---

Local Elections (Ordinary Day of Elections in 2009) Order 2008

My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the order. When I was first asked to speak to the order I thought, ““That’s okay. It makes logical common sense; it is more convenient for the voters; only one visit to the polling station will be needed rather than two in two months; and it will be cheaper to administer””. Therefore, I thought I should support the order and then sit down. Indeed, I was even prepared to discount the rumour that when they thought up this idea the Government’s PR gurus did not want a hit of bad results in May followed by more bad news in June, preferring just one hit of bad news—hence the order bringing the dates together. However, as I looked into the matter I realised that there were issues that needed a response from the Minister. First, Article 5, which is entitled ““Elections to fill casual vacancies””, provides that the provision should commence seven, not six, months before the June 2009 election. Why should sections of the electorate be unrepresented and disenfranchised for seven, not six, months? Why not just roll forward by one month? In another place John Healey said that it provides more clarity and certainty for the returning officers. That sounds like rather a weak answer. What is not clear and certain about ““six months before”” the election date? Some have rather mischievously suggested to me that the Labour Government would prefer to restrict the number of by-elections that they would lose. That seems rather cynical, so I am sure the Minister will want to give a better answer than the Minister did in another place. Secondly, I was reminded of the shambles caused by the high number of spoilt ballot papers on previous occasions. I refer to the 2004 combined London election and also to the elections in Scotland in 2007 when confusion and spoilt ballot papers caused some anger, to put it mildly. The confusion arises because of the difficulty in understanding the different voting systems and ballot papers. We hope that lessons have been learnt. I understand that ballot papers must be separate and in different colours with clear instructions. Let us hope that the system works. Thirdly, there is the issue of postal voting. In 2004 the north-west endured an all-postal system, which was a fiasco as some electors were sent the wrong ballot papers. Again I understand that lessons have been learnt so that this time there will be no all-postal elections. Postal votes will now form only a proportion of the votes, and the vast majority of votes cast will be at polling stations. Fourthly, it has been brought to my attention that there is some confusion and uncertainty regarding Cornwall in that the Boundary Commission is being tardy in deciding the size of the new council. It has yet to produce its draft recommendations, so the Government have to delay elections for Cornwall from the beginning of June to the end of October 2000, some five months after the rest of the country. That seems to smack of incompetence. All these issues should have been ironed out before the new council system was put in place. What Cornish folk need is clarity; what they have got is total confusion and uncertainty. Cornwall also raises the issue of Article 5—elections to fill casual vacancies. Will Cornwall’s date remain 9 November 2008 or will it be rolled forward? Not to roll it forward would mean that some of the electorate in Cornwall might be disenfranchised for 12 months rather than the existing six months. Fifthly, the unresolved and unthought-out issues relating to the new unitary council in Cornwall raise uncertainty for other counties; namely, Devon, Norfolk and Suffolk. Their sentence is still pending and unresolved. Can the Minister confirm that their election will take place on Euro-day under the existing system? I should declare that I have been a councillor in Norfolk for the past 10 years. I use the words ““sentence is still pending”” because the Government seem hell bent on imposing a unitary system on my home county of Norfolk against the wishes of the vast majority of those consulted. I use the word ““consulted”” loosely because the Government did not ask, ““Do you want a unitary system or are you happy with the two-tier system you currently have?””. The question the Government posed was, ““What type of unitary system do you want?—that is, ““We want to impose a unitary system, so you choose what system you want””. Huge cost, time and confusion have ensued. A number of schemes were floated. Is the Norwich area to be expanded to form one unitary area? Should Great Yarmouth in Norfolk be joined with Lowestoft in Suffolk to form one unitary area—Yartoft? Should Norfolk be split into two unitary areas, east and west, centred on Norwich and King’s Lynn, or should all Norfolk be one unitary council? All that time, money and effort were expended when the vast majority want to be left alone to continue with their existing two-tier system. If this is the Government’s idea of consultation, it is hardly worth the paper it is written on. Let us hope that the consultation process being enacted in the Planning Bill will not only consult fully but will listen to and heed the responses. Most people work on the premise that ““If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it””, but the Government seem to work on the premise that ““If it ain’t broke, let’s break it””, as ably demonstrated by the confusions in Cornwall. Why will the Government not listen to the people of Norfolk? That would be democracy. As regards the order, presumably Norfolk, Devon and Suffolk will continue with their preferred existing system until such time as the Government impose another system. What started out as a fairly simple order, as I thought, has raised a number of issues. On the whole, we support the order in that it is right to bring the dates together, but I should like the Minister to address my concerns.