Clause
32
Changing
scheme for ordinary
elections
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Robert Syms (Poole) (Con): Having debated the issue
generally, I would like to consider the specifics of the mechanism
under clause 32. Many local authorities do not have a political
majority: sometimes there are coalitions; sometimes there are ad hoc
arrangements; and sometimes there are formal arrangements for running
the authority. Decision making can change quite quickly, particularly
if people fall out, as has been known in local government.
Secondly, in local government,
at any one time, there are vacancies. If one looks at the list of
pending vacancies for local government, sometimes there are 30 to 50
seats across the country that are not filled at any one time. Even
occasionally, when there are all-up elections, there are one or two
vacancies per council.
Thirdly, there are changes of
representation in wards as a result of by-elections and vacancies, and
there are also defections. The clause
says:
“No
resolution of the council may reverse the effect of this
section”,
but my point is
that there may be a situation in which, having passed a resolution in
the permitted period, the political control of the council changes
within a matter of weeks, and the council’s opinion may change.
A coalition, perhaps involving independents, may change, and the view
of those who are responsible for running the council may change after
by-elections and defections. Many votes go through in local authorities
on casting votes of chairmen or mayors. Are we saying that when a vote
to change the electoral arrangements goes through on the casting vote
of the mayor and when two vacancies then return two members from a
different political party and that changes the view of the council, the
council cannot change a resolution once it has been passed?
Essentially, a decision could be taken without the express wish of
every member of the council because there may be one or two vacancies,
or filling those vacancies may lead to a change in the political
complexion.
I do not
want to labour the point, but things change in local government. I have
been on hung authorities when one committee has voted in the opposite
way to another and it is total chaos. I therefore seek the
Under-Secretary’s reassurance. Will guidance be given? Will
there be any rules or will it be purely a matter for the council and
the chairman’s casting vote? If the leadership of the council
changes in the period concerned, will the new leader have any means of
changing the resolution? At what point does the decision become
irreversible? Is it on the council’s vote, or after the
Electoral Commission has nodded to it? I appreciate that if political
parties have different views about the electoral benefits of a change,
which I suspect they may do in different circumstances, it may be a
matter of political discussion and disagreement.
Some councils have run
successfully for years with a majority of one and a casting vote. On
such a finely balanced council I am worried that an irreversible
decision could be taken, but a few weeks later there
may be a very different majority able to take a completely different
decision on this very important issue. I should be interested to hear
the Under-Secretary’s views on the
subject.
Angela
E. Smith:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the
clarity with which he expressed his views while seeking enlightenment.
I will say something about the clause and then respond to his
comments.
The clause
enables an eligible council—that is, a district that currently
holds elections by halves or thirds—to move to whole-council
elections. As I said, we will reflect on the amendment proposed by the
hon. Member for Hazel Grove. If a council wishes to make such a change,
it must do so in a specified period, because the date of whole-council
elections, as set out in clause 33, is different for metropolitan
authorities and shire districts. It is 2008 for metropolitan districts
and 2011 for shire districts. The specified period will run from 1
October to 31 December in the year before the elections are due and
will ensure that, to stabilise existing arrangements, members of the
public know about the change in good time but not too long before the
first whole-council
election.
The clause
also enables the Secretary of State to extend the periods during which
a resolution can be made, but we envisage doing so only in very limited
circumstances, perhaps to give a council a bit of extra time and the
flexibility to consider the proposals properly. The clause allows
councils to hold council elections if they wish to do
so.
On the point made
by the hon. Member for Poole, there is a difficulty in hung, or finely
balanced councils, but they still have to make decisions on their
budget, which stands for a year. They have to stand by their decisions
in the same way as other councils. We have to accept the decision of
the electorate in choosing the council, and the decisions that that
council produces. When a council has taken a vote and made a
resolution, it will inform the Electoral Commission, but the commission
has no role in ratifying the decision, which is taken by the local
council. The council may want to consult and to have wide-ranging
discussions on the best way forward, but the council’s decision,
as in many other issues, is binding.
Question put and agreed
to.
Clause 32
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clauses
33 to 36 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
37
metropolitan
districts:councillors per
ward
11.15
am
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to take new
clause 5— Referendum to approve
proposals—
‘(1)
Subject to the provisions of section 37(3) the local authority may from
time to time make proposals to adjust the number of councillors per
ward and must hold a referendum in the ward or wards affected before
taking any steps to implement them.
(2) The local authority may not pass a
resolution which makes the proposed change or changes unless the result
of the referendum is to approve the
proposals.
(3) If the result of
the referendum is not to approve the proposals, the local authority
must publish in one or more newspapers circulating in its area a notice
which—
(a) summarises the
proposals;
(b) states that the
referendum did not approve the
proposals;
(c) summarises the
authority’s existing arrangements;
and
(d) states that the
authority will be continuing to operate those
arrangements.’.
Mr.
Syms:
I should like to have a little canter around the
issue of metropolitan districts and councillors per ward. When I first
stood as a district councillor the ward had about 1,600 electors. The
number of electors for a county councillor was about 8,000. When I
fought a parliamentary seat in the midlands the ward populations were 12,000
or 14,000. The average for Birmingham is about 18,000 to 20,000. Most
metropolitan districts have three councillors, elected in one thirds,
and they have very large wards.
Clause 37 allows additional
councillors—a fourth, a fifth, a sixth, a seventh or an eighth,
the number is not specified. Presumably that means larger wards.
Alternatively, does it mean the same size wards but a larger council?
If there are 60 members and it goes to six members per ward there will
be 120 councillors. That has both cost and governance implications. If
one opts to have more councillors per ward but to keep the same number
on a particular metropolitan authority, it means larger
wards.
One of the
difficulties with our system is delivering literature in a very large
ward. I am sure that we all delivered to wards because no one else will
do it. We have almost killed ourselves by spending every waking hour
doing so. If the impact of clause 37 is to give us larger metropolitan
wards, I cannot see how it will improve general governance. There will
more councillors, larger wards and a bigger division between those at
the top and the bottom. I hope that the Under-Secretary can explain
exactly what the Government have in mind. With three-member wards,
elected on thirds, if one goes to more members in the authority there
could be two members standing for election. We need rather more of an
explanation. That is why we tabled new clause 5, which contains
proposals for a referendum so that there would be some check and some
debate on any increase in the number of
councillors.
There
are also questions of gerrymandering, which, of course, was named after
Governor Gerry of Massachusetts. Giving an extra representative to a
particular ward may have a political significance, as can having odd or
even numbers representing a ward. When southern Ireland went on to an
single transferable vote system, initially after independence, some of
the wards were sevens, nines or 11s, which meant that the quota for
winning was quite low. As the parties got control of the system the
size of seats came down to threes and fives, which benefited the larger
party under the Irish system. Clearly, under a metropolitan system, if
one starts to add representatives to wards under a particular formula,
unless it is totally within an electoral quota, it could
also have an impact. I should therefore like some reassurance from the
Under-Secretary about how the extras will be
added. Under the
parliamentary boundary commission system one, cannot add on the basis
of projected growth. There is a base year when seats are determined and
as the review moves forward there is some scope for arguments about
change. However, in local government changes in growth in a ward may be
taken into account. That is the one difference between the two systems.
If districts can change the number of representatives per metropolitan
ward simply by predicting that there will be a new housing estate in a
ward and so extra representatives will be needed, it may have a
political implication. That is why I want to have a little run around
this clause.
I hope
that the Under-Secretary can reassure me that all this is total
nonsense. However, I do think that changing the numbers, we will have
an impact on councils, ward sizes and, particularly if done on a
predictive basis, on the political
battleground.
Andrew
Gwynne:
Based on local knowledge, I think that the
proposal is the correct one. My constituency has two local authorities,
and one of them—in Tameside—was formed in 1974 when nine
very independent towns came together. To this day, they remain very
independent. Those towns are: the urban districts of Audenshaw, Denton,
Droylsden and Longdendale, and the municipal boroughs of Ashton,
Dukinfield, Hyde, Stalybridge and Mossley. When the borough was
created, it was divided into 18 wards reflecting those towns. To a
lesser extent today, those wards still reflect the townships of
Tameside. Things got complicated in 1980, however, when an extra ward
was given to the borough. Parts of the old boroughs of Dukinfield and
Stalybridge were cobbled together into a new ward called Dukinfield
Stalybridge ward, which confuses matters greatly because we also have
the wards of Stalybridge North, Stalybridge South and
Dukinfield.
Furthermore,
in 2004, following the most recent boundary changes, the ward of
Audenshaw, which had 10,000 electors, and the ward of St.
Peter’s, which had 7,000 electors, had their boundaries altered
because the average number of electors in each ward in Tameside was
8,000. To the great dismay of electors in Audenshaw—admittedly,
a very small number—who are proud of their Audwinian roots, they
were moved in to an Ashton ward, with which they have nothing in
common. So, first, they were moved in to the ward of Ashton St.
Peter’s, and then, at the next election, in to the
Ashton-under-Lyne parliamentary constituency, despite the fact that
their area of Audenshaw has been in the Denton and Reddish constituency
since it was created in 1983, and in the same parliamentary
constituency as Denton in every election since 1916, I
think.
Some wards in
Tameside no longer reflect the township boundaries. For example,
Dukinfield is divided between the wards of Dukinfield and Dukinfield
Stalybridge. Dukinfield ward is in the Denton and Reddish constituency
and Dukinfield Stalybridge ward is in that of Stalybridge and Hyde. At
the next election, Audenshaw will be divided in part between Denton and
Reddish and Ashton-under-Lyne
constituencies.
Tom
Levitt:
I just wanted to say that I never realised that
life on the other side of the Tameside boundary was so much
fun.
Andrew
Gwynne:
Perhaps my hon. Friend should have been at the
ward boundary public inquiry. He understand just how much fun it
actually was.
I think
that the Bill is trying to achieve greater clarity and reflection so
that wards mirror communities better. The building blocks of wards in
metropolitan areas such as Tameside must have 8,000 electors, plus or
minus. As I understand it, it would be possible for the Dukinfield ward
to cover the whole of Dukinfield, perhaps with five instead of three
members. Audenshaw ward could also reflect the whole of Audenshaw with
four members instead of three. We might also have a smaller Ashton St.
Peter’s ward with two members instead of three. In that case, we
could better reflect the communities with which people identify, rather
than create wards based on towns to which they do not belong. If the
Minister can clarify that that is the intention of this part of the
Bill, I give it my wholehearted
support.
Angela
E. Smith:
As a southerner, I never knew that I
would learn so much from the Committee about the north. I am very
grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish and
others. For a new Member, he has an encyclopaedic knowledge of his
constituency, which he has put to good use in the
Committee.
I am also
grateful to the hon. Member for Poole for explaining what he intends by
his new clause, which is, I think, probing. The new clause would do the
opposite of what he wants it to, and the Government oppose it in the
strongest terms. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not mean
it—his party, like ours, is wedded to democracy—but the
new clause would allow a council to ride roughshod over the principle
of equality in elections. Under the new clause, the controlling party
on a council could increase the number of councillors in a particular
ward simply by holding a referendum of its supporters and members in
that ward, and thereby increase that ward’s representation on
the local council. I am sure that that is not what the hon. Gentleman
intended, although I am grateful for his comments. He will not be
surprised that the Electoral Commission opposes the new clause, which,
it claims,
“risks
undermining the established process of electoral reviews and the
principle of equality of representation across a local
authority.”
I
turn now to what I think that the hon. Gentleman intended by his new
clause. I am sorry that, having been so helpful on previous
clauses—offering to take ideas away and reflect further—I
cannot do so in respect of new clause 5. I think that the hon.
Gentleman intends to provide for local authorities to increase the
membership of wards by a consistent number, by multiplying the number
of councillors across all an authority’s wards. If that were so,
there would not be the problems that I have mentioned of electoral
equality. However, decisions about wards and other such questions
should be taken by an independent body, not by local authorities, even
if they have the approval of the electorate. The independent
Electoral Commission and the boundary committee for England are
currently responsible for electoral reviews. It is through such
electoral reviews that the number of councillors per electoral
area—in district wards and county divisions, even though there
is no reference to divisions in the new clause—and the
boundaries and names of electoral areas can be changed. I remind the Committee that
clause 38 will allow local authorities to change the names of electoral
areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish might wish to
take that point into account if clause 38 is agreed
to.
The total number
of councillors on an authority may be changed under electoral reviews.
The boundary committee will have to consider carefully the ability of
the authority to provide convenient and effective local government
under any council size. Allowing the local authority to change the
number of councillors in a ward would also change the number of
councillors on the authority as a whole, with no regard to the impact
that such a change would have on the council’s ability to
provide services to local people. The new clause would also mean that
the total number of councillors for an area could be changed against
the wishes of the electors across the local authority area as a
whole.
The hon. Member
for Poole was particularly concerned about whether the clause would
mean larger wards. No ward in England currently has more than three
members per ward: some have one, some have two and others have three.
The Electoral Commission’s view is that having more than three
members in a ward would dilute accountability and affect relations
between electors and councillors. Clause 37 will allow flexibility to
recommend one and two-member wards. A number of Committee members will
already have a mixture of two and three-member wards in their
constituencies. The clause does not necessarily mean that councils will
be larger, but there could be smaller wards and fewer councillors per
ward. That decision will be for the Electoral Commission to make, in
consultation with the local
authority.
My hon.
Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish was right to say that the
clause would remove the existing inflexibility and allow the Electoral
Commission to better reflect communities. I think that his point is
sound. If communities feel disengaged from their wards, they are less
likely to vote. We want increasing participation and we want the
electors to feel part of their wards and part of the community. At same
time, we want to provide equality of
representation.
We
believe that there is a strong role for independent bodies to play.
Although we are, throughout the Bill, looking to devolve decisions to
local government, in this case it is right that an electoral body makes
decisions in consultation with a local authority to remove the concerns
that the hon. Member for Poole mentioned about gerrymandering. The
right way to do that is for local authorities to seek a review from the
independent Electoral Commission. I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw
his
amendment.
11.30
am
Mr.
Syms:
This has been a useful debate. The hon. Member for
Denton and Reddish mentioned a perfect
example of why the clause was relevant to his borough. Despite the
construction of many boroughs 30 or 40 years ago there are still lots
of local loyalties beneath the borough level. I am glad that the
Under-Secretary mentioned size decreases rather than increases, because
I would be concerned about the idea of a four-member ward. If an area
felt itself to have certain loyalties, it would be a better idea to
split it into two two-member wards than to add a ward with three
members and a bit to somewhere six miles away. If that is the idea
behind the Bill, fine. That would also inevitably reduce the size of
some very large wards, which would improve matters.
In light of the reassurances
that the Under-Secretary has given, I beg leave to withdraw the new
clause.
The
Chairman:
You do not need seek leave, because the new
clause has not been formally moved. I shall assume you are giving
notice that when we reach the right place in the Order Paper you will
not be moving it.
Question put and agreed
to.
Clause 37
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
