Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to take new clause 5—Referendum to approve proposals—

‘(1) Subject to the provisions of section 37(3) the local authority may from time to time make proposals to adjust the number of councillors per ward and must hold a referendum in the ward or wards affected before taking any steps to implement them.

(2) The local authority may not pass a resolution which makes the proposed change or changes unless the result of the referendum is to approve the proposals.

(3) If the result of the referendum is not to approve the proposals, the local authority must publish in one or more newspapers circulating in its area a notice which—

(a) summarises the proposals;

(b) states that the referendum did not approve the proposals;

(c) summarises the authority’s existing arrangements; and

(d) states that the authority will be continuing to operate those arrangements.’.

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

I should like to have a little canter around the issue of metropolitan districts and councillors per ward. When I first stood as a district councillor the ward had about 1,600 electors. The number of electors for a county councillor was about 8,000. When I fought a parliamentary seat in the midlands the ward populations 12,000 or 14,000. The average for Birmingham is about 18,000 to 20,000. Most metropolitan districts have three councillors, elected in one thirds, and they have very large wards.

Clause 37 allows additional councillors—a fourth, a fifth, a sixth, a seventh or an eighth, the number is not specified. Presumably that means larger wards. Alternatively, does it mean the same size wards but a larger council? If there are 60 members and it goes to six members per ward there will be 120 councillors. That has both cost and governance implications. If one opts to have more councillors per ward but to keep the same number on a particular metropolitan authority, it means larger wards.

One of the difficulties with our system is delivering literature in a very large ward. I am sure that we all delivered to wards because no one else will do it. We have almost killed ourselves by spending every waking hour doing so. If the impact of clause 37 is to give us larger metropolitan wards, I cannot see how it will improve general governance. There will more councillors, larger wards and a bigger division between those at the top and the bottom. I hope that the Under-Secretary can explain exactly what the Government have in mind. With three-member wards, elected on thirds, if one goes to more members in the authority there could be two members standing for election. We need rather more of an explanation. That is why we tabled new clause 5, which contains proposals for a referendum so that there would be some check and some debate on any increase in the number of councillors.

There are also questions of gerrymandering, which, of course, was named after Governor Gerry of Massachusetts. Giving an extra representative to a particular ward may have a political significance, as can having odd or even numbers representing a ward. When southern Ireland went on to an single transferable vote system, initially after independence, some of the wards were sevens, nines or 11s, which meant that the quota for winning was quite low. As the parties got control of the system the size of seats came down to threes and fives, which benefited the larger party under the Irish system. Clearly, under a metropolitan system, if one starts to add representatives to wards under a particular formula, unless it is totally within an electoral quota, it could  also have an impact. I should therefore like some reassurance from the Under-Secretary about how the extras will be added.

Under the parliamentary boundary commission system one, cannot add on the basis of projected growth. There is a base year when seats are determined and as the review moves forward there is some scope for arguments about change. However, in local government changes in growth in a ward may be taken into account. That is the one difference between the two systems. If districts can change the number of representatives per metropolitan ward simply by predicting that there will be a new housing estate in a ward and so extra representatives will be needed, it may have a political implication. That is why I want to have a little run around this clause.

I hope that the Under-Secretary can reassure me that all this is total nonsense. However, I do think that changing the numbers, we will have an impact on councils, ward sizes and, particularly if done on a predictive basis, on the political battleground.

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

Based on local knowledge, I think that the proposal is the correct one. My constituency has two local authorities, and one of them—in Tameside—was formed in 1974 when nine very independent towns came together. To this day, they remain very independent. Those towns are: the urban districts of Audenshaw, Denton, Droylsden and Longdendale, and the municipal boroughs of Ashton, Dukinfield, Hyde, Stalybridge and Mossley. When the borough was created, it was divided into 18 wards reflecting those towns. To a lesser extent today, those wards still reflect the townships of Tameside. Things got complicated in 1980, however, when an extra ward was given to the borough. Parts of the old boroughs of Dukinfield and Stalybridge were cobbled together into a new ward called Dukinfield Stalybridge ward, which confuses matters greatly because we also have the wards of Stalybridge North, Stalybridge South and Dukinfield.

Furthermore, in 2004, following the most recent boundary changes, the ward of Audenshaw, which had 10,000 electors, and the ward of St. Peter’s, which had 7,000 electors, had their boundaries altered because the average number of electors in each ward in Tameside was 8,000. To the great dismay of electors in Audenshaw—admittedly, a very small number—who are proud of their Audwinian roots, they were moved in to an Ashton ward, with which they have nothing in common. So, first, they were moved in to the ward of Ashton St. Peter’s, and then, at the next election, in to the Ashton-under-Lyne parliamentary constituency, despite the fact that their area of Audenshaw has been in the Denton and Reddish constituency since it was created in 1983, and in the same parliamentary constituency as Denton in every election since 1916, I think.

Some wards in Tameside no longer reflect the township boundaries. For example, Dukinfield is divided between the wards of Dukinfield and Dukinfield Stalybridge. Dukinfield ward is in the Denton and Reddish constituency and Dukinfield Stalybridge ward is in that of Stalybridge and Hyde. At the next election, Audenshaw will be divided in part between Denton and Reddish and Ashton-under-Lyne constituencies.

Tom Levitt (PPS (Rt Hon Hilary Benn, Secretary of State), Department for International Development; High Peak, Labour)

I just wanted to say that I never realised that life on the other side of the Tameside boundary was so much fun.

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

Perhaps my hon. Friend should have been at the ward boundary public inquiry. He understand just how much fun it actually was.

I think that the Bill is trying to achieve greater clarity and reflection so that wards mirror communities better. The building blocks of wards in metropolitan areas such as Tameside must have 8,000 electors, plus or minus. As I understand it, it would be possible for the Dukinfield ward to cover the whole of Dukinfield, perhaps with five instead of three members. Audenshaw ward could also reflect the whole of Audenshaw with four members instead of three. We might also have a smaller Ashton St. Peter’s ward with two members instead of three. In that case, we could better reflect the communities with which people identify, rather than create wards based on towns to which they do not belong. If the Minister can clarify that that is the intention of this part of the Bill, I give it my wholehearted support.

Angela Smith (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government; Basildon, Labour)

As a southerner, I never knew that I would learn so much from the Committee about the north. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish and others. For a new Member, he has an encyclopaedic knowledge of his constituency, which he has put to good use in the Committee.

I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Poole for explaining what he intends by his new clause, which is, I think, probing. The new clause would do the opposite of what he wants it to, and the Government oppose it in the strongest terms. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not mean it—his party, like ours, is wedded to democracy—but the new clause would allow a council to ride roughshod over the principle of equality in elections. Under the new clause, the controlling party on a council could increase the number of councillors in a particular ward simply by holding a referendum of its supporters and members in that ward, and thereby increase that ward’s representation on the local council. I am sure that that is not what the hon. Gentleman intended, although I am grateful for his comments. He will not be surprised that the Electoral Commission opposes the new clause, which, it claims,

“risks undermining the established process of electoral reviews and the principle of equality of representation across a local authority.”

I turn now to what I think that the hon. Gentleman intended by his new clause. I am sorry that, having been so helpful on previous clauses—offering to take ideas away and reflect further—I cannot do so in respect of new clause 5. I think that the hon. Gentleman intends to provide for local authorities to increase the membership of wards by a consistent number, by multiplying the number of councillors across all an authority’s wards. If that were so, there would not be the problems that I have mentioned of electoral equality. However, decisions about wards and other such questions should be taken by an independent body, not by local authorities, even if they have the approval of the electorate. The independent  Electoral Commission and the boundary committee for England are currently responsible for electoral reviews. It is through such electoral reviews that the number of councillors per electoral area—in district wards and county divisions, even though there is no reference to divisions in the new clause—and the boundaries and names of electoral areas can be changed.

I remind the Committee that clause 38 will allow local authorities to change the names of electoral areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish might wish to take that point into account if clause 38 is agreed to.

The total number of councillors on an authority may be changed under electoral reviews. The boundary committee will have to consider carefully the ability of the authority to provide convenient and effective local government under any council size. Allowing the local authority to change the number of councillors in a ward would also change the number of councillors on the authority as a whole, with no regard to the impact that such a change would have on the council’s ability to provide services to local people. The new clause would also mean that the total number of councillors for an area could be changed against the wishes of the electors across the local authority area as a whole.

The hon. Member for Poole was particularly concerned about whether the clause would mean larger wards. No ward in England currently has more than three members per ward: some have one, some have two and others have three. The Electoral Commission’s view is that having more than three members in a ward would dilute accountability and affect relations between electors and councillors. Clause 37 will allow flexibility to recommend one and two-member wards. A number of Committee members will already have a mixture of two and three-member wards in their constituencies. The clause does not necessarily mean that councils will be larger, but there could be smaller wards and fewer councillors per ward. That decision will be for the Electoral Commission to make, in consultation with the local authority.

My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish was right to say that the clause would remove the existing inflexibility and allow the Electoral Commission to better reflect communities. I think that his point is sound. If communities feel disengaged from their wards, they are less likely to vote. We want increasing participation and we want the electors to feel part of their wards and part of the community. At same time, we want to provide equality of representation.

We believe that there is a strong role for independent bodies to play. Although we are, throughout the Bill, looking to devolve decisions to local government, in this case it is right that an electoral body makes decisions in consultation with a local authority to remove the concerns that the hon. Member for Poole mentioned about gerrymandering. The right way to do that is for local authorities to seek a review from the independent Electoral Commission. I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

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

This has been a useful debate. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish mentioned a perfect  example of why the clause was relevant to his borough. Despite the construction of many boroughs 30 or 40 years ago there are still lots of local loyalties beneath the borough level. I am glad that the Under-Secretary mentioned size decreases rather than increases, because I would be concerned about the idea of a four-member ward. If an area felt itself to have certain loyalties, it would be a better idea to split it into two two-member wards than to add a ward with three members and a bit to somewhere six miles away. If that is the idea behind the Bill, fine. That would also inevitably reduce the size of some very large wards, which would improve matters.

In light of the reassurances that the Under-Secretary has given, I beg leave to withdraw the new clause.

Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

You do not need seek leave, because the new clause has not been formally moved. I shall assume you are giving notice that when we reach the right place in the Order Paper you will not be moving it.