Localism Bill

My Lords, the amendment deals with matters affecting a more controversial element of the Bill: namely, the position relating to elected mayors. It deals with the power of the Secretary of State to make various regulations and prescriptions concerning the election of such mayors, to which new Section 9N of the schedule also relates. I note that the Electoral Commission has taken the view that: "““Elections for Mayor are often exciting local affairs, with colourful personalities clashing on issues relevant to their area””." That is an interesting piece of publicity for the concept, which my noble friend Lord Adonis will undoubtedly confirm. However, there are some reservations, to put it mildly, about the strength of the argument behind it, which suggests that elected mayors are a superior form of local governance calculated to promote greater interest in local democracy and a higher turnout. For the last 11 years, at the request of 5 per cent of the population—and for the last several years, at the request of any council—people have been able to call a referendum to have an elected mayor. Some 39 councils have had referendums: some of them prompted by councils themselves, such as the most recent case of Leicester, and others prompted by popular demand, if such a phrase could be said to extend to a turnout of modest proportions in terms of the required numbers. Looking at the referendums, we can see that the turnout in the vast majority was certainly no greater than normal election turnout. In 12 of those referendums, voters approved the new system. The turnout for the referendums was a modest 20 per cent or thereabouts. In subsequent mayoral elections in those successful authorities, the average turnout was something like 30 per cent. Even in London, where enormous publicity attached itself to the successive elections, the first two turnouts were about 34 and 37 per cent, and the last mayoral election—with two candidates of a particular kind most likely to fit the description provided by the Electoral Commission—produced a turnout of only 45 per cent. So it is certainly questionable whether either the referendum process itself or the eventual turnout in ensuing elections validates the theory that this form of governance is particularly calculated to improve local democracy. The notion that the Secretary of State should prescribe the calling of such referendums and then prescribe in great detail how and when they are to take place is something that needs to be considered against that background. The reality is that, when only about 10 per cent of councils actually held referendums and a smaller proportion again—something like 3 per cent of councils in total eligible to have elected mayors—ended up with elected mayors on modest turnouts in those actual elections, one wonders about the thrust of a policy designed to prescribe these potentially everywhere. The Bill does not actually require that at the moment, but it certainly proposes to give the power to the Secretary of State to prescribe elections for mayors all over the country. I do not want to enlarge again on the desirability or otherwise of the mayoral system as opposed to the leader and executive system, but it is plainly wrong for such a decision to be effectively foisted on to communities that have expressed no interest in it. What I am not clear about—and again I apologise if I have not detected the relevant clause—is whether, if there is to be a decision to hold a referendum and consequential decisions on how it is to be carried out and how subsequent elections are to be held as provided for in the clause I seek to amend here, those decisions are to be subject to affirmative resolution or are just decisions that the Secretary of State can take without further parliamentary approval. I do not know whether the Minister is able to help; she has, on previous occasions, when that has been an issue, been able to confirm that. I do not know whether she can on this occasion. If she were not able to confirm it, then it would be a matter of considerable concern and we might have to return to it at a later date. So far as the powers given to the Secretary of State are concerned, they seem to be excessive. Accordingly, I move the amendment.