Draft Local Government (Organisation and Standards) Bill Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence - First Report


APPENDIX 38

Memorandum from Professor Gerry Stoker, Chair and John Williams, Executive Director, New Local Government Network

FOREWORD

  A range of organisations and interested bodies will be submitting evidence about the draft local government (organisations and standards) bill. Most evidence will be produced by organisations or bodies that are part of the local government community.

  One of the driving motivators behind the New Local Government Network is a desire to promote a modern agenda for local government from the perspective of how this will impact upon the public. It is on that basis that we will be submitting evidence on this bill.

SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS

  Local government is in need of a radical new strategy to promote visible and effective leadership within local government. With turnout figures from this year's local elections falling below 30 per cent there is a compelling case for the Government to legislate for the imposition of directly elected mayors in cities such as Sheffield, Liverpool, Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, Bradford, Bristol, Plymouth, Newcastle, Nottingham and Leicester.

1.   The case for imposition

  There is, we believe, a strong case for the imposition of directly elected mayors on six grounds:

    —  Elected mayors, as a new form of leadership, offers greater accountability, visibility and electoral competition to the local community.

    —  Britain now has the local election lowest turnout figures by far in the European Union and as such, local government is suffering a crisis of legitimacy.

    —  The public have demonstrated, through numerous opinion surveys, consistently clear support for elected mayors—the latest survey published today, shows two thirds support for elected mayors[1].

    —  Councillors have demonstrated, through numerous opinion surveys, consistent hostility to the idea.

    —  There is no guarantee that there will be local media support or funding from business to back a campaign for local mayors.

    —  The chances of the public organising trigger referendums in their authority when we can't even get them to vote, are modest.

  To simply legislate for elected mayors would be consistent with every major local government reorganisation that took place during the 1960's, 70's, 80's and 90's. All of the newly created unitary authorities were established by parliamentary order, as was the case in Italy and Germany. Within Europe governments have implemented elected mayors through legislation and not trigger referendum.

2.   Compulsory referendums

  If the Government felt unable or unwilling to proceed with such a strategy, an alternative option would be to impose co-ordinated compulsory referendums on elected mayors on a set date in the major urban authorities in England and Wales. A set date upon which England and Wales major cities would hold a referendum would be one way to guarantee that the public's view would be heard. A national co-ordinated referendum campaign would have the real benefit of sparking a visible debate about local leadership.

3.   Amendments to the trigger referendum

  If the Government is not convinced by either the above arguments and is keen to proceed with the trigger referendum then it must lower the trigger figure to a more manageable level. The movement from 10 per cent to 5 per cent since the publication of the Queen's Speech in November 1999 is warmly welcomed. However, the considerable logistical difficulties that still remain with a 5 per cent threshold, suggest that a figure closer to 1 per cent of the population would be more appropriate. In the case of an authority with a population of 700,000 this would still involve collecting 7,000 signatures—seven times more than currently required to nominate the entire council to stand for election.

SECTION 1: CHANGE MUST HAPPEN

  Local democracy has been in decline for many years. Ever decreasing turnouts are one of the more blatant expressions of local government failing to meet the aspirations of its local community. Politicians, deriving their legitimacy from ballot box, operate on wafer thin mandates. Turnouts as low as 1 in 10 of the population voting for the ruling party raises questions about the fundamental legitimacy of local politicians to administer £75bn per year of public money.

  The challenge for local government today is to overcome that democratic deficit with a new style of visible and accountable leadership. Central to this aim will be the need to inject some real electoral competition into our decaying local politics. We could start by making it easier to vote.

Making voting easier

  We've been doing it the same way for years—voting with a pencil whilst in another world landing on the moon, developing genetic engineering and creating nuclear power. How we live has changed almost beyond recognition this century, yet a crude mark on paper remains the most effective means of organising representative democracy. A significant part of the agenda for democratic renewal must be about recognising these life-style changes and putting in place a system of voting that encourages rather than actively discourages the electorate to turnout.

  There are a plethora of ideas such as electronic voting, telephone voting, more flexible use of postal ballots, weekend voting and rolling registers, designed to boost turnout. They could be implemented relatively swiftly and cheaply. If we can for example, use the telephone to access personal bank details with confidence, then we can vote find a way to vote by telephone. In fact we know the technology is there, what appears to be lacking is the will. It is important that the Government and in particular the Home Office does not delay this part of the agenda any further.

A welcome opportunity

  The Government has repeated a very clear message since it was elected in 1997 that it is serious about changing local government. The launch of the draft local government (organisation and standards) bill heralds a unique opportunity to reconnect local government with local people. The bill provides a positive framework for local politicians to work together with a range of community stakeholders including business and the voluntary sector, to develop a system of local governance that is responsive to the public, accountable for decisions and able to deliver clear, dynamic leadership.

  Contrary to accusations of prescriptiveness, this bill liberates local authorities from the shackles of restrictive legislation. Councils will in the future have the opportunity to choose from three models of local governance rather than one. Councils will no longer have to adhere to the rule that all decision-making forums must be proportional to the political complexion of the authority. All three models provide the public with the potential for a system of local governance that is more accountable, where people know who takes decisions and where there is greater transparency about those who make decisions and those who will scrutinise them. The two models that involve a directly elected mayor provide the additional benefit of a direct link between electors and an individual politician. Directly elected mayors could deliver a new type of community leadership based upon direct accountability and a distinctive electoral visibility.

SECTION 2: PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR ELECTED MAYORS

  The case for elected mayors has been made in many publications, but it is worth restating some of the key points as part of our evidence.

  One of the most important benefits of the elected mayor system is the creation, at almost a stroke, of real electoral competition in the local authority. The motivator for change within any organisation or industry is competition between individuals or organisations for votes/orders/promotion. In representative democracies competition is the driver that puts politicians in touch with the people.

  In towns and cities bereft of political competition, where one party has dominated and voters have no real choice, elected mayors would bring that era crashing to an end. No elected mayor could sit back and wait for a few voters to turn up every four years to reconfirm their mandate. Every political party would have the chance to field a candidate and win. Today, a combination of the electoral system and a lack of clarity about who is responsible for local services, has contributed toward most voters giving the whole thing a miss. With turnouts so low and many authorities dominated by the same political party for over a generation, elected mayors are needed to create some real electoral competition in our local communities.

  A mayoral system is commonplace in Europe and North America. In many places they are directly elected with a separately elected assembly of councillors. In other places they are elected as the head of a coalition to run their city. Whether it is New York or Barcelona the mayor runs the services with the help of professional managers, is paid a salary and is seen by the local population as the unchallenged political heavyweight figurehead of the city.

  The new London mayor will be the most important figure in British local government, ranking alongside Cabinet ministers and the Scottish first minister in importance. He or she will be recognised both at home and abroad as the authentic voice of the city. Beyond this figurehead role, the mayor will undoubtedly give London a powerful advantage over UK cities when it comes to lobbying Whitehall, Europe and beyond. Having a highly visible mayor helps in selling the city. The leadership provided by mayors can also allow a city to drive rapid changes in public services. Sensible, popular, mayors have led many American cities back from the brink.

  Given the concentration of population, the scope for building identity and the particularly poor state of local politics, urban areas should be at the fore in the drive for elected mayors.

  The definition of what constitutes "urban" would be for the Government to decide in consultation with local government and a range community stakeholders, but this definition should be flexible enough to include authorities such as Sheffield, Liverpool, Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, Bradford, Bristol, Plymouth, Newcastle, Nottingham and Leicester.

  The public appears to recognise the advantages of this type of direct election and have demonstrated their enthusiasm in a number of opinion poll surveys conducted by various organisations during the past three years.

  In October 1998 the New Local Government Network commissioned MORI to conduct a survey of 1,000 adults to test public opinion about directly elected mayors in five major cities across England. The chart below highlights the remarkably consistent nature of the support across all five cities. When asked the question:

  It is being proposed that residents in major cities can demand the local council hold a referendum on whether or not to have an elected mayor. Do you support or oppose having an elected mayor to run the city? [2]
CityIn favour
per cent
Against
per cent
Birmingham6820
Manchester6615
Liverpool6420
Leeds5920
Sheffield6818


  The ESRC conducted a major survey in 1996[3] when it asked a representative sample of the public across Britain whether they supported the idea of the leader of the council being directly elected by the people. Across Scotland, Wales and all regions of England, the survey consistently demonstrated at least two-thirds support for this form of elected leadership.

  When Lewisham polled a representative sample of their residents in October 1998 they found 58 per cent of their electorate supported the concept of an elected mayor—more than twice the number of electors who supported a cabinet model[4].

  In January 1999 the People's Panel Poll demonstrated that 55 per cent support for elected mayors[5]. Today we publish evidence of the most up to date evidence of public support. A nation wide poll conducted by ICM on 17-18 May 1999 found that two thirds of the public were in favour of a directly elected mayor and 40 per cent of people were more likely to turn out and vote for a mayor[6]. It does appear that no matter who asks the question, the result remains the same—a clear majority of the public are in favour of directly elected mayors.

  There is of course a delicious irony in the clarity of this public support—most local government politicians across all political parties are opposed to the idea (see below). So far only London Borough of Lewisham, Watford Council and the Liberal Democrat Leader of Liverpool City Council, Cllr Mike Storey have publicly expressed an interest in the idea.

  A LGMB/LGA survey (which received a 70 per cent response rate) revealed particularly startling evidence about the unwillingness of local authorities to consider and consult around this form of political management[7]. Local authorities were questioned about how they were progressing with changes to their political management structures and were asked the following:

1.   Question: Which is your council's preferred governance option?

  Answer:
System% result
Cabinet60.00
Elected Mayor0.37
Other39.00
Council Manager0.37


  It is incredible that despite widespread public support for the elected mayor, less than 1 per cent of respondents stated that this was their preferred option. The Government's strategy is to hope that these reluctant politicians will become converts to the cause. There is clearly a long way to go.

2.   Question: Which political management structure is most likely to be adopted by your authority?

  Answer:

System% result
Cabinet83.00
Elected Mayor0.75
Other13.00
Council Manager0.37


  This chart clearly demonstrates how the debate is taking shape—most politicians will cluster around the option that they know best: cabinet style government, which is effectively a more transparent version of the current arrangements.

3.   Question: Is it your local authority's intention to consult the public over new political management structures?

  Answer:
Response%
Yes37.00
No29.00
Undecided34.00


  It is remarkable that nearly a third of local authorities had decided not to consult their public—a clear rebuff to the Government's stated intention that the consultation with the community should be at the heart of this process.

SECTION 3: THE TRIGGER REFERENDUM

  The proposed use of trigger referendum to force a referendum for an elected mayor is an innovative development in the Government's approach to constitutional reform. Trigger referendum start to take this country down the road of citizen initiative referendum, more commonly used in the US and Australia. No country as far as we can tell has ever used this mechanism to force referendums for new political institutions or reform of electoral systems.

  The reduction of the trigger referendum from 10 per cent to 5 per cent, whilst a move in the right direction, will undoubtedly continue to provide tremendous logistical difficulties for the following reasons:

1.   No history of citizen initiative referendum

  Although the use of citizen referendum is becoming more common in many countries, with Australia, Switzerland, New Zealand and a large number of American states being amongst the best developed, the UK does not have this experience. There is no cultural, political or organisational familiarity at a local or national level with how they will work in practice.

2.   Handing over control to the real players—political parties and the media

  The Government, committed in theory to ensuring that these referendums are organised by the public, by-passing traditional political structures, are, through such a high threshold, making it likely that political parties and the media will be the only local organisations with the potential capacity to organise trigger referenda on elected mayors. The active participation and involvement of the media will be a perquisite to any campaign success and the media will occupy a very powerful role in determining the outcome of this local debate. It is not clear that the media should be expected or indeed is capable of performing such a role.

3.   Urban politics is dying

  There is ample evidence, demonstrated most visibly by low turnout levels at successive local elections, that the culture of political engagement is on the wane and this is particularly acute in our urban areas. This year's local election results on 6 May do not offer any great source of comfort. In many metropolitan areas turnout dived below 30 per cent and this only serves to confirm a general pattern of voter apathy in their local elections since records began. In general only one in five of the adult population (as opposed to registered voters) has voted in recent urban elections. An extraordinary 52 per cent of 18-24 year old people stated they never vote in local elections. Only 12 per cent said they always voted[8]. We know from other survey work that people claim to vote more than they actually do. The parts of the country where we expect the electorate to organise trigger referendums to force a ballot is where it politics is in most decay.

4.   Verification of trigger petitions

  Given the considerable logistical difficulties of organising a trigger petition, it will be essential that the verification processes for trigger petitions be conducted in such a way as to ensure that the process has the confidence of the public, the local authority and the Government. The process should be transparent enough to ensure that it is not subject to challenges in the courts. We would propose that the Government require the signature, printed name and address of the elector on the petition. The verification process could consist of a random sampling 1 per cent of signatures to see if they were genuine. If 95 per cent of the sample were correct then the petition would stand. Anything more bureaucratic (for example requesting polling numbers) will lead to further disincentive for those members of the public willing to organise trigger petitions and the many who would be willing to sign.

5.   Scale of numbers remains formidable

  If we concentrate for a moment on the largest cities in England where we would expect this form of governance to be most popular and appropriate, the logistical task of organising trigger referendums even with the reduction to 5 per cent of the electorate, is formidable. In Birmingham for example, any campaign to organise a trigger referendum would require at least 36,000 signatures. If we consider that the entire council of Birmingham could be nominated with the signature of 1,117 (10-nomination signatures by 117 seats) you can see the enormous inequality between the requirements of the current system and these new proposals. If the political culture wasn't so broken obtaining 36,000 verified signatures may be possible, but given its current state it will be extremely difficult to achieve.

  These factors together with the overwhelming reluctance of most local government politicians to embark upon this course means that local people may find it difficult to make their views known. The evidence from abroad about the use of citizen initiative referendum is mixed. A recent Council of Europe report stated that,

  "It would appear that provision for this device is made only in a minority of states, that its use is restricted and that it probably has less real impact on the decision-making process than the referendum does." [9]

  There are a number of questions that still need to be addressed if the Government wishes to continue with the trigger mechanism. For example, if an authority is forced, through a trigger petition, to have a referendum for an elected mayor after publicly being opposed to the concept, will the Government or any future Electoral Commission, set the referendum question? Will the Government or Electoral Commission detail an authority's new governance structure so as to ensure that the model reflects the aspirations of the local community and not local councillors?

SECTION 4: EFFECTIVE CONSULTATION

  The Government has stated its desire within the draft bill and the White Paper, Modern Local Government, that consultation with the public should be at the heart of the modernisation agenda for local government. Local authorities are to be required to consult over their choice of political management structures.

  Under Clause 10 of the draft bill, the explanatory notes under paragraph 20 states clearly that in drawing up proposals to move to a new governing structure, the local authority must consult widely with the local community, including electors and other interested parties, to ensure that proposals, ". . . reflect the aspirations of the community. . .". In the draft bill Clause 10 section 1, Paragraph 3, this requirement to consult electors and other interested parties, is described as, ". . . take reasonable steps. . .". The bill does not go on to state what those "reasonable steps" would consist of and how the Government would adjudicate whether reasonable steps had been taken.

  Consultation with the public and the range of local stakeholders is at the heart of any commitment towards democratic renewal and organising a system of local governance that enjoys the confidence of local people. Between this description of, ". . . aspirations of the community. . ." and ". . . take reasonable steps. . ." lies a range of consultation techniques, some more effective than others. The explanatory note makes a more powerful statement of the Government's intentions and the phrase "aspirations of the community" should be a powerful reminder to authorities that they will need to comply with both the spirit as well as the letter of the legislation. The Government, either in the form of primary legislation or through regulations, must state unequivocally what is meant by effective consultation.

  A number of authorities are engaged in various forms of consultation with their public over future political management structures. The mechanisms employed vary across the types of authorities and according to the experience of consultation within individual authorities. Some authorities have taken a proactive approach to consultation within their communities and have devoted resources, time, effort and energy to making sure that the process is thorough. Elsewhere, others have taken on that process within the community. In Liverpool, for example, a democracy commission has been established to examine the city's governance options. The commission is operating independently of the council with its own secretariat and has raised resources through the private sector and individual donors. The regional BBC radio has played a significant role in profiling the work of the commission.

  Although the use of consultation in service delivery terms has become more widespread in recent years, its quality and application can be described at best as patchy. If the Government is serious about assessing whether a local authority has produced a structure that does reflect the aspirations of the community, then there is clearly the need to establish benchmarks for consultation.

  Consultation will need to involve a variety of mechanisms depending upon the type of authority. An attempt can be made to summarise the principles upon which a consultation process can be deemed to have been credible.

Principles of consultation

  1.  That consultation should ensure the active engagement of all stakeholders within the community including residents, business, voluntary organisations and other partner public sector agencies.

  2.  That consultation should be conducted with the aid of an independent organisation and with the professionalism and expertise to ensure that the process is rigorous and transparent.

  3.  That the authority should devote sufficient resources to ensure that a rigorous consultation exercise is conducted. Although the exact amount would vary from authority to authority depending upon the development of consultation process within individual authorities, a benchmark figure could be established as the expected minimum contribution towards the process. A figure of £0.75 per elector would provide most authorities with a reasonable resource to conduct a thorough consultation process using a range of methods including surveys and citizens juries. Set against average council tax bills in 1999 of £798 per person (band D) this amount would appear a fairly reasonable one-off price to pay if we are to take the consultation about this particular part of the modernisation agenda seriously.

  4.  That consultation consists of two parts: the first should involve a dialogue with the community about all three models as outlined in the White Paper. The second part would be to establish from the original consultation process a preferred model for which the council should then draw up a detailed proposal for consultation.

  5.  Authorities must be able to demonstrate clear and widespread popular support for their proposed method of governance.

SECTION 5: A CONSISTENT USE OF PR

  Clause 21 stipulates the conduct of elections for the return of elected mayors and refers to the use of the Supplementary Vote as the electoral system. This is in line with the Government's proposals for the election of a Mayor for London. However the Government has omitted reference to how the remaining body of councillors would be elected, presumably as it wishes to continue with the system of first past the post. In making the case for a more proportional system to elect the Assembly in London to scrutinise the Mayor, the Government made a very powerful argument as to why an assembly elected in this way would be in keeping with the character of the institution that it wanted to create. The White Paper, "A Mayor and Assembly for London" made several clear statements as to why the Government intended to pursue this course. They included;

  "The electoral arrangements which will be used for electing both the Mayor and the Assembly will be a significant factor in determining the character of the GLA and how it will function". (Paragraph 4.2)

  "The system used to elect the Assembly should also create a more inclusive and less confrontational style of politics." (Paragraph 4.3)

  "Assembly members will be elected by AMS, which is the electoral system being used for elections to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. This will produce an assembly which closely reflects the views of Londoners." (Paragraph 4.13)

  Surely the Government is not suggesting that producing assemblies that closely reflect the views of the people of Birmingham or Manchester or Leeds is not important? What is right for London is right elsewhere. There are a number of powerful arguments in addition to the ones made by the Government as to why the Assembly should be elected using proportional representation.

  The introduction of AMS as the system to elect the council would ensure the Government adopts a consistent approach to its electoral arrangements for councillors belonging to the Assembly where there is a directed elected mayor.

SECTION 6: CONCLUSION

  The whole premise of the draft Bill relies upon local politicians adopting a selfless approach to the process of change. Over 20,000 councillors will be directly affected by these changes and most will feel more than merely "challenged" by the current agenda—they will feel their own role directly threatened. It is upon that basis however, that the Government is hoping that a fair and transparent process of consultation will take place. If, as surveys demonstrate, there is overwhelming hostility from councillors to the concept of elected mayors, what realistic chance is there of the public getting the system of local leadership they want and Government fulfilling its manifesto pledge? Given the continued preponderance of depressingly low turnouts and overwhelming public support for such a style of political leadership the case for change is clear.

  The case for directly elected mayors, as a mechanism to providing new and dynamic leadership for local government, is strong. Our evidence has concentrated on how we get to the point where elected mayors are a major part of the national political system and why we believe the Government should have the courage to be more radical in its approach.

  Local government is in need of a radical new strategy to promote visible and effective leadership within local government. With turnout figures from this year's local elections falling below 30 per cent there is a compelling case for the Government to legislate for the imposition of directly elected mayors in cities such as Sheffield, Liverpool, Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, Bradford, Bristol, Plymouth, Newcastle, Nottingham and Leicester.

1.   The case for imposition

  There is, we believe, a strong case for the imposition of directly elected mayors on six grounds:

    —  Elected mayors, as a new form of leadership, offers greater accountability, visibility and electoral competition to the local community.

    —  Britain now has the local election lowest turnout figures by far in the European Union and as such, local government is suffering a crisis of legitimacy.

    —  The public have demonstrated, through numerous opinion surveys, consistently clear support for elected mayors—the latest survey published today, shows 64 per cent support for elected mayors[10].

    —  Councillors have demonstrated, through numerous opinion surveys, consistent hostility to the idea.

    —  There is no guarantee that there will be local media support or funding from business to back a campaign for local mayors.

    —  The chances of the public organising trigger referendums in their authority when we can't even get them to vote, are modest.

  To simply legislate for elected mayors would be consistent with every major local government reorganisation that took place during the 1960s, '70s, '80s and '90s. All of the newly created unitary authorities were established by parliamentary order, as was the case in Italy and Germany. Within Europe (most recently in Italy and Germany) governments have implemented elected mayors through legislation and not trigger referendum.

2.   Compulsory referendums

  If the Government felt unable or unwilling to proceed with such a strategy, an alternative option would be to impose co-ordinated compulsory referendums on elected mayors on a set date in the major urban authorities in England and Wales. A set date upon which England and Wales major cities would hold a referendum would be one way to guarantee that the public's views would be heard. A national co-ordinated referendum campaign would have the real benefit of sparking a visible debate about local leadership.

3.   Amendments to the trigger referendum

  If the Government is not convinced by either the above arguments and is keen to proceed with the trigger referendum then it must lower the trigger figure to a more manageable level. The movement from 10 per cent to 5 per cent since the publication of the Queen's Speech in November 1998 is warmly welcomed. However, the considerable logistical difficulties that still remain with a 5 per cent threshold, suggest that a figure closer to 1 per cent of the population would be more appropriate. In the case of an authority with a population of 700,000 this would still involve collecting 7,000 signatures—seven time more than currently required to nominate the entire council to stand for election.

  By kick-starting a new local politics and a new sense of local democracy we believe that elected mayors will help address any sense of democratic deficit felt by England's population with the arrival of high profile assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We do not see elected mayors necessarily as an alternative—still less a competitor of—a democratic, streamlined system of modern government in England's regions. In Italy and Germany, for example, elected mayors and burgermeisters operate alongside strong regional government.

  Evidence from the 1996 ESRC Local Government survey[11] suggests that feelings of belonging and identity do not compete with one another but rather reinforce one another. People with a strong level of interest and sense of belonging at the local level tend also to have a strong commitment to regional and national levels. Political institutions that connect with people can help to sustain (perhaps even enhance) the sense of multiple levels of identity and belonging. In the complex and global world of the 21st Century, multi-level governance and multi-layered identity among citizens will be essential to making democracy meaningful. Elected mayors in our major urban areas could also play a crucial part in building such future democratic governance.

  The Government demonstrated vision and leadership in its decision to hold referendums about new democratic political structures in Wales, Scotland and London. It was never considered even remotely likely that the voters would be expected to organise themselves into some sort of protest movement in order to generate enough legitimacy to force a referendum.

  If the Government's policy of providing clear, accountable, political leadership is to get beyond London, then the Government needs to demonstrate greater courage of its convictions and adopt a more proactive approach to the promotion of this agenda.

18 May 1999





1   ICM conducted a poll on behalf of the New Local Government Network and interviewed 1,000 adults across Britain over17-18 May 1999. Back

2   Over the weekend of 24-25 October 1998 Mori conducted a survey of 1,000 residents in five major English cities, commissioned by the New Local Government Network. Back

3   ESRC Local Governance Programme 1996. Back

4   1998 survey of the London Borough of Lewisham's people panel conducted by the Office for Public Management. Back

5   The Government's Peoples Panel survey Issue 2 January 1999. Back

6   ICM, commissioned by the New Local Government Network, interviewed 1,000 adults across Britain over 17-18 May 1999. Back

7   LGMB/LGA survey to be published in 1999, undertaken by DeMontfort and Strathclyde Universities during December 1998. Response rate 70 per cent. Back

8   Survey conducted by Mori for the LGA in 1998. Back

9   Council of Europe steering committee on local and regional democracy. "Committee of experts on the participation of citizens in local public life", April 1999. Back

10   ICM conducted a poll on behalf of the New Local Government Network and interviewed 1,000 adults across Britain over 17-18 May 1999. Back

11    Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Lords home page Parliament home page House of Commons home page search page enquiries

© Parliamentary copyright 1999
Prepared 11 August 1999