Committee stage in the Lords
- Speaker
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Andrews)Labour- Quote
- My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill. Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to. House in Committee accordingly. [The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Viscount Ullswater) in the Chair.] Clause 64 [Changing governance arrangements]:
- Time
- 17:28
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 138:
- Time
- 17:28
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Baroness Scott of Needham MarketLiberal Democrat- Quote
- moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 138, Amendment No. 138A:
- Time
- 17:28
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat- Quote
- I confess to having got lost on the bit about London. Can the noble Baroness explain where in the amendments—if that is the case—the London provisions would arise? I might have been distracted by thinking that she was referring to the Mayor of London. The London mayoral election is due in 2012. I thought that she was talking about the difference between 2012 and 2014. My question about where this arises is for a technical but very important reason. I am concerned that if we let this go through in Committee on something which I for one—I am sure other noble Lords are much more on the ball that I am—do not understand and feel that we should come back to, my understanding is that we will have lost the opportunity to do so because we will have agreed to the amendment. That really concerns me.
- Time
- 17:28
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord Graham of EdmontonLabour- Quote
- My two pennyworth on this is that until 1975, when we had the referendum on a massive issue, I took it for granted that referendums were not part of the British electoral scene. I remember that in 1975 in my constituency, after the issue was over, I would go round meetings and say that by a majority of two to one my constituents had decided that they were in favour of staying in the Common Market. That was true, because I had three letters, two in favour and one against. That was the extent to which the British people take to a referendum as an instrument. Other issues arise over time, in which people are deeply involved. I remember Section 28 debates when I got over 500 letters, which were overwhelmingly one way. When an issue arouses passion, people are stirred to do something about it. In the recent past in this House, we had the debates on the assisted dying Bill. Again, over 300 letters came out of the blue, with people giving me their point of view. My take on the complexity of what is before us now is that of course it is right for the Government and for those who oppose the Government’s view to take this opportunity of trying to dot the “i”s and cross the “t”s but, substantially, I say the fewer referendums the better. Not that they are a bad thing; they are useful. I do not like the amendment, which in effect seems to me to be accepting grounds for more referendums than otherwise. The Minister—in a very long speech because she took the care to not only put her point of view but deal with the group of amendments—satisfied me that on balance what the Government are seeking here in rejecting the amendment is right.
- Time
- 17:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Baroness HanhamConservative- Quote
- I was not going to intervene, but when the noble Lord, Lord Graham, gets to his feet he always rouses me to mine. Actually, it was not that at all. I am sure that the Minister has explained this absolutely clearly but it has gone straight in one ear and out of the other. I want to be clear about whether, to change the arrangements, the council carries a resolution and says that it is going to change, for example, from a leader elected by the council to an elected leader or an elected mayor. I understand that there is a certain amount of time after a resolution has taken place before the election takes place. What happens with the rest of the council? I do not understand Amendment No. 141. Does the rest of the council stay as it is until the next ordinary election? The election for the leader or the mayor might take place two years in. The council would stay the same but would have the elected leader imposed on it. The councillors would stay as they are for the rest of their term and, if necessary, the proposal would be that the elected mayor would be given an extension of time up to the four-year term. Is my understanding correct?
- Time
- 17:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- It is wonderful to have my noble friend behind me. Sometimes I think that I am redundant, as he is able to answer admirably on behalf of the Front Bench. Three questions were raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. The first was why there would be no referendums. I was also asked why we had moved away from the 2000 model. The reason is that it is essential to give more scope and, by allowing any change now to be sanctioned by approval or petition, we are making the system more flexible. In addition, after a referendum for a mayor, there will have to be a referendum for a change, so this is an attempt to introduce more flexibility. The extension is limited to the first period. I take the point that it is unfortunate that the periods are slightly out of sync and that they have to be managed in that way, but we are trying to extend choice. There is no specific provision for the London boroughs in this situation, although there is specific provision for the London metropolitan areas and the boroughs in terms of the permitted resolution periods. I took an example from London but I could have taken an example from any borough and the effect would have been the same. Amendment No. 187 would apply in the same way to all local authorities. I put on the record an assurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, that the council does indeed continue as before.
- Time
- 17:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Scott of Needham MarketLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- We are in some difficulty on these Benches for the reasons outlined by my noble friend Lady Hamwee. It appears that, if we agree the government amendments today, we cannot amend them later, but it is difficult to know whether we can agree entirely because we are still waiting for information which will make a complicated situation clear. However, at this stage, there is no question but that we shall withdraw our amendment.
- Time
- 17:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HanhamConservative
- Quote
- Perhaps I may seek clarification. If the Government amend the Bill today, presumably the Bill will be republished before Report. Will it not then be a new Bill to which we can make amendments, irrespective of which clauses are included and which are taken out? It will be a brand new Bill. Will there be no opportunity to amend amendments that have been put in?
- Time
- 17:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- My understanding is that, when the Bill as amended by the Government goes back to the other place, it cannot be amended again—that is, the changes that have been made cannot be amended.
- Time
- 17:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HanhamConservative
- Quote
- But the Bill is not going back to the other place; it is coming back here on Report.
- Time
- 17:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- Yes, indeed, and the changes, having been made, cannot be unmade.
- Time
- 17:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord GreavesLiberal Democrat- Quote
- This is extremely unsatisfactory. The Minister rightly said that this is a very complicated matter. She was not able to explain it in full this afternoon and said that she would write to people about it. That is absolutely right. However, we are being asked to agree to amendments but that agreement depends on us understanding them on the basis of what the noble Baroness says when she writes to us, and we will not be able to amend them subsequently if we do not agree with what she says in writing.
- Time
- 17:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- I gave as full and clear an explanation as I could and offered to ensure that noble Lords had that in writing. My speaking note was long and detailed and I could not have added a great deal more. If I were to write, I would simply exemplify what I have described—that is, setting out the timetable, the resolution and the effect. I explained the matter to the Committee in as much detail as I thought was tolerable.
- Time
- 17:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HanhamConservative
- Quote
- I am sure that this happens all the time and there must be some clarification. It may be that the Minister is correct that when we put a whole tranche of amendments in, that is it. I do not understand why if this comes back as a completely republished Bill—it will—we are then unable to amend some of those clauses and amendments that have been put in. We cannot take them all out again; I understand that, but why is it not like any other clause in the Bill to which we can table amendments? That may need clarification and I am happy to rest for a while, but I should like an answer before the dinner break.
- Time
- 17:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- I, too, would like to be clear about the matter before we move on from these amendments. I raised concerns before today on whether it would be possible to amend the current amendments, which will be part of the Bill when it comes to Report. I was told that because the House would have agreed these government amendments, it would not be possible to amend them on Report. That concerned me very much. The most helpful thing—it is possibly not so helpful to the noble Baroness, but involves the spirit in which we are trying to deal with this Bill—would be for the amendments not to be moved today, to allow us to read the complicated explanation, to which there will be an addition through correspondence. We could perhaps deal with them more sensibly at the next stage.
- Time
- 17:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord RoperLiberal Democrat- Quote
- I wonder whether there has possibly been some misunderstanding about our procedure. I understand that if the amendments are made today it will not be possible to unmake them on Report—to remove them completely—but that there is nothing to inhibit us tabling amendments to those amendments at the next stage. I understand that this procedure operates in any other Bill. I see that the Minister is nodding; I think she agrees that it applies to this Bill as well.
- Time
- 17:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Scott of Needham MarketLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- My noble friend Lady Hamwee and I were left in no doubt as to the position regarding amending the amendments. But if that is not true, and we are in a position to amend at Report, there is not such a problem. The advice that we were given was pretty clear, but it now appears not to have been correct. My noble friend was very helpful.
- Time
- 17:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- I confirm my understanding. I have to move the government amendments and the Bill is then amended and becomes a new Bill. But new points can be made at Report on the changes in that Bill, as printed. I am sure that my explanation, plus the explanatory examples, will discourage noble Lords from wanting to extend this arcane debate. I hope that that will be the case.
- Time
- 17:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord GreavesLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- The point that I was going to make when I spoke before was that it is an interesting situation, but it is unsatisfactory because we are taking the Bill—rightly because of its size and importance—on the Floor of the House. If it were being debated in the Moses Room, we would be able to insist that these amendments were not incorporated at this stage but were brought back at Report, as every decision in the Moses Room has to be unanimous. If we opposed, the amendment would not be made and we would come back to it at Report, as has happened on a number of Bills in which I have been involved. As we are rightly taking this Bill in the wider forum of the Floor of the House, we may be in a difficult position. We shall probably have to rely on the advice given on our Benches by our former Chief Whip who knows about these things. Let us hope that everything comes out all right in the end.
- Time
- 17:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Scott of Needham MarketLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 138A. Amendment No. 138A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 138, by leave, withdrawn. On Question, Amendment No. 138 agreed to. [Amendments Nos. 138B to 138E not moved.]
- Time
- 17:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 139:
- Time
- 17:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 141 to 143:
- Time
- 17:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Ullswater)Conservative- Quote
- I must advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 144 is agreed to I will be unable to call Amendment No. 145.
- Time
- 18:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 144:
- Time
- 18:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 146:
- Time
- 18:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 147:
- Time
- 18:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 148 and 149:
- Time
- 18:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 150 and 151:
- Time
- 18:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord GreavesLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 157:
- Time
- 18:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 160 and 161:
- Time
- 18:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 163:
- Time
- 18:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord GreavesLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 164:
- Time
- 18:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- I am advised that the noble Lord has to speak to Amendment No. 166 separately.
- Time
- 18:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord GreavesLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- I shall do that. I have the right to group the amendments if I wish to do so, but if the Minister does not want me to, I shall extend her the courtesy. If it is easier for the Minister to deal with Amendment No. 166 separately, I shall speak to it separately. That is fine. Clause 70 is about related matters—the timing of elected executive by-elections—and I am probing to find out what system the Government intend to put into effect for elections to fill a vacancy in the membership or for the leader because of resignations. It is designed to find out the Government’s thinking on that. I look forward to the Minister’s reply. I beg to move.
- Time
- 18:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- Whether or not Amendment No. 165 is agreed, if there is a vacancy in the executive and there has to be an election or someone is moved up through some mechanism which causes a vacancy on the council, there would have to be a by-election for the ward councillor. My noble friend raised some interesting points about the timing. Normally, if there is a vacancy on a council six months before an ordinary election, it is not filled. The issues of democracy here are extremely interesting. I am sure that there are even more permutations than my noble friend was kind enough to raise this evening.
- Time
- 18:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HanhamConservative
- Quote
- This has raised an interesting aspect of the Bill. We have been picking away at the question of elected executives, and yesterday we touched on the problem of having a block of people elected to one job who are then no longer councillors because they have been taken out of the system. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has put his finger on a potential problem. I am looking forward to the Minister’s reply because it may generate even more questions. It will be helpful to hear it before we have more debate on this matter. This is an extremely important area.
- Time
- 18:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Scott of Needham MarketLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- I have given notice of my intention to oppose the Question that Clause 70 stand part of the Bill because I was reflecting on the nature of the slate model and how it might work in practice. It seemed to me that whatever may be the chances of the leader having to go during a four-year period, the chances of someone from the slate having to go in four years are pretty high. We all see that. People become ill, change their jobs or move away. All sorts of things can happen. Whatever the legislation states, only a limited range of options would be available in practice. One would be to keep the vacancy open until the end of the four-year term. That would be unsatisfactory because it would spread the work among a smaller number. Alternatively, the entire slate could be re-elected. It would be unfortunate for people who had settled into their job and were doing it well to have to be up for re-election because one person goes. There could be a by-election for one position on the slate with a slate of one, but there would be a real chance of somebody from a different political party being elected and being on the slate. It would then not be a slate at all. The leader could choose the replacement, in which case he would have no elected mandate. In practical terms, only one of those four courses of action could be taken. Since all of them are unsatisfactory, that shows how unsatisfactory the model is.
- Time
- 18:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- I have a terrible sense of déjà vu because we addressed some of these issues in some detail last night. However, I am happy to go over some of the issues and think about some of the permutations that have been raised. It might make sense if I were to address Clause 70 first, give the narrative and try to address some of the questions that have been raised. I preface that by saying—noble Lords must be weary of hearing this—that this is a new model that serves the purpose of creating an executive that stands on a slate and is separate from the work of the ward councillors. It is a collective leadership model. Clause 70 and Schedule 4 amend Section 41 of the Local Government Act 2000 in the light of the Bill’s provisions on directly elected executives so that the Secretary of State can make provision in relation to the election of a new elected executive if vacancies arise. Clause 70 also amends Section 41 of the 2000 Act, so that regulations under that section take account of where councils specify the minimum effective membership of the elected executive. The clause also states that regulations under Section 41 may not provide for an elected executive by-election if the number of members is still above or equal to the minimum effective membership. We talked that through last night. Schedule 4, which interrelates with the clause, allows the authority to specify the minimum effective membership below which a by-election must be held in authorities that have specified a number of members or a range of numbers for the members of elected executives. That provides the leader of the executive with the discretion whether to call a by-election where there is a vacancy but the minimum effective membership is still met. Those provisions do not have effect where there is a vacancy for the position of leader; that is, where the elected leader ceases to hold office, there must be an election for a new executive—noble Lords are quite right. The argument is that that is because it is in the nature of the slate. I think we can all subscribe to that. However many complaints noble Lords have, they understand the logic of that. Those provisions are necessary because of the way in which an executive is to be elected. A proposed executive will put itself forward as a group, branded alongside the leader as a team that will do the job for the council. When a vacancy occurs on the elected executive and the minimum effective membership is still left, the responsibility rests with the leader to decide whether such a vacancy should be filled, given the flexibility and the range of numbers which we have discussed. Clause 70 provides the flexibility to ensure that vacancies can be handled appropriately. Amendment No. 164 would do away with that. The noble Lord would like to remove the provision that an elected executive falls if the executive leader ceases to hold office. As I have explained, that contradicts the logic and intention of what we are trying to achieve by means of the slate; therefore, I take issue with the amendment. I will deal next with Amendment No. 170. I think I said this last night: we have not invented this model from scratch. This is the same notion that applies for the elected mayor. It is provided for in the regulations under Section 41 of the 2000 Act. The second issue, which is touched on by Amendment No. 170, is where a vacancy arises in an elected executive. It is exactly to introduce further stability that we amended the clauses on Report in another place so that the council can specify a minimum effective membership of an elected executive below which a by-election must be held. It gives the leader of the council discretion over the need to hold by-elections where membership of the executive falls below a specified minimum. The amendment removes that safeguard.
- Time
- 18:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Scott of Needham MarketLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- Will the noble Baroness consider the fact that under those circumstances it would be entirely possible for a leader to choose not to have a by-election, not for any reason of good governance—he or she might ignore the interests of governance—but simply because they perceived they would be unlikely to win it, and the alternative then would be to have an elected executive slate member from another political party? Does the noble Baroness accept that the opportunity for political manipulation is immense in this?
- Time
- 18:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- I am not sure whether political manipulation is the correct phrase. As I understand it, if a council chooses this option it will set out the conditions that will attach to the size of the executive and the conditions under which the leader might choose to have a by-election. That would be set out in the individual constitutions of the councils which choose. We have allowed enough discretion for this to happen and a range of numbers, for example, in between which these decisions can be made, on the assumption that it is better for councils to have as much flexibility as possible to decide. I cannot say that what the noble Baroness talked about will not happen; she identified a number of variations on that. But the situation we are in means that that discretion has to be allowed within the model; it is contained within the notion of leadership—this power attaches to the leader. As I have said, we recognise that by-elections in certain circumstances are inevitable when the minimum number is reached, but how they manage within that range will be a matter for the councils. We have tried to build both discretion and stability into the model. I do not think that I can go further than that, because these things are still being considered. Amendment No. 165 seeks to remove the Secretary of State’s power to make provisions for elected executives. Those provisions are currently in place for mayors. We have made regulations regarding the filling of casual vacancies occurring in the office of the elected mayor. The parallel here is that an election to fill the vacancy shall be held within 35 working days from the date the office is declared vacant. The provision made for this transitional period is that the office will be filled by the deputy mayor until such an election has taken place and the vacancy has been filled. Obviously, we want to provide for as smooth a transition as possible. So, where there is a vacancy in that office, an election for a new executive will be held within 35 days from the date that the office is declared vacant; that is, the election of the new leader and the slate. We intend to provide that, until such an election has taken place and the new executive is in office, the old executive, led by the deputy leader, will continue. That should address the concerns the noble Lord raised about the transitional period. We have tried to build in that stability. I do not think that there is any opportunity for political manipulation because the provision would allow for the leader to decide that he could manage with a smaller executive for the duration. I think that that is a perfectly reasonable discretion to allow the leader.
- Time
- 18:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Graham of EdmontonLabour
- Quote
- As the Committee knows, I have sat through most of these debates. It strikes me that noble Lords, especially from the Liberal Democrat Benches, are filled with the possibilities of chicanery and deliberate misinterpretation. They obviously have experience of all those things. We all have. I know the illustration about the six months. When a councillor retires or resigns, as noble Lords very well know, the date on which the vacancy is declared is a moveable feast. Very often, in my experience and that of other Members of the Committee, that sort of thing has happened. The Minister—and the Bill in general—has sought to put flesh on the bones of revolutionary ideas, every single aspect of which can be questioned. Everybody can bring their experience, but I wonder whether we are spending rather too much time on the minutiae of the Bill, when a mass of work is still waiting to be done. That may well suit some purpose or other, but I cannot quite see it myself. The Minister is saying to us, “Trust the models that we have put forward and trust the good sense of the people we are trying to assist: the elected councillors, who represent the local populace”. If the view is held that whatever is put forward is capable of being improved or changed, we will not get very far. I think that I have provoked the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, enough for me to sit down.
- Time
- 18:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Scott of Needham MarketLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- I briefly point out to the noble Lord and to the Committee that the four Liberal Democrat Members on these Benches have between us 97 years as councillors in local government. When we express our concern about the model, it is from a genuine belief in and conviction about the importance of local government and about the unworkability of the model.
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- I am grateful for the support of my noble friend, but I respect the reasons why noble Lords are raising these questions. I am doing my level best to give the Committee as much information as I have. I do not want to keep reiterating that whether or not by-elections are held will depend on the discretion of the leader and the conditions created by the constitution within the choice of model. There is certainly no opportunity just to appoint someone willy-nilly. I am grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said. Of course we are concerned that this is an innovative model and we will try to explain how we think that it will work, but I hope that noble Lords will feel that they have explored this in as much detail as is practicable at the moment.
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord GreavesLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- I am slightly surprised by the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, who suggested that we are looking at the minutiae when there is still a lot of work to be done. Looking at the minutiae and challenging the Government to tell us what they are going to do in ways not set out in the Bill is one of the very important tasks that Committees of this House have to do and, in my view, do very well on a lot of Bills, so I do not apologise for trying to do that. If this House lets through legislation that is unworkable or, even worse, is silly nonsense, we are not doing the job that we are here to do. If I wanted to engage in political skullduggery or chicanery, I would not be spending hour after hour in this Committee, worrying away at the details of the Bill. I could find other ways to do that which might be more productive in immediate political terms. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, said that we are filled with the possibility of political chicanery. That may be because in our horrifying 90-odd years of council experience, we have come across a bit of it and perhaps understand how to deal with it and stop it. A little bit of that might even be a matter of poachers turning gamekeepers. My noble friends tell me to speak for myself. That would never happen in the south of England, but when your political opponents behave like that, sometimes it rubs off a little bit. We understand that the Minister is doing her level best, but, to use a north of England colloquialism, we think that she is bragging on a pair of deuces and that there is not much in her hand. There are times when Ministers have to go back, having listened to what has been said, to challenge the department in all its respects to say, “I am not sure that that is right”. We are challenging this because we are trying to rescue the Government from what I might call another Stoke-on-Trent fiasco. In the last version of the Bill, seven years ago, the Government produced a model that one authority adopted which now has to be unscrambled in that area. We have a chunk of the Bill that is the Stoke-on-Trent clauses and a chunk that is the Brighton and Hove clauses. We do not want to have to come back in five or six years to unscramble Stockton-on-Tees or anywhere else. Our motives are pretty honourable on this, if not always in some other circumstances—again, I speak for myself. My noble friend raised the question of what happens if there is a by-election and someone is elected from a different party. That provision is nonsense and we ask the Government to go back to look at it. The Minister said, “These are things that are being considered as we speak”. I congratulate her on her openness and honesty, but the interpretation that we might put on it is that they are making it up as they go along and have not quite sorted it out yet. By Report, we hope that they will have. My final point concerns the six-month question. Will there be the six-month rule that normally applies in local authority by-elections—that there will be no by-elections for a vacancy that happens after, usually, the first Thursday in November, or whenever, six months before the normal election day—or can there be by-elections for the leader and executive right up until the next lot of elections? I do not think that question was answered.
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- The six-month rule will apply; the noble Lord is quite right.
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord GreavesLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- I am now trying to get my mind around what will happen during that six months. Presumably, if the leader dies during the six-month period, the existing executive will continue, led by the deputy leader. I understand that now, without thinking that it is sensible. On that basis, for the time being—we will have to come back to all these issues—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 165 not moved.]
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord GreavesLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 166:
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- I simply cannot wait to engage with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I do not want to reiterate anything that I have said. I have listened to the noble Lord, and I really do respect his enormous experience. I do not know how many of the 97 years he personally accounts for—
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord GreavesLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- Too many.
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- Indeed, but I know that I really am in the company of experts on the Bill. I cannot accept the amendment, because proposed new Section 40B is an essential part of what we are trying to do. I have listened to what the noble Lord has said, but I am afraid that I cannot accept his amendment.
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord GreavesLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 67 agreed to. Clause 68 [Other elected executive members]: [Amendment No. 167 not moved.] Clause 68 agreed to. Clause 69 [Meaning of “elected executive member”]: [Amendment No. 168 not moved.] Clause 69 agreed to. Clause 70 [Time of elections etc]: [Amendments Nos. 169 and 170 not moved.] Clause 70 agreed to. Clause 71 [Voting at elections of elected executives]: [Amendments Nos. 171 and 172 not moved.] Clause 71 agreed to. Clause 72 [Leader and cabinet executives (England)]:
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord GreavesLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 173:
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Scott of Needham MarketLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- I support the amendments and the points made by my noble friend Lord Greaves on councils in no overall control. I was leader of the Liberal Democrat group at Suffolk County Council which was in no overall control between 1993 and 2005. In those 12 years, it was possible to have stable and effective government in Suffolk because we were able to form a coalition. By all government standards and performance measurements at the time, Suffolk council did very well in those 12 years. It was able to do so because two political parties—it could have been a different combination—were able to come together to form a majority. I can tell the noble Baroness and the Government that, had these arrangements been in place, where agreeing to a leader for a four-year period was an inherent part of our choice, we would not have been able to support any political party. Neither would any of the other political parties have been able to work together under those circumstances. The result in a no-overall-control council like Suffolk would have been—far from having the stable government that the Government are seeking to achieve—a ruling group in a significant minority, although obviously holding the majority of the seats. I urge the Government to consider this, because they could end up with a situation which is the opposite of that which they intend.
- Time
- 18:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Graham of EdmontonLabour
- Quote
- The word for which the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, was searching to describe what happens in groups on a council was “plotting”. Plotting goes on and we are all plotters. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, but that is the cement that binds those of us who are interested in local government. I see no objection to that because I have won some and I have lost some. A distinct difference in culture is being argued in this debate. I respect very much the points that have been made, and they could all happen. I certainly respect the experience of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. I favour the thrust in the Bill; that is, the strong leadership model. I should like to think that when a person is elected leader for four years it gives him a scope and an extent to which he and his colleagues can apply some strategic planning to the shape of the council and the community over that period. If the leader is subject to election every year in a no-overall-control council, I would assume that this would be an opportunity for the malcontents and the dissatisfied elements on the council to take their revenge on a leader who has lost their confidence and to get rid of him or her. There are various ways to do that, including a vote of no confidence from people who are fed up and are not prepared to carry on. I favour what the Government are trying to do. We will not get it perfect in every dimension. It is a question of whether you want to see whether this new system is capable of working. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, proposes substantially the status quo in respect of the present arrangements. I am not saying that they are a disaster. There is not a national outcry that they ought to be changed. But the Government, rightly or wrongly, sense that this is a time when they want to see what has been epitomised as strong leadership. I am bound to say that my experience is wholly metropolitan. Although I am not a councillor now, I attend Labour group meetings in more than one constituency. My old constituency is Edmonton where I am the president of its party and I attend its functions, but I live in Loughton and I am involved in the Epping party. So I have a rough idea. The nature of people does not substantially change. If a person is not the leader, I see nothing wrong in them being ambitious enough to aspire to be the leader. Good luck to them. They will use all the weapons that they can, the greatest of course is to undermine the standing and the confidence in the existing leader, which I have seen happen more than once in my time. I respect very much the experience from the other Benches—I believe someone said that it was 97 years. I almost have got that on my own. With the four of them, plus the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, who now has appeared, there is probably more than 100 years of experience on the Liberal Democrat Benches, which I respect very much. I am not knocking in any way the integrity, experience or sincerity of the Liberal Democrat Benches, but on this issue they just are not quite grasping what the Government are trying to do.
- Time
- 18:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- Again, I am grateful to my noble friend for introducing another range of political realities. He is right. We are introducing these ranges for a four-year term precisely to address the constant turbulence and change in the present system. Amendments Nos. 173 to 176 would effectively remove that four-year term. It goes very much to the heart of what we are trying to do. Amendments Nos. 177 to 182 would remove the provisions which allow an elected leader of an authority operating the leader and Cabinet executive and partial-council elections to continue as leader until their term of office as a councillor ends. In sum, the effect of Amendments Nos. 173 to 182 would be that usually the leader would serve only a single year before facing re-election at each annual meeting. I do not have to say that we are opposed to this, but I want to call in evidence the Local Government Association, which made it absolutely clear in the Closer to People and Places report, which we stated in the White Paper that we would look to build on. The report recommended shifting responsibility to council leaders and strengthening visible local accountability. It recommended, “the appointment of a leader for the full term of the council, coupled with a maximum number of terms to encourage development and succession, but also the clear expectation that personal accountability means just that in the event of serious underperformance”. That is a very strong statement from a representative body for local government about why it wants these changes. That is underpinned by our research on leadership, which reflects the importance of stability and the fact that stable leadership is seen as producing better performance and greater citizen engagement. This provision is an important development for local government.
- Time
- 18:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord GreavesLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- The more I listen to the Minister—and I do not blame her personally—the more I think the Government are not living in the real world. If we are trying to inject anything into this debate, it is common sense. The Government talk about strong leadership. There is nothing weaker than a leader who has lost control, credibility and confidence—who might have gone politically or personally crackers, due to difficult circumstances—hanging on because, institutionally, he can do so. That is the weakest leadership possible.
- Time
- 19:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- In those circumstances, the leader can be removed by the council by a vote of no confidence.
- Time
- 19:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord GreavesLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- I listened carefully to the Minister when she said that councils could put this in their constitution. We have to insist that they do so, as an absolute minimum, so that they can remove a leader who has lost credibility or confidence or has gone off the rails. The Government might consider that seriously when they come back. The Minister is right that if a leader has to be removed, for whatever reason—because people have voted a different way, for example—it will be done. The means with which to do it are difficult, awkward and messy, whereas at present, if people want to change the leadership in November, for example, they have time to work it out, the motion comes up automatically and it can be done cleanly. In that way, there is no opportunity for people to fight back and use the institutional situation to hang on. We are arguing about democracy and accountability. Quite apart from the fact that the council I am on is subject to an election by thirds, I argue that if we had the choice, we should do it annually. I do not think that the Minister accurately describes the present situation in local government. She talked about people constantly having to look over their shoulder; she talked about constant change. In the councils I know around the country, that is not the case. There is remarkable stability. Let me give the example of Lancashire County Council—for my sins, I used to be a member of it. I have been racking my brains, and over the past 33 years, since it was set up under the 1972 Act, it has had five leaders—maybe six. That does not demonstrate instability or constant change. In my council, the present leader has been there since the year before we gained control and—electors willing—I have no doubt that he will stay there for some time. Next door, Burnley changed its leader just over a year ago, but that was in clear response to the decisions of the voters in the local election. It did not need a four-year timetable to do that; it had the same leader of one party for quite a long time and it now has a leader from another party. The change occurred at the naturally right moment, when the council changed control. Surely that is how it should work, rather than people trying to hang on, particularly when there is no overall control. Finally, the model will cause problems for a few councils that do not have overall control and have evolved their own special arrangements. Some councils, usually the smaller ones, have joint leaders. The Minister and the Government might hold up their hands in horror and say, “This is dreadful; we can’t possibly have job-sharing”. Job-sharing is a good new Labour ideology—it is done everywhere else, but not in running a council. But some councils without overall control have had joint leaders and these provisions will prevent that. Letting councils sort out their own sensible arrangements makes them likely to be more stable, more resilient and will provide better leadership than trying to fit everyone into a “one size fits all” system. Having said that, we will go away and think about this again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 174 to 182 not moved.]
- Time
- 19:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord GreavesLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 183:
- Time
- 19:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- Amendment No. 183 would remove new Section 44F which provides for the executive leader of a council and Cabinet executive to continue as a member of the council. Amendment No. 184 would remove new Section 44G which specifies how an elected leader can be removed from office. Amendment No. 185 would remove new Section 44H which specifies the regulations the Secretary of State can make in relation to the term of office of a leader and the filling of vacancies. The effect of the amendment would be that the Secretary of State would be unable to make regulations in these areas. The noble Lord has stated that these are probing amendments, so perhaps I may inform the Committee about what the Bill actually does. Clause 72 creates new Sections 44A to 44H in the Local Government Act 2000. Together they make provision in respect of a new leader. In brief, they are an essential strand of the provisions for the strengthened leader and Cabinet model, and they provide for four-year terms for leaders. Rather than plough through my note, I shall simply answer the question put by the noble Lord. Yes, if the leader does lose his seat, he cannot continue as the leader. I think that that sums up what the noble Lord has asked.
- Time
- 19:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord GreavesLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- I am grateful for that response. Would it also apply if the leader’s term of office comes to an end and he does not apply for it again?
- Time
- 19:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- I believe that the same thing would apply.
- Time
- 19:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord GreavesLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- I thank the noble Baroness and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 184 and 185 not moved.]
- Time
- 19:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 186:
- Time
- 19:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 187:
- Time
- 19:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 188 to 190:
- Time
- 19:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 191 to 193:
- Time
- 19:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HanhamConservative
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 194A:
- Time
- 19:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- I was interested to note the noble Baroness’s choice of heading for the proposed new clause: “Exemption of London”. It exemplifies her view that parish councils would be some sort of evil imposition from which London should be spared. She will not be surprised to learn that we do not agree with her. My honourable friend in another place, the Member for Hazel Grove, in response to another speech, said: “The hon. Gentleman is right in one regard: parish councils can be an irritant in the system”.—[Official Report, Commons, Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill Committee, 22/2/07; col. 332.] Grit in oysters and all that, but irritants in the system are not necessarily a bad thing by any means. A number of borough councils in London have neighbourhood and area structures, and to allow for parishes would not be a vote of no confidence in those bodies. In fact, this is not anything more than a matter of choice. I cannot count the number of times that my colleagues and I have campaigned on the “forgotten end” of the borough on the basis that the borough in which we were campaigning was a good deal bigger than its previous constituent parts. I should say that this was when we were in opposition. That struck a chord, and it is an important point. Let us keep the provision of choice, which is a theme of our debates. I do not seek exemption for London. The capital should have the benefit of a system which is available throughout the rest of the country.
- Time
- 19:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Scott of Needham MarketLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- I support my noble friend. I should point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, that there may be areas where there are already quite highly developed systems of neighbourhood forums and so on, but they are not democratically accountable. It might be that in some areas the local people would prefer to have a direct say in who should be on these bodies, and having an elected parish council would help that. On this occasion, we are with the Government and would like to see this as an option in areas which wish to exercise it.
- Time
- 19:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Graham of EdmontonLabour
- Quote
- It is a puzzle as to why the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, should move the amendment. She knows London far better than many of us and she must be aware that very often areas of London are quite distinct. The existing boroughs in London are the product of what were previously three separate councils—the one I know is Edmonton, Enfield and Southgate—and inside the boroughs there is a massive amount of opportunity, not need or desperation, to create and build upon local people having some say in matters. Although I cannot detect a move towards it, I do not see why London should be excluded from the possibility of establishing parish councils. We have all got experience of quite distinct and powerful residents associations and local bodies, and if the council in Enfield or anywhere else wants to use the mechanisms available to create parishes, it should do so. We all know there are parishes within authorities but in a different form; the parish church and things of that kind. We know that communities very often stem from bygone days, but they are still there. People are proud of them and they want to maintain that local tradition. So I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, I am sorry, but we are all ganging up against you.
- Time
- 19:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord GreavesLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- I am going to join the ganging-up. I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, to pole position on this amendment. I hope she has an easier ride than some of her colleagues have had. There is a wider issue here about the purpose and future of parish councils and whether or not the mechanism should apply to London. It is not only a London question but a big city one. Although under existing legislation it is possible to have parish councils in Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham and such places, I do not know of any big cities that have taken to parish councils. Those metropolitan districts which have taken to them since they were able to hold parish reviews and create new parish councils tend to have created them in the smaller, free-standing towns around the cities. This applies to smaller places, too. Burnley, for example, set up a parish council in Padiham which, despite the politics, has been a reasonable success. Bradford set up a parish council in Keighley, a town which suffered hugely from local government reorganisation in 1973-74. It had been a municipal borough, a free-standing place with a vibrant civic culture—a municipal culture, if you like—but it was deprived of this overnight and incorporated in Bradford. People were told they were now part of Bradford when everyone in Keighley knew perfectly well they were not. They have come to terms with being part of the metropolitan district, but that is different. Being deprived of its local municipal government was a disaster. Two kinds of parish councils have developed over the years: one is the classic local village or rural parish council, what might be called the Ambridge parish council; and the other is the market town, the satellite town within a larger district, which might be called the Borchester Town Council example. The Borchester type has been extended to include bigger places. In my own town of Colne and Nelson, a parish review is pending—we hope the Government will agree to it— which would completely parish the borough. Twenty-five or 30 years, ago we would never have dreamt of having a parish council or a town council in Nelson; now it seems an obvious and logical thing to do. The concept of parish government has been extending into bigger places but, if London is going to have parishes, why not Birmingham, why not Manchester, why not Newcastle-upon-Tyne or wherever? A great deal of hard thought needs to be given to this. In this sense, I am with the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, who is expressing concern that parish councils in places such as London will be different kinds of bodies from the parishes outside. That applies to Manchester, Leeds and Bradford. If we are going to have them, let us work it out properly and give people some really good models to consider; we do not want to set up botched parish councils.
- Time
- 19:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Graham of EdmontonLabour
- Quote
- Before the noble Lord sits down, did he say “Colne and Nelson”? I thought it was always Nelson and Colne.
- Time
- 19:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord GreavesLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- There are many answers to that. The rugby union football club has always been called Colne and Nelson and has led the way in that respect.
- Time
- 19:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Baroness CrawleyLabour- Quote
- I am delighted to enter the debate at this point in the Bill and to reply to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, although I am not able to agree with it. We have been discussing local government credentials today and I have some good news and some bad news: the good news is that I have been a town and a district councillor; the bad news is that that was more than 25 years ago, so I hope the Committee will bear with me. I thank noble Lords for their contributions. London is the only part of the country that is not able to have parishes or parish councils. Unlike elsewhere in England, local authorities cannot create parishes and local electors in the capital cannot petition for a parish. We can see no compelling reason for this anomaly being allowed to continue. We believe it is only fair that Londoners should have the same rights as the rest of England, if they so choose—we are not being prescriptive about this—to be represented by a parish council. This is why the Labour Party included in its manifesto for the 2005 general election its commitment to address this anomaly. As with the rest of the country, parish councils would only be established in London where there was support for the idea. I believe the general thrust of the remarks of both the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, was that where there was support and local people wanted such parishes to be set up, they could be established through this legislation. In London, there will also be the same possibility as elsewhere to choose a style for the parish, perhaps better to reflect the local urban area, a style such as a community council or a neighbourhood council. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred to urban areas. Experience in other parts of the UK, including urban areas, have shown that local people can benefit from parish councils by giving them a stronger voice in shaping local services where they live and the power to make decisions on local priorities.
- Time
- 19:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Graham of EdmontonLabour
- Quote
- I know it well.
- Time
- 19:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness CrawleyLabour
- Quote
- Yes. There is a commonality in the issues that face people who live in urban areas across the country. The existence of these urban parishes disproves the notion that parish councils can represent only communities in rural areas. We are clear that councils should be able to refuse to create a parish where they believe it would damage community relations or community cohesion, which I believe was a concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. Parish councils should not become destabilising influences in local communities in any part of the country. We intend to ensure that by the requirement in the Bill that councils must have regard to the identities and interests of the communities in their area and by issuing statutory guidance to councils which will include the need for them to have regard to community cohesion when making any decision about creating a parish. In the White Paper, the Government made it clear that Londoners are denied the option to form parishes, unlike elsewhere in the country, and we intend, as I said, to address that anomaly. The Association of London Government, the previous title of London Councils, took part in the technical working group that we established in 2006 which ran for over a year and looked at the existing legislation. We have already started discussions with key stakeholders, including London Councils, about the development of guidance on the creation of parishes. We heard from the noble Baroness that London already has a level of community governance and does not need parish councils. Again, London is not peculiar in this respect; area committees, area forums and community councils exist across the country alongside, and in place of, parish councils. It will be for the London boroughs themselves to decide what is appropriate. Why should they not have that option, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, asked? We support the establishment of area committees and other alternative forms of community representation. That is why another factor that councillors conducting community governance reviews must consider is the arrangements that are in place for the purposes of community representation or community engagement in the area under review. We have included that in the Bill in Clause 68(5). The review must look at alternative arrangements that are already there. If they are appropriate and effective, why change them? Alternative forms of community governance already exist in some parts of London and work well. It is therefore not our intention to force parishes upon the people of London. If there is genuinely no desire for them from local authorities or local people, they will not be created. However, we wish to ensure that when devolving this power to local authorities we do not exclude boroughs in London. Once again we have returned to the issue of devolution. It is for local authorities and local people to decide if they want to establish parishes in their city. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
- Time
- 19:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HanhamConservative
- Quote
- There is not a great deal of support around the Committee for the amendment and I get the feeling that I am not on to a winner with this one today. But there are rational reasons why London should be exempt from these provisions: London has quite a substantial amount of government one way and another; the boroughs are largely not very big; and there are obviously lots of reflections within those boroughs of community governance, to which the Minister referred. We have had quite a long debate on this today and, as I say, I do not think that I will win. I have made the point: I do not think that it is appropriate for London. But in the absence of any support, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
- Time
- 19:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- I beg to move that the House do now resume and, in so doing, that the Committee does not start again before 8.35 pm. Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to. House resumed.
- Time
- 19:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗