The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Allen,
Mr. Graham
(Nottingham, North)
(Lab)
Dorries,
Mrs. Nadine
(Mid-Bedfordshire)
(Con)
Dunne,
Mr. Philip
(Ludlow)
(Con)
Healey,
John
(Minister for Local
Government)
Love,
Mr. Andrew
(Edmonton)
(Lab/Co-op)
Main,
Anne
(St. Albans)
(Con)
Morgan,
Julie
(Cardiff, North)
(Lab)
Naysmith,
Dr. Doug
(Bristol, North-West)
(Lab/Co-op)
Neill,
Robert
(Bromley and Chislehurst)
(Con)
Rifkind,
Sir Malcolm
(Kensington and Chelsea)
(Con)
Rogerson,
Dan
(North Cornwall)
(LD)
Ryan,
Joan
(Enfield, North)
(Lab)
Sheridan,
Jim
(Paisley and Renfrewshire, North)
(Lab)
Stunell,
Andrew
(Hazel Grove)
(LD)
Touhig,
Mr. Don
(Islwyn)
(Lab/Co-op)
Watts,
Mr. Dave
(Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's
Treasury)Mark Etherton,
Committee Clerk
attended
the Committee
Fourth
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Tuesday 28
October
2008
[Robert
Key in the
Chair]
Draft Local Elections (Ordinary Day of Elections in 2009) Order 2008
10.30
am
The
Minister for Local Government (John Healey): I beg to
move,
That
the Committee has considered the draft Local Elections (Ordinary Day of
Elections in 2009) Order
2008.
I
look forward to your chairmanship of the Committee, Mr. Key.
I know that you have a local interest in the matters that we are
discussing and am sure that you will follow proceedings from the Chair
even more closely than
normal.
The
order proposes to move the date of next years local government
elections in England from Thursday 7 May to Thursday 4 June,
the same date on which elections will be held across the UK for the
European Parliament. Shortly, an order under section 4 of the European
Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 will be made to that
effect.
The
order will move the election date for 34 principal councils in England:
the 27 county councils in the remaining two-tier areas and seven
unitary councils. Those unitary councils are Bristol city council, Isle
of Wight and the new unitary councils of Bedford, Central Bedfordshire,
Cornwall, Shropshire and Wiltshire. It will also move the elections in
about 75 parish councils across England and the elections in the Isles
of Scilly. About 18 million people will be eligible to vote in the
local elections, and about 2,000 seats will be contested.
In the case
of the five new unitary councils, I recognise that moving that date
will prolong the interim period between their establishment and the
elections for their new leadership. On 1 April 2009, all the councils
that are to be abolished, as Parliament approved earlier this year,
will cease to exist and their councillors will cease to hold office.
However, any councillors of the abolished authorities who sit on
implementation executives or shadow executives, which are the bodies
responsible for the transition to the new authorities, will continue to
be full members of the executive. Those members of the councils that
continue to exist, such as Wiltshire and Shropshire, will continue to
be councillors until then. If they are members of the implementation
executive, they will continue in that
role.
To
ensure that there is no perceptible fall-off in the functions required
in that interim period in the new unitary areas, the new councils will
also be able to co-opt, where appropriate, members of the outgoing
district councils with particular expertise in areas such as licensing
or planning so that they can discharge those functions up to the
elections. Shortly, as a result of the detailed discussions that we are
having with the authorities and their implementation executives, we
will make regulations to permit that.
The order will
also move the elections for directly elected mayors that are due in
2009 in Doncaster, Hartlepool and North Tyneside. Stoke would have had
a mayoral election scheduled for the same date next year, but the
people of Stoke voted last Thursday to move instead to a
leader-and-cabinet system, which will be implemented in May 2009 in
accordance with proposals drawn up by the city council. Therefore,
there will be no mayoral election in Stoke next
year.
The
order will have no effect outside England as there are no local
elections planned for councils in Scotland and Wales, and the Secretary
of State for Northern Ireland will shortly introduce legislation for
Parliament to approve the postponement of next years local
elections in Northern Ireland in the light of a planned restructuring
of local
government.
I
want to address the situation in Cornwall, which the hon. Member for
North Cornwall will be particularly interested in. He, his colleagues
and I have had a number of meetings on the situation we face there. We
always knew that some matters that needed to be settled to draw up
arrangements for wards and electoral representation in the new unitary
council of Cornwall were likely to be complex. I am disappointed,
however, that we face a particular problem there. We knew that there
would be a tight time scale for the boundary committees work in
putting the arrangements in place and the Electoral Commission then
playing its part. Over the summerthe same time scale as in
other areasthe county and its implementation executive had
difficulty reaching a well-based view on the size of the new authority,
which meant that the boundary committees work was made more
difficult and put
back.
While,
in the end, it is for the boundary committee to decide the size of the
new council, it found it difficult to proceed in the absence of a clear
view from the implementation executive. However, those issues were
resolved by mid-August, so I am equally disappointed that the boundary
committee has not produced a draft recommendationit confirms
that it does not expect to do so until 2 December. The boundary
committee is now working closely with all the interested parties in
Cornwall, but that delay and the situation that we have to deal with
are not serving the people of Cornwall
well.
To
achieve the best democratic arrangement, the strongest legitimacy, the
shortest interregnum and the strongest credibility for the new
arrangements, it is crucial that the onus now be on all political
parties and councils in Cornwall to co-operate as fully as possible
with the boundary committee, so that they can give the boundary
committee and the commission the best chance to do the work that they
need to undertake in the coming months. Over the last few days, I have
spoken to the chair of the Electoral Commission, and the commission has
now written to the Department setting out its intended timetable for
beyond 2 December, which is when it plans to publish its draft
proposals.
The
Electoral Commission recognises that its timetable is tight, stresses
that it needs to go through certain stages and expects to be able to
make an order establishing electoral arrangements by the end of August.
Like everyone else, I wish to see an election for the new authority
based on new ward arrangements, and that suggests that an election
could be held in late October at
the earliest. I am therefore minded to introduce for consideration an
order that would, exceptionally, move the election date for Cornwall
from the beginning of June, as in this order, to the end of October
2009.
Before
introducing such an order, I propose to take soundings and consult
those affected in Cornwall, discuss the matter further with the
boundary committee and the Electoral Commission if necessary, and
confirm our intentions in due course. Although this order applies to
Cornwall, the further order would deal specifically with the Cornish
situation and defer elections to the soonest practicable date. I hope
that that is helpful to the Committee and to those who are following
this issue closely from beyond the
House.
As
elected representatives, we are all concerned about participation and
turnout. As we set out in the consultation, one of the principal
reasons for looking to combine the dates is our experience of the 2004
elections. In that year, both elections were held on 10 June and the
result was significantly increased turnout. For the European elections
of that year, voter turnout was 38.5 per cent. compared to 24 per cent.
in the previous European elections. For the 2004 district council
elections on that date, turnout was 41 per cent. compared to just 30
per cent. for the comparable elections held four years
earlier.
Our
consultation on moving the date closed in mid-August. We had 278
responses, which, as one would expect, included those from the
Electoral Commission, the Association of Electoral Administrators and
the Local Government Association, as well as responses from nearly 200
councils and a number of political parties. Few were opposed to the
proposals for elections to be held on the same day. On 7 October, I
placed a copy of our report in the House of Commons Library. The report
summarises the consultees views, sets out the
Governments response to the issues raised and provides a
rationale for the change.
I shall deal
briefly with several of the issues. They are important for all of us
who are concerned about the strength of our democracy and the clarity
of the way it works for voters. The main concern was the potential
complexity of having more than one election on the same daythe
complexities of administration and, particularly, the risk of voters
being
confused.
Based
on what the Electoral Commission, the Association of Electoral
Administrators and those local authorities responsible for the
elections said, I am confident that this draft order can deal with some
of those problems. Some had very much in mind the experience of
Scotland in 2007. However, our current legislation means that, whenever
we combine pollswhen there are two or more elections
togetherthe ballot papers must be separate and in different
colours, unlike in Scotland in 2007. That approach is supported by a
number of the affected councils that responded to the
consultation.
Despite
the concerns that were raised, the results of the consultation were
conclusive and on that basis we are moving forward to propose the draft
order, which is supported by the great majority of those who responded
to the
consultation.
The
draft order therefore makes provision to cover the issues that some
were concerned about. It provides, as proposed by many of those who
responded, for the European parliamentary elections in England to be
administered by reference to the local authority area,
not the constituency. It also provides that the local returning officer
for those elections will be the person who administers local elections
in that
area.
The
draft order also contains the necessary provisions to enable elections
to parish councils to take place alongside the principal council and
European elections in June. It extends the term of office for sitting
councillors and mayors, and provides that, from 7 November, no
by-elections will be required to fill casual vacancies on councils with
elections in 2009, which the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst
has been concerned about. It also provides for the annual meetings of
joint authorities and parish councils to take place later than is
currently required by statute to reflect that later election
date.
In
conclusion, the order is widely supported, and there are clear and
compelling reasons to hold both elections on the same day. That is an
approach that we took in 2004, and the evidence and experience of that
year strongly support this move. I commend the order to the
Committee.
10.44
am
Robert
Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): It is a pleasure to
serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Key, and I shall do my
best not to detain you for too
long.
My
party was one of those that made written representations to the
consultation and I broadly stand by what was said there. I am grateful
to the Minister for a comprehensive introduction to the orderhe
dealt with a number of the issues.
On balance,
the Conservatives have reached the same conclusion as the Government.
Although, as a matter of principle, we are reluctant to see polls
combined unless that is really necessary, given the practical issues
that arise and the fact that the order addresses a number of concerns
that colleagues and I have had, that test is met, so it is more
practical and sensible to make the changes as suggested.
I was a
participant in the 2004 combined London elections, as a candidate for
the London assembly. There was a problem in that election with the high
number of spoilt ballot papers, but lessons have been learned and there
has been some forward movement. Because there are now different
arrangements and different ways of dealing with things, which I hope
have taken on board some of the problems that I experienced at first
hand, we can move
forward.
I
note the Ministers proposals on parish councils, which seem
sensible. I raised the issue of by-elections because, although there is
practical advantage in the certainty for returning officers and
political parties offered by not changing the date, I have a problem
with county divisions. I represented a multi-member local authority
seat, so I know that a three-member ward can be managed for six months
or so if there is a vacancythe other two members can carry the
case work, for example. However, it is more difficult to manage a
single-member county division, and there could now be seven months in
which that division was effectively disfranchised. That is my one
concern, and I wonder whether it is an argument for keeping the
six-month
period.
There
is also a concern about new unitary authorities: a nine-week
interregnum may be a necessary, but that is not an entirely desirable
state of affairs. I believe that the Minister and I agree that it is
not desirable unless it
is absolutely necessary. The idea of co-opting people who may, in
effect, no longer have a full democratic mandate might be an ingenious
and practical solution, but we should look at the practical detail of
any future order on this
matter.
I
wish to ensure that we genuinely maximise democratic legitimacy during
such a period, particularly because important decisions on the future
running of those authorities might be taken, as you will know,
Mr. Key. That has to be approached with a measure of
caution. We are not going to make an issue of it today, but we should
all keep an eye on
it.
My
final observation is on Cornwall. Again, I note what the Minister says,
and it is unfortunate that the situation has arisen as it has. It is
not satisfactory that the commission has found itself in such a
difficult position, and perhaps it has not proceeded as swiftly as one
would wish. The proposal could be an appropriate solution, but I should
like to hold back on final endorsement until, again, I see the detail
of any future
order.
The
one thing that I flag up to the Minister is the fact that he and I know
what it is like to bang on doors at unpleasant times of year. The later
in the year it is, the less pleasant elections are for candidates and,
indeed, voters. That might be especially so in rural areas, and one
could be knocking on doors in late autumn or in October as the nights
are drawing in. I know that, historically, that happened frequently in
general elections, but we have moved away from it in recent years. I
hope that we think through the practical implications of conducting
elections in sparsely populated rural areas when daylight hours are
short.
Having
made those observations, I do not need to prolong debate. As I made
clear, we will not oppose the
order.
10.48
am
Andrew
Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD): It is a pleasure to serve
under your chairmanship, Mr. Key. I apologise to the
Committee for having a rather groggy voice this
morning.
I
begin by saying that it is right for the Minister to make an effort
this morning to explain why the decision has been taken and what the
process is. We all agree that we should seldom tamper with the
timetable of democracy in this country and that any tampering needs to
be well justified, and thoroughly discussed and debated. I thank the
Minister for setting out as clearly as he did the factors that have
been taken into account and the process that has been
followed.
The
alteration that the order introduces was facilitated by the Local
Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007I had the
honour of serving on the Public Bill Committee that considered that
measure. I remember that serious concerns were expressed then about the
powers that the Government would have to alter and vary dates. As a
consequence of those concerns, the Government strengthened the
consultation procedure and they have followed it rigorouslyI
have no complaint on that
score.
On
a small point, I note that it is recorded in the explanatory notes that
no views were received from the national Liberal Democrat party. I
attended the meeting
at which the party agreed to the measure, and I do not know why that
information did not reach the drafter of the explanatory notes.
However, I want to make it clear that we support the change.
I have two or
three questions that I am sure are simple to answerI would not
pose them if they were not. On article 4 and what it states about
mayoral office, it is clear from that article and what the Minister has
said that mayoral elections will take place on the same day as other
elections. However, article 2 refers only to councillors in counties,
districts and parishes. I seek the Ministers assurance that
despite the absence of the words, mayor,
mayoral or mayoral elections in article
2, the legislation will achieve what he set out to the
Committee.
The Minister
mentioned the situation in Stoke. May I take it from what he said that
since the town decided by a referendum not to have a mayor in future,
there will be elections in Stoke, or will the existing council form an
executive, as if it were already in existence? Perhaps he could clarify
that matter. The Minister did not comment on the change of the basis of
European election counts from a constituency one to a local authority
one. Article 7(2)(a) refers to districts and counties. Will he
confirm that that reference to districts includes unitaries, and that
the wording encompasses all types of election? To express my point more
clearly, not everywhere in the country has local government elections,
but I assume that the changes to European election returning officer
responsibilities will apply in, for instance, London boroughs,
unitaries and other areas where there are no local elections. Perhaps
the Minister will confirm that point.
The hon.
Member for Bromley and Chislehurst referred to the by-election issue.
There will now be an additional five weeks of potential vacancy for
by-elections. I would like the Minister to tell the Committee why it
has been decided to go for the same date of 7 November, rather than
rolling it forward, as one might have expected. In some
placesnot all that manythere will be parish, county and
European parliamentary elections. Is the Minister satisfied that the
public in those areas will be able to cope, and that returning officers
will be able to cope with those circumstances? I am thinking not just
of events on the day, but also matters relating to postal votes. Some
of us endured the fiasco of the all-out postal votes in 2004 in the
north-west, where some of my constituents were delivered ballot papers
intended for Oldham. They were somewhat perplexed to say the least, and
there were multiple cases of difficulty. It is not clear to me whether
each returning officer in each local authority area will be responsible
for postal vote dispatch within their areas. The lessons were learned
very painfully in that election, as postal votes were sent throughout
the north-west from one central spot, with all theI am not sure
whether this is a parliamentary phrasecock-ups that followed,
so it would be good to know that the issue has been dealt
with.
I know that
my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall hopes to catch your eye,
Mr. Key, on the situation relating to the new unitary
council of Cornwall. The Minister has set out his case, but I hope that
he will also comment on the three other counties where there appears to
be uncertainty about whether the elections will take place in full or
in part. One is Devon, where some people expect some sort of unitary
reorganisation to take place and have therefore made representations
to me that those elections should not take place on the Euro day. It
would be helpful to hear the Ministers view, and learn whether
he will return to the House to revise the dates and arrangements in
Devon.
The other
counties affected are Norfolk and Suffolk, where there is some
discussion about which county the area known as
WaveneyLowestoft, in real lifewill finish up in. Again,
I should like the Minister to tell us whether he foresees the situation
affecting the timetable in Norfolk and Suffolk. It is not acceptable
for communities to be uncertain about whether they are going to have
elections, or, if they are going to have elections, on what basis. If
the various political parties, candidates and others are going to mount
an effective operation to maximise turnout, the sooner that those
uncertainties are resolved the better.
My
partys view is that it is right to bring the dates together,
and we support the order, but I should certainly like to hear from the
Minister the answers to the questions that I posed, so that out there,
there is clarity about how local democracy is intended to function next
year.
10.57
am
Dan
Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD): It is a pleasure to serve
under your chairmanship, Mr, Key, as we discuss an issue that will
affect many people throughout the countrynot least my
constituents.
The
Minister rightly points out that we are talking about local elections
not just in England, but in Cornwall. The situation there is a matter
of great discomfort to many people across the parties and among
independents, too. However, I should say that the Minister has given us
a great deal of his time and taken a personal interest in trying to
resolve the situation, and I am very grateful to him for doing
so.
Nevertheless,
I would like to clarify what has happened regarding the heel dragging
of the boundary committee for England over the delivery of new
boundaries within which an election can take place. It is perfectly
true that the implementation executivethe cross-party
organisation that involves people from district councils and the county
council to manage the transition to the new authoritymade a
formal submission, but it is perfectly true also that some members of
the executive made, on a cross-party basis, a minority submission for a
much lower number of
councillors.
That
was a matter of great debate in the executive, and indeed in the
councils and the wider community, but my understanding is that the
boundary committee is responsible for making proposals, and the fact
that two different submissions went forward does not really get it off
the hook. It should have taken more prompt action to resolve the
situation.
We
have heard from the Minister that the issue was resolved with a further
proposal in August, but we are approaching November and we do not have
from the boundary committee even a set of proposals for consultation.
That is very unfortunate. If the committee had been able to deliver in
Cornwall, as it had promised to, we might have had local elections at
the same time as everyone elsein Juneand in similar
circumstances. Perhaps our being able to do so is not entirely out of
the question, but, as the Minister said, it is exceedingly
unlikely.
Elections in
October will present challenges, but the crucial thing is that the
boundaries should be those that have the support of local people and
their locally elected representatives on existing councils. There has
been a strong feeling that 82the current figure for Cornwall
county councilis too low to allow the new authority to deliver
its new responsibilities and roles. The new boundaries are therefore
vital.
We
are in an unfortunate situation and I am afraid that I must lay that at
the door of the boundary committee. Although various submissions have
been made and various aspects of information passed to the committee,
it is its responsibility to sort them out and break the logjam, and it
has failed to do so up to
now.
The
main challenge of fighting elections in October may be motivating
people to come out to vote a year from now, but perhaps the Minister
will say whether he and his right hon. Friends are considering holding
any other elections at the end of next October, perhaps on a date that
might encourage people to come to the
polls.
On
that note, it is unfortunate that we in Cornwall are in slightly
different circumstances. I am usually happy for Cornwall to be given
special status and considered slightly differently from places over the
border, but on this occasion I think that it is unfortunate. I hope
that the boundary committee will make every effort to resolve the
problem and allow us to have elections in June along with the rest. If
that is not possible, it is crucial that we have the new
boundaries.
11.1
am