Skip to main content

Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

Volume 693: debated on Tuesday 10 July 2007

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD SPEAKER in the Chair.]

Clause 52 agreed to.

Clause 53 [Power of council to alter years of ordinary elections of parish councillors]:

88: Clause 53, page 26, line 25, leave out subsection (3)

The noble Baroness said: The business managers should provide the mover of the first amendment after Questions with some standard form of wording that would show all the proper courtesies but allow the House a moment to show how much noble Lords support the development of local government in England and Wales. I hope that is the right formula. Many years ago, when I brought the controller of a BBC radio channel into the Chamber, he looked at the microphones and said, “It must be quite interesting mixing the sound in here”. This is probably an example of that; the volume of my microphone seems to have been turned up.

The amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 89 and 90, in the name of my noble friend Lord Greaves. Clause 53 provides for elections for parish councillors to be held in years when there are also elections of district councillors in the same place. I can understand that there would be reasons for having the two sets of elections on the same day, such as cost, convenience and turnout, but there are also good reasons to separate them. Where the parish is the “parish pump” type, beloved of those who write certain types of fiction, and not political, one can understand that cost and convenience would outweigh other considerations.

However, not all parishes are small or apolitical. Where there is a lively local political scene, it would not necessarily be desirable to hold the two sets of elections at the same time. It is useful for voters, first, to be able to show that they understand that this is a different election and, secondly, to reflect shifts in the political mood as the years go by. The two elections can be a useful counterpoint to each other. I have tabled this amendment so that the Government can explain their thinking and to ask them to confirm that in this instance “district” includes a unitary authority. I beg to move.

My Amendments Nos. 89 and 90 are rather more modest in ambition than my noble friend’s, but they cover two important things. My noble friend raised a very important matter about parish councils which will underlie quite a lot of what we say on the next part of the Bill: the great variety and difference there is between the different bodies called parish councils or the larger ones called town councils. Some are large, with a large budget, and function like a town council; others are small, covering a village community or even a community with no obvious village, and operate very differently. They operate under the same law and the same rules, but, as my noble friend pointed out, they can differ greatly. Amendment No. 89 would simply insert the duty of a district council to consult parish councils before it took any action under this clause. It seems reasonable that, if your elections are to be moved from one year to another, you ought to be asked first what you think about it. That ties in with what my noble friend said about choice.

Amendment No. 90 is very specific and would apply in very few circumstances. Nevertheless, I can envisage circumstances in which the year of an election, under the Government’s proposals in this Bill, would be moved from one year to another and there would be a choice. For example, if a district council was moving back from whole-council elections to electing itself by halves every two years, the parish council election date would probably have to be moved under the Bill. There would be a choice of two years in which to do that. It seems reasonable that, under those circumstances, what the parish council thinks should prevail.

I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on speaking through quite a challenging moment. I am very glad that we have been able to have this debate now. Before I turn to the amendments, let me confirm to the noble Baroness that “district” includes unitaries.

The Government are opposed to the amendments tabled against Clause 53 and 45. Current standard practice is that parish council elections are held in the same year as the elections to the district ward within which they are situated. This is to reduce the costs and administrative burdens on electoral administrators. Amendment No. 88 would allow the date to be set for a year different from that for the district ward elections, which would increase costs and administrative burdens. We are therefore opposed to this amendment.

On Amendment No. 89, we do not consider that central government needs to be prescriptive on the consultation procedure that the district council follows. I mentioned that approach earlier in Committee. The aim of devolution is to trust democratically accountable local authorities to act reasonably and to consult those parties which they consider to be interested. We do not believe that provision specifying these specific consultation steps needs to be made in the Bill. However, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is perfectly reasonable. Making an amendment which would allow the parish council’s view to prevail on this issue is not acceptable. We are devolving responsibility to local authorities. The aim is to reduce the administrative burden and costs for electoral administrators, and therefore the district council must decide. There would also be a considerable risk that a political group controlling a parish council might choose an election year that would suit its electoral prospects.

In relation to Amendment No. 90, we have retained the power in the Local Government Act 2000 so that if in the future, for example, the vast majority of councils in England operated whole-council elections, the Secretary of State would be able to move the remaining few councils to achieve a uniform pattern across England. The amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from doing that in the future under any circumstances. We are clear that the power to change electoral cycles should generally be devolved to local authorities. However, we believe it is important that the Secretary of State retains a power that in particular and, I stress, exceptional circumstances he or she may use in the future to change, by order, a council’s electoral cycle to that of whole-council elections. I hope that the noble Baroness will consider withdrawing her amendment.

Why do the Government think that a parish council is potentially too politically charged to choose its own election date, whereas central government does it all the time?

I thank the noble Baroness for that intervention. I was trying to think of one of the most extreme examples of where a parish council choosing that process would be undesirable.

I thank the noble Baroness. The answer to my amendment seems to be that that is what we do now. I do not have any sense that the Government have considered the alternative scenario that I put forward, unless, following on from what my noble friend said, they think that parish politics might get too political and they feel that we had better ensure that that does not happen. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 89 not moved.]

Clause 53 agreed to.

Clause 54 [Amendment of existing provisions about schemes for ordinary elections]:

[Amendment No. 90 not moved.]

Clause 54 agreed to.

Clause 55 [Requests for single-member electoral areas]:

91: Clause 55, page 28, line 4, at end insert—

“( ) A county council in a two-tier area that has at least one electoral division which returns more than one councillor shall within six months of the coming into force of this Part make a request under subsection (1) for a review of any such division or divisions.”

The noble Lord said: This amendment does not need a great deal of discussion, but I thought that it was worth running through what appears to be a wish by central government to encourage more local authorities to move towards single-member, as opposed to multi-member, wards. This is certainly associated with a wish that local authorities that elect every year by thirds, or three years out of four by thirds, should move to whole-council elections every four years.

I am not sure that central government should be taking a view on whether single-member or multi-member wards are good or bad. It seems to me that that should basically be left to local discretion. However, a number of issues arise from it which come from tradition as much as anything else, and it is a tradition based on sensible things. Large county councils with large county divisions have traditionally had single-member electoral divisions. That has worked because they are large both in area and often in terms of the number of people in each ward and each division, and a single-member division is therefore sensible.

On the other hand, there has been a move fairly recently to increase the number of county electoral divisions that elect two county councillors, often resulting in large and sprawling divisions. The authorities ought to be asked to look at that, although the decisions should be basically local.

In large or small urban authorities, multi-member wards are a good idea, whether the elections are by thirds or whole-county elections, because they provide people with a choice of councillors. Councillors are not infallible, although sometimes some of them think they are. Sometimes it is good to have a choice of who represents you in your ward. Sometimes that involves different parties, but even if it is the same party, some people may be very good while others are hopeless. People go through bad patches in their lives; they may be ill and unable to serve the people as well as they might have done previously.

There ought not to be a presumption that single-member seats are better than multi-member seats, and the Government ought to pull back from what seems to be a current wish to move more authorities to become single-member wards. I beg to move.

I will seek to convince the Committee that these amendments are not needed and that the clause should stand part. Clause 55 allows county councils, along with all other councils, to make a request for single-member electoral areas. To require them to make such a request would force county councils that wish to retain two- or three-member divisions to do something they may not want. The Bill provides local choice, and we see no good reason to force county councils to make such a request. If they wish to do so, no doubt they will.

It is questionable whether the Electoral Commission and its Boundary Committee would have the resources to conduct reviews of the 21 county councils that do not have single members in all their divisions if those councils were forced to make these requests within six months.

The noble Lord indicated that he wished Clause 55 to be deleted, but it inserts new Sections 14A and 14B to the Local Government Act 1992. Those new sections enable a principal council that is subject to a whole-council election to request the Electoral Commission to direct the Boundary Committee to conduct an electoral review and to recommend whether each electoral area in a council’s area should return one councillor. The Electoral Commission is not obliged to grant the request, but if it decides not to do so, reasons must be given. Electoral areas in a county council are county divisions, and the areas in a district council are district wards, as I am sure noble Lords are well aware.

In conducting the review, the Boundary Committee will be required to have regard to the following matters, which it must already have regard to when carrying out electoral reviews: it must reflect community identity and interests, ensure effective and convenient local government, and secure equality of representation. If the Boundary Committee, having had regard to these needs, considers that it would be inappropriate to recommend that all electoral areas become single-member electoral areas, it is not obliged to make such a recommendation. The clause devolves to councils the initiative to seek single-member electoral areas where they consider it right to do so. The amendment would force councils to do something they do not wish to do. I hope that the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment. We recognise the importance of tradition, and it is our aim to devolve and delegate as much as possible to local authorities.

My understanding is that an election would take place under the normal system—two or three-member wards, say—and that a council would then decide that it wanted to change to single-member wards, which would reduce the ward size by one-half or one-third. If that review was undertaken, presumably the change in the wards would not come into force until the following election time. What impact might that have on the nature of representation? Presumably, the way that the ward boundaries are formed could affect the make-up of the local council.

I need to make clear that the principal concern here is determining whether a review of the electoral cycle needs to be undertaken. It is for the Electoral Commission to decide that. If such a review takes place, the Boundary Committee would need to take into account the criteria that I outlined. If that does not answer the noble Baroness’s question, I will have to look at it and write to her.

The question is perhaps easier than the Minister thinks. If it is recommended after the review that the council go down to single-member wards, presumably that change would come into force only at the next election, and it would have to be on whole-council not part-council elections.

At lunchtime today, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and I attended the annual meeting of London Councils. My twopenny’s worth on this debate is to observe how enormous the canvas is on which local government is constituted and operates. At the meeting the apologies of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, were given, and I made reference to the valuable work done for London Councils by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. The power and enormity of the responsibilities around that table struck me, in comparison to the field in which I know the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is such an expert. The problem is that there is no situation where one size fits everything.

We have a mechanism that allows these things to be tested. As far as I can see and understand, the Government are genuinely attempting to cut out bureaucracy and waste while providing a mechanism whereby any genuine need for change can be tested. We have the great arbiter of the Electoral Commission to examine all the evidence. So, while I highly and sincerely respect what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, tells us, we cannot interfere very much with the present arrangements. The integrity of the Electoral Commission, which is integral to this part, is not besmirched. It is the best body to listen and to bring forward any changes.

I am grateful for that short debate, which has been a useful run through the issues. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 92 not moved.]

Clause 55 agreed to.

Clause 56 [Electoral Commission and Boundary Committee: reviews and recommendations]:

93: Clause 56, page 29, line 6, leave out from “that” to end of line 8 and insert “each ward in the district returns an appropriate number of councillors”

94: Clause 56, page 29, line 17, leave out from “councillors” to “is” in line 18 and insert “returned by a ward”

On Question, amendments agreed to.

95: Clause 56, page 29, line 20, leave out “divisible by” and insert “1 or”

The noble Lord said: I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 96 and 99 and the stand part in this little group. If I have understood the Bill correctly, an issue of substance here needs to be looked at carefully. These provisions are, as I understand them, about boundary reviews in areas with elections either twice or three times every four years—in other words, elections by halves or by thirds.

Many non-metropolitan districts—districts in two-tier areas where there is a county council and district councils—currently have a range of wards, from one member to three members. There are often quite a lot of three-member wards, but sometimes there are two-member wards and, particularly in rural areas, single-member wards. Some districts have predominantly single-member wards, such as Ribble Valley or Craven near the Pennines where I live, with a few multi-member wards in the towns. Other districts, such as Pendle or Burnley, have mainly three-member wards but may have, as Pendle does, some two-member and single-member wards.

If I have read the Bill correctly, authorities that elect in halves will have to have wards divisible by two and authorities that elect in thirds will have to have wards divisible by three. This would mean a substantial change in the existing pattern and would seem to me in these areas to be a mistake. The existing pattern of wards is deliberately there to reflect the geography of the place; there are towns where multi-member wards are appropriate and rural areas where they are much less appropriate, with a village or group of villages with just one councillor.

The purpose of Amendments Nos. 95 and 96 is to probe exactly what is proposed in the Bill and whether my reading of it is correct. Amendment No. 99 looks at the situation in metropolitan districts. If metropolitan districts are to be able to have wards of different sizes—which is apparently proposed, although I am not sure how it fits in with what I have just been talking about—this issue should be discussed. The proposal may be appropriate, particularly for any that move towards whole-council elections, although I do not think that there will be many. Taken together with the section that I have just been talking about, however, it appears that the choice is between three-member wards and six-member wards. In metropolitan districts, six-member wards would run the risk of being altogether too big. The amendments are a means of probing what these provisions mean with a view to determining later whether they are sensible or not. I beg to move.

I thank the noble Lord for his amendment and hope that I can give him further information to help him in his probing.

The Government oppose Amendments Nos. 95 and 96 because, where there are elections by halves, the wards should, where possible, have two councillors or a number of councillors divisible by two; where there are elections by thirds, the wards should, where possible, have three councillors or a number of councillors divisible by three. This is to provide equity of opportunity for electors at the ballot box.

In an area with elections by thirds, there will be elections in three out of four years in a full electoral cycle. If you have three-member wards in such an area, there will be elections in each ward in each of those three years and all electors will have a chance to vote at every election, giving them the opportunity to influence the composition of the council on each such occasion. However, if there are single-member and two-member wards, in those wards elections will be held in only one or two years of the full electoral cycle and voters in those wards would miss out on the opportunity to vote in years when voters in other wards would be voting. We believe that this should be avoided wherever possible.

However, we have made having the appropriate number of councillors per ward desirable rather than mandatory. This is so that if the Boundary Committee believes that where, for example, there are elections by thirds, having three-member wards would not allow a particular community to be included wholly within that ward, thereby not reflecting the community identity criteria that I mentioned earlier, a different and more suitable number of members for that ward can be recommended.

In January 2004, the Electoral Commission stated that in principle it is fundamentally unfair and unacceptable that within an individual local authority some of the electorate should have fewer opportunities to vote and influence the political composition of the authority than their neighbours in a different ward. We are therefore providing within the Bill that, if there are not whole-council elections, the number of members per ward should reflect the electoral cycle unless for a particular ward the Boundary Committee believes that that cannot be achieved, notwithstanding the downsides that that would bring.

We do not believe that Amendment No. 99 is necessary. The Electoral Commission has stated that its current policy is to avoid wards with more than three councillors per ward as it believes that that dilutes accountability. There are currently no wards with more than three members in any principal council in England. Therefore, the intention of the amendment is already being met. However, we do not wish to reduce the options available to the Boundary Committee. In future, there could be peculiar circumstances somewhere in England where a four-member ward might best reflect the local community. Clause 48 removes the requirement in the Local Government Act 1972 that the number of councillors returned for a ward in a metropolitan district should be divisible by three. In future, the number of councillors returned for a metropolitan district ward can be whatever the Electoral Commission determines following an electoral review. That will bring the arrangements for metropolitan district councils into line with those for shire district councils.

Clause 58 is the result of a request from the Electoral Commission, which conducted a year-long review of the electoral review process. Following the review, the commission requested that it be given greater flexibility in metropolitan areas, and this clause delivers that. The amendment would reduce that flexibility, which would inhibit the independent Electoral Commission and the Boundary Committee in their desire to produce the most suitable electoral arrangements for the different areas of England. I hope that I have helped the noble Lord by giving him further information and that he now feels able to withdraw his amendment.

I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. I am pleased about one thing in it, which is that my reading of what the Bill proposes is correct. However, I am not pleased about being correct, because the Government are fundamentally wrong. With the words “where possible” and so on, the noble Baroness makes it sound as if there will be a few exceptions here and there, but not very many, and that, where there are exceptions, the wards will be bigger to accommodate communities rather than smaller. I am not happy about that. It is a substantial, fundamental change for a number—I do not know how many, but I will find out—of shire district authorities that elect by thirds at the moment and have wards ranging from one to three members. Those authorities will find a significant change in their arrangements when we next have a boundary review. The arrangements that exist at the moment are there for good reasons, and usually accommodate the reasonable needs of rural areas. People do not feel cheated because they do not vote as often as other places, but if you ask them to weigh up the relative benefits of having their own councillor for a group of villages or having three councillors as part of a much larger rural ward, many like the arrangements as they are.

What the Government are trying to sneak through—it is not widely understood that this change is being put forward—is wrong. There may be circumstances where it is appropriate to have bigger wards in rural areas, but in many places people deliberately go for small two-member or single-member wards in those parts of a district where that is appropriate. I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that my reading of the Bill was correct. For the moment I beg leave to withdraw this amendment, but some of us might like to have further discussions about this and come back to it on Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 96 not moved.]

Clause 56, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 57 [Duty of local authority to provide Boundary Committee with information]:

97: Clause 57, page 29, line 29, after “may” insert “reasonably”

The noble Lord said: I can be brief on this new provision for the Boundary Committee to be able to require information from local authorities. As the clause as it stands says, that is entirely reasonable, but it does not say that the date that the Boundary Committee can set to get that information should also be reasonable. I am trying to put the word “reasonable” in twice. I beg to move.

I, too, hope to be reasonably short on this one. We do not believe that this amendment is necessary, as the Boundary Committee is required to act reasonably, as are all public bodies. The Boundary Committee would require this information as part of a review and we are confident that it would set dates that were reasonable within the context of the review that it was conducting. I hope that the noble Lord will consider withdrawing the amendment.

If the Boundary Committee has a general obligation to be reasonable, why is the word “reasonable” in the clause at all?

Parliamentary draftsmen obviously felt that it was reasonable to include that, but I will check and give a full answer to the noble Lord’s specific question in writing.

I do not think that my noble friend was being frivolous either in tabling the amendment or in asking the question. It is just the sort of thing that lawyers can spend a lot of time on and build up a lot of fees over, if there is a problem. I speak as—

Before the noble Baroness sits down, let me say that I agree with her. That is why I would like to give the noble Lord a fully considered answer, which will be helpful to the whole Committee.

I am grateful for that. The Minister’s reply to me, if not to my noble friend, was almost exactly what I was going to say. This is about the way parliamentary draftsmen think things ought to be. It is not always clear why that is the case. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

98: Clause 57, page 29, line 31, at end insert—

“( ) In section 15 (procedure on a review)—

(a) in subsection (1)—(i) at the end of paragraph (a) insert “and”;(ii) omit paragraph (c) and the word “and” immediately preceding it;(b) omit subsection (2);(c) in subsection (3)—(i) omit paragraph (a);(ii) in paragraph (b) after “prepare” insert “and publish”;(iii) at the end of paragraph (b) insert “and”;(iv) omit paragraph (c);(d) for subsections (4) and (5) substitute— “(4) In conducting a review, the Boundary Committee for England may at any time before publishing draft recommendations consult such persons as they consider appropriate.(5) As soon as the Boundary Committee for England are in a position to submit recommendations to the Electoral Commission they must—(a) submit them; and(b) publish the recommendations and take such steps as they consider sufficient to secure that persons who may be interested in the recommendations are informed of them.”;(e) in subsection (6)—(i) for “the report on a review is” substitute “recommendations are”;(ii) for “(4) above” substitute “(5) above”;(iii) in paragraph (a), omit the words “a further report under subsection (4) containing”;(iv) in paragraph (b), for “report relates” substitute “recommendations relate”;(f) after subsection (6) insert—“(6A) Where the Boundary Committee for England submit recommendations under subsection (6)(a), they must publish the recommendations and take such steps as they consider sufficient to secure that persons who may be interested in the recommendations are informed of them.”;(g) omit subsection (8).( ) Omit section 15A.

( ) In section 17(2) (implementation of recommendations by order), omit the words “or the submission of a report”.”

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 57, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 58 [Metropolitan districts: councillors per ward]:

[Amendment No. 99 not moved.]

Clause 58 agreed to.

Clause 59 [Change of name of electoral area]:

100: Clause 59, page 30, line 12, at end insert—

“( ) The meeting required by subsection (2) shall not be held unless the authority has given not less than two months’ notice of the proposal or proposals.”

The noble Baroness said: This amendment takes us to the clause dealing with the change of name of an electoral area. It would require the local authority to give at least two months’ notice of a proposal to change the name. I was prompted to pursue the matter because of my experience at London borough level. The ward that I represented for 20 years disappeared as a result of ward boundary changes, and so did its name. I was quite startled by the number of times local people asked me what had happened to the ward that was under that name.

The name is important—it is an identifier—and people can be quite strongly wedded to it because it expresses at a political level the place that they feel is theirs. Again, this is perhaps not the most important part of the Bill but, with a Government who talk a great deal about place shaping and so on, it is not insignificant either. I beg to move.

My Amendment No. 101 pursues some of the issues mentioned by my noble friend. Ward and division names are important. It was interesting to read the report of the House of Commons Public Bill Committee when it debated the issue. A number of Members of Parliament referred to the importance of names in a political context. There are several issues involved. The members of the committee were particularly concerned about the question of marginality, which, as they are Members of Parliament, I suppose they would be. A mixed composition ward might include a huge council estate and great deal of quite prosperous middle-class housing, and whether you name it after the council estate or after the prosperous housing makes a difference to the impression that people have of where that ward naturally lies in traditional political allegiances.

That is the clear message that came across from the discussion in the House of Commons committee. We know that it is true. If you name the ward after the council estate, it sounds as though it might be a Labour ward; if you name it after the posh area, it sounds as though it might be a Tory ward. The truth is, of course, that it might be a safe Liberal Democrat ward. But perception is important. In marginal wards, whether people think it is worth bothering to go out and vote is a crucial matter in local elections and can make a real difference to the result.

Amendment Nos. 100 and 101 run together. A change of name is an important decision and should require a two-thirds majority of the council. The Minister may say that we are being overprescriptive again and that we should leave this to local authorities. However, I come back to the point that I made on the first day of Committee that, for obvious reasons, electoral matters are different in kind from a great many of the other things that local authorities do. Decisions made about electoral matters can influence and determine the results of elections and the people making the electoral decisions may have a vested interest in them. I am not saying that they should not make such decisions, but they should have to think about them.

First, my noble friend and I are suggesting that there should be a statutory publicity requirement so that authorities cannot sneak through decisions. Secondly, I am suggesting that it should be more difficult to pass changes to ward names than to make decisions on most of the other things that local authorities do. This is a part of the electoral process and the impositions on local authorities ought to be greater than they are.

Until the amendments were moved, I was happily thinking that the clause would do but, having listened to some discussion on this issue, I think it is right that where a ward is changed—whether its shape, size or boundaries—and the name changes with it, the people who will be within it should be given a reasonable opportunity to know what that name is going to be. The Bill as it is constructed says that a meeting must take place in order for those names to be confirmed, but it does not actually say a meeting of what. Presumably it is either a meeting of the council, in which case the council can make the decisions, or a local meeting that can be attended by people who live in the ward. Whichever it will be, it seems perfectly sensible and reasonable that the amendment being moved is placed within the context of the fact that people need to know about the name changes. The council has a duty to ensure that people know the names of their electoral areas. I support the amendment.

My experience is such that I cannot believe that a council faced with some evidence to bring about changes would try by subterfuge to produce those changes without consulting the people affected. The councillors themselves have a vested interest, for the very good reasons set out by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, such as historical attachment.

A name that identifies an area is either posh or otherwise in the minds of the electorate, and they will not take kindly to suddenly discovering that the place where they reside is named differently. As I understand it, the council that has the power to do that would be ill advised to do so and cause a furore, because the political consequences could well be quickly visited upon it and its political complexion. The Minister can help the Committee by explaining the advantage of the amendments to the present situation. At present the council is allowed, in the light of empirical evidence, to decide that there is a need for a change and to propose and effect that change, but only by taking along with it the people who are affected. Although the Minister and others have used the term “far too prescriptive”—that is, there are too many tiny details—there are some people who want everything in tiny detail.

As an ex-councillor, I think councils ought to be given some credit for their political sense in appreciating that changes, which from the town clerk’s point of view may seem to be administratively sensible, need to be looked at in the light of the effect upon ordinary people. I do not have a view on the value of the amendments. I agree with what has been said. The present Local Government Act under which we are operating gives ample provision for the local council to make its decisions, with safeguards. People who control councils are not politically stupid. They know the consequences of what they are doing. If they behave unreasonably—or politically, with a large “P”—they deserve all they get.

This is getting more exciting as each moment passes. Who will be at this meeting? Where will it be held? Who will conduct it? The noble Lord, Lord Graham, has experience in local government that goes back to the previous Local Government Bill and perhaps further, when there were committees responsible for things like this. However, these days, the cabinet could take this decision quite easily without consulting anyone else. An overview and scrutiny committee cannot take it and the council has no role in taking it either. Who will the resolution be passed by and on behalf of whom?

I hope that I can help the Committee by briefly explaining what Clause 59 does. It allows a local authority to change the name of any of its electoral areas—district wards or county divisions—by resolution of the authority at a special meeting. That is our interpretation of the clause. Where the name of an electoral area is protected, a resolution cannot be passed until the Electoral Commission has agreed to the change. The name of an electoral area is deemed to be protected if it has been specified under the Acts in subsection (6)(a) within the past five years. Particular circumstances protect some areas.

The current position is that the name of an electoral area can be changed only by the Electoral Commission following a full electoral review, which takes about 12 months. We are making that change following an evaluation of the periodic electoral review process. The Electoral Commission requested the change. It considers that given that the council can change the name of the district, the parishes and parish wards within the district, it should also be able to change the name of the district wards. This is part of devolving power and flexibility to local authorities. Local authorities should be able to change the names of their electoral areas as they see fit unless they are protected, as I said.

On the point made by the noble Baroness Lady Hamwee, the Local Government Act 1972 already makes provision for the procedural requirements for meetings of local authorities so the question of notice is already covered. It includes requirements about notice and voting. We do not think that it is necessary to supplement the existing provision in this Bill with regard to that issue.

As I said, I agree with the Committee that names are important and the issue can be emotive. We accept that, but we are trying not to be too specific or prescriptive, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, suggested I might say. The aim is one of devolution; to trust local authorities to act reasonably and consult those parties who are interested. We will discuss Clause 139 tomorrow, but in this provision we are trying to devolve decisions to local authorities. We do not consider that a two-thirds majority should be required for a name change in an electoral area. It is unlikely that a name change would be of interest to all members of the council and it would be too great a restriction on an authority to require a two-thirds majority.

I hope that the noble Baroness will consider withdrawing her amendment. I am glad that this matter is interesting. How names are changed is important, and I do not want to diminish its importance by saying that we need to trust local authorities to act reasonably.

The debate provoked more involvement than I expected, but I am glad of that. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, suggests that we should rely on the good sense of the local authority. I shall not go down the road of debating with him whether every authority is full of good sense, but there are certain procedures and notice periods that it is right to make statutory. The Minister referred to the 1972 Act, which I believe includes the five-day notice—but perhaps she can confirm that. Five days is somewhat different from two months, which would allow for some public discussion of the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 101 not moved.]

Clause 59 agreed to.

Clause 60 [Power to change date of local elections to date of European Parliamentary general election]:

101A: Clause 60, page 31, line 5, after “Wales),” insert—

“(a) in subsection (1) omit paragraphs (a) and (b) and after the words “Wales and is” insert the words “the second Thursday in June.”;(b)”

The noble Lord said: This amendment is at the beginning of a string of amendments in this group, all of which refer to the notice that has to be given if the Government wish to change the date of the council elections in a year when there is a European election so that it takes place on the European election day—usually the second Thursday in June—instead of the first Thursday in May. The exception is Amendment No. 101A, which heads the group, to which I shall return.

All the amendments reflect the view that it might be a good idea to have the two elections on the same day but that some notice needs to be given so that everybody knows what is going on, not least the candidates, the political parties, the electoral registration officers and the returning officers. There is a dispute over whether the period should be six months, which I understand the Government will propose in their amendments, or one year, as the Electoral Commission proposed—which in different ways some of my amendments suggest, as well as the amendments of my noble friend. We will have the interesting discussion over whether it should be six months or one year, but there is a general view that the period should be in the Bill.

Amendment No. 101A is slightly more ambitious. It would be over-egging it to say that it was a probing amendment, but it floats an idea in the hope that that might generate a discussion outside the confines of this House.

Three years ago the local elections took place on the same day as the European elections. It was a glorious May and June, and the experience of taking part in those local elections in that fine weather, with light evenings right up to nine o’clock at night and not having to go out canvassing or delivering leaflets in the depths of February, March or April on dark nights, was really delightful. From the point of view of encouraging participation in elections, it would be sensible if we thought about moving the ordinary election day to June. It might also increase turnout. That was certainly the experience in June 2004. Turnout was up in those elections and there were various reasons for it. There were four all-postal pilots, which detained your Lordships' House for some time before it agreed to them. They certainly increased the turnout a little in those areas where they took place. However, the turnout went up in other places as well.

A comparison of the different regions, and of Scotland and Wales, and the different circumstances in those areas suggested that the increase in turnout was down to three things. Some of it was down to the all-postal pilots—perhaps about 5 per cent. Some of it was down to having the European elections and the local elections on the same day, so that those people who cared about local elections also went to vote in the European elections and those people who cared more about European elections found themselves also voting in local elections. That appeared to account for another 5 per cent. However, even in areas where neither of those things applied and where an ordinary election took place at the polling stations, the turnout was up by about 5 per cent.

There was a clear indication of an underlying increase in turnout at those elections. I do not think that anybody has worked out exactly why it was, but I firmly believe that it was because the elections were in June. A lot more campaigning was taking place because of the better weather and better circumstances, and a lot more voters turned out. The Government are keen on increasing the turnout and think of all kinds of strange gimmicks which most of us think are pretty hopeless and do not work, or are dangerous, such as all-postal voting. However, moving the local elections four or five weeks into the summer would do that. It would not have an unfortunate effect on the running of local authorities. Local authorities managed perfectly well in 2004, with an annual meeting a month later, and I am sure they would do so again.

I float the amendment as an idea rather than as a serious matter that I expect the Government to agree to immediately today. However, it is a move that we and the local government community, as it calls itself nowadays, should think about generally. I beg to move the amendment, to allow debate on the group.

I have Amendments Nos. 103 and 108 in this group, which probably pre-date what the Government are going to propose. It is interesting that there is a proposal in the Bill that we should muck about with election dates. We have had a great many debates in this Chamber as elections have moved for various reasons. I well recall the moving at short notice of the date of the general election due to the foot and mouth crisis.

If we are to accept that dates will from time to time be changed, we have to accept also limits within which those dates can be moved unless a national emergency arises. National emergencies do not normally arise where local government elections are concerned. If the European elections are to be taken as the base on to which local elections could or could not be moved, we need a long lead-in. A year is probably a little over the top—I am sure we can debate the virtues of whether it should be a year or six months ad nauseam. However, there must be time, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, for returning officers to be able to prepare, for them to get two lots of ballot papers ready for the counting to be arranged, and for all the administrative tasks that have to be done for elections.

However, I hope that this will not become the normal course of events. I accept that if one has a couple of elections thrown together at the same time, more people may turn out to vote in them, but there is a danger of people of becoming election-weary and just turning up because it is any old election and saying, “It doesn’t really matter whether it is the European election or it’s the local elections because they are all there together and, well, we might or we might not go”. We still want to encourage people to think carefully about what they are voting for and why. Our vote is still extremely precious and should be used in a way that is precious and is recognised as such.

This is a permissive clause that allows the Secretary of State—under an order if necessary or required—to consider moving the date. I hope that it remains permissive only and does not become a regular event. However, if it has to be used, I will propose that at least six months’ notice is given.

Amendment No. 105 seeks to address the same issue; namely, the proposed power for the Secretary of State to move the date of local government elections to coincide with, that of European ones. My amendment seeks to alter the proposed six-month period to one year.

I want to make it clear that I am only discussing the proposed power to coincide the date of local and European elections. It is not about a wider power to move the date of local elections. I have some sympathy with the sentiments just expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. As a former county councillor, I fought two county council elections on the same date as general elections. There is no doubt that issues become clouded and that county seats are won or lost on general election issues. That is a pity. It tends to add to the general sense that local government is somehow secondary and much less important than national government. Nevertheless, if one takes the view, which the Government clearly have taken, that the next set of local elections should be held on the same date as European ones, there are some merits in having a year’s notice period.

From the Government’s point of view, I frankly cannot see the problem with a year’s notice because we know the dates of both those elections. However, it makes a difference from the point of view of councils. For example, council members who are due to retire will need to know that they have to serve an extra month. That might not sound very long. However, people sometimes move away or become less active as they come to the end of their terms of office.

If they are expected to serve out an extra period, there are questions about the level of representation. A year’s notice gives the councils much more flexibility to alter standing orders and change dates of annual meetings and budget arrangements. The fact that the Electoral Commission is supporting one year’s notice should at least give the Government pause for thought that this might be a good idea. A year would be consistent with the existing legislation, the Representation of the People Act 1983.

A general climate of cynicism exists about the manipulation of dates. The noble Baroness referred earlier to—heaven forfend—the idea that parish council election dates might be manipulated. If so, I am sure that that accusation could be levelled even more here, whereas a year takes some heat out of that.

I have been waiting for someone to refer to the Scottish experience earlier this year, when an attempt was made to be neat and tidy and convenient for the electorate. It turned out to be a mini-disaster because there was confusion, lethargy, pigheadedness, or whatever it was.

We are genuinely attempting to bend over backwards to meet what we believe is the convenience of the electorate. Sometimes the electorate are not all that interested. I certainly think that having two elections on the same day is the maximum that we can expect people to absorb. If there are both European and local elections, there is a fair gap between the two so they will not be confused in the minds of the electorate.

As for the question of six or 12 months, I come down on the side of six months. The Electoral Commission recommended 12 months but everyone concerned who is a political animal—there are very few of them about, and their number is diminishing—watches these things and looks for advantages and disadvantages and for someone pulling a fast one and all the rest of it. But events happen and things have to be taken into account. Six months is a decent period in which to give notice. After notice is given by order, that is the law and it has to be carried out. I fully understand the benefits and advantages of trying to minimise the number of times that electors have to go to the ballot box. On balance, I think that the Government’s proposals in the Bill are just about right.

We might find that we are talking about three sets of elections: European, local and even more local in the shape of parish councils, just to pick up the noble Lord’s point. I had not appreciated until quite recently just how much preparation is required by the returning officer and those working for the returning officer—the council officials—to book places for polling stations and a place to hold the count. I am talking partly about the London experience, the scale of which makes matters even more difficult. An enormous amount of work goes on behind the scenes, which even those of us who are closely involved do not appreciate. Time and again I have heard returning officers and those who support them complaining about the late notice that they receive from central government about small changes in the rules. They know that the changes are coming but they cannot act until the change is incorporated in an order.

Six months from today would be around Christmastime and the end of the year, so in terms of practicalities the time available would be cut to about five months. There are very good, practical and sensible reasons why the maximum proposed in the amendment—one year—should be pursued. One does not need to leave the decision until much later but, quite apart from the electorate, it would be enormously beneficial to the electoral officers who have to make the arrangements if the decision was made a year ahead.

We fully accept the points on the administrative burden of organising elections and the need for proper planning and thinking ahead; they are uppermost in the Government’s mind in this discussion. We are proposing an amendment that will require the Secretary of State in England and Welsh Ministers in Wales to make any order moving the date of local government elections so that they take place on the same day as the European parliamentary elections at least six months before the scheduled date of the local government or European parliamentary election, whichever is earlier.

As we have just heard, the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, have tabled amendments proposing a 12-month notice period. We believe that such a period is too long. I am delighted to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, has tabled an amendment proposing a six-month period, which is along the lines suggested by the government amendment.

A similar amendment to the 12-month amendment was tabled in another place following concerns raised by the Electoral Commission. The commission suggested that a 12-month period was needed for three reasons: to prevent present or future Governments from gaining political advantage; to give electoral administrators sufficient time to be prepared for a combined election, as we discussed; and to be consistent with existing legislation. In another place, the Government agreed to give the matter further consideration, which we have done. We accept and have always accepted that there needs to be a substantial period between the making of any order changing the date of a local government election and the election affected. Such a period is needed, as we heard, to give electoral administrators sufficient time to put the necessary arrangements in place.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, illustrated, there have been two recent examples of local government elections being changed: in 2004, the order that combined the local government and European elections was made in March; and, in 2001, following the foot and mouth outbreak, the change was made in April. As the noble Baroness suggested, we can all agree that that was short notice. In each case the circumstances were particular. I accept that such a period in the normal course of business is too short. After careful consideration, we believe that a minimum of six months is the right period and that this should be included in the Bill.

In deciding that six months was the appropriate period, we needed to weigh up the purpose of the order-making power in Clause 60, which was intended to ensure that local government and European elections could be combined in years when they coincide. This is more convenient for voters and has been shown to increase turnout, as has been noted in our discussion. We fear that, if the period is too great, the lack of flexibility would prevent the provisions from being used and we would lose the benefits of Clause 60. It is important that electoral administrators are given sufficient time to prepare for elections on what would be a later date than they were originally planning for. They need to be comfortable that after a certain date there will be no changes to the arrangements for local government elections.

As the Bill is currently drafted, although electoral administrators would be aware of the Government’s intention to combine at an early stage, they would not be able to act with certainty until an order was made. Therefore, we agree that it is important for all those involved in local government elections to be aware of when the decisions to move these dates must be made. We consider a six-month period to provide ample notice to electoral administrators, as well as to parties, candidates and electors.

Section 37 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 gave the Secretary of State the power to move the date of local government elections. However, to our knowledge, this power has been used only once. One of the reasons is that any order under Section 37 of the 1983 Act has to be made in the February of the year preceding the election year. This period of 15 months is a long way in advance of the election date. The Government’s view is that even a 12-month period would substantially reduce the effectiveness of Clause 60, to the point where it might not be practicable for decisions to move election dates to be made. We accept that an amendment needs to be made to Clause 60 to provide a cut-off date for orders to be made, but we do not accept that 12 months is necessary. We believe that six months is sufficient. We understand that the Electoral Commission believes that anything below six months would be problematic.

It is of the utmost importance that any change of date for local government elections is not, and is not perceived to be, made to achieve some political advantage. Ideally, one would wish to see any such move command the support of all parties. A major safeguard against perceived political advantage is that the order would need to be approved by a vote in this House. I do not agree that making the period 12 months, as distinct from six months, would provide any material or greater safeguard. As I hope that I have demonstrated, a 12-month period renders the provisions pointless. On that basis, I hope that noble Lords will feel that they do not need to press their amendments and that they can support the government amendment.

Before my noble friend responds, perhaps I may ask whether the Government have consulted the Association of Electoral Administrators, which, quite separately from the Electoral Commission, might well have comments to make about the sort of practical points that I raised.

It is a great pity if the Government have not consulted those who actually set up the practical arrangements for elections, because it shows that that sort of issue was not in the Government’s mind. If I may say so, that is fairly typical of the situation in which we find ourselves regarding many orders in this area. I have heard a lot of complaints from electoral administrators about receiving very late notice of changes and the problems that that causes.

I endorse the comments made by my noble friend. Electoral law used to be almost set in stone and did not change very much. The rules, regulations and complexities seem to increase every year and we should not be unaware of the great extra burdens put on electoral administration, including the new rules on electoral registration, rolling registration and postal votes. The Government will say that electoral administrators nowadays have all these fancy computer programmes. The problem is that the administrators seem to spend half their time trying to make the programmes work, rather than benefiting from them. Perhaps that is life. There is no doubt that the administrators’ work has increased substantially and it is to be welcomed that the Government have agreed to put a period on the face of the Bill. If it has to be six months at this stage, it has to be six months, but that is better than nothing.

I am fascinated by the idea that Governments do not choose election dates for political advantage. Perhaps the logic of the Minister’s statements is that we should have fixed-term Parliaments so that we know exactly when general elections will be. If she were able to persuade the Government to do that, electoral administrators would carry her around the streets of London, or anywhere else, on their shoulders, garlanded with flowers and all sorts of things. However, I do not hold out any hope for that.

I did not manage to tempt the noble Baroness to discuss the prospect of turning May and June into election months, so that those of us who still tramp the streets in local elections could do so in decent weather. Perhaps we might discuss that at another time. I beg leave to withdraw—

I see that the Minister is still not tempted. I shall continue trying to tempt her on this matter. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 102 and 103 not moved.]

104: Clause 60, page 31, leave out lines 23 and 24 and insert—

“(3) An order under subsection (1) must relate to a single year and must be made at least six months before—

(a) the local election day in that year, or(b) if earlier, the date of the poll at the European Parliamentary general election in that year.(3A) For this purpose “the local election day” in a particular year is—

(a) the first Thursday in May, or (b) if an order has been made under section 37(1)(b) (power to change date of council and Assembly elections) in relation to that year, the day specified in the order.”

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 105 not moved.]

106: Clause 60, page 31, line 28, leave out “or bodies”

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 107 and 108 not moved.]

109: Clause 60, page 32, leave out lines 12 and 13 and insert—

“(3) An order under subsection (1) must relate to a single year and must be made at least six months before—

(a) the local election day in that year, or(b) if earlier, the date of the poll at the European Parliamentary general election in that year. (3A) For this purpose “the local election day” in a particular year is—

(a) the first Thursday in May, or(b) if an order has been made under section 37(1)(b) (power to change date of council and Assembly elections) in relation to that year, the day specified in the order.”

110: Clause 60, page 32, line 17, leave out “or bodies”

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 111 not moved.]

Clause 60, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed.