The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Burden,
Richard
(Birmingham, Northfield)
(Lab)
Campbell,
Mr. Ronnie
(Blyth Valley)
(Lab)
Carmichael,
Mr. Alistair
(Orkney and Shetland)
(LD)
Crabb,
Mr. Stephen
(Preseli Pembrokeshire)
(Con)
Donaldson,
Mr. Jeffrey M.
(Lagan Valley)
(DUP)
Fraser,
Christopher
(South-West Norfolk)
(Con)
Goggins,
Paul
(Minister of State, Northern Ireland
Office)
Goodman,
Helen
(Bishop Auckland)
(Lab)
Horam,
Mr. John
(Orpington)
(Con)
Iddon,
Dr. Brian
(Bolton, South-East)
(Lab)
Marris,
Rob
(Wolverhampton, South-West)
(Lab)
Plaskitt,
Mr. James
(Warwick and Leamington)
(Lab)
Reid,
Mr. Alan
(Argyll and Bute)
(LD)
Robertson,
Mr. Laurence
(Tewkesbury)
(Con)
Stuart,
Ms Gisela
(Birmingham, Edgbaston)
(Lab)
Thornberry,
Emily
(Islington, South and Finsbury)
(Lab)
Glenn McKee, Committee
Clerk
attended the
Committee
Twelfth
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Thursday
22 January
2009
[John
Bercow in the
Chair]
Draft
Postponement of Local Elections (Northern Ireland) Order
2009
8.55
am
The
Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Paul Goggins):
I beg to
move,
That
the Committee has considered the draft Postponement of Local Elections
(Northern Ireland) Order
2009.
May
I welcome you, Mr. Bercow, to the Chair to oversee the early
shift? I am sure you will keep us in good
order.
The
order will postpone local government elections that are due to be held
in Northern Ireland in May. The Government would not decide to postpone
elections without very good reason. I hope the Committee will find it
helpful if I set out the background to the proposal and why it is
needed.
In
2002, following the formation of the devolved Northern Ireland
Assembly, the Northern Ireland Executive launched a review of public
administration in Northern Ireland. It was a comprehensive examination
of the arrangements for the administration and delivery of public
services and covered almost 150 bodies, including the 26 district
councils. The review group reported on district councils in 2006 and
recommended a move from 26 to seven district councils. That was
accepted by the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who had
taken on responsibility for such matters as the Assembly and the
Executive had been
suspended.
On
resuming responsibility for the review following restoration in 2007,
the Northern Ireland Executive opted for an 11-council model. In 2008,
legislation was introduced in the Assembly to implement that. During
the passage of the legislation, the then Minister of Environment in
Northern Ireland received a number of questions from Assembly Members
about whether the scheduled local elections in 2009 would still take
place, in light of the proposed
restructuring.
Elections
are an excepted matter under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 so
responsibility for policy on elections rests with the Secretary of
State. In April 2008, the Minister of Environment wrote to the
Secretary of State requesting the postponement of the elections until
the 11-council model was fully implemented. The Secretary of State
agreed that it would make sense for the next elections to be held using
the new model, rather than hold elections to 26 councils that would
shortly not
exist.
However,
we recognised that a number of steps had to be taken before the
11-council model could be implemented. In particular, new council wards
and districts had to be drawn up and district electoral areas needed to
be grouped for the purposes of proportional representation, which is
used in all local government elections in Northern Ireland. Following
discussions between the Northern Ireland Office and the Department of
the Environment in Northern Ireland, it was estimated that the
implementation process would take approximately
two years. For that reason, on 25 April 2008, the Secretary of State
announced publicly that he would seek to postpone the elections until
2011. The announcement was generally well received as an exceptional
but justifiable step. There were no objections from Northern Ireland
political parties and the Electoral Commission expressed its
support.
Article
2(2) will amend section 11(1) of the Electoral Law Act (Northern
Ireland) 1962 so that the next local government elections in Northern
Ireland will be held in 2011. Subsequent elections will take place
every four years thereafter. Article 2(3) will disapply section 11(1A)
of the 1962 Act, which requires local elections to be held on the first
Thursday in May. There are two reasons for that change. First, although
we expect implementation of the 11-council model to take about two
years, we cannot be certain of the completion date. It is difficult to
be precise about how long boundary setting and electoral area grouping
will take, particularly as inquiries may be required and
recommendations may be
challenged.
Secondly,
as the Committee is aware, Assembly elections are also scheduled to
take place in 2011. Assembly elections and local government elections
in Northern Ireland are held under the single transferable vote form of
proportional representation. Counting in PR-STV elections is complex
and we wish to have detailed discussions with the chief electoral
officer and the Electoral Commission on the practicality of a combined
poll before setting an exact date in legislation.
For those
reasons, we will introduce a further order to set the date of the next
election, when we have a clearer idea of how the implementation of the
move to 11 councils is progressing, and when we have had detailed
discussions with the chief electoral officer and Electoral Commission
on the possibility of a combined poll. However, it is important to
signal that the local elections will not be postponed indefinitely and
that they will take place at some point during 2011. For that reason,
article 2 sets out explicitly that the next local election year in
Northern Ireland will be
2011.
Article
3 makes the necessary consequential amendments to ensure that existing
members terms of office are extended, and that any vacancies
arising between now and 2011 are filled in the usual way. Before the
draft order was laid, the Northern Ireland Office consulted the
Northern Ireland Departments to ensure that postponing the date would
not result in any adverse and unintended consequences for it. The
Department of Agriculture and Rural Development informed us of the need
to make consequential provision relating to appointments to the
Drainage Council, which are linked to local election dates. Article 4
provides for appointments to the council also to be extended to
2011.
I reiterate
that any decision to postpone an election for any length of time is not
taken lightly. I am confident, however, that the proposed postponement
is an exceptional but justifiable step under the circumstances, and I
hope the Committee will support the order before us
today.
9.1
am
Mr.
Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con): May I welcome you
to the Chair, Mr. Bercow? We do not have a huge problem with
the order for the reasons that the
Minister has given, but there are one or two questions that I should
like to ask, as I am sure the Committee
expects.
It
must be a good thing to reduce the number of councils. Nevertheless, we
objected to an earlier proposalalso in a statutory
instrumentto reduce them to seven, because we did not believe
that seven was an appropriate number. I am pleased, however, that we
have ended up with 11. I recognise the amount of work that will have to
be carried out in redrawing not only the overall boundary of each
council, but the inner ward boundaries. I also understand that certain
functions, such as planning and roads, will be transferred to councils.
That is a good thing as it will speed up decision making and make the
whole process more democratic. There is a large backlog of planning
applications so, hopefully, transferring the responsibility to councils
should help. Sadly, there may well be staff redundancies because of the
reduction in the number of councils, but some new appointments will be
made. A great deal of work has to go
on.
It
is interesting that the Secretary of State was alerted to the fact that
the next local government elections had to be delayed. He made a
statement on 25 April 2008, which was three years before the intended
new date of the elections. It will therefore be three years from that
time before the councils are functioning. That is quite a delay, but
the delay that we are talking about, from election to election, will be
possibly two years. I say possibly because, as the
Minister said, a date has not been specified for the local government
elections.
Although we
are discussing a delay of two years, it could be longer than that. I do
not expect that the Minister will hold local council elections in, say,
December 2011, but he said that he could not be sure about the progress
of the necessary work, so we cannot say when those elections will be in
2011. That gives me slight cause for concern. If the date is
open-ended, does that not allow for slippage to take place? In other
words, if the date were set now for, say, May 2011, would that not have
the effect of concentrating the minds of those who are trying to
implement the changes? Would it not be better to do it that
way?
I understand
what the Minister says about the Assembly elections, which are due to
take place in May 2011. I understand that the Government should
consider whether it is wise to hold both elections on the same day,
although in England we are holding the European elections and the
county council elections on the same day next year. Who knows? I do not
know what is in the Prime Ministers mindhe himself may
not even knowbut we could even end up with a general election
on that day too. That is not impossible.
So, although
some consideration would need to be given to the ability of the
Electoral Commission to ensure that both elections could be run fairly
and efficiently on the same day, I do not see why they should not be
run on the same day. It would probably be best if the order had stated
the date in 2011 when the elections will take place. The Minister
rightly said that the Government would not delay elections without good
reason. I accept that. However, to delay them without setting a new
date for those election causes me a little concern, but not so much
that I will seek to divide the Committee. I simply place my concern on
the record.
Because the
date is not certain, how will the Minister assess the work in progress
at each stage of the processchanging the boundaries, handing
over the powers, and
making the necessary redundancies, sadly, and the new appointments,
hopefully, of personnel? How will the Government monitor that process,
to ensure that it is progressing at the correct pace? To ensure that it
is keeping pace, the Minister needs to have in mind a date for the next
council elections, whether that is the same day as the Assembly
elections in May, or possibly a day in June, a month later.
We understand
the need to change the number of councils and the work involved in
that, so we understand the need to delay the elections. When I first
saw the order, I thought that a two-year delay sounded a little long.
Hopefully, the delay will be no longer than two years. However, when I
began to look into the issue further, I saw that the date was not
specified in the order. I have made clear my concern. Perhaps the
Minister will address that when he winds
up.
9.8
am
Mr.
Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD): I welcome you,
Mr. Bercow, to the Chair this
morning.
I
am opposed in principle to the concept of postponing elections. The
councillors were elected four years ago for a four-year term. They have
no mandate for that to be extended to a six-year term, or possibly even
a term of six years and seven months, because under the terms of the
order the next set of elections could be as late as December
2011.
The Minister
said that this decision was exceptional and had not been taken lightly.
I think the decision should not have been taken. I remind him that in
Scotland in the 1990s, when the then Conservative Government were
reorganising local government, the original Bill had said that the 1994
regional elections should be cancelled. However, the Labour party and
all other Opposition parties in Scotland opposed that proposal and the
then Conservative Government yielded and changed the legislation, so
that the regional council elections went ahead in 1994. Those elections
were to elect councillors for a two-year term, exactly the same term as
would have applied if these elections had not been cancelled. They
should have gone ahead.
However, I
will not seek to divide the Committee today, because I accept that it
is far too late to do so and that all the political parties and
electoral administrators in Northern Ireland are working under the
assumption that the elections will not go ahead. Nevertheless, I want
to ask the Minister why it is only now, in January 2009, that the order
is before us. As he said, the Minister of Environment in Northern
Ireland wrote to the Department about the issue in April 2008. If the
order had appeared in, say, June or July 2008, there would have been
plenty of time for us to debate it and decide whether we wanted the
elections
postponed.
As
I said, although I am opposed to the order in principle, I will not
seek to divide the Committee because it is far too late in the day, but
the Minister needs to explain why it is only now, nine months after he
became aware of the request from the Minister of Environment, that the
order has come before
us.
Will
the Minister clarify one aspect of the order? Under article 3(3)
existing councillors, or those elected in by-elections, will serve
until four days after the 2011 elections. It looks to me as though
there will only be a four-day transition period, yet throughout Great
Britain,
when local government is reorganised, there is usually a period of a
year, or just under a year, during which the existing council continues
to operate and the new council operates as a shadow
authority.
That period
has always been considered necessary for the new council to elect
committees, appoint senior officers, decide on its headquarters and its
structure, and deal with other matters to enable the council to
function properly on the day on which it comes into office. A four-day
shadow period does not seem long enough for the new councils to
organise themselves, appoint committees and senior officers, and decide
on headquarters and structures. I would be grateful for the
Ministers
response.
9.11
am
Paul
Goggins: May I thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury for
his general support and for the questions he asked, some of which raise
important issues I hope to be able to offer him some reassurance? He
began by remarking the public administration review, which is an
important process. Before devolution, I was the Health Minister in
Northern Ireland. There are many health bodies in Northern Ireland,
which have been reduced in number as part of this process. Generally,
that is a good move that will give capacity to larger
organisations to take on more responsibility, as the hon. Gentleman
says, so that more decisions can be taken locally. That is entirely
right.
The
process is taking timethis relates, too, to the comments made
by the hon. Member for Argyll and Buteand it will take
considerable time from now. The local government boundaries
commissioner, who has begun his work, has the task of setting the
district and ward boundaries. That is complicated enough in itself, but
the district electoral area commissioner has to group the wards for the
purposes of proportional representation. Again, that is a complex area
of work that is open to challenge, so all of that will take
considerable time. There is added complexity in that the district and
ward boundaries are a matter for the Assembly, but the grouping of
wards is a matter for Westminster, because that is to do with electoral
law. There are further complications, and there will be further
legislation on setting those groupings, let alone on setting the
date.
The
hon. Member for Tewkesbury is right to raise this issue, which I have
looked at carefully. In an ideal world, I would name the date of the
election today, in the order, which would give the hon. Gentleman the
comfort that he is looking for. However, that proved impossible to do
with any degree of certainty. If I named a date in the order, I may
well have had to return and ask the Committee to consider it again and
revise it. I have made it clear in the order that the elections have to
be held in
2011.
There
are three options. It could be that we hold the local council
electionsthe first under the new systemon the same day
as the Assembly election. There is nothing in principle to stop that
happening; it is simply a question of practicality. If we have STV
counting for Assembly elections and STV counting for council elections
on the same day, with literally hundreds of candidates, that might be
too complex a system to run. It is not a
first-past-the-post system that the hon. Gentleman and I are more used
to, in which the counting would be more straightforward. We will look
at the practicalities. I hold out the hope that it may be possible to
have a date for the council elections in advance of the May date, if it
is not possible to hold both elections on the same day. If that is not
possible, I would expect it to be held soon
thereafter.
I
am keeping pressure on officials. My officials work closely with their
counterparts in the Department of the Environment. Indeed, I am in
regular contact with the Minister responsible, who is well known to us
as the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). I met him earlier
this week to discuss related matters. The general view is that nobody
wants undue delay, but we must have the delay that we are asking the
Committee to endorse to allow for all the practicalities of the work
that has to be done.
Mr.
Robertson: The order moves the local elections to 2011,
but if the work is not completed in 2011, what happens then? Will we
have to consider a further order to put it back, say, another year, to
2012? There is no reason why the Minister could not introduce another
order to delay the measure again, which would mean a three-year delay.
We have a habit of missing deadlines in Northern Ireland, and we must
get out of that habit. I return to my point: would setting a date now
not concentrate minds on that date and make the work happen? Otherwise,
if there is a possibility of slippage, it might not take
place.
Paul
Goggins: I understand the urgency with which the hon.
Gentleman asks the question. He said that I could come back and say,
Lets change the date of the election to 2012,
but, equally, if I named a date in 2011, I could come back and ask the
Committee to change the date. I am being open and honest with the
Committee and saying that it is impossible to set the date, but I am
also being clear with politicians in Northern Ireland that the date is
2011. They must ensure that everything is done to meet that deadline. I
shall say in the strongest terms that it would be wholly unacceptable
for democracy if the date were pushed beyond 2011. My officials, the
Department of the Environment and the Minister responsible in that
Department understand that, and every effort will be made to ensure
that everything is done in a timely fashion and the task is
completed.
Mr.
Robertson: I am very grateful to the Minister for giving
way and for his determination that the deadlines will be met. Out of
innocence, I wonder whether the failure of the Executive to sit for
five months delayed this process. Can we make it clear that such delays
are totally unacceptable?
Paul
Goggins: I strongly agree that it is important for the
Executive to get back into their regular cycle of meetings. They are
now doing so, because Ministers in the Executive and the Assembly need
to address many urgent issues. That is now happening and it is welcome.
The process under discussion was not delayed at all by the failure to
sit but, to refer to the remarks that the hon. Member for Argyll and
Bute made, there was, following the Secretary of States
announcement last
April, a considerable amount of work to do to prepare for today. We had
to consult the Northern Ireland Departments, and if we had not done so,
we would not have identified the problem with the Drainage Council,
about which I know Committee members were very exercised. We had to
consult the parties and the Electoral Commission, which has given its
full support to the process, and that is worth underlining. A lot of
preparatory work has had to take place to bring us to todays
order, but it is important that we have the discussion, debate and
decision today, because people would otherwise expect an election in
May. If we cancel it, it is important that people know as soon as
possible.
That is the
reason for the delay. In the next two-year period, a lot of preparation
will go into building momentum towards, and making way for, the new
council structure; and there will be a lot of training for council
members and staff. They will not start that work on day one of the new
system; they need to prepare for it, so a lot of work will take place
in advance, alongside the practical work of setting boundaries, and the
other matters to which I have already referred.
Finally, I
shall deal with the issue of extending the term of office to four days
beyond the poll. It is in no way a transition period for the body; it
is simply a matter of practicality. Owing to the STV system of voting,
it is sometimes not just the day after the poll, but the day after that
before the result becomes known. If the poll were on a Thursday, for
example, the result would become known only over the weekend. All the
measure means is that the existing councils term of
office lasts until the Monday, four days after the poll, then the newly
elected councillors will come into office. It is a matter of
practicality, so that the baton is passed from the old councillors to
the new.
Mr.
Reid: Am I right in assuming that, unlike in Great
Britain, there will be no shadow period of several months, following
the new councillors election, for training and staff
appointments? Does the measure mean that if new councillors who are not
on existing councils are elected in 2011, none of the training will
take place and the whole structure of the new council will have to be
set up almost immediately?
Paul
Goggins: There is no shadow period for the new council
structure. However, the new council structure will be known well in
advance of the 2011 election. It will therefore be possible to
undertake training in advance and build the new structures
capacity to deliver council services once the reorganisation has taken
place and new elections have been held. There is no formal shadow
period; there will be, I hope, a smooth transition from one structure
to the next. The four days, however, simply allow for a period after
the poll, so that at no point are there no elected councillors in
Northern Ireland. I hope that that provides the clarity that the
Committee seeks, and that it supports the order.
Question
put and agreed to.
9.21
am
Committee
rose.