Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

moved Amendment No. 95: 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.