I did not imagine that the Government would agree with me on this, which is all to do with people at national level who want neatness and nothing at all to do with confusion. Among non-metropolitan districts and existing unitary authorities, there are already three different systems of elections. Many still poll by thirds, seven poll by halves—I am grateful for an Answer from the Minister this week, because I know how many of them there are now—and the rest use whole-council elections. These are not separated into different parts of the country; the pattern is very mixed up all over the place.
Nobody thinks that this causes real confusion. The Electoral Commission did some work on it in 2003 and its report, The Cycle of Local Government Elections in England, recommended that there should be whole-council elections once every four years. It suggested that that would provide a model that would be equitable and easy to understand and would best serve the interests of electors. But when I talk to people at a local level, I cannot find anybody who thinks it important that the years in which their council is elected—whether by thirds, by halves or by the whole council—should be decided by what people in other parts of the country think. By and large, there are established patterns. It is interesting that, despite the fact that authorities have been able to move to whole-council elections since 1974, of the non-metropolitan districts that originally opted for election by thirds, only 11 have done so.
There is a great deal of conservatism about local election systems, but the reason for that is that people are used to what happens in their areas. The Electoral Commission said that people do not know when the elections are going to be and what is going on. If there is an election every four years, they will not know in which year it is coming up. In an election in an area such as ours, where we have a local election every year—three times for the district and once for the county—people know. They know that there is a council election on the first Thursday in May, or some time in the spring, every year. What determines voters knowing when the elections are coming up is how much publicity there is about the elections before they take place. That partly depends on whether the council is publicising them adequately, but it mainly depends on the candidates in the local political parties. They are the people who tell the public when the polls are and who say, ““Come on, get out and vote””. I really do not think that confusion exists among electors.
The one argument that I accept—the noble Lord mentioned it—is about the two-tier system. In two-tier areas, it would be stupid to have the district council elections on the same day as the county elections, although I remind noble Lords that that is what used to happen in urban districts and municipal boroughs before 1974. It was not very satisfactory. The turnout in county elections was always significantly below the turnout in district elections. Having two elections in two months was not a very satisfactory state of affairs. So I accept that that should be the case. On the rest of it, I do not agree.
There is a lot to be said for all London boroughs perhaps polling on the same day, because they all use whole-council elections. If they are to stay that way, there is sense in having local arrangements like that. But for metropolitan districts that go to whole-council elections, if any do, it does not matter on which of the four years two or three out of the 10 or 11 districts in Greater Manchester, for example, poll. If Wigan and Stockport decide to go for whole-council elections, the fact that they are in different years would not make the slightest difference, because the rest of Greater Manchester would still be polling every year. I think that this issue has been grossly overstated. It is a matter of neatness and tidiness by administrators at a national level and has nothing to do with the situation on the ground. However, in the light of what has been said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 66 and 67 not moved.]
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Scheme for whole-council elections]:
[Amendment No. 68 not moved.]
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clauses 35 and 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 [Resolution for elections by halves]:
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Greaves
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 5 July 2007.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
693 c1217-8 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:17:05 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_409013
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_409013
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_409013