Committee stage in the Lords
- Speaker
Lord GreavesLiberal Democrat- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 195:
- Time
- 20:38
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Baroness CrawleyLabour- Quote
- I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for his amendment. He has also stated his intention to oppose Clause 77. First, if I explain what subsections (4) and (5) of new Section 17A of the Local Government Act 1972 do, that should clarify why the noble Lord’s amendment is not needed. He feels that we do not need to go to such lengths to explain the change to an alternative style. I shall explain: this is the technical bit. Subsection (4) provides that where a reorganisation order contains provision for a parish to have an alternative style, that provision will no longer be effective if a resolution is later passed for the parish to have a different alternative style or to cease to have an alternative style. The effect of subsection (5) is that where a reorganisation order provides for a parish to have or to cease to have an alternative style, any prior resolution under new Section 12A will have effect subject to the provision made in the order. These subsections are technical provisions to clarify the circumstances in which a resolution concerned with alternative styles is to take precedence over an order which contains different provision about such matters and vice versa. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment No. 195.
- Time
- 20:38
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord GreavesLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- I am grateful for that explanation. It was almost as long as the three and a half pages the clause takes up in the Bill. It is an important issue. Two substantive points have been raised. First, whatever these bodies are called, there will have to be a generic name for them. What will the generic name be? It seems to me that whatever individual parishes and local councils are called in future, the generic name will be “parish council” because that is what exists at the moment in most places. If parish councils are set up in Lewisham, Kensington or Richmond in London they may have a different name, such as “neighbourhood”, in which case they will become known as “neighbourhood councils”. That may well be the case, but generally they will be known as parish councils because that is what they are at the moment, even if some of them change their name as the Minister suggested. There is a problem here. Secondly, there is the ecclesiastical point. There is no doubt that there is some confusion about that and it is not going to go away. Civil parish councils being able to change their names will not change that, although it might increase the confusion. In general, I am in favour of the provision.
- Time
- 20:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness CrawleyLabour
- Quote
- Before the noble Lord sits down, I reiterate that of course legally a parish will be defined as a parish. Therefore, if the noble Lord is looking for a generic name, its legal name will be a parish.
- Time
- 20:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord GreavesLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 77 agreed to. Clause 78 [Appointed councillors]:
- Time
- 20:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord GreavesLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 196:
- Time
- 20:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Baroness Scott of Needham MarketLiberal Democrat- Quote
- I have some concerns and queries about this provision. As a former county councillor from a rural area, I have worked with parish councils for many years. Processes of co-option are pretty much understood by everyone. I am not clear about what the appointment of councillors as opposed to their co-option seeks to achieve. What will be the difference in status on a parish council between someone who has been co-opted and someone who has been appointed? I also wish briefly to mention the report of the sub-committee of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Select Committee of which I am a member. It raised some concerns about the use of the negative procedure to put flesh on the bones of this provision, and that the sort of detail my noble friend Lord Greaves was asking about is to be left to regulation under the negative procedure. I know that there has been a reply to those concerns from government. I want only to put that issue on the table because I know that the Minister will want to respond to the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the fullness of time—probably when we get to Report. The committee was concerned about the need for clarity on the status of appointed members—whether they can vote, whether they can vote for the chair, indeed, whether they could be the chair. All those things could have a significant impact on how a parish council is run. We come back to the point made earlier by my noble friend: that people tend to think of parish councils as being little village bodies that do not do all that much. I represented 16 parishes in my county division. Three parishes had an annual parish meeting and that was the end of the matter, but the area also included Needham Market town council, which was very active and set quite a large precept. Matters of appointment, co-option and election are very important in larger parish councils, especially in view of the power that we will discuss later, in which it is proposed to give parish councils the general duty of well-being. If they are to do more, the status of their members needs to be properly understood.
- Time
- 20:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Baroness HanhamConservative- Quote
- Just one question has occurred to me. One problem for parish councils was the model code of conduct. We know that parish councils must respond to the code of conduct—we will discuss the code of conduct later in the Bill—but what about appointed parish councillors? Will they have to respond to that as well? If so, will they be informed of that before they are appointed? Anyway, what are they being appointed to and by whom?
- Time
- 20:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness CrawleyLabour
- Quote
- I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I assume that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, is correct: that appointed councillors would have to abide by the code of conduct for elected councillors. I will write to her if that is not the case. Perhaps I could meet the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, in the debate on the next amendment, which fleshes out many of the concerns that she raised. Perhaps I can meet the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, on the narrow point of the amendment—as he knows, two of his amendments relate to appointed councillors. We seek through Clause 78(1) to (3) to highlight in a small way the significance of democratic elections. Parish councillors are currently either elected, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, or co-opted. The clause seeks to allow a third category: councillors who are appointed for a time by the elected and co-opted councillors. It was therefore appropriate that we should have another look at the rules governing who may chair a parish council. In particular, we had to consider whether an appointee should be able to take the chair. We readily reached the conclusion that it would be wrong to allow that. Indeed, we concluded that the chair should be chosen from among those who had stood for election to that council. For that purpose, we therefore think it right to treat those who have not been elected as one category—I am obviously talking about both co-opted and appointed councillors in that one category. I take on board what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said: that co-option has gone on for a time and is an established part of local democracy, if you like, but we believe that as we have the opportunity with the Bill, we should make the difference clearer between those who are elected and those who are not. We are therefore putting co-opted and appointed councils together in one category and elected councils in another. Obviously the noble Lord has another view, but, in the light of my explanation of this part of our debate on appointed councils, I would be grateful if he would consider withdrawing his amendment.
- Time
- 20:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord GreavesLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- I am grateful for that. I do not necessarily take another view. When I read the Bill, I did not understand where co-opted councillors would fit in and whether they were regarded as elected councillors or as appointed councillors. I now understand that the Bill proposes to change the existing system so that, even if a council has no new, appointed councillors, it will not be able to appoint a co-opted councillor to the chair of the parish council. I apologise for having strayed slightly into the next group of amendments when I spoke before, and will leave my remarks on that group for when we come to it. I now understand what the Bill means, and I am not necessarily against what it proposes. I will think about the matter. I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the position, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 197 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.] [Amendment No. 197A not moved.]
- Time
- 21:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord GreavesLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 197B:
- Time
- 21:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HanhamConservative
- Quote
- I should like to know what is to be included in regulations. I have never come across a situation—I do not suppose it exists—where appointed councillors are part and parcel of the council scene. I hope that it will not be extended elsewhere in the system, otherwise we will be discussing this for the next 10 years. The principle of what has been proposed is that there will be appointed councillors. Issues such as who may be appointed and the number, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, will be left to regulations. One of the most salient issues is how many people can be appointed to a council. Can you have an overwhelming majority of appointed councillors? Perhaps we do not need to have council elections at all: just one or two people could be elected and they could appoint all the rest. What are they there to do? I hope that the Minister will put some flesh on the bones of the provisions. We need to understand them because by the time we get to the stage of regulations, it will be too late.
- Time
- 21:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness CrawleyLabour
- Quote
- I thank Members of the Committee for their contributions. On the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, on the first of the appointee provisions, we intend to make regulations applying to the code of conduct to appoint councillors. I will come to the points she has made, but I shall start with some of the concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, have raised. As a former councillor, I believe that this is a very important part of the Bill; we must all be clear about what appointed councillors can do, and the rules and regulations that surround their role. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has reviewed the proposed power for the Secretary of State to make regulations about the appointment of councillors. The committee recommended that an exercise of the power which permits a majority of the parish members to be appointed, or which enables an appointed member to be treated as an elected member for the purposes of the chairmanship or vice-chairmanship, should be subject to the affirmative procedure. We have responded to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, declaring our intention to assure the Committee—as I now do—that we will make regulations which will prevent either situation arising. On that basis, we have told the committee that we felt that the negative resolution procedure still provides an adequate level of parliamentary scrutiny. Several of the noble Lord’s amendments deal with matters in primary legislation that we propose should be handled later, in the regulations. I therefore suggest that the amendments are not necessary and should be rejected. The details of the regulations are being discussed with the organisations representing the sector, but I am happy to give Members of the Committee the assurances they have asked for on some of these points. First, regulations will ensure that a substantial majority of the council—for example, two-thirds—rather than a simple majority must be in favour of any appointment. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, referred to numbers. This provision will not therefore be used to tip the balance of power within a council where members disagree on some issue. It is important to make that clear. Secondly, the regulations will maintain the principle that councillors must meet citizenship requirements and have a strong connection with the parish. I have a list of those requirements before me and if noble Lords wish me to go into them, I will do so. Basically, with some flexibility, they are very much the same as the citizenship requirements in place at present. Thirdly, we intend to ensure that the code of conduct will apply to all appointees just as much as to elected and co-opted councillors. Fourthly, the regulations we will bring forward will ensure that the number of appointees in any parish council can only be small. By small, I mean no more than one or two in most councils. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, talked about larger market town councils. We would consider a figure of three or four appropriate for such councils. Lastly, we have it in mind to limit the term of any appointment to one year. Appointments will have to be reconfirmed at an annual meeting of the parish council, and of course will automatically come to an end at an ordinary election. We do not want appointed councillors to be mere advisers to councils or observers of their procedures. Noble Lords know that that is already open to councils. We therefore anticipate that appointed councillors will have the same voting rights as elected councillors except in so far as the appointment of further councillors is concerned, which is the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. They will not be allowed to vote for more appointees like themselves. We do not think it right that an appointed councillor should have a hand in bringing in more appointees. We intend that the Secretary of State will issue guidance on the subject of appointed councillors to which parish councils will be under a duty to have regard. Amendment No. 200 seeks to delete the provision empowering the Secretary of State to issue guidance. We think it would be an unfortunate loss, and I am sure that parish councils would prefer to have access to authoritative guidance on the exercise of the power that we are proposing they should have. Having given these assurances, I suggest that it is not necessary for us to go into more detail in the Bill about what the Secretary of State must put into secondary legislation.
- Time
- 21:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Scott of Needham MarketLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that full explanation but it still leaves some queries in my mind. I do not feel that I have heard anything today to help me understand what a co-opted councillor is unable to do at the moment and why someone has to be appointed. I cannot see why all the advantages applied to the new category of appointed councillors cannot apply to co-opted councillors. The situation could be a step backwards because, at the moment, a co-opted councillor representing, say, a community group is able to speak about that community group quite openly at the parish council. If councillors are appointed and have a vote, they may have to declare an interest in discussions, particularly financial discussions, and absent themselves or not vote on the one issue they are there to deal with; while, on the other hand, they will be able to vote on all manner of other issues about which they do not know anything. From that point of view, an appointed member might end up at a disadvantage compared with someone who had been co-opted from the same body. I hope the Government will take a look at these provisions and give that some thought. The question of declaration of interest and representation on outside bodies has exercised local councillors for as long as I have been involved in local government. My second concern echoes the point made by my noble friend Lord Greaves throughout these proceedings that bodies are not strong because we say they are strong, and they do not have democratic strength because we say they do; their strength comes from how they operate and the way in which they work. There is a danger that there will be councils where the power of appointment will be used to appoint people who are known to the appointer. It is just one of those things; it will happen. That will reduce the credibility of the parish council. At the moment people do not feel that way because councillors are elected; if they are not elected there is a danger that, in some areas, the credibility of the council will be undermined because people in the community will feel it has been overtaken and become a kind of old boys’ network—or even an old girls’ network; I am not gender blind in these matters. However, we have to think carefully about this notion of popular mandate and popular support. I have a briefing from the National Association of Local Councils which says: “Whilst we do not support the principle of appointments replacing local councillors, we will constructively engage with government”. If the National Association of Local Councils has reservations about appointing councillors, from where has the idea come? Does not the fact that the national association representing the whole tier not give the Government some pause for thought?
- Time
- 21:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord GreavesLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- I am grateful not only to my noble friend for what she just said—with which I agree—but to the Minister for explaining this in such detail. We will want to go away and read carefully what she said, with Hansard as our bedtime reading over the coming weekend. That is a genuine thanks for that information. This clause makes provision for both guidance and regulations. The point I was trying to make is not that councils with some appointed councillors should not have authoritative guidance but that they should have something stronger than that—it should be clearly set out in regulations. What we are doing here is interfering—I use the term in a non-pejorative sense—with the democratic system. The Government are saying that some members of local authorities will not have to be elected in future but can be appointed by the local authority in the way that aldermen used to be appointed. Clearly no one wants to go back to aldermen—as I said, the inclusion was tongue in cheek. It is an odd suggestion and a little bit of ridicule sometimes does no harm. Should it be regulations or authoritative guidance? At the moment it is not clear because both are there. I think that it should be clear. I welcome the information that it might be only one or two people as that alleviates some fears that the number might be substantial. As was pointed out when the House of Commons discussed this, the great majority of parish councils say that they are non-political, and they are. However, some parish councils, especially the larger ones, are very party political indeed. But that reflects local circumstances and is up to the voters to decide. The concern was that a party with a very narrow majority could bolster its majority by appointing a lot of people. If it is only one or two then the fear is perhaps a little less. I welcome the year-to-year arrangement. I do not think that the Minister responded to my suggestion that it should be subject to confirmation by the annual parish meeting but perhaps the Government will think about that. In a future group we will discuss the existence and the role of parish meetings, which are quite different from anything else in the local government system. There was a very interesting suggestion that very young people—those under 18—might be involved in this way. We will certainly want to go away and think about that. I thank the Minister very much for her very comprehensive reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 198 to 201 not moved.] Clause 78 agreed to.
- Time
- 21:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HanhamConservative
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 201A:
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Baroness AndrewsLabour- Quote
- I am happy to respond to the amendments spoken to by the noble Baroness. I appreciate what she is trying to do and I will give as much background as I can about why we have arrived at this position. Essentially, we wish to extend the empowerment of parish councils, giving local people as much freedom as possible to enhance their own well-being. That is the purpose of Clause 79. Among the long list of parish councils’ current powers is that given by Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 to undertake actions which will bring “direct benefit” to the parish or its inhabitants. As the noble Baroness knows, I am sure, power is limited in effect, not least because there is a ceiling on the extra amount per head that parishes can spend. It is currently £5.64, although few councils spend that much. Clause 79, taken with Schedule 6, will release eligible parish councils from these constraints, including the financial ones, giving them broad powers to promote the social, economic and environmental well-being of their areas, and to commit their council tax payers to such expenditure as they see fit. That means that they will have powers broadly equivalent with regard to well-being as the principal authorities. Obviously, it is an extremely valuable power and it has been welcomed. It signifies the importance and trust we place in parish councils and the expectations that we have of them for all the reasons that we discussed earlier. But the breadth of the power will also mean that they will need to spend less time investigating whether some proposed action falls within the “direct benefit” test. To take one example, they may decide to support more extensive youth activities. They may wish to take part in joint ventures with community groups. They may want to spend money on publicity or to underpin the efforts of others by providing financial guarantees. Of course, they can use it wherever they currently rely on Section 137—a typical example being where a parish wishes to contribute to the expenditure of another local authority. The power of well-being is potentially very broad, but we have not sought to constrain it by placing statutory limits on eligible parishes’ expenditure, nor by taking capping powers. In the light of that, we are convinced that it would be prudent to have some safeguards in place. As Committee Members have already said, parish councils vary enormously in size, ambition and competence. So we have to have some test to ensure that those who exercise this new power, which is potentially very considerable, have the capacity and competencies that they need to do so knowledgably and effectively. That is why we include the notion of eligibility. What do we mean by “eligibility”? The local government White Paper said that eligibility would be based on that for the non-statutory quality parish scheme, which is a good starting point. We are in the process of doing that, with the help of the Local Government Association, the National Association of Local Councils, the Society of Local Council Clerks and others. We have made available to the House a statement of intent about this—and if the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, has not seen it, I shall make sure that she has it. In brief, the quality parish scheme provides for tests of criteria for electoral mandate; qualifications of the clerk; the numbers of council meetings; the nature of communication that is used in relation to the constituency; the production of an annual report; proper accountability; and an ethical framework. We are not using those tests en bloc, because that would not be appropriate for what this money and new competence could be used for. We intend to draw from those tests a set of conditions against which a parish council will be able to assess itself and decide whether it is eligible to use the well-being power at the time when it contemplates using it—because it will be ad hoc in the sense that a council will want to engage in a particular project, activity or initiative. It is a sort of non-statutory kite mark, awarded for a period of years by an independent peer group, but it will enable everyone to have some notion of competence. However, it is definitely not about arbitrarily limiting the number of parish councils that can use the well-being power. It is simply about ensuring that these powers are exercised sensibly. I hope that after that description the noble Baroness will agree that we have to have safeguards, not least because we must ensure that the local inhabitants are not necessarily made vulnerable to potentially—and perhaps sometimes accidentally—unwise decisions.
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord GreavesLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- I apologise that I did not jump in before the Minister rose to speak to my Amendment No. 204, but my excuse is that I had my head deep in the very useful letter on community governance that she wrote to us last week, and I was so engrossed with that that I missed my chance. Amendment No. 204 is about community strategies, which are put in place by the district council. The Government’s proposed legislation says that eligible parish councils should take note of the community strategy when they are working out and using their powers of well-being. The purpose of Amendment No. 204 is to say that in turn the district council should consult eligible parish councils when putting together its community strategies, since the parish council has to have regard to them when exercising its powers of well-being.
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- I do not think that the amendment is necessary because Section 4 of the Local Government Act 2000 already requires any local authority, when preparing or modifying its community strategy, to, “consult and seek the participation of such persons as they consider appropriate”, and to have regard to guidance. There is guidance on this already. Under it, the principal authorities need to ensure that the tiers above and below are appropriately involved and consider the involvement of neighbouring authorities. It goes on to say that parish and town councils should be able to play a significant role in reflecting the priorities of their local communities, because they are the democratic bodies with the closest links. The guidance recognises that such local councils can play an important role in helping to implement elements of the strategy. Because capacity varies from council to council, it suggests that the role that parish and town councils play should be a matter for local discussion with the relevant local strategic partnerships. We question whether adding this new provision, which requires consultation only with some parish councils, would add any value. It would probably rather restrict the process. There are other drafting problems with the amendment, which I shall not go into at the moment.
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord GreavesLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- At this time of night I am not interested in drafting problems; I am interested in the substantive point. I am very grateful to the Minister for her reply.
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HanhamConservative
- Quote
- I, too, am grateful, but I have a final question for the Minister. I understand that under the quality parish council scheme only about 3 per cent of parish councils would qualify to become eligible councils. That will not leave very many councils able to fulfil the great expansiveness that she is suggesting might be available to them. The National Association of Local Councils is hoping to see the criteria expanded in a way that would increase that percentage, otherwise this will be a pretty hollow concession to parish councils. I hope that the Minister will comment on how few are likely to be able to make use of this.
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- The noble Baroness is quite right; the figure is about 400 at the moment. Our best guess is that about 1,000 could fulfil the criteria being employed more flexibly. However, as I said, we are in discussion with the key bodies. I can see that the measure could be a route to quality status because it will certainly act as an incentive for parishes to get their act together. As I say, I think that many more could join as quality parish councils but we cannot sensibly posit a figure at the moment.
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HanhamConservative
- Quote
- I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 202 not moved.] Clause 79 agreed to.
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Scott of Needham MarketLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 203:
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HanhamConservative
- Quote
- I am happy to support this amendment. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said, it is very much along the lines of the previous amendment and concerns eligibility to promote the power of well-being and issue financial guarantees, and whether that will be sufficient to make this a worthwhile concession or provision.
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- We have some sympathy with the underlying aim of the proposed new clause, which was debated in another place at several stages of the Bill. However, we have doubts about whether it is necessary. As the noble Baroness said, under the notion of eligibility which we have just discussed, it would certainly empower parish councils to enter into guarantees if to do so would contribute to the economic, social or environmental well-being of the area. That is an important development, and there is no legally imposed limit on the value of such guarantees. The new clause is superfluous when it comes to those.
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Scott of Needham MarketLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her comments. I am sure that the National Association of Local Councils will take a good look at what she said and reflect on it, because I am not entirely clear that the provisions to which she referred are widely understood by the parish council community. I thank her, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 80 [Community strategies]: [Amendments Nos. 203A to 204B not moved.] [Amendment No. 204C had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.] Clause 80 agreed to. Clause 81 [Community governance reviews]:
- Time
- 21:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord GreavesLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 204CA:
- Time
- 21:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness CrawleyLabour
- Quote
- The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, would put into place transitional arrangements to allow decisions to be taken on parish reviews or petition cases that have been submitted to the Secretary of State under the provisions of Part II of the Local Government and Rating Act 1997, but on which no decision has been taken or orders made before this chapter comes into effect. Currently, local authorities conduct parish reviews and put their recommendations for the creation, alteration or abolition of parish councils to the Secretary of State and put proposals for electoral arrangements of parish councils to the Electoral Commission. Local government electors can petition for change through their principal council, but can petition for the creation of a parish only in a wholly unparished area. Petitions must be submitted to the Secretary of State, together with the views of the appropriate district council, including whether or not it agrees with the proposals. Decisions are then taken by the Secretary of State and the Electoral Commission, and the necessary implementation orders are made. Chapter 3 of Part 4 devolves decision-making powers to local government, whereby the Secretary of State and the Electoral Commission no longer have a role, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, explained. Community governance reviews will be undertaken by principal councils and petitions will trigger a community governance review by the principal authority. The Government recognise, however, that a number of reviews and petitions have been put forward under the provisions of the 1997 Act on which they have yet to take decisions, as the noble Lord pointed out, and are currently considering whether transitional arrangements will be needed to deal with these cases and, if so, what form they should take. For this reason, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment, because we will certainly give further consideration to the issue of transitional arrangements. The noble Lord has a point and we will take this matter away and look at it. We cannot give a commitment that the parish reviews will have been completed.
- Time
- 21:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord GreavesLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- I am grateful for that. All I can ask is when we come back after the Summer Recess the Government will have thought about how they will deal with it and will be able to tell us. I hope that I will not then feel the need to detain the House on Report or Third Reading on this matter. I am grateful for that reply. I suppose that I should put in a plug to say, “Please do Pendle’s”, but I am sure that that would be out of order. Nevertheless, I said it. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley. May I ask if she can come again? I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 81 agreed to. Clauses 82 to 85 agreed to. Clause 86 [Review being undertaken: duty to respond to petition]:
- Time
- 21:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord GreavesLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 204CB:
- Time
- 21:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness CrawleyLabour
- Quote
- We have looked at Amendment No.204CB and believe that it is important to make clear in the Bill that local people can petition the principal council to conduct a community governance review for the whole of the local authority area, as set out in Clauses 85 and 86. The Bill, as drafted, allows the principal council to act on petitions for a part or the whole of a local authority area when a community governance review is not being conducted in the area. We believe that this is the correct way to proceed. Clause 86 deals with petitions received while the community governance review is being undertaken within the local authority area. Given the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, we will give further consideration to the wording of Clause 86, and on that basis we ask that he withdraws Amendment No. 204CB. In relation to Amendments Nos. 204CC to 204CE, our assumption is that the noble Lord has proposed the amendments to make the legislation clearer. He has made that clear himself tonight, and we are again very happy to undertake to consider this matter further. If we accepted the amendments, we would need to ensure that all references in the Bill to “available area” are changed.
- Time
- 21:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord GreavesLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 86 agreed to. Clauses 87 and 88 agreed to.
- Time
- 21:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour- Quote
- I beg to move that the House do now resume. Moved, accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to. House resumed. House adjourned at 10 pm.
- Time
- 21:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗