New
Clause
31
Joint
waste authorities in
Wales
‘(1) The Welsh
Ministers may by order make provision in relation to Wales applying any
provisions of sections (proposals for joint waste authorities in
England) to (membership of joint waste authorities)
with—
(a) the
substitution for references to the Secretary of State of references to
the Welsh Ministers; and
(b)
such other modifications as they consider
appropriate.
(2) An order under
this section may include incidental, consequential or supplementary
provision, including provision amending or
modifying—
(a) any
enactment;
(b) any instrument
made under an enactment.
(3)
The reference in subsection (1) to any provisions of sections
(proposals for joint waste authorities in England) to (membership of
joint waste authorities) includes a reference to any provisions of Part
14 so far as relating to any of those
sections.’.—[Angela E.
Smith.]
Brought
up, read the First and Second time, and added to the
Bill.
New
Clause
32
Interpretation
‘In
this Part—
“joint
waste authority” has the meaning given by section
(implementation of proposals by
order)(2);
“local
authority” has the meaning given by section (proposals for joint
waste authorities in England)(9).’.—[Angela E.
Smith.]
Brought
up, read the First and Second time, and added to the
Bill.
New Clause
1
Single
transferable vote
‘(1) This
section applies to elections of members of any Principal or Parish
Council, including
by-elections.
(2) Each vote in
the poll at an election shall be a single transferable
vote.
(3) For the purposes of
subsection (2), a single transferable vote is a
vote—
(a) capable of
being given so as to indicate the voter’s order of preference
for the candidates for election as members for the constituency;
and
(b) capable of being
transferred to the next choice
when—
(i) the vote is
not needed to give a prior choice for the necessary quota of votes,
or
(ii) when a prior choice is
eliminated from the list of candidates because of a deficiency in the
number of votes given for him.’.—[Tom
Brake.]
Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Tom
Brake:
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: New clause 8— Local authority resolution to change
electoral system
‘(1) Any local
authority may, not later than 12th September in the year that is two
years before the year in which it shall take effect, resolve that the
next two elections of the local authority will be held using an
approved electoral system other than that used for the previous
election.
(2) A resolution
under this section—
(a)
takes effect, subject to paragraph (b), for the next two elections of
the local authority; and
(b)
continues in effect until
either—
(i) a further
resolution under this section takes effect;
or
(ii) a poll of electors of
the local authority held under this Act takes
effect.
(3) A local authority
may not resolve to change its electoral system more than once every
five
years.’.
New
clause 9—Approved electoral
systems
‘(1) The following
methods of election shall be approved electoral systems pursuant to
this Act—
(a)
“First Past the Post” which means the system currently
used for elections to the UK
Parliament.
(b) “Single
Transferable Vote” as defined in the Local Government in
Scotland Act 2003 (asp1) by the Scottish
Parliament.
(c) An
“Additional Member System” as defined in the Scotland Act
1998 (c. 46).
(d) An
“Alternative Vote” system which is one in which if no
candidate obtains the votes of 50 per cent. of those voting in a single
member constituency the subsequent preferences of those who voted for
the losing candidates are successively taken into account until one
candidate has obtained 50 per cent. of those
voting.
(e) An
“Alternative Vote Plus” system which is an Additional
Member System in which the constituency Members are elected by means
off the Alternative Vote
system.’.
Tom
Brake:
I had wondered whether this sleep-inducing process
of saying “aye” and “no” was going to
continue, thereby allowing new clause 1 to slip in.
The new clause is about the
single transferable vote. Clearly, some of my colleagues are dedicated
followers of STV. In fact, some hon. Members in other parties may feel
that my colleagues are obsessed by STV. I hasten to add that I do not
put myself in that category. Yesterday we had an historic vote on the
House of Lords. Today, there is an opportunity for another historic
vote to reform our own voting systems and go for the single
transferable vote for local council elections. Clearly, that particular
solution is the Rolls-Royce of electoral systems to replace the Austin
Allegro that we are currently attempting to drive. The Government might
not want to go for the Rolls-Royce solution, but we have new clause 8
in front of us that would provide them with something in
between—perhaps the Mondeo of electoral
systems.
Let us focus
on new clause 1 and the single transferable vote. It is important
because proportionality ensures that each vote has the same worth. Hon.
Members will know, depending on which part of the country they
represent, how the present electoral parliamentary system helps them.
Proportionality in south-west London, an area that I represent, is not
effective, or at least people’s votes are not reflected
effectively in the political representation of Members of Parliament in
that area. Fortunately in south-west London, the Liberal Democrats
benefit from the lack of proportionality in relation to the Westminster
system. The same applies at a local level as well.
We welcome the fact that
Scotland is pioneering the use of STV for its local elections. In local
elections from 2000 to the last election, voter turnout varied between
29.6 per cent. and a maximum of 40 per cent. Clearly, the turnout was
very low. That is because in many parts of the country how people vote
makes very little difference in terms of who is elected to represent
them on their local council. Hence the need for the single transferable
vote, which, we believe would improve voter turnout. Furthermore, it
would make councils more representative of the communities that they
seek to reflect and their elected representatives would be more
representative of the communities that elect
them.
In our view,
more women would get elected under a single transferable vote system
for local elections; currently, only 29 per cent. of local councillors
are women. More members of the black and ethnic minority community
would be elected as well; only 2 per cent. of local councillors are
from that community.
I am realistic,
however. I recognise that, although the Labour party in Scotland has
conceded that STV is the way forward for local elections, there is no
evidence so far that the Government in Westminster will endorse the
system. If the Minister is not willing to support new clause 1, he has
new clause 8 as an alternative. It is based on the Parliamentary and
Local Elections (Choice of Electoral Systems) Bill introduced by the
hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) and is about
offering options to local councils. Why is that a way forward? We need
a mixture of systems, and that principle has been accepted in London,
where the electoral system chosen is different from any other in the
country. Indeed, a beneficiary of that system is sitting in the
Committee with us.
Robert
Neill:
I hate to sound pedantic, but I remind the hon.
Gentleman that I, like all Conservative and Labour GLA members, was
elected under the first-past-the-post
system.
Tom
Brake:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out.
However, the electoral system put together to elect members of the
Greater London authority elected him, but equally elected other list
members.
We accept
the principle of different types of electoral systems. New clause 8
would provide options to local authorities in respect of the
type of electoral system that they could adopt—whether, as set
out in new clause 9, it was first-past-the-post, the single
transferable vote, additional member, alternative vote or an
alternative vote plus system. Local authorities would have a choice of
systems, as they have a choice of whether to go for a mayoral or
executive
option.
Mr.
Neil Turner (Wigan) (Lab): I wonder why the Liberal
Democrats in Scotland did not allow a plurality of systems when they
had the opportunity, with the Labour party, of changing the system
there.
Tom
Brake:
I do not have the answer to that, but as a Labour
party representative, the hon. Gentleman may be closer to the action
there. He may be able to get a response from his own colleagues on why
they supported the system now in
place.
Mr.
Turner:
I imagine that Labour Members of the Scottish
Parliament are still nursing their arms, which were shoved up their
backs by the Liberal Democrat MSPs.
Tom
Brake:
If a small bunch of Liberal Democrats was able to
arm-wrench the hon. Gentleman’s Scottish Parliament colleagues
as he suggests, I thank him for highlighting what a weak and feeble
bunch they are. I shall pass on that message to my colleagues in
Scotland, who will welcome it in the run-up to the Scottish elections.
I am sure that they will make good use of that
information.
New
clause 9 sets out the different options that local authorities could go
for. In new clause 8, we provide a method through which they would be
allowed to opt for and try different systems, although they would not
be allowed to change the electoral system on a regular and confusing
basis; there would be a period during which they could not change the
system.
The voting
public cope very well with an electoral system in London that includes
borough elections and elections for the Mayor, for the Greater London
assembly, for Westminster and for the European Parliament, and may
include at some point parish council elections. I am confident that
that public would be able to cope with a system that changed from time
to time, or with any of the options that local authorities could
choose.
Michael
Fabricant:
I am looking through some of the other new
clauses that the hon. Gentleman will be proposing later this afternoon,
and I want to get behind his motivation. Could it be despair? I
understand that of those who regularly support the
Liberal Democrats at general elections, only 16 per cent. could identify
“Ming” as the leader of the Liberal
Democrats.
2.30
pm
Tom
Brake:
I thank the hon. Gentleman. However, I am
having difficulty linking that intervention to new clauses 1, 8 or 9.
Perhaps he can help.
Michael
Fabricant:
I believe that the hon. Gentleman is despairing
because, given that the Liberal Democrats seem to command only 16 per
cent. of support in recent polls in our first-past-the-post system, it
is felt that his proposal offers the only way that those of the Liberal
Democrat persuasion can get elected to
Parliament.
The
Chairman:
Order. We should return to the new
clause.
Tom
Brake:
Thank you, Mr. Benton; I was going to
make the point that the hon. Gentleman is tempting me to stray far
beyond the remit of the new clauses.
As I stated at the beginning,
new clause 1 offers what we consider to be the Rolls-Royce electoral
solution—the one that would provide the most representative
local government. However, if the Government are not keen on that, they
have the alternative proposed by the hon. Member for Bury, North. That
would provide the sort of choice that the Minister seeks to provide in
other respects for local
authorities.
Andrew
Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab): The hon. Gentleman
mentions choice, and my personal choice is the first-past-the-post
system. However, new clause 9 lists various voting systems, ranging
from first-past-the-post to the single transferable vote. Why can we
not choose the system used for elections to the European Parliament? Do
the Liberal Democrats favour some versions of proportional
representation but not
others?
Tom
Brake:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to
highlight the fact that the system adopted for the European Parliament
was not one that we supported. I also note that the hon. Gentleman
supports the first-past-the-post system; perhaps I detect a little
self-interest.
Tom
Levitt (High Peak) (Lab): Just for the record, those who
support the first-past-the-post system may also support the alternative
vote system, which is on the hon. Gentleman’s list. I note,
however, that the drawing of ballots and choosing councillors at random
is not included. Surely, it should be an
option.
Tom
Brake:
I thank the hon. Gentleman. I am not familiar with
the system of drawing councillors’ names in random ballots, but
I must not be tempted explore it, Mr. Benton, because you
will seek to bring me back to the matter in hand. In fact, I have
concluded my remarks. I hope that the Under-Secretary will respond
positively to our sensible proposals.
Angela
E. Smith:
It is rare at this stage of a Committee’s
proceedings to have so much excitement. I am grateful to the hon.
Member for Carshalton and Wallington for raising the issue. I hate to
disappoint him yet again—he looks so tragic when I
do.
Every voting
system has its advantages and disadvantages, and hon. Members will have
judged which they believe is best in the interests of democracy. I was
somewhat surprised that the new clause was proposed, however, because
after looking through my papers over the weekend, I came to the House
on Monday only to read The Guardian headline that said,
“Campbell sets Brown tests for Lib-Lab coalition deal”. I
shall not go too far down this path, Mr. Benton, but given
the question before us I think I might be given some licence. For many
Liberal Democrat leaders the big issue—the
deal-breaker—has been PR. Yet in an official
briefing——although it was later
retracted—
“journalists were told
proportional representation was ‘not a deal breaker or a deal
maker’”,
although
the Liberal Democrat party previously insisted on it. There clearly has
been some change in policy, which is why I was so pleased to see that
old habits die hard.
Tom
Levitt:
That could explain the observation made by the
hon. Member for Lichfield a few moments ago. Perhaps it was not the
word “Ming” that people did not recognize, it was the
word “leader”.
[
Laughter.
]
Angela
E. Smith:
I have always been known as a very generous
person and I do not want to intrude on private grief. I think you would
instruct us to stick more closely to the amendment.
There are arguments for and
against the introduction of a PR voting system and it has to be
recognised that we have new PR systems for the devolved
Administrations. The hon. Gentleman is tempting me because of that to
welcome his new clause. Many of us are aware of the benefits of a
first-past-the-post system, such as the direct relationship between the
elected and the elector in a specific geographic area. That is
something that many of us in this House greatly appreciate and
value.
Tom
Brake:
Will the hon. Lady give
way?
Angela
E. Smith:
I have barely got into my stride. I will give
way when I have talked about the merits of first past the post. It is
that system that is used to elect councillors and local authorities in
England and Wales. Members of the GLA are elected using the additional
member system. I think that it does help members to represent the
interests of their area when there is that clear relationship between
the elected and the elector and when—this is very
important—the citizen who elects people knows who they are
electing and knows who is representing them. I acknowledge the virtues
of some other voting systems but that is a significant advantage of the
current
system.
Tom
Brake:
I understand what the Under-Secretary says in
relation to the link between a constituency or a ward and the
representative, but does she not agree
with me that at a ward level, particularly if a ward is represented by
three councillors under an STV system, it is still perfectly possible
to achieve a link between a recognisable small area and representatives
elected under STV?
Angela
E. Smith:
Lots of things are possible in life but I still
do not think the STV system or the systems described by the hon.
Gentleman give that same accountability, which is also
important.
Having
said that, the Government recognise that first past the post is not the
right system in every circumstance. We have a number of different
systems. Mayors in local authorities are elected by the supplementary
vote system. The Scottish Parliament has another system. The Welsh
Assembly and Greater London assembly use the additional member system.
The European Parliament uses the list system. In each of those cases
there was a good reason why those systems were adopted—including
the fact that it was in the Government’s general election
manifesto that those systems would be introduced. There was no such
promise in our last election manifesto.
I do not think there are any
grounds for changing the system for local government elections. That
system wherein the elector goes into the polling booth and puts a cross
by the name of their preferred candidate, and the candidate who gets
the most votes wins, is very straightforward. The hon. Gentleman
concentrates on the type of voting system, but a clear theme throughout
our deliberations has been the need for strong leadership and strong
governance. In democracy, it is not only the type of voting system that
is important; the quality of leadership is also a test when we make
that assessment.
The
hon. Gentleman spoke about not wanting to cause too much confusion, but
I found that strange when I re-read the new clause, given that if it
were accepted councils could resolve to change their electoral system
to one of the five types outlined in the new clause. We could end up
with each district council a county area choosing a different electoral
system with which to elect its members. That would be extraordinarily
confusing for the electorate. I do not think you would get clear and
accountable representation in those
circumstances.
Tom
Brake
indicated
dissent.
Angela
E. Smith:
The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but that
could be the outcome.
Tom
Brake:
Why would it be so
confusing?
Angela
E. Smith:
If the hon. Gentleman cannot understand why
having five different electoral systems used to elect members to
various bodies within one county is confusing, it probably explains why
he is proposing the new clause and other hon. Members are opposing
it.
Following its
consultation on electoral reform in local government, the Local
Government Association concluded that elections for the Scottish
Parliament,
the Welsh Assembly, the European Parliament and the Greater London
assembly, which used alternative voting systems, have “involved greater complexity to
the voter”.
It was also
concerned that adding complexity might depress turnout or demoralise
voters. The democracy task group commissioned by the LGA expressed
concern
“that the
replacement of first past the
post”
with a system of
proportional representation
will
“inevitably lead to
an increase in the number of No Overall Control (NOC)
authorities”,
which
“has
clear implications for stability of leadership”.
The task group also stated that although
there was no
consensus
“to either
retain or replace the first-past-the-post system...a majority of
the Task Group favour retaining and developing the existing
system”.
There
is an ongoing review of the experiences of new voting systems used in
the devolved Administrations. The Government feel that it would be
inappropriate to try to pre-empt the findings of the review by
encouraging the introduction of yet more electoral systems. In view of
the those arguments, I hope that the hon. Member for Carshalton and
Wallington is convinced that the proposed new clauses would not provide
the best way forward and that he will withdraw
them.
Tom
Brake:
I thank the Under-Secretary for setting out the
Government’s position so clearly. I am still smarting from that
vicious assault on my party leader, but I have just about
recovered.
I was
interested to hear the Under-Secretary deploy the fact that there might
be an increase of authorities with no overall control as an argument
against the new clauses as if such a situation would be the end of the
world for local authorities. Others might say that such an increase
would mean that different parties would have to work together to ensure
that the majority views of a local authority were
represented.
Alistair
Burt:
I ask the hon. Gentleman to cast his mind forward
and to speculate on whether, in the event of a hung Parliament, the
Government’s arguments might be revised to some
degree.
Tom
Brake:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I
can assure him that the Liberal Democrats will be consistent in all
respects and I hope the Government will be likewise.
It is clear that the
Under-Secretary is adamant that the Government know best and that there
is no scope for allowing either local politicians or a local electorate
to decide the appropriate voting system for their locality. It would
therefore be pointless to pursue the matter today. We may wish to
return to it in the other place—supposing that that is still
there.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and
clause, by leave, withdrawn.
| 
