones’ (Constitution Unit Newsletter, October 2011,p.3)

SO WHAT DO YOU THINK OF IT SO FAR? The initial proposals ‘...somewhat more disruptive than we had in mind’ The procedure plus ca change – or deja vu all over again

THE IMPLICATIONS (ASSUMING LITTLE MAJOR CHANGE POST-CONSULTATION) Major change to electoral map Many MPs no longer representing a ‘place’ with distinguishable characteristics – communities matter less Many more MPs having to deal with several, local authorities MPs on the ‘chicken run’? Much needed restructuring of party local organisation (already weak in many areas) Greater problems of electoral administration AND It might all happen again in five years time!

AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE?

IF WE HAD A COMPLETE ELECTORAL ROLL (THE GOAL OF IER) Current Accuracy (85% complete only) Age group % – 90% – 86% – 72% – 56% – 55% Housing tenure OO – 92% Mortgaged – 91% Social Housing – 86%Private rented – 65% Housing Type Detached/Semi – 89% Terrace – 84% Flats – 79% Conversions – 55%

ALLOCATION OF SEATS (596) 2011 Age Tenure Type Scotland Wales Northern Ireland England Northeast Northwest Yorkshire E Midlands W Midlands East London Southeast Southwest Four protected constituencies excluded

BUT WHAT IF ONLY THOSE WHO VOTED IN 2010 REGISTERED? 2011 Voters Scotland5049 Wales3030 Northern Ireland1614 England Northeast2624 Northwest6866 Yorkshire5048 E Midlands4445 W Midlands5453 East5658 London6869 Southeast8184 Southwest5356 Four protected constituencies excluded; 29,162,801 voters, quota 48,931

FINAL QUESTIONS 1.Do communities matter?  Local authorities  Wards 2.Does continuity matter? If no to both – new model of representative democracy is being introduced by stealth If yes, how soon before the Act is amended – 1958 revisited?