Proceeding contribution from John Healey (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 24 October 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill on Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill..
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill
We now move on to part 2 of the Bill, which deals with elections. In response to good debate, strong scrutiny and a well argued case in the other place, the Government made a number of amendments. As Members are aware, part 2 contains provisions on resolution periods, in which local authorities can resolve to change their scheme for elections. We introduced an amendment to extend the resolution period from three months to approximately six months following concerns that the three-month period originally proposed was too short. The amendments to clauses 33, 38 and 40 extend the resolution periods set out in the Bill so that they begin on the day after the council's annual meeting, and end on 31 December. Linking the resolution periods to the annual meeting, which will always take place after the election in an election year, ensures that local government elections will not take place during a resolution period. We also introduced a number of technical amendments to clauses 33, 38 and 40, in line with existing provisions in the Local Government Act 1972. The amendments to clause 57 update section 15 of the Local Government Act 1992, which sets out the procedure to be followed for an electoral review—a review of wards or electoral divisions in a council's area. In short, the amendments modernise the electoral review processes. They meet the Electoral Commission's request that the process should be made more flexible; for instance, by allowing the boundary committee to conduct a shorter review to deal with more straightforward matters such as minor electoral boundary changes. We made amendments to clause 59 in response to concerns raised in the other place about provisions for changing the names of electoral areas, which are district wards and county divisions. Concerns were raised about ensuring that there were appropriate measures, or safeguards, to prevent names being changed too often and without local debate. I think the amendments satisfy those concerns. The Government made an amendment to clause 60 to require the Secretary of State in England, and Welsh Ministers in Wales, to make any order moving the date of local government elections so that they take place on the same date as the European parliamentary elections, at least six months before the scheduled date of the local government elections or European parliamentary elections, whichever is earlier. We were responding to a similar amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) in this place and by the Conservatives in the other place. At the time, we agreed to give the matter further consideration and our amendment honours that. We accepted that there needs to be a substantial period between the making of an order changing the date of local government elections and the election thereby affected. Clearly such a period is needed to allow electoral administration staff sufficient time to put in place the necessary arrangements if the date of the election is to be changed. It also allows them to be more confident after a particular point that no change would be made to the election date. I look forward to hearing what the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) has to say, but I was slightly surprised by the amendment that he has tabled. It seems to favour a 12-month notice period even though Baroness Hanham, who leads for the Conservative party in the other place, tabled an amendment for six months just as the Government amendment proposes. We have accepted the need for a substantial period between the order and the election, and I have explained the reasons for that. However, by making the period too long, we would lose the potential value of the provision and would risk being in a similar position to the one that the Representation of the People Act 1983 gives us. The period between the notice and the order and the election itself would not allow us the flexibility to make the changes. That is one of the reasons why the provisions in the 1983 Act have been used just once in nearly 25 years.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 465 c334-5
- Session
- 2006-07
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Constituencies Councillors Community health councils Health services Elections Electoral Commission Functions Local government Misconduct Referendums Public participation Parish and town councils Local government executive Wales Social services Unitary councils Local involvement networks Patients' forums Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health Local Government Boundary Commission for England Northumberland
- Legislation
- Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill 2006-07
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2026-05-13 12:02:44 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_419500
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_419500
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_419500