BOUNDARIES
As there seems to be a certain amount of misunderstanding about the purpose and rationale of the current boundary discussions it might be helpful to explain the progress of events.
In February of this year Poole Council received a visit from the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, an independent body free of local and political pressures. The Commission pointed out that there is a degree of electoral inequality on the Council, in that some Wards are over-represented and some Wards are under-represented vis a vis the number of Councillors allotted.
In March the Commission gave a presentation to all Councillors and explained that the first step was to fix the total number of Councillors for the Borough. To this end the Council set up an all party working group, which drew up a very detailed questionnaire as to the time spent by Councillors on Council business. This was sent to all Councillors for completion. Perhaps for the first time Councillors were surprised, by careful analysis, to realize how much time they spent not only at meetings at the Civic Centre (and preparing for them) but also service on the myriad outside bodies to which the Council sends representatives. This is of course in addition to the heavy load of case work carried by Councillors in the individual communities which elect them to the Council.
In April the Commission stated that the Council had to get its decision on Council numbers to them by 31st May. Accordingly a Special Council meeting was convened for 23rd May. This was publicised through the usual media outlets.
In preparation for such extra-ordinary Council meeting the officers drew up and circulated a very detailed briefing paper, incorporating, on an anonymous basis, the information gleaned from the completed Councillor questionnaire as to time spent. This paper outlined two alternatives:-
(i) the status quo, i.e. 42 Councillors
(ii) a reduction of 10% in Councillor numbers i.e. 38
After a lively debate on 23rd May the Council voted for Option (i) i.e. 42 Councillors. Such decision was conveyed to the Commission by the due date of 31st May.
A number of Councillors were absent from the Council meeting, for reasons unknown. Whether the result would have been different if we had had a “full house” is a matter of speculation. In a democracy if you don’t turn up to vote your views cannot be taken into account.
On 9th July the Commission will publish its interim proposals as to numbers (which may or may not be what the Council voted for). They will institute a six week period of public consultation, the Council assisting by alerting the many Residents Associations and community groups on its extensive database. Any views put forward by the public will have to be evidence-based.
On 8th October the Commission will publish its final recommendations to the Government as to numbers.
Later in that month the Commission will start public consultation on new Ward sizes and boundaries, their final proposals being published in September 2014. The Commission’s main criteria will be the identification of communities, subject to the over-riding requirement for equality of numbers, so that each Councillor (however many there may be) will represent roughly the same number of electors.
It has to be emphasised that the Commission (and not the Council) will have the final say as to both numbers of Councillors and new Ward boundaries, and that all public consultation will be carried out by them, and not the Council.
The Commission has stressed throughout that the current review is on the present Borough boundaries – for instance a small group of houses on the periphery of one of the Wards should obviously be transferred to Bournemouth, but even this very minor anomaly cannot be corrected in the present exercise.