§ TERM OF OFFICE AND RETIREMENT OF COUNCILLORS
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerWe now come to the monumental grouping.
§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Mark Carlisle)I beg to move, Amendment No. 960, in page 4, line 36, at end insert:
and there shall be a separate election for each electoral division or ward'.
- '(1A) For the purposes of the election of councillors—
order under the said paragraph 3 or under or by virtue of the following provisions of this section or Schedule 9 to this Act;
- (a) every county shall be divided into electoral divisions, each returning (subject to paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to this Act) one councillor;
- (b) every metropolitan district shall be divided into wards, each returning a number of councillors which is divisible by three; and
- (c) every non-metropolitan district shall be divided into wards each returning such number of councillors as may be provided by an
§ Mr. R. C. Mitchell (Southampton, Itchen)On a point of order. Two of 61 us rose to speak on the previous Amendments, but you were not looking at the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and just went on. What is the position?
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerIf that was so I would tell the hon. Member that that does sometimes happen. The House does not realise, I think, that if someone wishes to catch my eye and he is in any doubt that he is succeeding he should address the Chair. That always used to be done. It is not always done nowadays. Consequently, the Chaircan miss someone. I am sorry it should have happened, but I do not think I can go back now because I have collected the voices and a decision has been taken on that Amendment. If hon. Members will do that, if they will just call "Mr. Deputy Speaker" in a good firm voice I shall be sure to hear them.
§ Mr. CarlisleI understand that it would be convenient to the House if all the various Amendments which you have linked with Amendment No. 960 should be taken together.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerYes. They are:
§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 5, leave out 'three' and insert 'two';
§ Amendment No. 670, in page 4, line 37, leave out subsections (2), (3) and (4) and insert:
- (2) The ordinary election of county and of district councillors shall take place in 1973 and every second year thereafter. Their term of office shall be four years except as provided in subsection (3) below and one-half, being those who have been councillors for the longest time without re-election, shall retire in every ordinary year of election of such councillors other than in 1973 on the fourth day after the ordinary day of election of such councillors, and in and after 1975 the newly elected councillors shall come into office on the day on which their predecessors retire.
- (3) In 1975 there shall retire one-half of the councillors elected in 1973, such half being designated by reference to electoral divisions and wards under a scheme specified in an order made by the Secretary of State after carrying out such consultations as he thinks appropriate.
§
No. 876, in page 5, line 5, at beginning insert:
Subject to the provisions of any Order made pursuant to the proviso to subsection (4) of this section.
§ No. 918, in page 5, line 5 [Clause 7], after 'of', insert 'metropolitan'.
§ No. 1061, in page 5, line 6, leave out '1975' and insert '1976'.
62§ No. 1062, in page 5, line 6, after 'every', insert 'second'.
§ No. 1063, in page 5, line 6, leave out 'other than a year of election of county councillors'.
§ No. 919, in page 5, line 9, after second 'of', insert 'metropolitan'.
§ No. 1064, in page 5, line 9, leave out 'one-third' and insert 'one-half'.
§ No. 920, in page 5, line 10, leave out second 'the' and insert 'a metropolitan'.
§ No. 146, in page 5, line 10, after 'district', insert 'if more than one'.
§ No. 921, in page 5, line 13, leave out 'other than 1973'.
§
No. 1068, in page 5, line 16, at end insert:
indicating in the case of a request under paragraph (b) above, those areas, if any, in which there should, and those, if any, in which there should not, be wards each returning a number of councillors which is divisible by three.
§
Amendments to Amendment No. 1068, (a) in line 5, leave out 'thirds' and insert 'halves'; (b) in line 5, leave out 'one-third' and insert 'one-half'; (c) in line 10, leave out 'three' and insert 'two'; (d) in line 27, leave out 'three' and insert 'two'; (e) in line 36, leave out 'thirds' and insert 'halves'; (f) in line 36, leave out '1976, 1979' and insert '1975'; (g) in line 36, leave out 'fourth' and insert 'second'; (h) in line 38, after
64
'every', insert 'second'; (i) in line 38, leave out 'other than a year of election of county councillors'; (j) in line 42, leave out 'three' and insert 'two'; (k) in line 3, leave out 'and 1976'; (1) in line 44, at end insert:
'except that an order providing for the election of councillors by halves may extend or reduce the initial term of office of any such councillor by one or two years'.
(m) in line 46, leave out 'thirds' and insert 'halves'; (n) in line 48, leave out '1976' and insert '1975'; (o) in line 50, leave out 'one-third' and insert 'one-half; (p) in line 51, leave out 'three' and insert 'two'; (q) in line 52, leave out 'one-third' and insert 'one-half'.
§
No. 671, in page 5, line 16, at end insert:
The Secretary of State after such consultation as he considers appropriate, may by order extend or reduce the term of office of county or district councillors by one or more years in all or any local government areas but no such order shall be effective unless it has first been approved by both House of Parliament.
§
No. 877, in page 5, line 16, at end insert:
Provided that where the Secretary of State, on request made by a resolution of a district council, passed by not less than two-thirds of the members voting on the resolution, considers that it would be expedient to provide for the simultaneous retirement of all the councillors for that district, he may by Order give directions to that effect and an Order giving such directions as aforesaid shall provide for all matters necessary or proper for giving effect thereto.
§
No. 878, in page 5, line 16, at end insert:
(5) Where any such Order has been made with respect to the simultaneous retirement of district councillors the Secretary of State may, on the like request, by order rescind the first-mentioned Order and the rescinding Order shall provide for all matters necessary or proper for giving effect thereto.
§
No. 967, in page 5, line 16, at end add:
'(5) In the case of a district council which has all or some of its wards returning a number of councillors not divisible by three, the term of office shall be four years and one-third or as near as may be, of the whole number of councillors of the district, or where there are a number of councillors representing a ward, of each ward, being those who have been councillors for the longest time without re-election, shall retire in every ordinary year of election of such councillors other than 1973 on the fourth day after the ordinary day of election of such councillor and in and after 1975 the newly elected councillors shall come into office on the day on which their predecessors retire; and the Secretary of State shall
65
determine the order in which councillors shall retire after the first election in 1973'.
§ No. 923, in page 5, line 17, leave out Clause 8.
§ No. 266, in page 5, line 20, after 'Act)', insert 'more than'.
§ No. 150, in page 5, line 21, at end insert 'one councillor or.
§ No. 869, in page 5, leave out line 22 and insert 'one councillor'.
§ No. 672, in page 5, line 22, leave out 'three' and insert 'two'.
§
No. 673, in page 5, line 24, at end insert:
§
No. 933, in page 9, line 40, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
'(3) Subject to any provisions included in an order by virtue of section 69 below and to the provisions of paragraphs 11 and 11A of Schedule 3 to this Act, the ordinary elections of parish councillors shall take place in 1976, 1979 and every fourth year thereafter, their term of office shall be three years in the case of those elected at the ordinary elections in 1976 and four years in the case of those elected at ordinary elections held thereafter, and the whole number of parish councillors shall retire together in every ordinary year of election of such councillors on the fourth day after the ordinary day of election of such councillors, and the newly elected councillors shall come into office on the day on which their predecessors retire'.
§
No. 730, in page 209, line 14, after 'out', insert:
'either before or after the passing of this Act'.
§ No. 924, in page 209, line 19, leave out '8(a)' and insert '7(1A)(a)'.
§ No. 461, in page 209, line 20, leave out sub-paragraph (1).
66§ No. 925, in page 209, line 21, after 'ward', insert 'of a metropolitan district'.
§ No. 1065, in page 209, line 22, leave out 'one-third' and insert 'one-half'.
§ No. 1066, in page 209, line 22, leave out '1975' and insert '1976'.
§ No. 1067, in page 209, line 25, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 26.
§ No. 178, in page 212, line 6, leave out '1975' and insert '1976'.
§ No. 179, in page 212, line 21, after '1974' insert 'or 1975'.
§ No. 180, in page 212, line 23, after '1974', insert 'or 1975'.
§ No. 181, in page 212, line 25, leave out '1975' and insert '1976'.
§ No. 1046, in page 213, line 5, leave out '1975' and insert '1976'.
§ No. 934, in page 213, line 46, leave out from 'councillors' to 'occurring' in line 1 on page 214.
§ No. 935, in page 214, line 1, leave out 'any' and insert 'the'.
§ No. 936, in page 214, line 6, leave out from 'councillors' to end of line 7.
§ No. 937, in page 214, line 8, leave out 'any' and insert 'the'.
§
No. 938, in page 22, line 26, leave out from beginning to 'shall' in line 28 and insert:
'When the following ordinary elections fall to be held in the same year, that is to say—
the polls at those elections'.
§
No. 940, in page 233, line 39, leave out from 'considering' to the end of line 42 and insert:
'future electoral arrangements for the district and shall formulate proposals for those arrangements accordingly'.
§ No. 941, in page 234, line 1, after 'required', insert ' (a)'.
§
No. 942, in page 234, line 3, at end insert:
'and
(b) the Secretary of State to make an order there under giving effect to the proposals of the Commission under paragraph 1 above
67
(whether as submitted to him or with modifications)'.
§
No. 943, in page 234, leave out lines 8 to 11 and insert:
'future electoral arrangements for the county and shall formulate proposals for those arrangements accordingly'.
§ No. 944, in page 234, line 15, after 'required' insert '(a)'.
§
No. 962, in page 234, line 17, at end insert:
'and
(b) the Secretary of State to make an order there under giving effect to the proposals of the Commission under paragraph 3 above (whether as submitted to him or with modifications)'.
§
No. 946, in page 235, line 35 [Schedule 10], leave out paragraph 7 and insert:
'7 On receipt of a report under paragraph 6 above the Secretary of State shall either make an order giving effect to any proposals of the Welsh Commission submitted with the report (whether as submitted or with modifications) or make an order providing for the continuation of the existing arrangements applicable to the community or communities in question'.
§
No. 947, in page 236, line 8, leave out from 'considering' to end of line 11 and insert:
'future electoral arrangements for the district and shall formulate proposals for those arrangements accordingly'.
§ No. 948, in page 236, line 21, after 'required', insert '(a)'.
§
No. 949, in page 236, line 23, at end insert:
'and
(b) the Secretary of State to make an order there under giving effect to the proposals of the Commission under paragraph 10 above (whether as submitted to him or with modifications)'.
§
No. 950, in page 236, leave out lines 29 to 32 and insert:
'future electoral arrangements for the county and shall formulate proposals for those arrangements accordingly'.
§ No. 951, in page 236, line 36, after 'required', insert 'a)'.
§
No. 963, in page 236, line 38, at end insert:
'and
(b) the Secretary of State to make an order there under giving effect to the proposals of the Commission under paragraph 13 above (whether as submitted to him or with modifications)'.
§
No. 961, in page 14, line 14 [Clause 27], at end insert:
68
'(1A) For the purposes of the election of councillors—
and there shall be a separate election for each electoral division or ward'.
§
No. 927, in page 14 [Clause 27], leave out lines 22 to 33 and insert:
indicating in the case of a request under paragraph (b) above, those areas, if any, in which there should, and those, if any, in which there should not, be wards each returning a number of councillors which is divisible by three.
and, where the Commission have not completed their review of the electoral arrangements for the district under paragraph 10 of Schedule 10 to this Act, they shall as part of that review
§ No. 928, in page 14, line 34, leave out Clause 28.
§
No. 1175, in page 19, line 20 [Clause 37] leave out subsection (2) and insert:
'(2) Subject to any provision included in an order by virtue of section 69 below, the ordinary election of community councillors shall take place in 1974, 1979 and every fourth year thereafter, their term of office shall be five years in the case of those elected at the ordinary elections in 1974 and four years in the case of those elected at ordinary elections held thereafter, and the whole number of community councillors shall retire together in every ordinary year of election of such councillors on the 4th day after the ordinary day of election of such councillors and in and after 1979 the newly elected councillors shall
70
come into office on the day on which their predecessors retire.
§
No. 731, in page 223, line 11 [Schedule 5], after 'out' insert:
'either before or after the passing of this Act'.
§ No. 929, in page 223, line 16, leave out '28(a)' and insert '27(1A)(a)'.
§ No. 930, in page 223, line 17, leave out paragraph 3.
§ No. 954, in page 227, line 31, leave out from 'councillors' to 'occurring' in line 32.
§ No. 955, in page 227, line 32, leave out 'any' and insert 'the'.
§ No. 956, in page 227, line 37, leave out from 'councillors' to end of line 38.
§ No. 957, in page 227, line 39, leave out 'any' and insert 'the'.
§ No. 958, in page 227, line 43, leave out from 'councillors' to 'occurring' in line 44.
§ Mr. CarlisleAs you said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is a formidable list of Amendments. I do not know whether it constitutes a record for a local government Bill, but it is certainly the most formidable grouping of Amendments to which I myself have had to speak, and I only hope that I shall not leave out any of those which are in your grouping, or in error add any which were previously grouped but which may not be in the present grouping.
Formidable as the grouping of Amendments may appear to be, the Amendments deal, in the main, with the method of elections for the new non-metropolitan district councils. I would briefly remind the House of the history of the matter. The Bill, as drafted, in Clause 7 provided, firstly, that for county council elections there should be single-member wards with the first election in 1973 and thereafter election of the whole council every four years. These Amendments make no change so far as county council elections are concerned.
The Bill as drafted also provided in Clauses 7 and 8 that for all districts, whether metropolitan districts or non-metropolitan districts, there should be a system of three-member wards, with the first election in 1973, and thereafter a third of the members of each council of each district coming up for election in 1975 and every year thereafter. The method and the timing for each who 71 came up for election in 1975 and 1976 would be laid down in the interim provision in paragraph 4 of the Third Schedule to the Bill, all, again, to hold office for four years and retiring a third, annually, with annual elections each year other than the year of the county council elections. That was the proposal for all district councils whether metropolitan or non-metropolitan. So far as metropolitan districts are concerned—because the effect of these Amendments is to distinguish between metropolitan and non-metropolitan districts—there is no change proposed from the system started in the Bill, namely, annual elections, a third of the council coming up each year, sitting for four-year periods, with the year of the county council election being the year in which there is no metropolitan district election.
The effect of these Amendments taken as a whole—and many of the Amendments are consequential to the main ones, to which I shall refer in a moment—is merely to define the districts, to distinguish between non-metropolitan and metropolitan, and to provide a different system of election for the non-metropolitan districts.
As I say, the Bill as drafted provided for three-member wards for the non-metropolitan districts; but three-member wards everywhere throughout non-metropolitan districts have, I think, turned out to be extremely unpopular. The proposal was intensely disliked, particularly in the rural areas, as it was argued that it would make areas far too big. One has to remember that the normal reduction in the number of councillors which this Bill will in any event bring about makes the areas substantially greater than three times the size of the existing rural areas. It would make councillors too remote with a feeling in a scattered rural area that in the parish there would be no one whom the people of the parish could regard as their representative on the district council.
This was discussed in Committee. It was a fairly brief discussion raised by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) on 27th January and at that time my hon Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Sir Richard Sharpies) agreed to consider this matter further.
After due reflection, the Government have concluded that it would be right to 72 propose changes so as to allow councils in all non-metropolitan districts a choice between whole council elections and elections by thirds, and as between three-member wards and single-member wards. These changes will apply also to all districts in Wales as well as to the districts outside the metropolitan counties in England.
The Amendments therefore provide that for the first election in 1973 wards in non-metropolitan districts will be able to return either one, two, three or any other number of councillors according to local circumstances. These arrangements will be provided by orders made by the Home Secretary under paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 for England, and under paragraph 2 of Schedule 5 for Wales, after consultation with the existing local councils. Partly because of the time-scale within which this will have to be done—
§ Mr. Ted Leadbitter (The Hartlepools)The hon. and learned Gentleman used the phrase
after consultation with the existing local councils".Will he explain how that is to be done when the district is not yet legally defined and may be in different local authority areas?
§ Mr. CarlisleThe wording in the Schedule is that the Secretary of State shall—
after carrying out such consultations as he thinks appropriate".In practice those existing councils which will be going into the area defined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who is responsible for delineating the district areas, will be consulted by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary as to a suitable warding for the first elections.Because of the time limit for the first elections, we shall follow as far as possible the local preference put to us. In particular, we intend where possible to keep to the existing ward boundaries even if it means the amalgamation of certain wards within the district.
All non-metropolitan district councillors elected in 1973 will serve for a three-year period until 1976. That means that for the non-metropolitan districts there will be no elections in 1975 in addition to there being no elections in 1974 for all areas. The reason for that 73 is that we realise that most, if not all, the warding arrangements will have to be revised at the time of the initial review of the Local Government Boundary Commission. While it is reasonably practical to hope that much of that revision will be achieved in time for the election of 1976, it is impracticable to hope that it will be done in time for a full series of elections in 1975. Had one had elections in 1975, councillors would have had to come up for re-election immediately after the completion of the initial review in 1976. This arrangement has the added advantage, which I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House will appreciate, that it will avoid early changes in membership in the first formulative years of the new district councils.
Once elected, a non-metropolitan district council will be able to request the Home Secretary to provide either for whole council elections or for elections by thirds. If that request is made prior to 1st April, 1974, it requires merely a resolution carried by a simple majority of the council. If the council opts for whole council elections, all the councillors will be elected together every four years, that fourth year being the mid year between the county council elections. In other words, there will be county council elections in 1973, 1977, 1981 and 1985. Elections to the whole non-metropolitan district council will be in the years 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1991.
Wards will be able to return one, two or three councillors to suit the local circumstances, provided that if they opt for whole council elections the matter will be referred to the Local Government Boundary Commission for delineation of the boundaries and, presumably, where there are to be whole council elections, the Boundary Commission's review will be on the likely basis of one-member wards.
§ 5.15 p.m.
§ Since it is necessary to get the local elections and the county elections into cycle so that the election for the local district comes half way in the four-year period between county elections, those who are re-elected in 1976 will serve three years only, until 1979, rather than four years, which is half-way between the two county council elections. The four-year period starts from that stage. If, 74 on the other hand, the council opts for elections by thirds, one-third of the councillors will thereafter be elected in each of the years other than the year in which the county council election takes place.
§ So as to meet the situation of those rural areas which are attached to existing urban areas, a council which chooses a system of election by thirds will be able to indicate in its request those parts of the district which should have three-member wards and those parts which should have single-member wards. In other words, a council may agree that the whole of the elections in its district shall be on the basis of three-member wards with one-third of the councillors retiring every year or it may choose to have some parts as three-member wards and certain surrounding more scattered areas as single-member wards, in which case, one-third of the councillors of those single-member wards would retire in rotation along with one-third of the councillors of the three-member wards. One councillor in each three-member ward will be elected in any one year and one-third of all the councillors in all the other wards will be elected in any one year.
§ Councils will be expected to make their initial requests before the Boundary Commission starts its initial review. It is therefore provided that a resolution passed to this effect before 1st April, 1974, will require only a simple majority. Any resolution passed later than that, or any attempt to change that situation, will require a two-thirds majority. On receipt of the initial request the Home Secretary will ask the Boundary Commission to make its proposals at the initial review in the light of that request, and the council's choice will thus be given effect to at the first election after the initial review has been completed.
§ Where the review has been completed entirely there will be elections in 1976. Where the initial review has not been completed in time and the council opts for whole council elections, the elections will start in 1979 on the warding as provided under the proposals of the Local Government Boundary Commission by order of the Home Secretary. If councils opt for elections by thirds the system will start from 1978, with the Boundary Commission recommending which of the 75 single-member wards should retire in which order and the Home Secretary laying down an order to that effect and dealing with the retirement of the councillors—which of the three-member ward councillors comes up for re-election in the first year, which in the second and which in the third.
§ I have been attempting to describe the change of system of election in non-metropolitan district councils in England. This is achieved by Amendment No. 960, which provides for the different type of elections in the metropolitan district and non-metropolitan district, by Amendment No. 923, which seeks to leave out the existing Clause 8, and by the long Amendment, Amendment No. 1068, which sets out the new proposals.
§ Similar arrangements are provided for Wales by Amendments Nos. 961, 927 and 928. With three provisos—with which I shall deal shortly—the rest of the Amendments in the group are purely consequential on that major change. The first of the three provisos is Amendments Nos. 730 and 731, which relate to the point asked about by the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter), the consultation with the local authority. The effect of the Amendments is to amend Schedules 3 and 5, which deal with the transitional arrangements, to make it clear that consultations which take place with local authorities can take place before the passing of the Bill as well as afterwards. These consultations have been going on for some time with local authorities as to a suitable warding of the new districts if they be approved by the House. The Amendments merely say that the consultations which have taken place should be adequate consultations under the Schedule.
§ Amendments Nos. 933 and 1175 are amendments to Clauses 17 and 37, which deal with the parish elections in England and the community elections in Wales. The only effect of those Amendments is to make sure that the year of the parish council elections will coincide with the year of the election for the district councillor in whose ward the parish is; in other words, we shall still have the situation that when one is voting for the district councillor one will be voting for the parish councillor in the same year. It was said in Committee that by bring- 76 ing together the timing of both district and parish elections one may encourage a higher support, interest and turnout in those elections.
§ Finally, there is a group of Amendments to Schedules 9 and 10 which I will willingly try to explain if anyone wishes me to do so, but I can say merely in two lines that their effect is to make mandatory on the Local Government Boundary Commission the requirement to make proposals to the Home Secretary for the future electoral arrangements in England and Wales, and to make mandatory the requirement on the Home Secretary to make orders for them.
§ By their very grouping, the Amendments are somewhat complicated. I hope that I have succeeded in explaining their effect so far as they alter the type of elections in the non-metropolitan county. I believe that they will be welcomed. Certainly what we have done has been urged by the Government by the Urban District Councils Association, the Rural District Councils Association and the National Association of Parish Councils, which are the main bodies concerned in the non-metropolitan districts.
§ This will provide a flexibility in the system of elections for the non-metropolitan districts which can provide annual elections with three-member wards for the urban areas, which are used to annual elections and three-member wards, and equally will provide single-member wards with elections every fourth year for those rural areas which are more sparsely populated and which now find themselves in a new district attached to a more heavily populated area.
§ This group of Amendments contains many tabled by my hon. Friends and certainly one official Opposition Amendment. If the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) will forgive me, I shall not attempt to answer the points in those Amendments now, but, if necessary, I shall say something about them later.
§ Mr. John SilkinFirst, I congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman on his elevation and commiserate with him on having to move so complex a series of Amendments.
I am whole-heartedly in agreement with one statement made on the previous Amendment by the hon. Member for 77 Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe). It is a truism that all of us, on both sides of the House, wish to see a vigorous local democracy and a vigorous local government. The trouble is that the voting figures never bear out this interest in local affairs. Rather sadly, one can look around the Chamber at this moment and wonder whether hon. Members are as interested in local government as perhaps they might be—onboth sides of the House—because there appears to be a total gap in the tribunes of the people.
Our aim must be to create a vigorous local government and vigorous local democracy. Too often it is national affairs that interest the electors at the time of local elections, and even then only the active portion of the community and not the general mass of the people. That is the first thing we must do. It is something we have been debating in Committee and, already, on Report. We shall return to it again in the long days and nights ahead of us as we move towards discussing functions and powers and other important topics.
The machinery of Government, by itself, can do nothing more than either help or hinder the interest in matters of principle; but it can both help and hinder. Therefore, it is important that we should get the structure and the machinery absolutely right. If the electors are aware of the importance of local government elections, there is a better chance that they will take an interest. That was one reason why we on the Opposition side of the Committee pressed for a single positive day in each year for local elections so that national publicity could be directed to that one day. We felt that that might help the community to focus its mind on local elections and, perhaps, to have a higher poll when the time came.
We are grateful that the Government have seen this point. The hon. and learned Gentleman's predecessor certainly paid great attention to it at the time. I am thinking of Clause 45. I notice that one Government Amendment says that apart from Ascension Day—in the year 2010, I think, with which I shall not concern myself at present—we should have local government elections on the first Thursday in May. This is excellent. But one of the troubles is that under 78 Amendment No. 960, as I see it, a number of authorities will not have elections on each first Thursday in May. They will have to wait for a period of years before they do.
§ 5.30 p.m.
§ At this stage it may be helpful if I state the two points of principle, as I see them, which are embodied in this large complex of Amendments. The first point of principle embodied in Amendment No. 960 is the provision to allow wards of less or more than three councillors. In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) moved an Amendment to provide for single-member wards in scattered rural areas. I am glad that that Amendment has had its effect.
§ The second point of principle goes against the idea of annual elections as such. Amendment No. 1068 provides for all non-metropolitan districts to opt for annual or four-yearly elections after the first two elections. Our Amendment states that there must be annual elections for all district councils except in the year of county elections and, therefore, is on all fours with the Government Amendment to Clause 45.
§ As to Amendment No. 960, the Home Office Circular dated 23rd June, 1972, suggested that there should be wards of one, two, three or more councillors: there is no maximum, so we might have any number; there might be 10 councillors or even 15, if I may exaggerate just a little, in any ward. If there are four-yearly elections the ballot paper will resemble one of those large pieces of wallpaper that one inspects from time to time when one is redecorating; there may be 30 or 40 names on it as candidates for one ward alone. Heaven help the poor electors on that basis.
§ We all of us agree in wanting to foment an interest in local government and getting a high point of drama and excitement in it as the hon. Member for Cornwall, North put it in the debate on the previous Amendment. The quickest way to kill that would be to present the electors with a piece of paper with 30 or 40 names on it. Even though the names of the political parties might be on it, the electors' patience will not rest very long on the subject.
§ We think that the maximum number of councillors per ward ought to be three. 79 It is obviously not possible to secure this in the first two elections. The hon. and learned Gentleman made his point convincingly on that. We think that clear guidance should be given to the Boundary Commission to get the number down to three. If it is got down to three, that will be one piece of progress. That should be true of metropolitan and non-metropolitan districts. On that basis, elections would be fought on the basis of one councillor retiring each year, whether it be county or district.
§ The second principle is an odd one in local government. I do not know of an example of its happening before. It is the choice given to the non-metropolitan districts and the Welsh districts to opt for which system they want. No such choice exists for the metropolitan districts; for some reason, they are not allowed to choose. Although the metropolitan districts will have their annual elections, except in the year of county elections, a splendid confusion will reign over the whole of England and Wales while some non-metropolitan district councils opt for the one and others opt for the other.
§ Apart from the confusion, there are other dangers arising from Amendment No. 1068. For example, where the whole council retires simultaneously one may, as one has seen happen in the past, have all the experienced councillors step off at one go. Annual elections at least provide for continuity.
§ Mr. Martin Maddan (Hove)Is not this the very thing that happens in the counties, anyhow? When I suggested in Committee that that might be a reason for keeping aldermen the right hon. Gentleman did not agree with me.
§ Mr. SilkinBy some strange chance, I was coming to the question of aldermen. I was about to say that at least it could be said about aldermen that they provided that sort of continuity. Aldermen are to go, and I am glad that they are to go. I regard aldermen as undemocratic. It was not for any other reason that I opposed their retention, but simply because I do not believe that when we have local elections, if we are to make them representative, we can have a non-elected person alleged to be representative of the community who is not 80 representative. The hon. Gentleman makes his point about county councils. However, the danger there is not so great. It is much more likely to occur in district councils. I have no doubt, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that at the appropriate point the hon. Gentleman will seek to catch your eye, when he can make his point better than I can make it for him.
Another danger which is inherent in Amendment No. 1068 is this. We have a firm date on which the proportions differ—a simple majority and then after that two-thirds. What is not stated by the Minister of State is that it is possible for councils to change their political allegiance. They do so with monotonous frequency. It is possible that what appeals to one party as a basis of elections—an annual basis, for example—will not appeal to the party that succeeds it. I cannot think of anything more confusing and more dangerous than a change in the basis of elections between annual and quadrennial, but that is very likely to happen. It is much better to have the thing cut and dried now and to accept it as being cut and dried.
I hope that the Minister will reconsider this. Unless I hear some extremely good reasons, I propose to invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the whole series of Amendments, because this is the way we have to do it, as you are aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, I do not think that firm answers will be forthcoming.
The best answer would be for the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that he will take all these Amendments away and consult, through his Advisory Committees, not only the local authority associations but also the political parties to find out what they feel about it. Then, if he is absolutely certain of his ground—I do not think that he would be at the end of that—let him by all means put the Amendments in in another place. In the meantime, I have tried to show the dangers that are implicit in what the hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting and a little of the confusion that goes with them.
§ Mr. John E. B. Hill (Norfolk, South)Although the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) and I both hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will take back this 81 large batch of Amendments and reconsider the methods to be adopted for the machinery and pattern of elections, the right hon. Gentleman and I differ considerably about what we would like to see done.
My sub-Amendment (a) on page 11151 to Amendment No. 960—in line 5, to leave out "three" and insert "two"—sets the theme of the chain of Amendments, mainly Nos. 670, 671 and 673, which have been tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself. Broadly speaking, we would like to see elections by way of halves instead of thirds.
Speaking as someone who did not serve on the Standing Committee, I believe that there has been surprisingly little parliamentary and public discussion of these matters to date. Everyone has been so concerned with areas and powers that there has been little time left to think of the matters that we are considering now. The Standing Committee, indeed, spent only about 20 minutes on these points, but it just touched the alternative possibility of having half-council elections every two years. In general I think, as far as I can judge, that the idea of four-year terms at all levels is acceptable, particularly the idea of having a single "Local Government Election Day" so that there is no confusion and there is one day in any year on which all local government elections should take place.
I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State not only for the very lucid way in which he described the Government Amendment but also for having sought to meet the very serious objections which were put forward largely from rural areas against having to have three member wards, which in the rural areas would have meant an impossibly large geographical area to seek to represent, and also for providing a method whereby the non-metropolitan district councils—again mainly rural areas—might avoid having annual elections which in rural areas are thought to be unnecessarily and crushingly exhausting and expensive. I express no view about metropolitan areas because they like annual elections—
§ Mr. Denis Howell (Birmingham, Small Heath)Rubbish.
§ Mr. HillIf they do not like annual elections, it strengthens my case. It is churlish, in thanking my hon. and learned Friend for putting down these Amendments, then to put down no fewer than 17 sub-Amendments to his main Amendments.
My hon. and learned Friend must be asked to look at this again for two smaller reasons. In the likely metropolitan districts there will be parts, or the whole, of some 26 existing rural district councils. I have received from the Rural District Councils Association, of which I am one of many vice-presidents in this House, a list of the councils which will find themselves compelled to be warded on a three-member basis, despite the fact that many of them will have these large geographical areas which make it very difficult to work on a triple-member basis, even if one likes this kind of multiple warding.
I should like to quote from this letter from the Rural District Councils Association dated 4th July:
These councils fear that the effect of grouping councillors in wards of three or multiples of three will be that the rural fringes of the metropolitan districts will not be represented on the councils, because the bulk of the population will be in the urban parts of the wards and the representation will come from there.I would think it desirable that these rural district councils should not be deprived of an option which the majority will now have. That view is strengthened by the fact that I have also heard from the Urban District Councils Association that it, too, would like the benefit of the option now provided by my hon. Friend to be extended to metropolitan district councils.
§ 5.45 p.m.
§ Coming back to my first Amendment, there are matters of rather deeper principle which I should like the House to consider. Although the Amendments are very complicated as they appear on the Paper, and although I certainly would not claim that they make consistent sense, and still less have accurate legal effect, the theme running through them is that instead of having a mixture of whole council elections for counties and either whole or one-third council elections for districts, we would like a system of half-council elections every two years on both levels so as to provide a degree of 83 overlap and therefore, we would hope, more continuity and stability in local government. This can only be done neatly if multi-member wards are organised on a basis of multiples of two- and not three-member wards.
§ To resolve the conflict between those districts which would like an election every year mainly the metropolitan ones—and those districts.mainly the rural ones—which want to have less frequent elections, we would allow a further option so that districts could either choose to have their half district council elections in or out of step with the half county council elections.
§ I do not know whether hon. Members can follow that but it is very simple. The four-year cycle for a council which wanted to have the minimum number of elections would simply be a blank year, then a year in which there were both the half-county council elections and with it the half district council elections, then another blank year, and then the remaining half of the half county council elections and likewise the remaining half of the districts. For those areas and districts which wanted frequent elections then, as I say, their own district elections will come in the intermediate years.
§ In fact, this last proposal would not quite result in metropolitan districts having everyone voting in each year because, as the right hon. Member for Deptford pointed out, where there are single-member wards the electors in them do not vote in a year in which that particular ward is not coming up for election, but it would be true to say that there will be plenty of electoral activity in the neighbouring area each year if that is what people and the political organisations want.
§ Briefly, here are some of the considerations which led me to think in terms of half council elections. Originally, it struck me as somewhat curious that the Bill provided for districts to be elected as to one-third each year, providing considerable continuity, whereas the more powerful counties were all to be elected on a whole council basis on one fixed day every four years. I could see that that was attractive from the point of view of a newly elected council and its officers, since they could feel that they had four years, could develop their policy and not 84 worry about elections. That was one of the benefits which was noted in the short reference to this matter in the Redcliffe-Maud Report. On the other hand, against that, as Redcliffe-Maud pointed out, it would remove the council from having any view about its progress given by its own electors during the whole of four years, save by the chance of a by-election or possible reflected criticism through district elections below the counties.
§ But what Redcliffe-Maud did not, I think, take sufficiently into account, and what I confess causes me some concern, is that if all county councils throughout the land come up for election on one day every four years, the mass media and the public will find it almost impossible not to treat the county elections as a glorified national opinion poll on the performance not of a series of separate counties but of the Government of the day—and, possibly, not even the performance of the Government of the day but, rather, the international circumstances of the day. It seems to me, therefore, that having everything at stake every four years is likely to exaggerate swings and lead to the various disadvantages which can flow from sharp movements.
§ It is inevitable that local elections will be influenced by factors outside local government, but I believe the Bill aggravates that tendency, where one might wish to mitigate it. I am led to wonder—we ought all to consider this—whether it is desirable, save in parliamentary elections, that the whole nation should come out on one day and vote for a geographical area which covers the whole country. I put that point to the House.
§ Aldermen are being abolished. I do not question that, but it will make it harder to achieve continuity in local administration. It means that there is less chance for councillors who are defeated and who would like to get back or who are wanted back. Candidates will have to wait four years instead of having a biennial chance of being chosen for a ward which is coming up next time.
§ I have talked of swings, but there is the other danger that an election may produce a situation of near stalemate, which hitherto the use of the aldermanic system, although criticised, may assist, enlarging a minute majority into a working majority.
85§ Mr. HillI am not advocating this. I am pointing out what could happen under the system which is about to be abolished. I ask hon. Members to consider the possible effect of whole council elections under the new system. There might be something approaching stalemate. One then has the long four-year period, apart from the attrition of by-elections and so on, before the chance of securing a strengthened majority comes along. Parliament may go for a General Election. That is what happened between 1964 and 1966; a tiny majority in 1964 was followed by a bigger one in 1966. But that cannot happen under this proposed system. On the other hand, a biennial 50 per cent, election would enable the public to give a stronger or a lesser voice to its finding two years earlier.
I should like there to be more discussion of the pros and cons of all these matters. I do not know what the answer is. What worries me is that we are taking decisions without a great deal of public discussion. One has seen remarkably little about these matters in the Press or anywhere else.
It is somewhat curious that the Bill makes provision for the future amendment of areas and powers as between different councils but there is no flexibility in this respect, even with the proposed Government Amendments, for the metropolitan district councils. They are to be warded for all time and they are to have annual elections. It may well be that the trend of public opinion and desire will move away from warding. As a citizen of Westminster, I dislike being represented by a committee of three whom I do not see, and I would rather have one identifiable representative. However, that may be a rural bias. The essential point is that patterns and opinions may change, yet the Bill as it stands is somewhat rigid. I should like to see more flexibility in it.
To that end I have put down Amendment No. 671, which would provide means within the Bill for moving from whole council to half council elections or vice versa, or for moving district elections in or out of phase with the counties. It could be easily done within the Bill, subject to parliamentary approval.
86 It seems to me that there is a case for thinking about the general principle rather more deeply. I have a hunch that half council elections might be better in the long run, but I do not wish to be dogmatic about it, and that is why I should like to see flexibility in the Bill, because I believe in the longest run of all it is desirable, within certain fixed national limits, that local authorities should have the form of election and the timing which they prefer.
§ Sir David Renton (Huntingdonshire)We have not yet got this right. The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) was completely right to suggest that the Government should take the matter away and have further thoughts about it. It is necessarily a complex matter. There are so many different questions involved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. John E. B. Hill) is to be congratulated for having worked out a scheme which, compared with the mass of Amendments on the Paper and compared with the original Bill, has the potential advantage of simplicity. It has the advantage of giving continuity. If we wanted a degree of flexibility of the kind he suggests, coupled with his last-mentioned Amendment, No. 671—which, incidentally, is flexibility on a national basis and not that sort of flexibility which, I fear, will flow from the Government's latest effort, producing a very uneven pattern among non-metropolitan districts—we could have the nearest we could get to the best of all worlds if we accept his proposals as a basis for agreement. They could also be a halfway house between what the Opposition most desire and what I know was thought of on the Government side at one stage as being desirable.
§ 6.0 p.m.
§ I wish to pinpoint the excellent qualities of my hon. Friend's scheme. The first of these is its simplicity. Surely there is a lot to be said for having a national four-year cycle. In the first and third years of the cycle there would be half county council elections and in the second and fourth years there would be half district council elections, whether metropolitan or non-metropolitan. That means that in each year there would be some democratic interest focused on local government elections but not in 87 such a way as to cause them to become a sort of second-rate parliamentary General Election, complete with all the mass media, the opinion polls, the party machines and apparatus fully deployed. My goodness, the mass media and the pollsters will have a whale of a time if we proceed with the Government's proposals. They have gained rather more influence over democracy than they should have anyway. This point was considered at Mr. Speaker's Conference on Electoral Reform during the last Parliament. It has aroused anxiety and, at the only time perhaps in this century when we shall legislate on the important matter of applying the democratic process to local government, we should not do it in such a way as makes worse a trend which in this and other countries does not always seem to be working in the best interests of democracy.
§ I shall deal with county councils and district councils separately. The Government have rightly decided that there shall be single-member constituencies for county councils. My only doubt about my hon. Friend's scheme was when he indicated that it would mean two-member constituencies if we were to divide it up in the way he suggests.
§ Mr. John E. B. HillIt can be achieved perfectly well by sticking to a one-member system and I would much prefer to do that. It would mean dividing the county seats into Group A and Group B.
§ Sir D. RentonThat is exactly what I hoped might be the outcome and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for clarifying it. We would stick to what we have and we would avoid multi-member constituencies which are inherently disadvantageous. There would be a four-year term in the Bill. It means that only half of each county council on a geographical basis would have to retire. Surely it would be much better to have half a county council retiring every other year than the whole council retiring every four years, giving rise to a sort of mini-General Election.
I appreciate the thought my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State has given to the question of district councils but I implore him to give the subject even more thought. I am sure it is not yet right. Why should metropolitan and 88 non-metropolitan districts be treated differently? They will not all be utterly different in character. I have with me a letter from the Urban District Councils Association dated 14th July and addressed to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South. In it the secretary of the Association says:
We have not been given any reason why there should be a difference between the two types of council.I listened very carefully to what my hon. and learned Friend said this afternoon but the only reason I could fathom was that those in rural areas have protested rather strongly about the arrangements already in the Bill and that there had not been the same sort of protest from the metropolitan districts. We should have the same arrangements in both cases or be told why they are different, if that is to be the case.There are many existing urban district councils and even some rural district councils or parts of rural district councils which will be incorporated in metropolitan districts, and therefore one can understand the feelings of the people concerned. I see no valid reason for the difference in treatment.
I have a confession to make to the House. Whereas we have a Local Government Bill of this character perhaps only once a century, one has one's silver wedding only once in a lifetime. That falls to me today and so I shall not be in the House for the whole evening, and perhaps not even for the reply to the debate, which is shameful on my part. [Hon. Members: "No."] I hope my apologies will be accepted. My hon. Friend's proposal deserves further attention and I am sure that the simplicity and continuity with the kind of flexibility that I have mentioned should commend itself to the Government and that they will have further thoughts on these matters.
§ Mr. LeadbitterIt is the first time that I have been able to rise and congratulate an hon. Member on the occasion of his silver wedding and at the same time, when a Division takes place, to hope that he has departed to enjoy it. It is right that the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) should have the congratulations of the Opposition benches.
89 I am very much in agreement with the purpose of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment. The Government must look at their proposal again. It is a half-baked attempt to deal with the situation. The Bill has been hurriedly drafted in an attempt to cope with it. It is the result of a lack of consultation and it suffers from indecision. In my constituency we are confused with the Minister's persistent contradictions in his attempts to answer questions which never occurred to him when the Bill was being drafted.
There is a situation which stands out clearly and one wonders why the Government did not foresee it. In Wales there are no metropolitan counties. They are all non-metropolitan and they have the functions virtually of a metropolitan county in England. Yet there are different options for the purposes of the elections. Not only are there contradictions between Wales and England in terms of the functions of local government, but there are contradictions in terms of the election of councillors for the districts in Welsh non-metropolitan counties and the metropolitan counties of England. Therefore, a comparison between England and Wales makes it clear that the Government have created a serious conflict in judgments about functions and elections in their local government reorganisation proposals.
We also have the fantastic suggestion that there can be elections in districts of numbers of councillors provided their numbers are divisible by three. If I remember rightly, that applies to metropolitan districts. Who decides the numbers? Will there be a situation in which in one part of England someone decides "We shall have nine councillors in a metropolitan district" and in another part of England it is decided that the number shall be six or three? How can we evaluate electoral responses with that kind of imbalance, bearing in mind that there is a likelihood of more than two parties fighting elections and that we still have Independents at elections, albeit Conservatives under another banner? We also have the peculiar groups with an axe to grind that arise from time to time. What multiples of numbers of candidates are we to have in a situation where there is already a built-in possibility of a metropolitan 90 county deciding any number of councillors divisible by three?
If that is justified, why is there not the same justification for the non-metropolitan districts, particularly in Wales, where they have the functions of metropolitian counties and districts? To put it the other way, if the Government will accept that multiples of three in metropolitan districts are wrong, why cannot they agree on the basis of a non-metropolitan district?
In addition to this kind of difference in weighting the metropolitan or non-metropolitan county with different numbers of candidates, in the non-metropolitan county area there is the idea of a voluntary determination to have the councillors come up for re-election all at once or by thirds. If one non-metropolitan district decides on one method and another decides on the other method, confusion will be created. How can we expect the electorate to be interested in local government if people cannot understand what is happening? A fundamental fact about elections is that the communications media, the national Press and television, focus public attention on what is happening when there are elections on a particular day across the country, as is now the case with the county councils or county boroughs. Under the Government's proposal there will be complete confusion. It has been suggested that the elections would all take place on the first Thursday of May. I refer to the county, metropolitan districts and non-metropolitan district elections. But we must bear in mind that the non-metropolitan district elections can be of two different kinds. I cannot see why the Government have opted for the method in the Bill.
§ 6.15 p.m.
§ We have already heard today of the difficulties in the election of the mayor. I did not give too much serious thought to that. We are dealing with a situation which in practice has been fraught with apathy. We need the help of the agencies which can create public interest and explain to the public what is happening and why. The proposals in the Bill are so diffuse that I do not think the House understands their full implications.
§ Although it may sound reasonable, what was said by the Minister of State 91 cannot in practice produce the right answers. He referred to consultation, but the right answers cannot be found from consultations about a situation which has not yet arisen from people who may not be involved. Is the opinion of the clerks to the existing authorities to be taken into account because their authorities will be part of a new district? I cannot accept that the hon. and learned Gentleman can obtain satisfactory answers from people, whether councillors or others, who at the pertinent time will not have a personal interest, who may not even be part of the new authority. We want to know whom the hon. and learned Gentleman will consult.
§ Mr. CarlisleI do not want to be at cross-purposes with the hon. Gentleman. The consultations to which I referred were merely for the interim arrangements, for the first elections. I think I made it clear that once the councils are elected they will be able to make proposals. The difficulty we face now concerns next year's elections for new councils. Obviously, the order must be made by the Secretary of State. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Secretary of State should not consult anyone? I am sure he does not mean that. There is no one to consult but those in the existing areas who will go into the new areas. I repeat that the consultation is merely for the interim, for the first elections, until the new councils are set up.
§ Mr. LeadbitterThat is my point. When the Minister of State talks about next year, I can imagine the kind of consultation which will be possible in England and Wales as hasty and tenuous. That has been the fault throughout the Bill. The Minister of State knows the amount of consultative work which has gone on. A circular is issued including the words "required by such and such a date". Councils meet once a month and answers are wanted in six weeks. That is the kind of consultation which has gone on.
It is all very well the hon. and learned Gentleman sitting on his backside thinking that the House can be satisfied with his assurance about consultation. Local government, which is the most fundamental thing in the United Kingdom, will suffer tremendously unless the Govern- 92 ment are prepared properly to consult organisations and people who are concerned with matters within their communities, and not simply councillors who will be retired and not involved in the matter next year.
§ Mr. CarlisleThe hon. Gentleman must not get matters out of proportion. We are talking about the interim proposals for the first election. I understand that he wants us to consult and that is what we are doing. Whom does he suggest are the appropriate people to consult?
§ Mr. LeadbitterIf the Minister of State will allow time for consultation, I should say in this context that not less than two years should be allowed. He would then be able to consult a wide range of organisations, professional bodies and people who are leaders in their local communities, not necessarily members of councils who are about to be retired next year under this set-up. If the Minister does that, he will get some ideas about the character and nature of the urban and rural areas which at the moment are in a hotch-potch of a situation.
We have established over many years a local government organisation which is the envy of the world. There is little support for the Government's proposals. Hon. Members on the Government side are disturbed by them. One hon. Member opposite said to me not so long ago "Why on earth cannot they wait until after the next election?" I have a better suggestion: why not be more patient and get the answers right? Apart from the contradictions, the confusion, and the differences of treatment between Wales and England, we have sufficient apathy in local government now without introducing the increasing scales which are involved in the Bill, increasing the remoteness of people in local government and weakening the communications media. If attention is not focused on local government in electoral terms, we will not produce good local government but we will take another step forward to a kind of managerial society in which democracy has little place.
§ Mr. Bernard Conlan (Gateshead, East)I address myself to Amendment No. 876 but I should explain that 93 Amendments Nos. 877 and 878 should be read in conjunction with it because they are consequential. Although there are three Amendments there is only one theme, which is the provision for simultaneous election of councillors in the metropolitan districts.
The Secretary of State, in an attempt to improve the Bill, is proposing to give to non-metropolitan district councils the option to have simultaneous elections. But why does he stop there? Why does he not also give the option to the district councils within the metropolitan districts? We can have a situation in which the county councils inside and outside the metropolitan districts and the non-metropolitan district councils will be elected every four years. Only the district councils within the metropolitan districts will be subjected to annual elections.
There should be simultaneous election of councillors irrespective of the type of council. We have heard arguments in favour of annual election and the word "continuity" has cropped up frequently. I shall seek to show that that particular method of election of councillors provides just the opposite. If continuity is a principle to which we should all adhere, we should have regular elections of one-half or one-third, whatever the figure may be, but I have never heard it suggested that Members of the House of Commons should be elected in that way to provide for continuity. There is continuity in the House because many of us who will seek re-election will invariably come back. Precisely the same thing happens in local government. Councillors seek re-election; often they are re-elected and there is continuity in that respect.
I suspect that "continuity" means that there shall be a continuation of policies or work and other aspects. Anybody who has had experience of local government will confirm that work ceases from the council meeting immediately preceding the elections in May. The elections are held and the committees are then reformed and reconstituted. The following month the council meets again to confirm the appointment of the committees. Consequently, during the whole of one month, because of the election no committees meet. In that sense there has not been continuity.
94 It is a fallacy to believe that annual elections provide a basis for continuity. The Minister of State should give the same option to the district councils in the non-metropolitan areas that is given to the district councils in the metropolitan areas. The Minister of State, in his attempt to meet the wishes of the Rural District Councils Association and the Urban District Councils Association, has made this part of the Bill, bad as it was, even worse.
Many of the authorities which will form the new district councils are at present urban districts and are represented by the Urban District Councils Association. Why, therefore, does the hon. and learned Gentleman believe that when the association is making representations along these lines it is essentially excluding its existing members simply because they will be going into metropolitan districts?
The Government's approach to this matter is hotch-potch. It will cause great inconsistencies in the election of councillors throughout England and Wales, and I hope the Government will think again.
§ 6.30 p.m.
§ Mr, Charles Morrison (Devizes)My hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State will have realised that on both sides of the House there are considerable reservations about the proposals which the Government are putting forward. I hope he will agree to give the matter more thought. I realise that the Government have already met some of the points made in Committee on behalf of the rural areas on the type of representation in the non-metropolitan districts and I am grateful to them in that respect. I am not convinced, however, that they have yet produced an adequate solution to cope with all the problems concerned with representation and the timing of elections.
I like the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. John E. B. Hill) with regard to representation, since this would bring greater flexibility in elections and, in the timing, would help to ensure greater effect in that council elections would not be affected for better or worse by some hot political issue currently facing the nation rather than facing the county in which the election is 95 taking place. Amendment No. 869, which stands in my name and the names of some of my hon. Friends, goes rather further than the Amendments standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South. I think that his Amendments certainly would produce a better solution than those put forward by the Government.
Amendment No. 869 is concerned in particular with the question of single representation. This House did away with multiple representation of parliamentary seats in 1948, and I do not think anyone would suggest that we should ever have it back again. It is right that each constituency should have but one Member who can take the praise or probably more often the blame for actions and opinions of the Government or the Opposition. It is of particular importance that one person only should represent a constituency because he is easily identifiable to the electors. One representative is better than two; two are better than three or six or nine.
One might indeed wonder why we as Members of Parliament get so many letters about local government problems. Surely one of the reasons is that a Member of Parliament is easily identifiable in the area he represents. If democracy at local level is to mean anything, elected representatives in local government also must be easily identifiable and easily recognisable. Therefore, in local government as in this House, one representative is better than, as it were, a committee of representatives, because such a committee only muddles people.
Suppose that someone has a problem. Does he go to Mr. X, who may be very good at expressing views in the council chamber but is totally unprepared to listen to views expressed to him? Does he go to Mr. Y, who may be good at listening to views expressed by the electors but bad at putting them across in the council chamber? Or does he go to Mr. Z, who may be the paragon of all virtues but, as everyone knows, is so overworked that the elector thinks "I cannot go to him because it would overload him even further"? Quite often in these circumstances the individual with a problem decides to do nothing or writes to his Member of Parliament instead.
96 Some people may say that these things do not matter very much, but I believe that they matter enormously because government both at national and local level is often thought to be remote, out of touch with realities and out of touch with the views of the electorate. It is, therefore, of great importance that the strands which connect the elected and the electorate should be strong and direct, and they should be improved whenever possible. I believe that the strand between one elected representative and the electorate at local level would be more likely to produce a better line of communication between the two than any other arrangement.
Finally, a single member ward would be much smaller than the multiple member wards of today, and I believe that it would not be any more difficult for one councillor to look after a smaller ward than theoretically for three councillors or whatever the number may be to look after a much large area. I wonder why the Government have not chosen to introduce single member wards in all districts as well as in the counties. Unless my hon. and learned Friend the Minister is able to put a strong argument to the contrary, I believe that single member representations for the reasons I have given is infinitely preferable to any form of multiple representation. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will be able to hold out hope of further thought by the Government on this aspect and that perhaps the matter can be dealt with in another place.
§ Mr. CarlisleAs my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) has said, he and others who have spoken have expressed considerable reservations about the Government's scheme, but one of the difficulties is that almost every one of them has put forward different reservations. The hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Mr. Conlan) said that I had made the Bill worse by allowing non-metropolitan district councils to have single-member wards, and asked why metropolitan districts should not also be allowed single-member wards with elections every four years. His right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) argued that the change was a mistake because 97 it did away with annual elections in non-metropolitan areas and that all areas should have annual elections.
Again, perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes will forgive my pointing out that he has his name down to two separate Amendments, one being Amendment No. 869 in favour of single-member wards, and the other in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. John E. B. Hill) which seeks two-member wards in metropolitan districts.
§ Mr. Charles MorrisonI made the point that I preferred the solution of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. John E. B. Hill) to that of the Government, but I also wondered whether the argument in favour of single-member wards did not have even greater strength.
§ Mr. CarlisleI was not speaking in any malicious sense but was merely agreeing that considerable reservations have been expressed. With respect, the Government Amendment allows councils to choose whether or not they have single-member wards. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is right in saying that there is any greater advantage in requiring them all to have single-member wards whether they want them or not than in requiring them all to have three-member wards, which the Bill originally did, and which was criticised by many people, particularly in the rural areas, as being unsuitable for them. Just as three-member wards very clearly became unpopular to those representing rural areas, to many areas which always have had three-member wards and which are now going into non-metropolitan districts the one-member ward might be as unattractive.
Therefore, we have here an attempt at that very flexibility which would enable a new non-metropolitan district to choose that form of electoral system which most suited its need by allowing it to decide whether to divide the district into three-member wards or one-member wards, or a combination of both.
§ Mr. ConlanWill the hon. and learned Gentleman explain why this provision cannot be applied to the metropolitan districts?
§ Mr. CarlisleI shall come to that point in due course. My right hon. and learned 98 Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) asked, as did the hon. Member for Gateshead, East, what was the difference between the non-metropolitan and metropolitan district in this respect. The answer is that in the main the metropolitan areas consist of the boroughs and urbanised areas most of which have been accustomed to three-member wards and annual elections and most of which, being in the metropolitan areas, are suitable, because of density of population, for three-member wards with annual elections. There has been no pressure for single-member wards within the metropolitan areas. Those areas going into the metropolitan areas have, on the whole, been used to three-member wards with annual elections. One can therefore make a distinction between the metropolitan and the non-metropolitan districts
§ 6.45 p.m.
§ Two of the various points raised by the right hon. Member for Deptford I can, I hope, answer to his satisfaction, though I cannot accept his third main criticism. First, he said that the Amendment as drafted would allow for wards of any number and size. That point was taken up by the hon. Member for The Hartle-pools (Mr. Leadbitter)—and at this stage he accused me, quite rightly, of not completely following what he said—who spoke about numbers of councillors being divisible by three. As I pointed out, that is nothing new. Every borough has three-member wards. The legal provision is for three or multiples of three, but in practice most wards are three-member. The use of the words "divisible by three" is not some new idea to enable us to have nine-member wards but is taken from previous legislation.
§ The right hon. Member for Deptford asked whether there was not a danger with the Amendment, and presumably with the Bill as drafted, that by this reference to "divisible by three" one might get substantially larger wards. I am quite prepared to undertake to consider very sympathetically giving guidance to the Boundary Commission as to what the maximum number of councillors for any ward should be.
§ Amendment No. 1068 gives the district the option to choose either whole council elections or thirds. The indication quite clearly is that they could indicate those 99 wards which they thought should be appropriately single-member or three-member wards, but whether it would be completely right to tie the legislation down to specifying wards of three members I should like further time to consider. Nevertheless, as I say, I would sympathetically consider giving guidance to Local Government Boundary Commissions that when faced with council proposals they should aim to provide, where councils want wards to be divisible by three, wards of a size no greater than those now returning three councillors.
§ The right hon. Gentleman said that it was extraordinary that in future the non-metropolitan district councils were to be allowed to choose whether they had whole council elections once every four years or a system of thirds with annual elections. There is nothing new in this. Ever since 1933 urban and rural district councils, which will be taking up large areas of the new non-metropolitan district councils have had the right to opt between whole council elections and elections of one-third.
§ This meets another point made by the right hon. Gentleman that the 1933 Act allowed a change in that option. For example, in my constituency I have a rural district of one-member wards, all of which come up for election every three years, and I have an urban district of three-member wards, one-third of which come up for election each year. There is nothing new or unusual in the right of councils to opt.
§ Mr. John SilkinWe are dealing with the reorganisation of local government and we do not want to make the mistakes made in the past. Secondly, we are dealing with larger units than before and therefore units where there may be greater party conflict and, therefore, more frequent changes of control than is now the situation.
§ Mr. CarlisleI will come to change of control. The intention of requiring any change after 1st April, 1974, to be by a two-thirds majority was to avoid changing the rules according to the political complexion of the party in power acting in what it believed to be its own interests. I say at once, however, that I am prepared to look at that again. It is not 100 desirable that, having once chosen one-member wards, councils a few years later should change to three-member wards and a few years after that go back to one-member wards. But I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to agree that there may be changing circumstances, such as substantial development in the area, for instance a new town, which might make the original decision to have one-member wards less appropriate and which might make three-member wards more appropriate.
§ Mr. SilkinI was concerned with whether it should be all out or part out; not with the wards.
§ Mr. CarlisleIf they change to one-member wards they may become all out, but I am prepared to consider that again because it would be most undesirable for methods of election to change according to the political complexion of the council. Rural and urban district councils have always had power to change the option under the 1933 Act, but the fact that the right hon. Gentleman thought this provision without precedent confirms my feelings that it is only because the power has not been used that many did not realise it was there. It is not likely to happen, but if the right hon. Gentleman thinks there is any danger I will certainly consider the matter.
The right hon. Gentleman's main contention was that annual elections were desirable. I gather that he is not opposed to the argument advanced in Committee by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Sir R. Sharpies) when the hon. Member argued the case for having one-member wards. In Committee the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues from Wales strongly urged my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam and my hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Welsh Office that there should be one-member wards. The right hon. Gentleman's Amendment accepts that there may be one-member wards and I understand that what he opposes is whole council elections rather than one-third going out every year.
I am not sure that I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. He suggested that annual elections created greater interest in local government than did an election every fourth year. Let us be clear what 101 his system would mean. With one-member wards, it would mean that each each year there would be an election in one-third of the district. I am not sure that it leads to less confusion or greater interest hearing that in one village there is an election in 1973, in another village an election in 1974, in a third village an election in 1975 and so on. Is that very different from having the whole district council coming up for re-election every fourth year? The system that the right hon. Gentleman urged on the ground that it would increase interest in local elections is in many ways more confusing than having one whole district council in a county re-elected in year A, another whole district council in that county re-elected in year B and another district council in that county re-elected in year C, each person in the county being able to vote in a year depending on the district in which he lives.
I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman said about the steps taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam towards having one day for elections. That is a matter with which I shall deal later. I will certainly try to meet him on what he said about the maximum number of councillors for any ward and how any later change in the option might be made. On the general principle, the only distinction between us is whether there should be whole council elections or one-third of one-member wards. I do not see any greater advantage in insisting that one third of wards should come up each year—unless it is the argument of continuity and to some extent the right hon. Gentleman dismissed that argument in respect of county councils—than in having the whole council coming up every fourth year, as already happens in many rural areas.
§ Mr. R. C. MitchellThat may be true in those instances where there are one-member wards, but is there any reason why in those areas where there are three-member wards there should not be annual elections of one-third of the council, rather than whole council elections every three years?
§ Mr. CarlisleI entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is specifically required in the metropolitan districts.
I am prepared to look at this issue. The warding will be done by the Local 102 Government Boundary Commission and if a council opts for whole county elections, the Commission would be entitled to assume that it was therefore opting for one-member wards rather than for multi-member wards with whole council elections.
I reply now to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire. I appreciate what they are attempting to do. They are trying to find a method of ensuring that there is continuity while retaining one-member wards. They suggest half of a county council coming up for election every year. This has not been suggested to us by the County Councils Association or any other body. To my knowledge, many county councils have always existed on the basis of one-member wards, with the whole council coming up for re-election every three years, and we have not had any representations for a change such as is suggested.
The removal of aldermen makes a change in the argument about continuity in county councils, but it has never applied in rural districts which have never had aldermen but which have had whole council elections. Nor has there been any difficulty in councils which have changed to this system, such as Lancashire, which has been regarded as a barometer of county council elections and where in practice this system has not caused any great difficulty in organisation or in general administration.
§ 7.0 p.m.
§ I would need a lot of persuading that there was real pressure to make the change to county councils coming up by half every other year before acceding to that demand, although I see the point my hon. Friend is trying to make. As for the districts, I am bound to make the same point as I made to the right hon. Member for Deptford, namely, that I do not see we can gain any advantage to democracy by having an election each year but only in part of an area rather than having an election in the whole of an area every other year or, in the county example, by having half the county up every two years, rather than the whole of it every fourth year. It is a question of voting in some areas and not in others, which is far more confusing than where 103 the whole council is elected at once or where there are annual elections.
§ Mr. A. P. Costain (Folkestone and Hythe)I do not think that my hon. and learned Friend has dealt with the situation raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. John E. B. Hill) about what happens if there is stalemate. Does a council have to go struggling on for four years with an unworkable majority? Is there any way in which it can break that deadlock?
§ Mr. CarlisleI do not think that this makes any change to the existing situation. As was said, in Parliament the Prime Minister can always call a General Election. This is no different from what happens when the county councils are elected on a three-year cycle. There are arguments for saying that the greater the period between elections, the greater is the tendency for people not to look over their shoulder all the while, and that may affect the standard of the administration.
I will look at the points that have been raised. I will consider what my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South has said, although I have made it clear that I would need a lot of persuasion that there was a real demand by local authority associations for double-member seats rather than single-member seats as they now exist.
§ Mr. John E. B. HillI never asked for double-member seats; nor am I suggesting that there is great pressure for this change. My whole thesis is that no one has thought about it except for the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) who touched upon it in his Second Reading speech and some Amendments which were not discussed or pressed in Committee. What I am hoping is that my hon. and learned Friend will say that he will have further consultations. It does not seem as though the initiative is likely to come from the local authority officers because they have been too busy on other things.
§ Mr. CarlisleI am perfectly prepared to consider anything that is put to me about the change in the county councils so that half should come out every other year. However, in all the discussions that have taken place this is not some- 104 thing that has been pressed by any of the representative bodies. For many years the county councils have worked on the basis of one-member areas with the whole of the county coming out at the same time. It appears to have worked satisfactorily.
The purpose of these Amendments is to meet the arguments so eloquently put forward by so many people that a three-member ward was unattractive for the more scattered rural areas. It was said that many people wanted one-member wards so that there would be some form of connection between the individual councillor and the area represented. These Amendments allow the non-metropolitan districts to choose three-member or one-member, whole council or third of a council elections, depending on what is most appropriate.
§ Miss Janet Fookes(Merton and Morden) I want to return to the case for single-member wards or divisions throughout the country. I listened attentively to the argument produced by the Ministry of State and I regret to say that I found it unconvincing. He made the point that it was inconvenient to have multiple members but I am not sure where the inconvenience lay. He also said that no one had pressed for it. I stress that the ordinary voter who stands to gain most is also the person most confused by the present system and who is not in a position to press for a change.
§ My hon. and learned Friend said that there was the option in the Government Amendment, but surely this will make for greater confusion if in some parts of the country we have single-member seats and in others multiple-member seats, bearing in mind that people are more mobile than they used to be and may well transfer from one area to another and find themselves with a completely different system. We are always talking about mobility, and this aspect should be considered. I am disappointed that my hon. and learned Friend has not agreed to what seems a logical and simple system of one-member wards and divisions throughout. The case is so logical that better arguments than have so far been used against it must be produced.
§ I was in local government for some years and I found that there were many 105 people who did not understand the multiple system one bit. They found it totally confusing. A single-member seat system enables responsibility to be pinned on one councillor. I urge the Minister of State to look at this again.
§ Mr. John SilkinBy leave of the House. The Minister of State said that these were complex matters and indeed they are. He cannot make the debating point of saying that people have differences about them. This shows clearly that what is needed is real con-
§ sultation and thought, not only with the appropriate local authority associations but with the political parties too. The House ought to give him the chance to have these consultations, and it is in that spirit, in the spirit that perhaps it will urge him to have these consultations, that I recommend my hon. and right hon. Friends to divide the House.
§ Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 163, Noes 153.
107| Division No. 294.] | AYES | [7.8 p.m. |
| Adley, Robert | Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley) | Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch |
| Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) | Hall-Davis, A. G. F. | Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis |
| Astor, John | Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) | Raison, Timothy |
| Atkins, Humphrey | Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye) | Redmond, Robert |
| Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton | Havers, Michael | Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.) |
| Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) | Hawkins, Paul | Rees-Davies, W. R. |
| Berry, Hn. Anthony | Hicks, Robert | Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon |
| Biffen, John | Hiley, Joseph | Roberts, Wyn (Conway) |
| Biggs-Davison, John | Hill, James (Southampton, Test) | Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks) |
| Boscawen, Robert | Holland, Philip | Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) |
| Bossom, Sir Clive | Hordern, Peter | Rost, Peter |
| Bowden, Andrew | Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia | Russell, Sir Ronald |
| Bray, Ronald | Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate) | Scott, Nicholas |
| Brinton, Sir Tatton | Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.) | Scott-Hopkins, James |
| Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher | Hunt, John | Sharpies, Richard |
| Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) | Hutchison, Michael Clark | Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby) |
| Bryan, Paul | Jennings, J. C. (Burton) | Shelton, William (Clapham) |
| Bullus, Sir Eric | Jessel, Toby | Skeet, T. H. H. |
| Carlisle, Mark | Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) | Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington) |
| Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert | Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine | Soref, Harold |
| Chapman, Sydney | King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) | Speed, Keith |
| Chichester-Clark, R. | Kinsey, J. R. | Spence, John |
| Clegg, Walter | Kitson, Timothy | Sproat, Iain |
| Cockeram, Eric | Knox, David | Stainton, Keith |
| Cooke, Robert | Lamont, Norman | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Cordle, John | Lane, David | Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper) |
| Cormack, Patrick | Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry | Stuttaford, Dr. Tom |
| Costain, A. P. | Le Marchant, Spencer | Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) |
| Crouch, David | Longden, Gilbert | Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart) |
| Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford) | Loveridge, John | Taylor, Frank (Moss Side) |
| d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James | Luce, R. N. | Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.) |
| Dixon, Piers | McAdden, Sir Stephen | Tebbit, Norman |
| du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward | McCrindle, R. A. | Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret |
| Eden, Sir Jqhn | Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham) | Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon. S.) |
| Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) | Maddan, Martin | Trafford, Dr. Anthony |
| Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) | Marten, Neil | Trew, Peter |
| Farr, John | Mather, Carol | Tugendhat, Christopher |
| Fell, Anthony | Maude, Angus | Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin |
| Fenner, Mrs. Peggy | Mawby, Ray | Vickers, Dame Joan |
| Fidler, Michael | Meyer, Sir Anthony | Waddington, David |
| Fisher, Nigel (Surblton) | Moate, Roger | Walder, David (Clitheroe) |
| Fortescue, Tim | Monro, Hector | Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek |
| Foster, Sir John | Montgomery, Fergus | Ward, Dame Irene |
| Fowler, Norman | Murton, Oscar | Weatherill, Bernard |
| Gardner, Edward | Neave, Airey | Wells, John (Maidstone) |
| Gibson-Watt, David | Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Glyn, Dr. Alan | Normanton, Tom | Winterton, Nicholas |
| Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B. | Onslow, Cranley | Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard |
| Goodhew, Victor | Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally | Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher |
| Gower, Raymond | Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.) | Woodnutt, Mark |
| Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.) | Page, Graham (Crosby) | Younger, Hn. George |
| Gray, Hamish | Page, John (Harrow, W.) | |
| Green, Alan | Parkinson, Cecil | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) | Peel, John | Mr. Marcus Fox and |
| Grylls, Michael | Percival, Ian | Mr. John Stradling Thomas. |
| Gurden, Harold | Peyton, Rt. Hn. John | |
| NOES | ||
| Abse, Leo | Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis) | Blenkinsop, Arthur |
| Albu, Austen | Armstrong, Ernest | Boardman, H. (Leigh) |
| Allaun, Frank (Salford. E.) | Ashton, Joe | Booth, Albert |
| Allen, Scholefield | Atkinson, Norman | Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur |
| Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland) | Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) | O'Malley, Brian |
| Broughton. Sir Alfred | John, Brynmor | Oswald, Thomas |
| Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) | Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) | Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles |
| Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury) | Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull,W.) | Pardoe, John |
| Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) | Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.) | Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange) |
| Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood (Green) | Jones, Barry (Flint, E.) | Pavitt, Laurie |
| Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.) | Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.) | Perry, Ernest G. |
| Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles) | Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen) | Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg. |
| Clark, David (Colne Valley) | Judd, Frank | Probert, Arthur |
| Coleman, Donald | Kaufman, Gerald | Rhodes, Geoffrey |
| Concannon, J, D. | Kelley, Richard | Richard, Ivor |
| Conlan, Bernard | Kerr, Russell | Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon) |
| Corbet, Mrs. Freda | Kinnock, Neil | Roper, John |
| Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.) | Lambie, David | Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock) |
| Cronin, John | Lamborn, Harry | Sandelson, Neville |
| Dalyell, Tam | Lamond, James | Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne) |
| Davidson, Arthur | Latham, Arthur | Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney) |
| Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove) | Lawson, George | Short, Rt.Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne) |
| Deakins, Eric | Leadbitter, Ted | Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford) |
| de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey | Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick | Silverman, Julius |
| Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund | Leonard, Dick | Skinner, Dennis |
| Dempsey, James | Lestor, Miss Joan | Spearing, Nigel |
| Doig, Peter | Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) | Stoddart, David (Swindon) |
| Dorman, J. D. | Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) | Strang, Gavin |
| Edelman, Maurice | Lipton, Marcus | Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley |
| Edwards, Robert (Bilston) | Lomas, Kenneth | Swain, Thomas |
| Evans, Fred | Loughlin, Charles | Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.) |
| Faulds, Andrew | Lyon, Alexander W. (York) | Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery) |
| Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) | McCartney, Hugh | Tinn, James |
| Freeson, Reginald | McElhone, Frank | Tomney, Frank |
| Galpern, Sir Myer | McGuire, Michael | Torney, Tom |
| Garrett, W. E. | Mackintosh, John P. | Tuck, Raphael |
| Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury) | Maclennan, Robert | Urwin, T. W. |
| Golding, John | McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) | Varley, Eric G. |
| Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. | Mallalieu, J.P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) | Wainwright, Edwin |
| Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. | Marks, Kenneth | Wallace, George |
| Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) | Marsden, F. | Watkins, David |
| Hamling, William | Marshall, Dr. Edmund | Wellbeloved, James |
| Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill) | Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy | Whitlock, William |
| Hardy, Peter | Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert | Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick |
| Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) | Mikardo, Ian | Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin) |
| Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith | Millan, Bruce | Willams, W. T. (Warrington) |
| Hattersley, Roy | Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen) | Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton) |
| Heffer, Eric S. | Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) | Woof, Robert |
| Horam, John | Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) | |
| Howell, Denis (Small Heath) | Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Hughes, Mark (Durham) | Oakes, Gordon | Mr. Joseph Harper and |
| Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.) | O'Halloran, Michael | Mr. James Hamilton. |
| Jeger, Mrs. Lena |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Further Amendments made: No. 918, in page 5, line 5, after 'of', insert 'metropolitan'.
§ No. 919, in page 5, line 9, after second 'of', insert 'metropolitan'.
§ No. 920, in page 5, line 10, leave out second 'the' and insert 'a metropolitan'.
§ No. 921, in page 5, line 13, leave out 'other than 1973'.
§ No. 1068, in page 5, line 16, at end insert:
§ '(5) A non-metropolitan district council may at any time in pursuance of the requisite resolution request the Secretary of State to provide—
- (a) for a system of whole council elections, that is to say, the holding of the ordinary elections of all the councillors of the district simultaneously; or
- (b) for a system of elections by thirds, that is to say, the election of one-third, as nearly as may be, of the councillors of the
108 district at the ordinary elections of such councillors in any year;
§ In this subsection "the requisite resolution" means in the case of a resolution passed before 1st April, 1974 a resolution passed by a majority, and in the case of a resolution passed on or after that date a resolution passed by not less than two-thirds, of the members voting thereon at a meeting of the council specially convened for the purpose with notice of the object.
§ (6)Where the Secretary of State receives a request under subsection (5)(a) above from a district council or does not 1st April, 1974 receive a request from a district council under subsection (5)(b) above, he may make an order providing for the ordinary elections of all the district councillors to be held simultaneously and the order may contain the like provision, and shall be treated, as if made under section 53 below.
§ (7)Where the Secretary of State receives a request under subsection (5)(b) above from a 109 district council he may ask the English Commission to make proposals in the light of the request with respect to—
- (a) the number, boundaries and names of the wards into which the district should be divided and the number of councillors to be elected for each ward;
- (b) the order of retirement of councillors elected for wards not returning a number of councillors which is divisible by three;
§ (8) The ordinary election of non-metropolitan district councillors shall take place—
- (a) except where an order is in force providing for the election of district councillors by thirds, in 1973, 1976, 1979 and every fourth year thereafter; and
- (b) where such an order is in force, in the year when the order comes into force and every year thereafter other than a year of election of county councillors.
§ (9) The following provisions of this subsection shall, subject to the provisions of any order made under or by virtue of this section, have effect with respect to non-metropolitan district councillors:—
- (a) their term of office shall be three years in the case of the councillors elected at the ordinary elections in 1973 ands 1976 and four years in the case of those elected at ordinary elections held thereafter;
- (b) except where an order is in force providing for the election of councillors by thirds, the whole number of councillors shall retire together in every ordinary year of election of such councillors on the fourth day after the ordinary day of election of such councillors, and in or after 1976 the newly elected councillors shall come into office on the day on which their predecessors retire: and
- (c) where such an order is in force, one- third of the whole number of councillors in each ward returning a number of councillors which is divisible by three and, as nearly as may be, one-third of the whole number of councillors in the other wards, being those how have been councillors of the district for the longest time without re-election, shall retire in every ordinary year of election of such councillors on the fourth day after the ordinary day of election of such councillors, and in every such year the newly elected councillors shall come into office on the day on which their predecessors retire'—[Mr. Graham Page.]