---

Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

I support the view that there should be at least a year before changes of this kind could be implemented. I do so first and foremost in defence of the democratic principle that the arrangements for elections should be as distant from the parties that take part in them as is humanly possible. It is crucial that we get it right, not only for this country but to set a gold standard for others. We are the country that pioneered many of the rules and regulations that ensure fair elections. We have an Electoral Commission, which was established in order to distance such decisions about electoral procedure from this House and the political parties within it. I ask the Minister to think seriously before he decides that he will not accept a recommendation by the Electoral Commission. There are occasions when the practical experience of this House may lead us to suggest that something that the commission recommends is not appropriate, but we must be able to argue the case very strongly, with genuine reasons for achieving the end in view. In all other cases, the House would do well to accept as a matter of course that which the Electoral Commission has recommended, not least because the public out there properly see it as an independent proposal and would quite likely judge a change proposed by us to be a mechanism to avoid the consequences of that proposal. I do not think that that is the case, but the Minister needs to explain very clearly why a six-month notice period is so superior to 12 months that it should be preferred against the independent advice. I happen to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) about putting elections together. I have always thought that administrative convenience and neatness are never proper defences for actions when those actions may well be seen by the public as encouraging a different result from that which might occur were there to be separate elections. I personally feel very strongly about the offensive nature of the list system, which does not enable me to choose between candidates. We are sometimes faced with lists where our attraction to all the candidates standing even for the party which we support is, shall we say, somewhat limited. In those circumstances—it happens on all sides of the fence—people make a different decision when they go into the polling booth. It is pretty dangerous for us to say that it is better that they should not do that, because that decision is not up to politicians to make. If people wish to be volatile in their choice—if they wish to vote differently in different elections—our job is to convince them, if we wish to, that they should not. However, that decision is their electoral and democratic right. I have strong objections to the bulking together of elections in any case, but what must be true is that such a decision must be made at a distance whereby no one could think it to be party political. In that respect, not only the Electoral Commission matters but the ordinary punter. I think that most people would feel perfectly happy were the Government to make such a decision now about 2009, even if they did not really approve of the bulking together of elections. I think that the public would be perfectly happy with a notice period of about 12 months. I am a bit worried, however, that many people think that some shenanigans are going on. The Minister has to accept that they have pretty good reason to think that, given the events of the past four weeks. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) made the case moderately and carefully, without casting aspersions in any way. However, it looks to most people out there as if there has been some pretty peculiar behaviour regarding electoral dates in recent months. It is reasonable to say that we do not want people to lose confidence in the electoral system, so I support the proposal that we accept the continued desire for the period in question to be a full year. I come to the amendment relating to names—I am sorry that the Minister has not taken the opportunity to deal with another problem which I hope he agrees to reconsider. I am proud to represent the constituency of Suffolk, Coastal. It is the only constituency in Britain that has an ungrammatical title—a problem that I have always had with it. The boundaries of my constituency have changed every 10 years, and whereas it once was contiguous with the Suffolk Coastal district council area, now it is not. I take in a significant part of the Waveney district council, but not a significant part of the Suffolk Coastal district council. That is a confusing element for perfectly reasonable constituents who might have had no reason to write to their Member of Parliament, but now wish to. They see the name Suffolk, Coastal, they happen to live in Framlingham, which is within the area of Suffolk Coastal district council, and so they write to me, because I sit for Suffolk, Coastal. I do not, however, represent Framlingham. The issue is particularly difficult because I used to do so. Similarly, the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) used to have a seat that included Southwold, Halesworth and the villages round about. People with no political connections living in the Waveney district council area tend to write to the Member of Parliament for Waveney. The situation confuses them, and there ought to be a willingness to have names for constituencies that are not confusing. My worry about the amendment is that it may put people off some of the changes that should have been made automatically. A constituency should not have the same nomenclature as a district council unless the two are coterminous. The problem arises when tiny alterations take place. We get used to this. At the next election I shall be fighting for a seat that does not include Wisset. It is very sad for me, but I shall lose Wisset. I shall, however, gain Shadingfield and three small villages nearby. Another group of people are liable to be confused. We politicians think the matter very obvious, but most people do not have access to or an interest in the political structure, except from time to time. Sometimes, it is a long time between arrangements. People write to a Member of Parliament who they thought was the right one, and who was the right one when they last wrote, only to find that the situation has changed. I put a plea to the Minister to do something about that, even if it means going back to some of the old names. I would not mind being the Member of Parliament for Dunwich, which was a rotten borough. I started off as the Member of Parliament for Eye, which was also a rotten borough—it is not now. At least that would mean that the people of Halesworth do not feel that they are looked after by Felixstowe or Woodbridge. There is a problem for constituencies—particularly one by the coast that is 74 miles long, as mine is—because different places do not want to see others given pre-eminence. We may need names that are not well-known, but which make a distinction between the constituency and the district council. It worries me that the amendment has not considered that fact. Although this is not the place to do it, I hope that the Minister accepts that there are a number of examples of this problem throughout the country. Every time there is a boundary commission report, there are more such examples. The matter really needs to be taken into account.