Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

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.