Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

We fully accept the points on the administrative burden of organising elections and the need for properly 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 have the effect of substantially reducing 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.