Liberal Democrat Group Response to consultation on the date of the next local government elections in Wales

5^th February 2001

There are essentially two questions that need to be asked.

The first question to be addressed is whether or not we believe in principle that the local elections should be held on a different day from the Assembly elections.

The second question only arises if the answer to the first question is yes, and that is how we should best achieve separating the two elections.

The merits of separating the local and Assembly elections

In a recent survey of all Liberal Democrat Principal Councillors in Wales, 78% of those who responded believed that the two elections should be separated.

The strongest argument for doing so is to ensure that national issues do not eclipse local issues during the campaign. With both sets of elections on the same day, as was the case in 1999, national issues relating to the Assembly dominated the media coverage. It could therefore be argued that neither local issues, nor the track records of local administrations, were sufficiently debated or examined. Thus many voters would have been casting their vote in the local elections without necessarily being as fully informed as they could have been of their local candidates, or the policies they were advocating. Also, it could be argued that some electors went to their polling station primarily to vote in the Assembly elections and merely voted in the local elections because they were held at the same time, without necessarily having given them any thought. This might have meant greater turnout for the local elections, but is that desirable if it means that people are voting without really considering what it is they are voting for?

Separating the local elections from the Assembly elections would therefore enable local issues to be more thoroughly examined and debated. It would ensure that those who turned out to vote would be more likely to have considered the issues on which they were voting, and therefore would be making a more informed choice.

Options for moving the local elections

The Assembly has no power to alter the date of its own elections, and can only therefore separate the two sets of elections by moving the local elections. Existing primary legislation dictates that local elections must be held on the first Thursday in May of the year in which they are held. Thus the Assembly can only change the year in which they are held, and not the month. Options of moving the local elections forward or back a month, but keeping them in the same year as the Assembly elections, cannot therefore be considered without a change in primary legislation by the Westminster Parliament.

The simplest option, within the existing legislative constraints, would therefore be to bring the next local elections forward to May 2002, or put them back to May 2004. Both options have pros and cons. Bringing the elections forward a year could cause resentment amongst sitting councillors because they were elected on the understanding that they would serve for four years and would therefore be losing a year of their current tenure. Some councillors argue, particularly those who were first elected in 1999, that they need the full four year term to become fully established amongst their electorate in order to be sure of securing re-election. They point out that it would be unfair for their term of office to be curtailed part way through without prior warning. At the same time, however, the electorate might welcome the local elections being brought forward, particularly where an existing administration has become unpopular.

Putting the elections back a year might be popular with sitting councillors who would be given an extra year without the inconvenience of having to win re-election. However, it would undoubtedly not find favour with the electorate who might argue that councillors were gaining an extension in their term of office without a democratic mandate.

On balance, the Liberal Democrats believe that of these two options, bringing the elections forward would be clearly preferable. However, there are other alternatives that should be examined.

One suggestion would be to keep the next local elections in 2003 on the basis that councillors elected in 1999 were elected for four years and should therefore serve for precisely four years. In order to separate the two sets of elections in future, councillors elected in 2003 could be elected on the understanding that they would serve for a one-off three-year term until 2006. From 2006, we could then revert back to normal four-year terms, meaning that the local elections would from then on be held on a different year from the Assembly elections. Although this option would result in a delay before the elections were separated, it would avoid some of the pitfalls that would occur if the next local elections were brought forward or postponed, as has been outlined above.

Finally, the option of moving to electing local authorities by thirds could be considered. Normal all-out elections could be held as planned in 2003. Thereafter a third of the councillors in each local authority could be elected at a time in subsequent years, with local elections taking place three years out of every four and the Assembly elections taking place during the year in which there are no local elections. Having elections by thirds, would have the advantage that the electorate would have a say on their local representatives more frequently. This is common practice in many district authorities in England and has been the practice in certain authorities in Wales in the recent past.

However, moving to elections by thirds would only give electors a more frequent say in areas that have multi-member wards. Many of the more rural authorities in Wales do not have multi-member wards, so electors would still only get to vote for a local councillor once every four years. Changing to multi-member wards might prove impractical in rural areas where the wards would, by necessity, have to become geographically very large.

Conclusions

The Liberal Democrat Group believes in principle that the local and Assembly elections should be separated.

However, we do not believe that it would be right to extend the current term of office as this would allow existing councillors to have a fifth year without a mandate from their electorate.

This leaves three options:

1. Bringing the next local elections forward to 2002

2. Having a one-off three-year term from 2003-2006 and then reverting to four-year terms

3. Having all-out elections in 2003 followed by elections by thirds

Although, all three of these options would be acceptable, the first option could cause resentment amongst sitting councillors as they were elected on the understanding of all that they would serve for four years.

Option 3 would not offer any particular advantage in areas that have single member wards and changing to multi-member wards in those areas could be impractical.

The Liberal Democrat Group therefore believes that option 2 should be followed, i.e. having a one-off three-year term from 2003–2006 and then reverting to four-year terms.