Agenda item

(1)       Mr Wild submitted a report which updated the Committee on the Local Government Boundary Commission for England’s (LGBCE) Electoral Review of Kent County Council’s area. 

(2)       The Chairman and Mr Wild updated the Committee on the meeting that had been held with representatives of LGBCE on 17 September 2013.  The key points that had come from this meeting were:

• There were eight other County Councils going through a similar process.
• Electoral Divisions were not allowed to cut across District Council boundaries.
• There would in effect be twelve separate individual reviews, as the electoral divisions needed to be co-terminus with District boundaries.  This would then make up the picture for the whole County.
• The Council could form a view on whether it wished to recommend that there be only single Member divisions or whether some two Member divisions would be acceptable. 
• Representatives from the LGBCE would give a briefing to all Members on the afternoon of the March 2014 meeting of the County Council and had asked to meet with all Group Leaders before the start of the County Council meeting on that day. 
• Tentative timetable for the review:

• The Lead Commissioner for the Kent review would be Sir Tony Redmond.
• At one level the aim of the review was to ensure that each electoral division had the same number of electorate and therefore was broadly a mathematical exercise. However, the review would also take account of other factors such as community identity.
• The County Council could have as much or as little input in to the review as Members wished.  Input could be given either by the County Council as a whole and/or individuals or groups could submit information or data regarding the size of divisions and numbers etc.  
• If the County Council was of one mind and resolved to support a single recommendation, it would carry more weight than individual submissions, but it would need to be evidence based. Evidence to the Commission could come from a number of sources. The County Council had no right to dictate the course of the review but had an opportunity to put together their views and submit them in advance of the general consultation.  
• In relation to community identity, it would not be as relevant in the review of County divisions as it would be in relation to a district ward review. 
• The LGBCE wanted to dispel the myth that they were working to an agenda of establishing fewer County divisions but they accepted that most reviews resulted in a reduction in the number of divisions and Members.
• There was work to be carried out to prepare figures for the predicted number of the electorate in 2020 before any recommendations could be made by the County Council on the number of divisions and boundaries of electoral divisions.

(3)       Members discussed the report and a number of points were made including the following:

·        In response to a question on whether the building blocks for electoral divisions would be district wards, Mr Wild stated that there was no suggestion in the meeting that ward boundaries would be co-terminus with division boundaries but he would check this and update Members at the next meeting.

·        One of the biggest factors was what type of Council Kent would be in 10 years time, a transactional Council would have a different relationship to its residents than a commissioning Council.  However the transformation of the County Council would not necessarily mean that a smaller number of Members were needed as there would still be work for Members to do within their communities.

·        The importance of Members having an input into community identity to ensure that communities were not split between divisions was emphasised in order to avoid alienation of electors.

·        There was generally agreement that the main issues with two Member divisions occurred when the Members were of different parties, which made sharing the constituency work difficult.

·        It was noted that the LGBCE would set out the ground rules but the County Council would have the opportunity to influence the review.

·        It was pointed out that if the number of County Councillors was reduced and the geographical areas expanded then in some areas the number of Parish Councils per division would increase. 

·        Recommendations would need to be evidence based.

·        If the County Council recommended only single member divisions then there was a risk that to achieve equality of electorate numbers the boundaries may need to be drawn up in a way which may sweep away community links.

·        If the County Council recommended that it would like to have a certain number of Members it might carry some weight with the Commission. It was important to maximise the influence that the County Council was able to have with the Commission.

(4)       RESOLVED that the report be noted and a further meeting of the Committee be held in December 2013 to receive an update.