Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

The champagne moment has passed. We have had an interesting discussion and I was pleased by the reassurance from the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) that his amendment was a probing amendment. Both he and the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) spoke about having to ensure that the election process was as simple as possible and that any changes provided clarity for electors. The hon. Member for Poole made some specific points on that subject and I shall come to those shortly. It is fair to say that all the amendments are about giving councils more say in the electoral arrangements for their area and enabling them to take the initiative. The Bill contains safeguards to ensure that the public retain confidence in the fairness and probity of our electoral arrangements. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Poole made it clear that he did not intend to press his amendment No. 163 to a vote, as it would remove probity from the process, leaving it open to manipulation. The Electoral Commission opposed the amendment on the grounds that it risked undermining the established process of electoral reviews and the principle of equality of representation across local authorities. The hon. Member for Poole said that he was trying to ensure that it would not be possible for local councils, on a whim, to increase the number of electors in a ward where they had a majority, and reduce the number of electors in another ward. In fact, although the Government amendments would not do that, his amendment would. Taking it at face value, amendment No. 163 could mean that electors in a ward could be asked by the council, ““Do you want to increase the number of councillors you have?”” It would not be beyond the bounds of possibility for the electors to respond that they did want that but, since it does not specify that the offer would have to be made to residents in every ward, the amendment would therefore undermine the principles of equality of representation. All hon. Members are elected, and I appreciate that all of us would like to have some control over our constituency boundaries. Those of us facing boundary commission changes perhaps feel that more strongly than others, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government’s aim is to ensure that there is equality between all the votes cast in an election. The hon. Gentleman asked various specific questions about the boundary committee’s role in single-member wards. When a local authority approaches the Electoral Commission to seek authority to move to single-member wards, it will be for the commission to decide whether that move were appropriate. The exceptional cases to which the hon. Gentleman referred, where multi-member wards were considered to be more appropriate, would be referred to the boundary committee. Councils would not be able to make the decision in such cases. The hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) asked whether single-member wards could revert back at a later date. They can, but such decisions would be made following the regular review undertaken by the boundary committee. The Bill does not provide for such decisions, as a two-way street already exists. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) referred to a letter that he had received from the Electoral Commission. I wish that I had been able to see it before today’s debate, as that would have enabled me to give a more considered response, but I hope that he will consent to give us sight of that letter as the debate goes on. He explained that his amendment No. 265 would require the Secretary of State to lay before the House any order that combined local government and European elections one year before it was due to take effect. When Ministers looked at the amendment, our concern was that, given the need for meaningful consultation on decisions about setting election dates, the lead-in time for all the necessary procedures would be something like 18 months. We would like to discuss the proposal further, as we want to ensure that the process is not rushed, but orders such as the one that we are discussing must be approved by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and we consider that to be adequate protection. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove was worried about party political advantage, although I do not see where that would lie. The Government do not consider his amendment to be necessary but, without having seen the views of the Electoral Commission, it is difficult to make any further comment. I hope that he might be prepared to share the contents of the letter from the Electoral Commission with us.