Clause 37
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill
11:15 am
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.