| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
On the chairmanship, I thought that it would be implicit that the restriction would apply to the ordinary membership of a chair who had been removed because of, for example, a criminal conviction, so that someone
3 Feb 2009 : Column GC194
7.30 pm
Schedule 1: Boundary Committee for England
159A: Schedule 1, page 83, line 5, leave out from “of” to end of line 6 and insert—
“(a) the chair of the Committee, and
(a) at least four and no more than eleven other members (“ordinary members”).”
Amendments 159A and 159B agreed.
Amendments 159C to 159P agreed.
Amendments 159PA and 159PB not moved.
159U: Schedule 1, page 84, line 37, at end insert—
“( ) A person may not be appointed as chair under sub-paragraph (2) if by virtue of paragraph 1(3)(a) to (d) that person may not be appointed as an ordinary member.”
159V: Schedule 1, page 84, leave out line 38 and insert “Subject to the provisions of this paragraph, the chair holds office—”
159W: Schedule 1, page 84, line 41, at end insert—
“( ) The chair ceases to hold office on the occurrence of such an event as is mentioned in any of paragraphs (a) to (e) of paragraph 1(6).”
Amendments 159Q to 159W agreed.
Amendments 159X to 159Z agreed.
159AA: Schedule 1, page 87, line 34, at end insert—
“( ) Sub-paragraph (1) does not apply to any function of making an order by statutory instrument.”
160B: Schedule 1, page 92, line 23, at end insert—
““ordinary member” is to be construed in accordance with paragraph 1(1)(b).”
Amendments 160A and 160B agreed.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed.
Schedule 2: Electoral change in England: considerations on review
160BA: Schedule 2, page 93, line 1, leave out “possible” and insert “practicable subject to sub-paragraph (b)”
3 Feb 2009 : Column GC196
Baroness Hamwee: I shall speak also to Amendments 160BB, 160BC and 160BD and to the Questions whether Clause 58 and Schedule 3 shall stand part of the Bill.
The first three amendments address the criteria for selecting the number of councillors. The schedule provides for the need to secure that the ratio of electors to the number of members is as nearly as possible the same in every electoral area of the different councils the subject of the schedule. My amendment would change the word “possible” to “practicable”, subject to the next paragraph.
That is because that paragraph rightly recognises the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities, of fixing boundaries which are easily identifiable and of not breaking local ties when fixing boundaries. Those are very important points. In representing one’s electors one thinks about representing a community, not a community with an artificial boundary down the middle of it because that makes the numbers neat. I am not suggesting that absolutely a community must be kept as a distinct entity—apart from anything else there would be arguments as to where the boundary of a community is—but the term “possible” reduces too much the criteria set out in paragraph (b) and I would like to see greater recognition. I dare say I am going to be told that this is provided for at the moment in whatever legislation this is replacing, but it is still important.
Amendment 160BD takes us to Schedule 3, which relates to the interim period and provides for a transitional arrangement. This is the subject of my objection to Clause 58 and Schedule 3. Amendment 160BD will enable me, I hope, to ask the Minister what is in the pipeline. The Electoral Commission makes the broader point that the new arrangements commencing before the new committee is established is confusing, counterproductive and inefficient. There will be no statutory relationship between the two bodies. It clearly feels that it can continue. I look forward to the Minister explanation of the Government’s thinking. I beg to move.
Lord Hanningfield: I have given notice of my intention to oppose Clause 51. I support the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about practicability rather than trying to keep communities together. We have tabled our amendment because one increasingly sees the suggestion of two-member wards in county government. County government, which covers quite a large area, is being related back to communities. It is referred to in the guidance. I am concerned at there being more encouragement from government for two-member wards. I agree that one chooses wards for the type of authority and the community, but we would not like to see too many more two-member wards in county government.
Lord Patel of Bradford: I shall try to be brief. I shall first address the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in relation to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2. Schedule 2 sets out the criteria that the boundary committee must have regard to when conducting electoral reviews under Clause 50. It is important to make it clear that the schedule simply re-enacts and consolidates existing criteria in Section 13(5)
3 Feb 2009 : Column GC197
We of course agree that considerable importance must be attached to the effective engagement of neighbourhoods, communities and individuals in the provision of local services. However, the wide variety of local circumstances suggests that any criteria need to be broad to allow the new Boundary Committee the flexibility to deliver electoral arrangements that reflect community identity, provide for fair elections and support effective local government and service delivery. The Government therefore believe that we should avoid prescribing a hierarchy of criteria that might rigidly be applied in all circumstances. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendments to Schedule 2.
The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, has given notice of his intention to oppose the inclusion of Clause 51 in the Bill. In addition, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, have given notice of their intention to oppose the inclusion of Clause 58 and to amend the related Schedule 3. I hope that I can briefly explain why Clauses 51 and 58 and the Schedule 3 provisions should be in the Bill.
The Bill re-enacts provisions recently enacted under Section 55 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, which inserted two new sections, 14A and 14B, into the Local Government Act 1992. I hope that that I can quickly allay the noble Lord’s fear that there is anything new in Clause 51 and explain that it simply re-enacts the provisions introduced by the 2007 Act with some modifications to provide for the Boundary Committee for England to take over the Electoral Commission’s current function.
I would now like to address concerns about Clause 58 and Schedule 3. Clause 58 and Schedule 3 make transitional provision for the existing Boundary Committee to exercise its functions in relation to electoral boundary work without the involvement of the Electoral Commission prior to the establishment of the new Boundary Committee for England. Clause 58 and Schedule 3 will come into force immediately on Royal Assent. If Parliament agrees to the implementation of the Committee on Standards in Public Life’s recommendation to remove the role of the Electoral Commission from electoral boundary work, we believe that the Electoral Commission’s role should cease at the earliest opportunity.
Schedule 3 therefore modifies the Local Government Act 1992 to provide for an interim period starting on the day on which the Act is passed and ending with the establishment of the new Boundary Committee for England, which we expect to be on 1 April 2010. It has been suggested by the Electoral Commission that leaving the Boundary Committee as a part of the Electoral Commission while the Electoral Commission no longer has a role in electoral review work would be
3 Feb 2009 : Column GC198
The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said that he feared an increase in two-member divisions. The provision would enable any local authority to request single-member divisions. Indeed, West Sussex County Council, which had two-member divisions, requested such a review, which is ongoing. I hope that I have reassured noble Lords. Unless further evidence can be provided by the Electoral Commission of any particular problems that our approach will cause, I hope that noble Lords will agree that Clause 58 and Schedule 3 should stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Hamwee: In view of the time, the most popular thing that I could do—although perhaps not popular with the Electoral Commission—is to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendments 160BB and 160BC not moved.
Schedule 3: Electoral change in England: interim modifications of the Local Government Act 1992
160C: Schedule 3, page 97, line 26, at end insert—
“(10) The power of the Boundary Committee for England under paragraph 12 of Schedule 1 to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (power of delegation) does not apply to any function of the Committee under this section.”
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed.
Lord Patel of Bradford: I think that this is a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn.
Committee adjourned at 7.42 pm.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |