REVIEW OF PRESERVED COUNTY BOUNDARIES

FINAL PROPOSALS

1. INTRODUCTION

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

3. SCOPE AND OBJECT OF THE REVIEW

4. DRAFT PROPOSALS

5. REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT PROPOSALS

6. ASSESSMENT

7. PROPOSALS

8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

9. RESPONSES TO THIS REPORT

Appendix 1 - The Preserved Counties And Their Areas

Appendix 2 - Provisions Applying to Preserved Counties

Appendix 3 - Association of British Counties

Appendix 4 - Map of Preserved Counties (PDF)

Appendix 5 - Map of Rhondda Cynon Taff/Vale of Glamorgan boundary amendment (PDF)

---

Edwina Hart AM MBE

Minister for Finance, Local Government and Communities

The National Assembly for Wales

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 In accordance with the directions issued by the National Assembly for Wales on 11 March 2002, we, the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales (the Commission), have completed the review of preserved county boundaries.

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2.1 We propose a minor change to the boundary between the preserved counties of Mid Glamorgan and South Glamorgan to reflect the recent changes in the boundary between the County Borough of Rhondda Cynon Taff and the County Borough of The Vale of Glamorgan. We also propose a change to the boundary between the preserved counties of Clwyd and Gwynedd to include the whole of the unitary authority of Conwy within the preserved county of Clwyd and we propose a change to the boundary between the preserved counties of Gwent and Mid Glamorgan to include the whole of the unitary authority of Caerphilly within the preserved county of Gwent.

3. SCOPE AND OBJECT OF THE REVIEW

3.1 Section 54(1A) of the Local Government Act 1972 (the Act) provides that the Commission may in consequence of a review conducted by them make proposals to the National Assembly for Wales for effecting changes appearing to the Commission desirable having regard, in particular, to the purposes for which the preserved counties are retained.

National Assembly for Wales? directions

3.2 In accordance with Section 56(1)(c) of the Act the National Assembly for Wales has directed the Commission to conduct a review of the boundaries of the preserved counties of Wales.

Preserved Counties

3.3 A ?preserved county? is defined by the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 as follows:

"preserved county" means any county created by the 1972 Act as a county in Wales, as that county stood immediately before the passing of this Act but subject to any provision of this Act, or made under the 1972 Act, redrawing its boundaries.

3.4 Details of the areas covered by the preserved counties can be found at Appendix 1 and a map of Wales showing the existing preserved counties can be found at Appendix 4.

3.5 The "preserved counties" were preserved by the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 in order to define county areas for the purposes only of certain statutory provisions listed in Schedule 2 of the 1994 Act. The provisions concerned were found in the following statutes:

• The Lieutenancies Act 1997;

• The Sheriffs Act 1887;

• The Defence Act 1842;

• The Licensing Act 1964;

• The Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967;

• The Interpretation Act 1978;

• The Justices of the Peace Act 1979;

• The Magistrates? Courts Act 1980;

• The Representation of the People Act 1983;

• The Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986; as well as

• The Local Government Act 1972.

A further description of the relevant provisions of these Acts can be found in summary form at Appendix 2.

Guidance Booklet

3.6 In order to explain the term ?preserved county? and to outline the scope of the review and to explain the procedures which the Commission will follow a guidance booklet has been produced copies of which are available from the Commission and from the Commission?s web site at www.lgbc-wales.gov.uk. As has been pointed out in the representations received from the Association of British Counties (set out in full at Appendix 3) the Guidance booklet incorrectly states at paragraph 1.3 ?In consequence of such a review, the Commission may make proposals to the National Assembly for Wales for effecting changes appearing to the Commission desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government?. The Scope and Object of this review were however correctly stated at paragraph 3.1 of the Draft Proposals, and the Commission confirms that in carrying out this review of the preserved counties it has had regard in particular to the purposes for which the Preserved Counties are retained.

Procedure

3.7 Section 60 of the Act lays down procedural guidelines which are to be followed in carrying out a review. In line with that guidance we wrote on 18 March 2002 to the Unitary Authorities, the Lords-Lieutenant, the Members of Parliament, the Assembly Members, the local authority associations, the police authorities, the political parties and other interested bodies to inform them of our intention to conduct the review, to request their preliminary views and to provide them with a copy of the Commission?s guidance booklet including the National Assembly for Wales? directions to the Commission. We also publicised our intention to conduct the review in newspapers and asked the councils to display public notices.

4. DRAFT PROPOSALS

4.1 We received representations from the Lords Lieutenant of Gwent, Mid Glamorgan, and West Glamorgan, Peter Hain MP, Paul Murphy MP, Gareth Thomas MP, Don Touhig MP, William Graham AM, Carwyn Jones AM; Gwenda Thomas AM, Councillor Jeffrey James, Leader of The Vale of Glamorgan County Borough Council, The Welsh Conservative Party, Conwy Conservative Association, Isle of Anglesey County Council, Caerphilly County Borough Council, Carmarthenshire County Council, Ceredigion County Council, Conwy County Borough Council, Denbighshire County Council, Gwynedd County Council, Pembrokeshire County Council, Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council, Monmouthshire County Council, Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council, City and County of Swansea Council, Wrexham County Borough Council, Welsh Local Government Association, North Wales Association of Town Councils, Llandudno Town Council, Gwent Police Authority; and a number of other interested bodies. These representations were taken into consideration and summarised in our Draft Proposals published on 26 July 2002.

4.2 Having considered the representations made to us, we proposed three changes to the existing preserved county boundaries. We proposed a minor change to the boundary between the preserved counties of Mid Glamorgan and South Glamorgan to reflect the recent changes in the boundary between the County Borough of Rhondda Cynon Taff and the County Borough of The Vale of Glamorgan. We proposed a substantial change to the boundary between the preserved counties of Clwyd and Gwynedd to include the whole of the unitary authority of Conwy within the preserved county of Clwyd and we also proposed a substantial change to the boundary between the preserved counties of Gwent and Mid Glamorgan to include the whole of the unitary authority of Caerphilly within the preserved county of Gwent.

4.3 Copies of the Draft Proposals were sent to all the councils, bodies and individuals referred to in paragraph 3.7 seeking their views. A copy was also sent to anyone who had submitted preliminary comments. By public notice we invited any other organisation or person with an interest in the review to submit their views. Copies of the Draft Proposals were made available for inspection at the offices of the 22 unitary authorities in Wales and at the offices of the Commission.

5. REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT PROPOSALS

5.1 We received representations from the Lords Lieutenant of Gwynedd, Mid Glamorgan, and South Glamorgan, Paul Murphy MP, Don Touhig MP, David Davies AM, The Welsh Conservative Party, Mrs J Smith, Chairman of the North Wales Conservatives, Caerphilly County Borough Council, Conwy County Borough Council, Denbighshire County Council, Gwynedd County Council, Newport County Borough Council, Pembrokeshire County Council, Council, City and County of Swansea Council, Wrexham County Borough Council, The Vale of Glamorgan County Borough Council, Bay of Colwyn Town Council, Llandudno Town Council, Rudry Community Council and a number of other interested bodies and residents. We considered all of these representations carefully before we formulated our proposals.

5.2 Professor Eric Sunderland, Lord Lieutenant of Gwynedd said that the Commission?s proposal to include the whole of the unitary authority of Conwy within the preserved county of Clwyd was ill-judged and lacked cogency. He considered that no case had been made for changing the boundary between Gwynedd and Clwyd in the manner proposed. Having carried out many official functions in Conwy without difficulty or adverse comments he considered that the current system operated satisfactorily and that the status quo would be widely acceptable. However, should the Commission not retain the status quo then he firmly believed that Conwy should become part of the Preserved County of Gwynedd as he considered that the greater part, if not the whole of Conwy was historically always part of, or closely associated with Gwynedd. He did not know of any meaningful association either historically or contemporaneously between the costal strip of Conwy, including Llandudno, with Clwyd.

5.3 Mary Squire, Clerk to the Lieutenancy of Mid Glamorgan said she had consulted the Lord Lieutenant and they had no further comment to add to their initial representation that from the perspective of the Mid Glamorgan Lieutenancy the division of the County Borough of Caerphilly between two Lieutenancy areas did not in practice give rise to any special problems.

5.4 Captain N Lloyd-Edwards, Lord Lieutenant of South Glamorgan said he had no objection to the Commission?s proposals.

5.5 Paul Murphy MP supported the Commission?s proposal to include the whole of the unitary authority of Caerphilly within the preserved county of Gwent.

5.6 Don Touhig MP supported the Commission?s proposal to include the whole of the unitary authority of Caerphilly within the preserved county of Gwent.

5.7 David Davies AM said that he supported the Conservative Party?s representation that the whole of Caerphilly County Borough be included in Mid Glamorgan rather than Gwent for the following reasons:

1. The largest area and the largest number of electors in Caerphilly currently falls within the preserved county of Mid Glamorgan. Therefore including all of Caerphilly within Mid Glamorgan would cause the least disruption;

2. Mid Glamorgan currently has the largest population of any preserved county. However if the whole of Caerphilly were included in Gwent then that would become the largest preserved county in terms of population. It would also be disproportionately larger than the other South Wales preserved counties;

3. The area of Caerphilly within the preserved county of Gwent is the self contained area of Islwyn, co-terminous with the parliamentary constituency of Islwyn, whereas the area of Caerphilly in the preserved county of Mid Glamorgan includes not only the area of the Caerphilly constituency but also part of the Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney constituency. This demonstrates the links that Caerphilly has with these areas; and

4. Caerphilly has much more in common with Merthyr Tydfil and Rhondda Cynon Taff than it does with rural Monmouth and Gwent. Caerphilly, being just north of Cardiff, has always been part of Glamorgan as has Bargoed, the other main population centre within the Caerphilly Unitary Authority.

5.8 The Welsh Conservative Party said they had no objection to the minor boundary change between the preserved counties of Mid Glamorgan and South Glamorgan. They also fully supported the Commission?s proposal to include the whole of the unitary authority of Conwy within the preserved county of Clwyd for the reasons outlined in their initial representation. They noted the support of the Audit Commission for this proposal, particularly the argument that the Conwy and Denbighshire Trust overlooks a geographical area that aligns the area of the Conwy unitary authority with that of the Denbighshire unitary authority. They considered this close link, together with the affinity that the part of Conwy currently within Gwynedd has with Clwyd, to be compelling reasons for the proposal.

They did not support the Commission?s proposal to include the whole of the Caerphilly unitary authority within the preserved county of Gwent. They considered that extra disruption would be caused by such a change because of the movement of over 60% of the electorate. It would also cause inconvenience and break local ties within the existing parliamentary constituencies. The Islwyn Parliamentary Constituency is totally self-contained within Gwent whilst the Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney Parliamentary Constituency is split between the unitary authorities of Caerphilly and Merthyr Tydfil. Including the whole of Caerphilly within Gwent would therefore divide the Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney Constituency between the preserved counties of Mid Glamorgan and Gwent. As constituencies cannot cross preserved county boundaries, except to reduce an excessive disparity, this would mean having to considerably alter the current Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney Parliamentary Constituency.

5.9 Mrs J Smith, Chairman of the North Wales Conservatives said she supported the Conservative Party?s representation to the Commission that the whole of the Conwy Unitary Authority be included in the preserved county of Clwyd.

5.10 Caerphilly County Borough Council supported the Commission?s proposal to include the whole of the unitary authority of Caerphilly within the preserved county of Gwent, which they considered would achieve consistency in boundary considerations and avoid duplication of administrative, judicial and ceremonial functions which otherwise arise. They also noted however, that such a change would have the subsequent effect of splitting the Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney Parliamentary Constituency between the preserved counties of Mid Glamorgan and Gwent. They pointed out that this ran contrary to Rule 4 of Schedule 2 of The Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1983 which requires that, so far as is practicable, no preserved county or any part of a preserved county shall be included in a constituency which includes the whole or part of any other preserved county. They enquired whether the convenience of the whole of Caerphilly being included within the preserved county of Gwent would satisfy the condition ?so far as is practicable? contained in Schedule 2 of the Act.

5.11 Conwy County Borough Council supported the Commission?s proposal to include the whole of the Conwy unitary authority within the preserved county of Clwyd. They also reiterated their previous comment that they considered that the system of preserved counties should be modernised.

5.12 Denbighshire County Council said they still felt that there were no substantial issues warranting a change to preserved county boundaries. However, they also felt that if a change were to be effected in the boundary between the preserved counties of Gwynedd and Clwyd, it would be preferable for Conwy to be included in Clwyd rather than Gwynedd. They considered that Conwy had stronger links with Denbighshire than Gwynedd in terms of services such as the NHS Trust, the Central Division of North Wales Police and Menter Iaith Conwy-Dinbych.

5.13 Gwynedd County Council opposed to the Commission?s proposal to include the whole of the unitary authority of Conwy in the preserved county of Clwyd. They considered that the existing boundary of the preserved county of Gwynedd did not cause any difficulties in in terms of the functions associated with the preserved county and therefore there was no reason for changing it. They pointed out that including the whole of Conwy within Clwyd would result in the current Conwy and Meirionnydd Nant Conwy parliamentary constituencies being divided between preserved counties. They considered that should the boundary be moved that the whole of the unity authority of Conwy should be included in Gwynedd which would avoid difficulties in revising parliamentary and Assembly seats and would also ensure a better balance of population between the two preserved counties in North Wales.

5.14 Newport County Borough Council supported the Commission?s proposal to include the whole of the unitary authority of Caerphilly within the preserved county of Gwent.

5.15 Pembrokeshire County Council wished to press for the restoration of the Lieutenancy and Shrievalty based on the geographical area covered by the County of Pembrokeshire.

5.16 Powys County Council supported the Commission?s view that the boundary of the preserved county of Powys should remain unchanged.

5.17 The City and County of Swansea Council noted the Commission?s proposals but had no comments to make.

5.18 The Vale of Glamorgan County Borough Council noted the Commission?s proposals but had no comments to make.

5.19 Wrexham County Borough Council noted the Commission?s proposals but had no comments to make.

5.20 Bay of Colwyn Town Council supported the Commission?s proposal with regard to the Unitary Authority of Conwy, i.e. "To change the boundary between the preserved counties of Clwyd and Gwynedd to include the whole of the unitary authority of Conwy within the preserved county of Clwyd".

5.21 Llandudno Town Council supported the Commission?s proposal to include the whole of the unitary authority of Colwyn within the preserved county of Clwyd as they see this as a first step towards creating an area Lord Lieutenant.

5.22 Rudry Community Council considered that their community should be included in the preserved county of Gwent thereby ensuring that it joined the other parts of the Caerphilly Borough to make a viable entity. In doing so other minor aspects of local administration, lord lieutenants etc would remain in the borough thus avoiding expensive duplication.

5.23 The Association of British Counties disagreed with the Commission?s approach of bringing the boundaries of the preserved counties in line with local government areas since local government is not one of the functions of preserved counties. Rather, they believe that the Commission?s approach should be to determine the most suitable boundaries for the purposes for which the preserved counties exist, and pointed out an error in the Commission?s Guidance booklet. They considered that the areas of the preserved counties should be realigned with the 13 historic counties of Wales which would then be the basis for the Lieutenancy and Sheriffs? areas of Wales together with other functions currently assigned to the preserved counties. This would have the advantage of being based on areas easily recognised and understood by the people of Wales whilst their historic and cultural significance would raise the profile and esteem of the offices of Lords Lieutenant and High Sheriffs. The Association?s representation is reproduced in full at Appendix 3 of this report.

5.24 The Audit Commission supported the Commission?s proposals to include the whole area of the unitary authority of Caerphilly within the preserved county of Gwent and the whole area of the unitary authority of Conwy within the preserved county of Clwyd.

5.25 HM Land Registry said they had no comments to make on the Commission?s proposals.

5.26 Ordnance Survey noted the Commission?s proposals but had no comments to make.

5.27 Police Federation of England and Wales said they had no objections to the Commission?s proposals and noted that some of the proposed changes would fall in line with existing police operational areas.

5.28 Mark Isherwood, prospective Welsh Conservative Assembly Candidate for Delyn wrote to support the Commission?s proposal that the whole of the unitary authority of Conwy be included in the preserved county of Clwyd. He considered Conwy had more affinity with Clwyd than Gwynedd.

5.29 A resident of Abergavenny considered that the area of Caerphilly should be included in the preserved county of Mid Glamorgan for the following reasons:

1. The largest proportion of the electorate in Caerphilly is in Mid Glamorgan and therefore the disturbance cost would be less if the whole of Caerphilly were included in Mid Glamorgan rather than Gwent;

2. If Caerphilly were wholly within Gwent it would result in that preserved county being disproportionately large. The more sensible solution would therefore be to include Caerphilly within the preserved county of Mid Glamorgan; and

3. Caerphilly is historically linked to the Welsh Valleys, serving valleys industry with close links to Merthyr Tydfil, Bargoed and Rhondda Cynon Taff.

5.30 A resident of Newport considered that the Commission?s review should have been expanded to include consideration of reviving the 13 original counties in Wales which could then be used for the statutory functions currently carried out by the preserved counties.

5.31 The following pro forma letter was received from six residents of Caerphilly:

Proposal to move Caerphilly from Glamorgan into Gwent

As a local resident I consider that Caerphilly should stay in its historic County of Glamorgan and I do not agree with your proposal to move it into Gwent.

I urge you to reconsider your proposal

6. ASSESSMENT

6.1 At the initial stage of this review we received representations that either questioned the purpose and continuing need for preserved counties or suggested alternative arrangements to those that currently exist. In our Draft Proposals report we stated that, under the terms of this review, this was not a question that may be considered by the Commission. We recognised however that it may be appropriate for this issue to be debated and we resolved to report the comments made to the National Assembly for Wales for their consideration.

6.2 Following the publication of our Draft Proposals report we have received further representations that refer to this issue. Conwy County Borough Council (5.11) Pembrokeshire County Council (5.15), Llandudno Town Council (5.21), the Association of British Counties (5.23) and a resident of Newport (5.30) have all indicated that they would wish to see changes to the areas or functions of the preserved counties. The Commission (and the National Assembly for Wales) are limited by the Act to making changes in the boundaries of the preserved counties. The reform or abolition of preserved counties is a matter for Parliament. We therefore draw to the attention of the National Assembly for Wales the calls which the Commission has received in the course of the representations process for a fundamental review of the Preserved Counties in Wales.

6.3 Section 54(1A) of the Act requires the Commission to make proposals ?for effecting changes in the area of a preserved county which appear to the Commission to be desirable having regard, in particular, to the purposes for which preserved counties are retained?. These purposes are defined by the statutory provisions listed in Schedule 2 of the 1994 Act (Appendix 2). As pointed out in the representation by the Association of British Counties (appendix 3), a number of these provisions have either been superseded by subsequent legislation or have little bearing on a consideration of what the areas of preserved counties should be. Those purposes which still have relevance are the areas of the Lords Lieutenant in Wales, the areas of the High Sheriffs in Wales and the Schedule 2 (Rules for the Redistribution of Seats) within the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 (as amended by the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994.

6.4 We have considered the representations made by the Lords Lieutenant (or their representatives on their behalf) of Gwynedd and Mid Glamorgan and, at the earlier stage of the review, of West Glamorgan who consider that the existing arrangements work satisfactorily. We also considered the representation from the Lord Lieutenant of Gwent received at the initial stage of the review who considered that the opportunity should be taken to remove the anomaly between unitary authority and preserved county boundaries in the Caerphilly area.

6.5 Although we have not received any representations making specific reference to the office of High Sheriff, we are of the view that the points made with regard to the office of Lord Lieutenant apply equally to the administration of the offices of High Sheriffs in Wales.

6.6 Throughout this review we have been made aware of the lack of general public awareness as to the nature of and areas covered by the preserved counties. We have found that only by making reference to the principal council areas has a degree of understanding of the boundaries of the preserved counties been achieved. We consider that even though the present pattern of local government administration arrangements have only been in place since 1996, the widespread use of illustrative mapping by the councils and the media have resulted in a general awareness of the principal council areas. We consider that there are benefits to be gained in the administration of preserved counties if the area of the preserved county can be readily identified. We consider that this can be best achieved by linking the areas of the preserved counties to the ?known? areas of the principal councils.

6.7 We have considered the representations that referred to the effect of changes to the preserved county boundaries on the parliamentary constituencies. In conducting a review of the parliamentary constituencies in Wales, the Boundary Commission for Wales are required to give effect to the rules set out in Schedule 2 of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986. Rule 4(1)(a)(i) states ?no county or any part of a county shall be included in a constituency which includes the whole or part of any other county???. This rule was amended by the Local Government Act (Wales) 1994 to substitute the term preserved county for county in Wales. This rule in effect means that constituencies should not cross preserved county boundaries. In considering the reasons why the preserved counties were retained for this purpose in Wales, as opposed to using counties as in England, one needs to consider the fact that the electorates of the counties in England are, in general, much higher than the counties of Wales. This allows the Boundary Commission for Wales a much greater degree of flexibility, in creating constituencies that are close to the electoral quota, than would be possible using the smaller county units.

6.8 The table below shows, for the preserved counties of Clwyd, Gwynedd, Gwent and Mid Glamorgan, the existing number of parliamentary constituencies and the theoretical entitlement (based on the 2002 electoral figures). The table also shows the theoretical entitlement for those preserved counties if our Draft Proposals were to be implemented.

6.9 It is apparent from the table that, under our Draft Proposals, a strict application of Rule 4(1)(a)(i) by the Boundary Commission for Wales in their next review would result in a significant reorganisation of the constituencies within these areas and the likelihood that constituencies would be created that are further from the electoral quota than the existing arrangements. It should be noted however that part (1) of Rule 4 states ?So far as is practicable having regard to rules 1 to 3A?, so it would appear that the Boundary Commission does have some flexibility here. The Boundary Commission for England has used this flexibility (as it applies to Rule 4(1)(a)(ii)) by ?pairing? London Boroughs where otherwise there would be a significant imbalance between the constituency electorates. It will be for the Boundary Commission for Wales to decide on the approach they take to this issue during the next general review of parliamentary constituencies.

6.10 In terms of this particular purpose for which the preserved counties are being retained, our Draft Proposals are perfectly compatible with the determination of parliamentary constituencies by the Boundary Commission for Wales.

6.11 In our Draft Proposals report and at 6.6 above, we have considered the relationship between preserved county and unitary authority boundaries and have taken note of the comments made in respect of this relationship in the representations received. For the reasons given at 6.6 above, we remain of the view that, wherever possible, preserved county boundaries should be aligned with unitary authority boundaries as this has benefits in terms of the identification and administration of preserved counties.

6.12 The boundaries of the preserved counties follow the boundaries of the unitary authorities with two major and two minor exceptions. The two major exceptions are in North Wales where the boundary between the preserved counties of Clwyd and Gwynedd divide the unitary authority of Conwy and in South Wales where the boundary between the preserved counties of Gwent and Mid Glamorgan divide the unitary authority of Caerphilly. A minor change to the boundary between the County Borough of Blaenau Gwent and the County Borough Caerphilly in the area of Tafarnaubach Industrial Estate was made by The Blaenau Gwent and Caerphilly (Tredegar and Rhymney) Order 2002 No. 651 (W.68) which came into force on 6th April 2002. This Order did not make a consequential change to the boundary between the preserved counties of Gwent and Mid Glamorgan and therefore an anomaly exists. A minor change to the boundary between the County Borough of Rhondda Cynon Taff and the County Borough of The Vale of Glamorgan in the area of Llanharry and Penllyn was made by The Rhondda Cynon Taff and Vale of Glamorgan (Llanharry, Pont-y-clun, Penllyn, Welsh St Donats and Pendoylan) Order 2002 No. 654 (W.70). This Order, which came into force on 6th April 2002, did not make a consequential change to the boundary between the preserved counties of Mid Glamorgan and South Glamorgan creating a minor anomaly between the preserved county and unitary authority boundaries.

6.13 No representations have been received in respect of anomalies due to the boundaries of the preserved county of Dyfed.

6.14 With the exception of the minor anomaly identified at 6.12 above, no difficulties arising from the boundary between the preserved counties of Mid Glamorgan and South Glamorgan have been reported. We therefore propose a change to the boundary between the preserved counties of Mid Glamorgan and South Glamorgan to bring it in line with the boundary between the County Borough of Rhondda Cynon Taff and the County Borough of The Vale of Glamorgan following the Order which came into force in April 2002 (a map showing the amendment can be seen at Appendix 5).

6.15 In our Draft Proposals report we considered the representation from the Conservative Group in the National Assembly for Wales who suggested that the Community of Ystradgynlais be transferred from the preserved county of Powys to the preserved county of West Glamorgan. We noted that others who have an interest in this area consider that the existing boundaries work satisfactorily and we were not aware of any sound reasons justifying the proposed change. We considered that there should be no change to the boundaries of the preserved counties of Powys and West Glamorgan and not having received any further representations concerning this area, we remain of this view.

6.16 In our Draft Proposals report we noted that a number of the representations we received referred to the anomaly where the boundary between the preserved counties of Clwyd and Gwynedd divides the unitary authority of Conwy. In their initial representations summarised in our Draft Proposals report, Denbighshire County Council (paragraph 4.21), Gwynedd County Council (paragraph 4.22) and the Isle of Anglesey County Council (paragraph 4.15) stated that they were not aware of any difficulties arising from the present boundaries. Gwynedd County Council did not support a change but, if a change were to be considered, they would prefer that the part of Conwy currently within the preserved county of Clwyd should be included within the preserved county of Gwynedd. The initial representations from William Graham AM (paragraph 4.10), The Welsh Conservative Party (paragraph 4.14), Conwy Conservative Association (paragraph 4.15) and The Audit Commission (paragraph 4.29) summarised in our Draft Proposals report, supported the view that the boundary between the preserved counties of Clwyd and Gwynedd be changed so as to include the whole of the unitary authority of Conwy within the preserved county of Clwyd.

6.17 In considering our Draft Proposals, we took the view that, wherever possible, preserved county boundaries should be aligned with unitary authority boundaries. We therefore considered changing the boundary between Clwyd and Gwynedd to include the whole of the Conwy unitary authority within one or other of the preserved counties. We considered Gwynedd County Council?s suggestion to include Conwy within the Gwynedd preserved county but we had no evidence that this would be desirable having regard, in particular, to the purposes for which the preserved counties are retained. The representations in favour of including Conwy within the preserved county of Clwyd pointed to the affinity that the part of Conwy currently within the preserved county of Gwynedd has with areas of Clwyd. We noted that the Conwy & Denbighshire NHS Trust covers the whole area of the two unitary authorities and considered that this evidenced the close links between the two. We considered therefore, that it would benefit in terms of the identification and administration of the two preserved counties for the whole of the unitary authority of Conwy to be included within the preserved county of Clwyd.

6.18 We have considered objections against this proposal from the Lord Lieutenant of Gwynedd, Gwynedd County Council and the Association of British Counties and support for the proposal from The Welsh Conservative Party, North Wales Conservatives, Conwy County Borough Council, Bay of Colwyn Town Council, Llandudno Town Council, The Audit Commission and the prospective Welsh Conservative Assembly candidate for Delyn. We also noted that the Police Federation of England and Wales had no objection to the proposal. The objectors considered that Conwy has historic and contemporaneous links with Gwynedd rather than areas within the preserved county of Clwyd, they pointed to the resultant population imbalance and the implications for parliamentary seats. Those who supported the proposal considered that the part of Conwy currently within the preserved county of Gwynedd has an affinity with the rest of the preserved county of Clwyd. In relation to the areas administered by the offices of the Lord Lieutenant and the High Sheriff, for the reasons given at 6.6 above, we consider that it would be of benefit for the boundary between the preserved counties of Clwyd and Gwynedd to be changed so as to include the whole of the principal council of Conwy wholly within one preserved county area. Following consideration of the further representations we have received following the publication of our Draft Proposals report we remain of the view that the greater community of interest lies between Conwy and the preserved county of Clwyd. In terms of the implications for the parliamentary constituencies we have considered this matter earlier (at 6.10) and have concluded that the proposed change need not necessarily have an impact on the parliamentary constituencies. We confirm therefore our earlier view, that it would benefit in terms of the identification and administration of the two preserved counties for the whole of the unitary authority of Conwy to be included within the preserved county of Clwyd.

6.19 A number of the representations we received referred to the anomaly where the boundary between the preserved counties of Gwent and Mid Glamorgan divides the unitary authority of Caerphilly. At the initial stage of the review, the Lord Lieutenant of Mid Glamorgan and Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council considered that the present boundaries had not given rise to any special problems. William Graham AM and The Welsh Conservative Party suggested that the whole of the Caerphilly unitary authority should be included within the preserved county of Mid Glamorgan. The representations from Paul Murphy MP, Don Touhig MP, Caerphilly County Borough Council, Monmouthshire County Council, The Audit Commission and Gwent Police Authority however suggested that the whole of the unitary authority of Caerphilly be included within the preserved county of Gwent.

6.20 In our Draft Proposals report we considered the proposal to change the boundary between Gwent and Mid Glamorgan to include the whole of Caerphilly unitary authority within one or other of the preserved counties. We noted the argument made by The Welsh Conservative Party that with 61% of the electorate of Caerphilly in Mid Glamorgan and only 39% in Gwent, there would be less disruption caused by including Caerphilly within the preserved county of Mid Glamorgan. They argued that including Caerphilly within Gwent would mean that Gwent would have the largest population of all the preserved counties and would cover a much larger area than the other four South Wales preserved counties. We also noted the argument that, as part of the unitary authority of Caerphilly is within the Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney parliamentary constituency, this evidences the links Caerphilly has with the Merthyr area. Whilst we accepted that the Rhymney area may have an affinity with Merthyr Tyfdil, we considered however, that the Rhymney area had an equally strong affinity with the Tredegar and Ebbw Vale areas that are within the preserved county of Gwent.

6.21 The initial representations in favour of including Caerphilly within the preserved county of Gwent pointed to the fact that the Gwent police and health authorities have had their boundaries changed to include the whole of the unitary authority of Caerphilly within their jurisdiction. We considered that this, and the fact that Caerphilly County Borough Council supported inclusion within Gwent, was evidence that there currently exist very strong links between the area covered by the Caerphilly unitary authority and those areas within the preserved county of Gwent. We considered therefore, that, having regard to the purposes for which the preserved counties are retained, it would be of benefit to change the boundary between the preserved counties of Gwent and Mid Glamorgan so that the whole of the unitary authority of Caerphilly is included within the preserved county of Gwent.

6.22 Following the publication of our Draft Proposals report we have received a number of representations in regard to the proposal to include Caerphilly within the preserved county of Gwent. In addition to those following up on their initial representations we have received representations from David Davies AM, The Association of British Counties, a resident of Abergavenny, a resident of Newport and six residents of Caerphilly who were against the proposal and Newport County Borough Council and Rudry Community Council who supported the proposal and the Police Federation for England and Wales who hade no objections to the proposal. The objectors considered that the proposal would create a preserved county of Gwent that would be disproportionately large in both area and population, it would have implications for the parliamentary constituencies and that Caerphilly is more closely linked to other areas of Mid Glamorgan than Gwent. We have noted the differing population sizes and areas of the existing preserved counties and have received no evidence to suggest that these are significant factors in the consideration of the administrative arrangements of the offices of the Lord Lieutenant and High Sheriff. A change in the number of electors may however have an impact on the parliamentary constituencies but, as we have explained (at 6.10), this is a matter for consideration by the Boundary Commission for Wales. In terms of the links that Caerphilly has with other areas of either Gwent or Mid Glamorgan, we have considered all of the representations we have received on this issue during the review and have concluded that the more compelling evidence would suggest that the stronger ties are with areas within the existing preserved county of Gwent. In reaching our conclusion we made particular note that our proposal was supported by Caerphilly County Borough Council. We therefore confirm our Draft Proposals statement, that, having regard to the purposes for which the preserved counties are retained, it would be of benefit to change the boundary between the preserved counties of Gwent and Mid Glamorgan so that the whole of the unitary authority of Caerphilly is included within the preserved county of Gwent.

6.23 Our proposal for the whole of the unitary authority of Caerphilly to be included within the preserved county of Gwent means that the anomaly between preserved county and unitary authority boundaries caused by the minor change to the boundary between the County Borough of Blaenau Gwent and the County Borough Caerphilly in the area of Tafarnaubach Industrial Estate discussed at 6.12 above would then not need to be considered.

7. PROPOSALS

7.1 As considered at 6.12 above, we propose a minor change to the boundary between the preserved counties of Mid Glamorgan and South Glamorgan to reflect the recent change to the boundary between the County Borough of Rhondda Cynon Taff and the County Borough of The Vale of Glamorgan.

7.2 For the reasons given at 6.18 above, we propose a change to the boundary between the preserved counties of Clwyd and Gwynedd to include the whole of the unitary authority of Conwy within the preserved county of Clwyd.

7.3 For the reasons given at 6.22 above, we propose a change to the boundary between the preserved counties of Gwent and Mid Glamorgan to include whole of the unitary authority of Caerphilly within the preserved county of Gwent.

8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

8.1 We wish to express our gratitude to all bodies and persons who made representations to us.

9. RESPONSES TO THIS REPORT

9.1 Having completed our review of the boundaries of the preserved counties and submitted our recommendations to the National Assembly for Wales, we have fulfilled our statutory obligation under the directions issued by the National Assembly for Wales.

9.2 It now falls to the National Assembly for Wales, if it thinks fit, to implement them with or without modifications by means of an Order or to direct the Commission to conduct a further review. Such an Order will not be made earlier than a period of six weeks from the date that the Commission?s recommendations are submitted to the National Assembly for Wales.

9.3 Any further representations concerning the matters in the report should be addressed to the National Assembly for Wales. They should be made as soon as possible, and in any event not later than six weeks from the date that the Commission?s recommendations are submitted to the National Assembly for Wales. Representations should be addressed to:

Local Government Modernisation 2 Division

National Assembly for Wales

Cathays Park

Cardiff

CF10 3NQ

MRS S G SMITH LLB (Chair)

J E DAVIES ICSA IPFA (Deputy Chair)

D H ROBERTS BSc DMS MBCS MCMI (Member)

E H LEWIS BSc. DPM FRSA FCIPD (Secretary)

November 2002

---

Appendix 1

The Preserved Counties And Their Areas

The Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 defined the areas of the preserved counties as follows:

* The boundary between the preserved counties of Mid Glamorgan and South Glamorgan was amended by The Bridgend and The Vale of Glamorgan (Areas) Order 1996.

---

Appendix 2

PROVISIONS APPLYING TO PRESERVED COUNTIES

1. The Lieutenancies Act 1997

A Lord-Lieutenant is appointed by the Crown for each county in England, each county in Wales and each area in Scotland. The counties in Wales for the purposes of the 1997 Act are the preserved counties. The Lord-Lieutenant acts as the Queen?s representative who manages the Queen?s civic affairs and arranges royal visits.

2. The Sheriffs Act 1887

The Act provides for the appointment of Sheriffs (known when appointed for a county as High Sheriffs) to carry out certain functions to do with the administration of justice, as well as ceremonial functions. The counties in Wales for the purposes of the annual appointment of a Sheriff are the preserved counties.

3. The Defence Act 1842

In Section 19 of the Defence Act 1842 (valuing of premises in default of agreement) and in Sections 23 and 24, "county" in relation to Wales means a preserved county.

4. The Licensing Act 1964

In Section 85 (parties organised for gain), 188 (closing of licensed premises in case of riot) and 193 (disqualification of justices) of the Licensing Act 1964, "county" in relation to Wales means a preserved county.

5. The Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967

In Section 10 of the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 (jurisdiction in relation to fishery) in relation to Wales, the reference to a county includes a reference to a preserved county.

6. The Interpretation Act 1978

In Schedule 1 to the Interpretation Act 1978 (words and expressions defined), "Wales" is defined as ?the combined area of the counties which were created by Section 20 of the Local Government Act 1972, as originally enacted, but subject to any alteration made under Section 73 of that Act (consequential alteration of boundary following alteration of watercourse).?

7. The Justices of the Peace Act 1979

In Section 1 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979 (commission areas), Section 4 of that Act (petty sessions areas) and Section 19 of that Act (general provisions as to magistrates? courts committees), references to counties are in relation to Wales references to preserved counties.

8. The Magistrates? Courts Act 1980

In Section 1 (issue of summons to accused or warrant for his arrest), Section 2 (jurisdiction to deal with charges) and Section 3 (offences committed on boundaries etc.) of the Magistrates? Courts Act 1980, references to counties are in relation to Wales references to preserved counties.

9. The Representation of the People Act 1983

In the provisions of section 177 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (local election offence punishable summarily), "county" in relation to Wales means a preserved county. In Schedule 1 to that Act (parliamentary election rules), in the Appendix, in the entry relating to the form of the certificate to be endorsed on the writ, in relation to any constituency in Wales "county" in this form refers to a preserved county.

10. The Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986

In paragraph 4 sub-paragraph (1)(a) of Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 (rules for redistributing seats), "county" means in relation to Wales a preserved county.

11. The Local Government Act 1972 (as amended by the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 and The National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) Order 1999)

Sub-section (1A) of Section 54 of this Act (proposals for changes in local government areas in Wales) provides "The Welsh Commission may, in consequence of a review conducted by them under this Part of this Act make proposals to the National Assembly for Wales for effecting changes in the area of a preserved county which appear to the Commission to be desirable having regard, in particular, to the purposes for which the preserved counties are retained."

Section 56(1) of this Act (power of the National Assembly for Wales to direct holding of reviews) provides :

"(1) The National Assembly for Wales may direct the Welsh Commission to conduct a review of-

1. Wales as a whole,

2. any one or more local government areas or parts of such areas in Wales, or

3. any one or more preserved counties or parts of such counties,

for the purpose of considering whether or not to make such proposals in relation to the area reviewed as are authorised by section 54 above and what proposals, if any, to make; and the Commission shall, if they think fit, formulate such proposals accordingly."

In Section 224 of this Act (arrangements by principal councils for custody of documents) "county", in relation to Wales, means a preserved county.

In Section 269 of this Act (meaning of "England" and "Wales"), "Wales" means the combined area of the preserved counties and "England" does not include any area which is included in any of the preserved counties.

---

[About] [News] [Publications] [Boundary] [Electoral] [Community] [Home] [Web Map] [Links] [Cymraeg] [Enquiry] [Search]

15/11/02