Andrew Stunell (Shadow Secretary of State for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Communities and Local Government), Department for Communities and Local Government; Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 94, in clause 31, page 17, line 37, after ‘to’, insert ‘(a)’.

Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 95, in clause 31, page 17, line 38, at end insert—

‘(b) a scheme for whole council elections’.

Amendment No. 96, in clause 31, page 18, line 2, at end insert—

‘(2A) A council is subject to a scheme for whole elections if, under the scheme for the ordinary elections of its councillors, all of the councillors are elected in each year in which the elections are held.’.

Amendment No. 98, in clause 32, page 18, line 13, at end insert

‘within eight years of a resolution being made in accordance with subsection (1).’.

New clause 6—Changing scheme for ordinary whole council elections—

‘(1) This section applies if an eligible council resolves, during a permitted resolution period, that the council is to be subject to the scheme for partial-council elections.

(2) The council ceases to be subject to the scheme for whole council elections.

(3) The council becomes subject to the scheme for partial-council elections.

(4) The council must not pass the resolution unless it has taken reasonable steps to consult on the change to partial-council elections.

(5) It is for the council to decide which persons it is appropriate to consult.

(6) No resolution of the council may reverse the effect of this section within eight years of a resolution being made in accordance with subsection (1).

(7) In this section “permitted resolution period”, in relation to an eligible council, means a period specified in the second column of the following table in relation to that type of council

Andrew Stunell (Shadow Secretary of State for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Communities and Local Government), Department for Communities and Local Government; Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat)

It is important that we make progress today, so I shall try not to detain the Committee for long.

The group comprises a coherent set of amendments designed to give local councils the opportunity not only to switch from one-third or one-half elections to all-out elections, but to switch back the other way. Although that is rather intricate, because the proposals are wound so much into this part of the Bill, hopefully our amendments would allow that.

The Minister has talked a great deal about how he is freeing local government and giving it lots of choices, and about devolutionary government and amazing love and motherhood government. It is wonderful to hear him talk about that, but we are trying to coax him a little bit further so that he does not just give local government the freedom to move in the direction that the Government would prefer as far as elections go, but allows them the freedom to go in the other direction if they choose—to have a reversible process, or one that gives them equal freedom to go in each direction.

The evidence from the Local Government Association representatives was that although as individuals they considered that all-out elections were probably the way ahead, local government as a whole should have the option to go in the opposite direction. I have been a member of different authorities that have had both systems of election; we could rehearsethe advantages and disadvantages at some length. However, it is not for the Government to decide for local authorities which of the pros and cons ought to   take precedence in their decision making. We heard from Unlock Democracy, which made exactly that point, and, although it might serve to weaken my case, the Conservative leader of the district councils made the same point, too.

Alistair Burt (Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government), Communities and Local Government; North East Bedfordshire, Conservative)

A fine man.

Andrew Stunell (Shadow Secretary of State for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Communities and Local Government), Department for Communities and Local Government; Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat)

Yes, and, at least on that point, I could rely on his evidence.

All these matters are of a piece. It would not be profitable to explain in detail how they all work, but I ask the Government to reconsider the provision. If the Minister wants to gain a reputation for assisting local government to deliver effective and representative government, he ought not to constrain it. In giving authorities the freedom to move to all-out elections, he ought equally to give them the freedom to move the other way if they choose to do so. There are things to be said on both sides; I shall not rehearse all the arguments, but give a few examples. What some regard as decisive change might be regarded by others as catastrophic change. Some have commented on the boom and bust of all-out elections and the remarkable way in which, in the year of all-out elections, council tax rises tend to be so much lower than in the other three years. And so the arguments go on.

Alistair Burt (Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government), Communities and Local Government; North East Bedfordshire, Conservative)

In those circumstances, councils are only taking a lead and mirroring the example of the Government, which produces a council tax rebate in a general election year that mysteriously disappears the year after.

Andrew Stunell (Shadow Secretary of State for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Communities and Local Government), Department for Communities and Local Government; Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat)

I was tempted to use this place as an analogy, but I thought that, on the whole, I would steer clear of it. Its example is neither particularly good nor bad, but the point has been made. Sometimes, as in 1979 or 1997, there is revolutionary change and sometimes there is not. In the local government context, where there are elections by thirds or by halves, the decision takers are always looking over their shoulder. Ministers sometimes represent that as weak leadership, but actually it is responsive leadership: representatives are looking over their shoulder and considering what the public will do next May. In a representative democracy, what is wrong with that, for goodness’ sake?

I am not saying that local government should have election by thirds. I am asking the Committee and the Minister to consider making the second procedure open to local government, as well as the first one. Of course, on the whole, leaders in power prefer all-out elections every four years and oppositions out of power prefer elections every year. Whether the democracy that results is better or worse, the Minister will not be able to produce a scrap of evidence to show one thing or the other. It seems to us that there is every reason to give that freedom to local authorities, and I trust that the hon. Gentleman will agree to do so.

Robert Syms (Shadow Minister (Local Government), Communities and Local Government; Poole, Conservative)

I have to start off by saying that I have always had a natural sympathy for all-out elections because of their simplicity. There is a manifesto, people try to carry it out and others make a judgment. Having  said that, I am totally opposed to the Government specifying solutions to local government because local tradition and practice are important. I have sympathy with the argument made by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove: why force a lever that forces change purely in one way? Choice about whether electoral systems should be whole, one third or one half rather than proportional representation should be down to local government.

The Government are again trying to make up the mind for local government, as they do in relation to committee systems and other matters. I hope that the Minister listens to the debate and reflects on it. We have heard much about devolution and bottom-up change and, if that really is the way to go, the hon. Gentleman’s amendment should be accepted.

Neil Turner (PPS (Rt Hon Ian McCartney, Minister of State), Foreign & Commonwealth Office; Wigan, Labour)

Hon. Members will see that I have tabled an amendment similar to that tabled by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove. To bring some colour back into the cheeks of my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford, let me say that I shall not be supporting the hon. Gentleman’s amendment. However, I shall be urging my hon. Friend the Minister to take account of what has been said.

We did not discuss the matter very much during the evidence session, but the hon. Member for Hazel Grove asked a question, to which the Minister replied:

“the Bill allows the process of change. It is about accountability and transparency for the electorate and our view is that all-out elections provide that in the best form.”—[Official Report, Standing Committee Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill, 1 February 2007; c. 92.]

I do not think that that is at all relevant to the Bill, which is about putting the decision-making process as far down the track of democracy as possible. The view of the Minister on election arrangements is not relevant. On Tuesday, the Minister said:

“The Government’s approach is devolutionary. It is for local authorities to tell us the best solution for their area. The reason for that, apart from what is apparent, is that the geographies and economies of local areas are very different.”—[Official Report, Standing Committee Local Government and Public involvement in Health Bill, 6 February 2007; c. 139-140.]

He is saying exactly what the Bill is all about. Its thrust is to push down the decision-making process as far as possible. I do not think that the logic of the clause as drafted stacks up in that regard.

I am making an assumption about what the Minister will say in response, but one of the things that may well be said that the Bill is about the provision of strong leadership. In other words, a four-yearly election gives a four-year leadership and a clear decision-making process. However, that does not stack up, either. There are clear sufficient safeguards in the Bill that will allow for strong leadership in those authorities that have elections by thirds or by halves. If that were so important, the Bill should have a clause stating, “Everybody shall go for all-out elections.” If that is the logic, the Government should be saying, “Make it so.”

Councils should not be subject to such provisions. I accept that there should not be a constant ping-pong whereby there is a four-yearly election, immediately after which, because a different party gets into power that likes elections by thirds, there is a change. We could make sure that that does not happen by having a  clause in favour of an arrangement lasting eight years or 12 years. That seems to me to be correct. The arrangement would have time to bed in; people would understand the pros and cons, having been able to compare one type of election against another.

I do not think that this is a major issue: I cannot see The Times thundering about it, The Guardian railing against it, or The Daily Telegraph fulminating on it. I cannot see the Daily Mail saying three votes good, one vote bordering on autism; or the Daily Express saying that the issue is part of the great jigsaw of the Diana death syndrome. I cannot even envisage letters in the “Blagdon Advertiser” about it. Most people are not that bothered one way or the other. However, the people of a local authority area should be able to have election by thirds if they think that is correct. Having a one-way street goes against the whole flow of the Bill. The Minister should look against at the provision and allow local authorities the ability to move in both directions, if they so wish.

Andrew Gwynne (PPS (Rt Hon Baroness Scotland of Asthal QC, Minister of State), Home Office; Denton & Reddish, Labour)

I draw hon. Members’ attention, yet again, to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests. I support everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan said. I believe that it should be up to councils to decide. I should state that I am biased because both the local authorities in my constituency elect by thirds: Stockport and Tameside are metropolitan boroughs and so have no option but to do so, but the system works well in both. If nothing else, it encourages political activity to take place all year round—or most of the time—in all of the wards in both boroughs.

I was elected under the system of thirds in 1996 and in 2000. Owing to the boundary changes of the wards in Tameside, the 2004 elections were all-out. That coincided with the European election and an all postal pilot, so the ballot papers were like Ordnance Survey maps. I ought to be biased in favour of all-out elections, because not only did I top the poll in my ward, but I topped the poll out of the 250 candidates for election to the 59 seats in Tameside—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]. But I am not biased in favour  of all-out elections. I think that thirds is a preferable system, because it allows for greater activity, for long-term planning, and gives more certainty to officers and executive councillors.

John Pugh (Shadow Minister, Health; Southport, Liberal Democrat)

The interesting thing about those all-out elections was that the results were not significantly different from when elections were by thirds. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the political complexions of authorities did not change by much?

Andrew Gwynne (PPS (Rt Hon Baroness Scotland of Asthal QC, Minister of State), Home Office; Denton & Reddish, Labour)

In Tameside, that seems to be an annual feature. The hon. Gentleman is entirely right, certainly with regard to the all-out elections in Greater Manchester.

Patrick Hall (Bedford, Labour)

We have heard quite a lot about Tameside, but it is important to get back to the standard established in the Committee of referring to Bedford and Bedfordshire. Although I agree with the points that have been made about the encouragement that year-round campaigning provides, there is an issue about continuity of leadership. It is possible to achieve a perfect solution, which has of course been done in Bedford: elections by thirds and a directly elected mayor.

Andrew Gwynne (PPS (Rt Hon Baroness Scotland of Asthal QC, Minister of State), Home Office; Denton & Reddish, Labour)

I am not sure that I am qualified to comment on Bedford. In Tameside since 1980 we have been under the stable leadership of Councillor Roy Oldham CBE, who is the longest serving leader of any council in the country. That is what election by thirds has brought to Tameside.

Elections by thirds also bring stability for officers. They are able to plan ahead and see whether a council is likely to change control.