The Boundary Commission Draft proposals are currently out for consultation on the 'electoral arrangements' in RCT. they prooose a number of changes in ward boundaries, and the amalgamtion of some wards.

Whilst some make a certain amount of sense, others are quite frankly ridiculous, including the merger of Trallwn and The Graig, and Glyncoch and the Rhoondda ward.

The full report can be accessed here: http://pontypridd.prai.co.uk/manage/editresources.php

Submissions have been made to the Commission as follows

Review of Electoral Arrangements Draft Proposals Consultation

We found little to disagree with when the original outline proposals were produced - it seemed a sensible move to try and ensure that as far as possible there is some standardisation of the number of electors in each ward. The substantial variations which currently exist would appear to be unfair to both the electorate and Members.

However, that report and the presentations made to elected members at the time gave no hint of the frankly ludicrous suggestions that the Commission have come up with in some instances.

Some of the proposed changes appear fair, and do achieve the desired effect of making the voter / Councillor ratio more even. The proposed merger of Tylorstown and Ferndale for instance. Whilst there will undoubtedly be resistance from residents who feel that this constitutes an erosion of their community identity, and we have sympathy with this view, it does make for a more even representation.

The same applies to the existing wards of Talbot Green and Pontyclun. It also seems sensible that there should be some realignment in the Tonyrefail wards.

However, there are a number of proposals within the report that seem to have been put forward completely randomly with no regard whatsoever to geography or the linking of existing communities. Indeed common sense seems to have gone right out of the window.

The last review of Parliamentary boundaries saw Glyncoch moved into the Cynon Valley - against the wishes of the people of Glyncoch and their elected representatives, and despite the fact that it is still part of the 'Community' of Pontypridd by virtue of its membership of Pontypridd Town council.

This report suggests that Glyncoch be merged with the Rhondda ward. What then? We will have a situation where half of the elector division is in one constituency (Cynon Valley) and half in the other (Pontypridd). To confuse the issue still further it is proposed that the ward be called the Rhondda ward.

Furthermore these two existing wards have no geographical link, other than at a tiny patch of land along the river. Between the two residential sections of the two wards lies the entire town of Pontypridd.

The report states that 'as this proposal joins together two wards of the same community we are of the view that no local ties will be broken.' What is this statement based on? There are no local ties whatsoever between the Rhondda ward and Glyncoch other than that they both come under the umbrella of Pontypridd Town Council.

On a similar line, and with similar reasoning, the report suggests combining the wards of The Graig and Trallwn to form one ward. Again this ignores the fact that there is no geographical link between the two, and that once again you have to cross through the ward of Pontypridd Town to move from one to the other.

Taff's Well, we would argue, is very much a distinct community which has little in common with Hawthorn and Rhydyfelin - indeed you cannot there even use the argument that it is part of the same 'community' area as Taff's Well is not represented on Pontypridd Town Council.

There will be no reduction in the total number of Councillors coming from all of this, and so no money will be saved in the long term, which begs the question of whether this whole review is worthwhile.

The main idea as we understand it was to iron out some inconsistencies, as some Councillors currently have much larger numbers of electors in their wards than others. This is certainly achieved in some of the proposals included here - although in some cases geographical considerations which have been completely ignored would make the task of any elected representative(s) much more difficult and so negate any benefits from having less constituents.

However, there will still be a significant number of variations even if these plans were all implemented - and we strongly oppose that.

For instance the figures provided state that in 2014 the ward of Llanharan would have a ratio of 2,920:1 whilst at the other end of the scale Pen-Y-Waun has a ratio of 1,851:1. This is a huge variation in numbers and would seem to negate the purpose of the review.

On page 3 of the report you state that "We must have regard to (a) the desirability of fixing boundaries which are and will remain easily identifiable, and (b) any local ties which would be broken by the fixing of any particular boundary."

This was also highlighted by the then Minister for Local Government Brian Gibbons in his letter to yourselves.

We would strongly argue that a number of the suggestions, particularly those we have highlighted, actually go against this stated principle.

Cllr Mike Powell on behalf of RCT Welsh Liberal Democrats.

25/02/2010

Rhondda Cynon Taff - Review of Electoral Arrangements.

The comments included here relate to the current draft proposals, which in many ways just tinkers around the edges of a system which we would like to see altered drastically. The Welsh Liberal Democrats support the introduction of the Single Transferable Vote for local elections in Wales which would have a significant effect on the way in which residents elected their local representatives.

The smaller and community-based nature to ward boundaries, as opposed to the rather arbitrary nature of some constituencies, means that councillors are often the most accessible, and sometimes only elected representatives that people get to meet. It is therefore vital that electors feel they have a connection with their community and with their Councillors.

As stated in our original submission to the proposed Wales wide review, communities vary in size and we accept that in all councils there are likely to be wards of varying size. To this end, we do not oppose having wards of varying size in the same council area. Whilst accepting that it is beneficial to ensure that every elector in any council area has roughly equitable representation those had to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Whilst an STV system would necessitate the introduction of multi member wards across the board, we recognise that under the current system a mix of single and multi member wards within an Authority is often appropriate.

The review of arrangements in Rhondda Cynon Taff has thrown up several issues which would seem to go against the guidelines laid down, and also make little sense in terms of the balancing of elector ratios.

With regard to the ratios the figures shown indicate that 36% of wards would have variations of between 10% and 25% after the proposed reorganisation. 56% would have a variation of up to 10%.

There would still be a substantial variation in elector numbers per elected member between wards if these changes went ahead, with three wards at less than 2000 electors per Councillor, and two others approaching the 3000 mark. That would seem to negate the point of the review.

With regard to the retention of community links within wards then RCT colleagues are best placed to comment. However, it does seem that these have been rather arbitrarily decided upon with scant regard to geography in a number of cases. It would also seem untenable to create wards that would be split by constituency boundaries as would be the case in at least one of these.

There would seem to be little gain in adopting proposals which will cause confusion for electors, create artificial 'communities' and not address the issue of elector to Councillor ratios effectively.

K Roberts

Welsh Liberal Democrats

26/02/2010