What follows is a transcript of my evidence to the Kendal hearing of the 2023 Review of Parliamentary Constituencies on Friday 18th March 2022 before Andy Brennan QPM, Lead Assistant Commissioner.
You can watch the video HERE.
You can download a copy of the full transcript below.
MARK JENKINSON MP: Thank you. I'm Mark Jenkinson, Member of Parliament for the current Workington constituency. Having made my initial submission, 82718, in response to the Commission's proposal to alter the boundaries to the Workington constituency under this review, I just wanted to elaborate on my earlier comments. First, to reiterate and underscore my support for the initial proposals, which involve less change and disruption to the existing constituencies and communities than any of the other suggestions put forward, since they represent a strong and coherent proposal, bringing together areas with existing community, travel to work, travel for leisure and transport links, and with much in common historically, culturally and geographically. The Boundary Commission’s plan represents a much better fit, taking into account the lines of the existing local authority boundaries and indeed, the proposals other than the Commission’s won’t take them into account. However, these proposals, as they stand, give proper weight to the geography, demographics and communities of the constituency. I, therefore, have no hesitation in reiterating and expanding upon my earlier endorsement that they present the neatest and most logical solution.
Indeed, none of the alternative proposals submitted would come close to delivering the results promised in the common-sense recommendations put forward by the Commission. They risk tearing apart communities, isolating them from the re-elected representatives by virtue of geography and transport links. Recognising that the Commission considered the possibility of creating a constituency coterminous with the boundaries of Allerdale Borough Council but cognisant of the knock-on problems that would cause for other constituencies, this eminently sensible option preserves the majority of Allerdale, with the exception of two wards which are already partially in the neighbouring constituency of Copeland. They serve to keep the greater Workington area together, recognising that villages like Seaton, where I live, and Allonby, have key habitual work, transport and school links to both Maryport and Workington and are very much part of this wider hinterland.
It recognises similar links between these towns and Cockermouth, and indeed some work I carried out recently highlighted the number of pupils, almost half, in Cockermouth School that travel from wards west of the Cockermouth wards, and a number of the higher-profile submissions would, of course, seek to sever those constituency ties. These towns and villages share links not only in terms of infrastructure but strong shared identity around, for example, industrial and coal-mining heritage. We have well-used commuter routes linking towns and villages like Workington, Cockermouth, Maryport, Flimby and Aspatria. Many of these places are connected by road and rail and established cycleways and footpaths. There is a strong family as well as social, sporting and business links, which should be kept intact. I can’t stress enough how the debate around a new Cumberland unitary authority has highlighted to me people's deep sense of this cultural identity.
I’m pleased, therefore, that the Commission's proposals recognise and preserve the integrity of towns and villages, these towns and villages, under existing links, and that these places only make sense as part of an integrated whole. I also support the inclusion of Dalston Brough in the redrawn constituency, following the problems that the Commission highlighted in its initial report, with a coterminous boundary. It stands to reason that this ward on the western side of Carlisle fits most naturally with the existing constituency and the wider Allerdale area that it subsumes and benefits from good existing transport links not found in alternative proposals. As you might know from my submission, I consulted widely with elected members, parish councils and residents, and there is consensus that the name Workington no longer represents the makeup of the constituency in its current or its proposed form.
Allerdale would appear to be much more representative and inclusive. To name a constituency of this size after a town in the south-western corner is a misnomer. This designation served only to alienate people, even in the outlying towns and villages, creating the impression that they've been overlooked. Although it's true to say that Workington is indeed our largest and most populous town, applying the name to the constituency as a whole has already made many residents from rural areas and even nearby towns feel like their concerns are somehow secondary. Renaming the constituency Allerdale will be a welcome step that will go a long way towards addressing that perception. One of the reasons I chose to set up my office in Maryport rather than Workington was to have an office that was more centrally based, not only to the population but to transport links.
The decision was not just for practical reasons that allowed me to serve my constituents better; it was also a symbolic break with an established tradition that was also intended as a statement. I wanted to illustrate that I represent an area much wider than Workington. This includes, for example, the many communities on the Solway Plain in which they have felt neglected and disenfranchised for far too long. One of the questions I have to answer most often is why I refer to Workington so much instead of Allerdale, which I represent. This shows that many already believe the constituency to be called Allerdale. Moreover, the other historic and cultural reasons why I feel Allerdale would be more suitable and descriptively accurate are that large swathes of the proposed constituency were once in a medieval region known as Allerdale and, latterly, in the wards of the historic county of Cumberland, known as Allerdale-below-Derwent and Allerdale-above-Derwent. The name, therefore, not only has a recognised and well-documented pedigree rooted in history and tradition but is also more geographically descriptive and relatable.
The Boundary Commission’s proposals for a Carlisle constituency more closely aligned with the existing City of Carlisle also fits well with the new council boundaries and makes a great deal of sense. I'll reject the main alternative proposals as undesirable and without any real or practical merit. A sprawling Penrith and Solway constituency would cover a vast and disparate area, stretching from the Pennines at Alston and Kirkby Stephen to the Solway Coast, represented by only one elected member. This butchers the historic borough of Allerdale, severing the largest town of that community, Workington, from the settlements with which it enjoys the strongest ties. Any proposal that places Whitehaven and Workington within a single constituency is not credible and will not have public support. There's a great deal of deep historic rivalry and tension between Workington and Whitehaven, and not only in sporting terms. It also manifests itself in strong competition for investment and economic opportunities.
Placing these towns together would necessitate cutting one or both towns off from their natural hinterlands. A West Cumbria seat with both of these towns within its boundaries would have to be reasonably compacted by virtue of population. However, the numbers would force at least one, and probably two, other constituencies to become both huge and nebulous, with no obvious focus for these disparate communities. As a parliamentarian, I have to stress that, and I'm sure I speak for many of my colleagues, it is much better having one large town and it's identifiable hinterlands in smaller towns and villages, than to have two large towns that risks putting an MP in the invidious position of having to support one town over the other for particular economic investment. I can’t stress enough how, having been born and lived in Workington for over 40 years, this would just further disenfranchise people and would not only fail to gain widespread public support but would create active opposition. Unfortunately, as in many of these cases, only after the event, I fear.
A proposed new Penrith and Solway constituency stretches from Maryport and Silloth on the west coast to Walton in the east. It includes parts of three existing districts as well as the entire combined east–west extent of both new unitary councils, which again I know the Commissioner is not at liberty to take into account. This constituency would make no sense, bringing together different communities, which bear little connection to one another, to form an unworkable hodgepodge. Recognising the already rural nature of the existing seat, which I traverse from top to bottom on a weekly basis, the proposed seat would stretch from the Pennines to the sea, taking hours to traverse. I measure my transport now in the number of car charges on the electric vehicle, and that number to go from one end of my constituency to the other, in my mind, should always be less than one. In that proposed constituency, it would not be less than one. To me, this makes it completely impractical for transport, and of course, there are no decent alternative transport links. There was an independent proposal, 75915, which made some interesting suggestions, but I still think the Boundary Commission proposals are preferable. That proposal not only divides existing districts, but it also crosses the borders of both existing and future local authorities. I'd like to note that these proposals almost completely separate two of the six main towns in Cumbria from their surrounding towns and villages. Those places with which they have the strongest connections. This proposal will cut Workington off from almost all of its natural hinterland in Allerdale and does the same to Penrith. To conclude, while I don't envy the task in front of the Commission given Cumbria’s sparsity, I do believe that the Commission's initial proposals are fair, workable and eminently sensible given the prescription.
ANDY BRENNAN (Boundary Commission): Thank you very much, [Mark]. I have no questions of clarification. Do we have any questions? We have two here, please. Could we start by giving our names and who we may be representing?
BRENDAN SWEENEY (Labour Party Representative): Brendan Sweeney, Barrow Labour Party and representing the Cumbrian Labour Parties. You mentioned around your travel to work areas etc. and the importance of those in connection with the Allerdale constituency. I'd be interested in your comments on going with that proposal to create a Whitehaven to Windermere constituency. I would be interested in your comments as to how that is practical because it is the inevitable consequence of going with the Boundary Commission proposal that there is a Whitehaven to Windermere constituency, which has had a lot of adverse comments. I wondered how you would see that working for an MP. The second question, if I could, is around the rivalry between Whitehaven and Workington. It is, of course, a fact now that the two of them are going to be in one local authority area. Those tensions will be resolved within the new Cumberland unitary and are, you know, on it. I would ask for more evidence of that.
ANDY BRENNAN: There's quite a lot of questions coming out. In fairness to Mark, give him the opportunity to answer or qualify the first question, right? Is that okay? We'll come back to the second one.
MARK JENKINSON: On the Whitehaven to Windermere question, I don't feel qualified enough to necessarily speak. I can tell you that I travel hundreds of miles a week in the Workington constituency, and that has been my focus. That particular journey, for example, that you mentioned – I'm not sure my opinion would carry much weight.
BRENDAN SWEENEY: On the rivalry question, yes, historically there's been rivalry and there's clearly, you know, keen rivalry on sporting grounds still, but granted they're now within one authority. Is there evidence that that those tensions currently are such that an MP couldn't manage them?
MARK JENKINSON: The rivalries are not just historic, and there are existing rivalries in the new authority. Of course, I supported the boundaries of the new Cumberland authority, but the difference there, of course, is that people are represented by a local representative in numbers of probably, I think, five to six and a half thousand across our Cumberland boundaries that are 46 single member wards. That is the key difference in that them being in an authority on their own isn't a problem. What becomes a problem, particularly for a parliamentarian, is that if we look at things like towns funds, high-street funds and the levelling-up fund where we can support one bid in a constituency; that would put an MP in an invidious position of having to choose between whether it supports Workington or Whitehaven, which would only deepen disenfranchisement and risk and deepen those rivalries.
