Clause 31
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill
10:30 am
Andrew Gwynne (PPS (Rt Hon Baroness Scotland of Asthal QC, Minister of State), Home Office; Denton and Reddish, Labour)
First, Mr. Chope, I welcome you and everyone else back to the Committee. Before I was rudely interrupted by the short recess—I trust that yours was good—I was making a strong defence of the election by thirds system. I wish to place on record my thanks to those who produce the Official Report of the Committee’s proceedings. I recalled that at the end of the previous sitting I was stopped mid-sentence and, after many sleepless nights trying to remember where I was in mid-sentence, I read with pleasure that my statement finished with a full stop. I am happy for that to remain so.
Unlike in Tameside, where there has been a long period of Labour control, and even in neighbouring Stockport, where, although the council currently has a Liberal Democrat majority, it is more the norm for no party to be in control, the system of thirds allows the officers to plan ahead. If it looks as though the parties in control are likely to change at an election, they can open up discussions with the opposition party or parties that are likely to take control after the election to talk about manifesto commitments, priorities and budgetary issues. It is clearly a system that is tried and tested, and one that works.
I acknowledge that, because most of my local political experience has been of annual elections by thirds, I am biased. I understand that councillors and Members of Parliament from areas that use an all-out system often hold similarly strong views about that system in the opposite direction from mine. That is the real issue, because there is no wrong or right way in which to elect councillors. Thirds is right for my area; others believe that all-out elections are right for their area. When people believe that the system is wrong for their area, why should they not be able to put their case and, after careful consideration and a council resolution, change it? That is what this part of the Bill will do and why I support it.
However, why must it be a one-way process? If it is okay for councils to move away from elections by thirds to all-out elections, why can they not move the other way? If a metropolitan borough, such as Stockport or Tameside, can move to all-out elections, why should not a London borough move from all-out elections to elections by thirds if it wants to? That it cannot is the source of my objection to the provision. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan that if, after an acceptable period such as eight or 12 years, perhaps more, the new system has failed to bed down, why should a council after careful consideration and a further resolution not be able to go back to the previous system? The would be real devolution and real letting go, which is what I hope we achieve through the Bill. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to my suggestions.
Given that, I urge the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, a fellow Stockport MP, to withdraw his amendments so that we can return later to the issue, with renewed vigour if necessary.