Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

I shall try to be brief. I shall first address the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in relation to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2. Schedule 2 sets out the criteria that the boundary committee must have regard to when conducting electoral reviews under Clause 50. It is important to make it clear that the schedule simply re-enacts and consolidates existing criteria in Section 13(5) of the Local Government Act 1992 and Schedule 11 to the Local Government Act 1972. The schedule incorporates a number of drafting changes, but the criteria remain unchanged. The statutory criteria in Schedule 2 are balanced so that one criterion does not take precedence over another. While we sympathise with the noble Baroness’s comments about the importance of community identity in setting electoral arrangements, changing the balance of the statutory criteria should be approached with considerable caution. We of course agree that considerable importance must be attached to the effective engagement of neighbourhoods, communities and individuals in the provision of local services. However, the wide variety of local circumstances suggests that any criteria need to be broad to allow the new Boundary Committee the flexibility to deliver electoral arrangements that reflect community identity, provide for fair elections and support effective local government and service delivery. The Government therefore believe that we should avoid prescribing a hierarchy of criteria that might rigidly be applied in all circumstances. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendments to Schedule 2. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, has given notice of his intention to oppose the inclusion of Clause 51 in the Bill. In addition, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, have given notice of their intention to oppose the inclusion of Clause 58 and to amend the related Schedule 3. I hope that I can briefly explain why Clauses 51 and 58 and the Schedule 3 provisions should be in the Bill. The Bill re-enacts provisions recently enacted under Section 55 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, which inserted two new sections, 14A and 14B, into the Local Government Act 1992. I hope that that I can quickly allay the noble Lord’s fear that there is anything new in Clause 51 and explain that it simply re-enacts the provisions introduced by the 2007 Act with some modifications to provide for the Boundary Committee for England to take over the Electoral Commission’s current function. I would now like to address concerns about Clause 58 and Schedule 3. Clause 58 and Schedule 3 make transitional provision for the existing Boundary Committee to exercise its functions in relation to electoral boundary work without the involvement of the Electoral Commission prior to the establishment of the new Boundary Committee for England. Clause 58 and Schedule 3 will come into force immediately on Royal Assent. If Parliament agrees to the implementation of the Committee on Standards in Public Life’s recommendation to remove the role of the Electoral Commission from electoral boundary work, we believe that the Electoral Commission’s role should cease at the earliest opportunity. Schedule 3 therefore modifies the Local Government Act 1992 to provide for an interim period starting on the day on which the Act is passed and ending with the establishment of the new Boundary Committee for England, which we expect to be on 1 April 2010. It has been suggested by the Electoral Commission that leaving the Boundary Committee as a part of the Electoral Commission while the Electoral Commission no longer has a role in electoral review work would be counterproductive and inefficient. My right honourable friend the Minister for Local Government recently met with the new chair of the Electoral Commission and the chair of the Boundary Committee to discuss these arrangements. We have asked the Electoral Commission to provide information on any particular difficulties that it envisages and the level of work that is expected during this period. In our view, the sooner that the Electoral Commission is able to concentrate fully on its core functions in relation to party political finance and electoral administration—the key recommendation of the Committee on Standards in Public Life—the better. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said that he feared an increase in two-member divisions. The provision would enable any local authority to request single-member divisions. Indeed, West Sussex County Council, which had two-member divisions, requested such a review, which is ongoing. I hope that I have reassured noble Lords. Unless further evidence can be provided by the Electoral Commission of any particular problems that our approach will cause, I hope that noble Lords will agree that Clause 58 and Schedule 3 should stand part of the Bill.