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 (Lord Tordoff) in the Chair.] Clause 235 [Exercise of functions by local councillors in England]:
- Time
- 18:38
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 242K:
- Time
- 18:38
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Baroness HanhamConservative- Quote
- I apologise to the Minister; I was not here as the debate tipped over and missed the first couple lines of what she said. As I understood the last passage, any member of “a local authority” could be interpreted as “any local authority”, and the provision should read “a member of the” local authority. It is interesting because they are being entitled to perform a wide range of functions. “Any function” of a local authority could be anything at all. If they are going to be allowed to be charged with it, let us hope that this is adequate. I thank the Minister for her explanation. On Question, amendment agreed to.
- Time
- 18:38
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff)Liberal Democrat- Quote
- In calling Amendment No. 243, I should point out to the Committee that, were it to be agreed to, I should not be able to call Amendment No. 244 because of pre-emption.
- Time
- 18:38
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 243:
- Time
- 18:38
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HanhamConservative
- Quote
- I slightly jumped the gun in replying to the Minister’s amendment because I, too, have considerable concerns about the breadth of the proposal. “Any function” of a local authority could cover a wide spectrum of services. If this can be passed down to “a member” of the local authority and “through an executive member”—so it is clearly not the executive member who will be doing it—where will accountability lie for what the member is doing? If it is limited in scope to a small aspect of the local authority’s responsibility, that is a different matter. But that is not what the Bill says. We need some clarity on whether the function might start as a little mouse and finish as a roaring lion. There has got to be a middle point where a member cannot be responsible for a function. I take the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that this should not simply be passed through an executive member. If the principle is that a member can perform a function, then that should have the full authority of the local authority. Otherwise the issue of accountability will be very difficult to understand.
- Time
- 18:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- I shall deal with those points first because they straddle the amendments. There was always going to be tension between whether this measure went too far or not far enough. We have tried to provide discretion for the council; we know that some already use a version of this power, but this is a specific way of delegating the authority’s own power. As for whether the measure goes too far, the clause allows us to prescribe. If we so wish, we can take powers to prescribe the delegation of some functions. That is an important reserve power. We will discuss with the sector whether any functions should be prescribed at the outset. That power would be available to us if we thought that councils were acting in a disproportionate way or for some reason—which is hard to imagine—did something bizarre by way of delegation. We would not expect any functions connected with billing, childcare or highways to be delegated. I think that people understand that the purpose of this measure is to give local councillors a local power to act. An individual can say to a councillor, “The community is suffering because there is a persistent problem with litter. It is not worth taking it to the overview and scrutiny committee. We think that with your small budget, or just with your power, you can get something done”. I take the point that it is actually a community function rather than one that supports individuals. The power that we have kept to make it possible to contain some of those powers is very important, and I shall return to it later. Some of the most appropriate powers would be environmental, in terms of the cleanliness of the community, the state of the local parks, and so on. That is the context in which we envisage the provision being used and the circumscription surrounding it. We noticed some inconsistency in the amendment, which has now been explained. We are missing some of our regular cast this evening. Amendments Nos. 243 and 245A suggest that the power should rest with the whole council rather than the executive model. In framing the clause, we adopted a fairly straightforward principle, which we have discussed in many instances during the Bill’s proceedings. Arrangements for delegation of a function should be settled by whoever is ultimately responsible for that function. In an authority operating executive arrangements, that person is, for the vast majority of functions, the senior executive member. The powers of that person to arrange for delegation to members of the executive or to committees are set out in Section 14 of the Local Government Act 2000. The Bill updates the terminology of Section 14. We are using a generic term—“senior executive member” covers leaders, elected mayors and directly elected leaders. It does not change the substance. We are arguing, from the point of view of consistency, that as the executives have that power, that is where this power should rest as well. The clause is drafted in very general terms. It permits local authorities to operate in a very different way from that which was contemplated when the 2000 Act was passed. In those circumstances, we think it would be rash to put it into law without retaining any power to influence the way it is used and to prevent people using it inappropriately. Moreover, if these amendments were to be adopted, we would be in the very strange position of the 2000 Act vesting in the senior executive member power to delegate functions to executive members, committees and officers, with the Bill going in the opposite direction of travel and vesting power in the whole council to delegate to individual members. That cannot be right. It would allow a situation in which the whole council might choose to delegate some function to individual members which the senior executive member chooses not to delegate at all and would keep to himself or herself. For example—and it is a perverse example, which I use just to make the point—we would not tolerate a situation in which control of daycare centres for vulnerable children were delegated to a local councillor against the wishes of the council leader and the executive member responsible for social services. I cannot imagine that that would happen but we have to ensure that it does not. If Amendment No. 245A were accepted, the Secretary of State would be powerless to straighten things out, which is a reason for opposing the amendment. We expect the clause to be used to empower individual members to take executive action and, in some circumstances, to sort out quickly minor problems afflicting their communities. It provides local authorities with the flexible means to make that happen. I hope that Members of the Committee will accept that we have the balance and the range of powers right.
- Time
- 18:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HanhamConservative
- Quote
- The previous clause, which the Minister amended, refers to “any function”. Does the Minister consider it would be worth amending that to “a function”? There is a great difference between “any function”, which has an extremely broad scope and “a function” which can be delineated. You cannot claim that you can do anything under the Bill, but specifying “a function” allows you to be specific about what it is. I remain concerned that the clause still goes very wide, despite what the Minister has said.
- Time
- 18:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- I am not entirely sure of the implications. May I take it away, think about it and check with our lawyers? It may not be much more significant than we both think, but I should like to discuss it.
- Time
- 18:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- I knew that I would not win on this amendment. One reason was that I realised as I listened to the Minister that we have different views about the notion of leadership and the desirability of the models which we have been debating for seven and a bit days. It was telling that in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, the reassurances about the scope of the clause are in the fact that the Secretary of State can prescribe what shall not be transferred. That says a lot, and the noble Baroness put her finger on it when she talked about accountability. We will take a view over the summer on whether we will continue to press the matter. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 244 to 245A not moved.] Clause 235, as amended, agreed to. Clause 236 agreed to. [Amendment No. 245B not moved.] [Amendment No. 246 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.] Clause 237 agreed to. Clause 238 [Contracting out]: On Question, Whether Clause 238 shall stand part of the Bill?
- Time
- 18:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HanhamConservative
- Quote
- I have given the Minister notice that I will speak to Clause 238 stand part as I want to try to get in something sensible about registered social landlords. The preamble to the Bill states that it will make provision for local government and the functions and procedures of local authorities. Yet one area is missing—the function of local authorities in respect of registered social landlords. I think we have all agreed during the Bill’s proceedings that local authorities should be the community champion in their area. It is up to them to ensure the quality and delivery across all housing providers and tenures, including registered social landlords. For local authorities to meet their targets on housing, they need to be able to ensure that registered social landlords are performing against agreed local set targets and priorities, as set by the local authority. In particular, there are two key omissions that we feel should be addressed. First, there is a need to give local authorities powers to ensure that social housing providers conform with important local strategies that have a bearing on housing. We touched on this throughout the other stages of the Bill. Secondly, a local authority should have the power to serve a notice on a poorly performing registered social landlord, so that he would have to explain himself to the local authority and so that the local authority could recommend what action the registered social landlord needed to take.
- Time
- 18:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord Livsey of TalgarthLiberal Democrat- Quote
- I shall be brief. I note that in the previous sitting Clause 234 in Part 15 was not debated. It is not my duty to debate it now, except to say that I welcome all the transfer of powers to the Welsh Assembly contained in it. Some MPs in the other place have said that these aspects of the legislation are slipping through the net, but I note that the Secretary of State for Wales has said that he will now brief Welsh MPs on those aspects of Bills such as this. Proposed new Section 79B in Clause 238 actually defines local authorities in Wales and how the legislation is brought about in relation to Wales. It was certainly not my wish to drag civil servants here from Cardiff to listen to what I was going to say, because that would be unnecessary, but the clause relates to contracting out, which is important in a Welsh context in which contracting out is well established, as in other local authorities in other parts of the UK. I am sure that Members of the National Assembly for Wales will have wished to have had some input into this part of the legislation, as contracting out can be contentious. I have a Welsh Assembly briefing note on new powers for the Assembly in which best value is matter 12.5. The briefing note—“Annex A: memorandum on new powers for the National Assembly for Wales” in the 11th report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform—talks about best value in the context of the Beecham review on local government in Wales, and states: “The Assembly Government strongly agrees with the principle behind many of the proposed reforms”. I note that it refers to the “Assembly Government”, but there is no comment on what other Members of the National Assembly for Wales felt about it. I would be very grateful if the Minister would write to me and let me know what consultation there was with anyone who is not a Member of the Assembly Government and what they think about this. I realise that the agreement in Wales for the Assembly Government has only just been completed. None the less, the briefing note, which is dated May, refers to it, and I simply wonder how the Assembly Members have been consulted.
- Time
- 19:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord BestCrossbench- Quote
- The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, talked about bringing housing associations and requirements on them within the scope of the legislation. I have two or three comments to make. First, we encounter the problem of landlords’ poor performance and not dealing with anti-social behaviour in the private sector as well as in what I like to think is a very small minority of cases in the social housing sector. There is no suggestion that private landlords, who I admit receive no subsidy but who do receive tax relief to help them to produce homes, would be encompassed by any part of this legislation. I made the point earlier that the social housing grant available to the registered social landlords is now also available to housebuilders and developers, and it is very tricky to bring them within the scope of requirements in this legislation. So there are hazards in extending the legislation to embrace registered social landlords, although I am rather sympathetic to the idea that local authorities and the registered social landlords in their area should work in a more cohesive partnership in the future. Will the Minister say whether these issues might be addressed by the Government’s response to the Cave review on the regulation and inspection of housing associations, and whether relevant legislation is likely to be laid as early as November? That might be the time to mop up several of these issues.
- Time
- 19:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- This is an important debate because of the importance of housing and the contribution that RSLs make to the provision of housing. The relationships between local authorities and RSLs are critical. We have discussed in debates on previous parts of the Bill why the RSLs are private, not public, bodies and the implications of that. These not-for-profit bodies often have charitable objectives and are not part of the public sector, and I have said before that it is not appropriate to treat them as such. The noble Baroness raises a very serious issue, and she is right that improving conditions for tenants in the sector is absolutely vital. I will address the point about the Cave review in a moment. One of the things that has marked the past 10 years has been the ability of the RSLs to raise capital outside the confines of the PSBR. That has been an enormous boon and has helped enormously with our capacity to provide decent homes. They engage with local authorities in different ways; indeed, there are some extremely robust and excellent partnerships. The corporation can make new regulatory demands on them if needed, though we are committed to minimising the burden. While I am completely sympathetic to the Opposition’s intention here, the problem can be picked up in the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Best. We are sure that the regulation of RSLs needs to focus more on tenant protection and empowerment. That is the burden of the Cave review, and we have already taken in what was said there by proposing to accept much of it. One key thing was that, when Cave considered how the regulatory regime could be reformed to ensure better outcomes for tenants of all social landlords, he quite rightly recommended that the regulatory system should focus more on empowering and protecting tenants—and the need for a constructive engagement between social landlords and local authorities. So, when we launched a consultation on 19 June, we had already acknowledged that we proposed accepting, for example, that there needed to be a statutory independent regulator and that social housing regulation should be separated from investment. It would be premature to try to legislate for that in this Bill, as the Cave review is so important in enabling us to look at both what constitutes smaller but better regulation—I am thinking in particular of those small RSLs that the noble Baroness talked about—and how we can ensure that whichever regulatory regime is put in place focuses not just on place shaping but on a better deal for tenants. That is the real burden of the Cave review—to be much more tenant-focused, with local authorities working much more positively with social landlords and engaging in joint roles. The Cave review determined that it is the job of the regulator and the ombudsman—and no one else—to take action regarding how well an RSL performs, including how well it engages with local authorities on place-shaping issues. He therefore addressed the role of local authorities in some detail. The problem is that giving other bodies direct power to impose requirements and enforce penalties on RSLs, as is suggested, would be a confusing development when we are trying both to simplify regulation and to make regulation consistent. The review and the Government recognise the important role that local authorities may play in bringing poor performance by landlords to light. So, the review recommends that local authorities and tenants have a right to trigger intervention by the regulator against a landlord, if there is evidence of misconduct or mismanagement in areas including tenant involvement, delivery of housing standards, efficiency, viability and engagement with local authorities. In his review, Cave proposes that this reformed regulator has a wider range of remedial powers to deal with poor performance. At present, when the Housing Corporation steps in, it tends to focus on emergency powers; under the new system, the regulator would have new and positive powers including improvement and enforcement notices, and administrative penalties such as fines. In extremis, it can require a change of management or ownership. That is, of course, part of the consultation—and a positive step forward in the direction that the noble Baroness wants. The Government have proposed to accept these recommendations, and to legislate shortly. To pick up another point, Cave recommended that collective for-profit private bodies can now get a grant to build social housing, and that they be given the chance to register with the regulator instead. We want to ensure that tenants are protected to the same extent by the regulatory system, whether under contract or registration. We have promised to legislate as soon as possible and are having a thorough consultation. Many of the issues have been picked up by the Cave review and we have already responded to those. We look forward to bringing legislation forward when we can.
- Time
- 19:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HanhamConservative
- Quote
- I thank the Minister for that detailed reply. I want to look at it, as I could not take it all in. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his intervention, which pointed out the issue that we have always had about money going off to private developers. That leads us into a completely different area, as we all knew that it would. I thank the Minister for addressing this as closely and sympathetically as she has. I am very aware of the Cave review and that it has many details. I am also aware of the concerns raised with me by London Councils, which also knows about that review and its implications. It is clearly not happy about waiting to see how long that will take.
- Time
- 19:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- I apologise for interrupting, but it is worth telling the noble Baroness that we are looking to put this into the housing regeneration Bill this autumn, but we obviously cannot rush it; we need a proper consultation, because there are implications and details like those which the noble Lord pointed out. However, it will be quick.
- Time
- 19:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HanhamConservative
- Quote
- I thank the Minister for that, but I may come back to this in some way at the next stage, if there are some things that will not impinge on what that housing Bill is going to do. If there are some assurances that most of this will be included there, that would be helpful.
- Time
- 19:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- Before the noble Baroness sits down, I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, for completely forgetting him. I will certainly do what he said, since the Beecham review has only just reported. Best value is treated slightly differently in Wales, and there are clear issues over who has been consulted. We will certainly write to the noble Lord about that.
- Time
- 19:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HanhamConservative
- Quote
- Just to conclude, I was going to say that it was also nice to have the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, intervene with his nice Welsh burr, which livened up that debate enormously. I thank the Minister for that reply. Clause 238 agreed to.
- Time
- 19:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord Bruce-LockhartConservative- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 246A:
- Time
- 19:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HanhamConservative
- Quote
- My name is not added to this amendment. I have a great deal of sympathy with my noble friend Lord Bruce-Lockhart’s proposal. I do not think that we need to commit to this and the other amendments in Committee, but they are probing amendments for a serious discussion on this area of deregulation. My noble friend has been very agile in moving this amendment and in providing us with this opportunity.
- Time
- 19:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- If my noble friend Lady Scott were here, she would say, because she said it before she went, “We have to, why shouldn’t they?”, as regards reporting. If my noble friend Lord Greaves were here, he would remind us that he raised the issue of consolidation. If local government legislation were consolidated, it would show dramatically the administrative burden. I shall not add my own comment.
- Time
- 19:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord Graham of EdmontonLabour- Quote
- I respect very much the intention of the amendment, but I wonder whether it takes fully into account the recent trend towards that intention. When I read the amendment, I am grateful that it includes the part of the Local Government Act which says, “(strategies for promoting well-being) and any other duties of a similar nature that require local authorities to have regard to guidance, provide information to the Secretary of State or to a body acting on the Secretary of State’s behalf or obtain the approval of a Secretary of State in relation to the discharge of a function of the authority”. I just wonder what would be left. As I see it, there is a dilemma. Colleagues are urging that burdens be lifted from local authorities to allow them to get on with the job. At the same time, a local authority which has been doing that is to have imposed on it a duty to report regularly on what it has done. In the world of local government, I imagine everyone knows what is being done. I attended the recent meeting of London Councils under the chairmanship of Councillor Merrick Cockell. Frankly, I have never looked at a more respectable or more determined group of men and women than those representing London Councils. They would certainly use me, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, if this was a burning issue, but I do not think that it is. When I look at what the Government have done—I am not talking about magic dates or issues—they appear generally to have recognised what the noble Lord is trying to do. They allow local authorities to get on with the job and try to lift some of the burdensome legislation or duties placed on them. That may not be happening fast enough, but I cannot imagine that the Government and the department want to retain unnecessary power a minute longer. When the Government, after consultation, decide that there is no longer any need for reporting, monitoring or guidance, there will be a common consent that they are done away with. I respect where the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Lockhart, is coming from, but at the moment I cannot see what this will add to the good relationship between councils and the Government.
- Time
- 19:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- Not for the first time my noble friend has put his finger on the spot. He has exposed very eloquently the paradox of the amendment. I was going to start by saying that under the amendment the Secretary of State would pick up a new power to add to the bureaucratic process, and then demonstrate in inordinate detail the whole process we have been through, which the noble Lord knows far better than most, to reduce the burden of bureaucracy with which local government has had to deal. The other expectation is that the amendment somehow will pave the way to a situation where all duties relating to local area agreements and community strategies will somehow wither away; that is, the state in its local form will finally wither away. The noble Lord will also know that that is unlikely and not appropriate because there are very important duties on local authorities which have to be maintained. The direction of travel since the local government White Paper in 2001 has been to implement a range of measures which incrementally have freed local authorities from plan requirements and consent regimes, and given them greater financial freedoms to charge, trade and borrow. We have reduced the separate number of plan requirements by 75 per cent against the 2001 figures—for example, the annual library plan and the contaminated land strategy. Today, we have laid a legislative reform order, subject to debate after the Recess, which will remove a further four measures—for example, prosecutions under taxi licensing provisions. We have legislated to enhance charging, trading and borrowing freedoms through the Local Government Act 2003. The comprehensive performance assessment is proportionate and risk-based now instead of the 1,200 targets. We have rationalised area-based initiatives through the local area agreement. I know that all this has been very welcome indeed. It was reinforced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury when he set out on 18 July a reformed approach to national target setting. It was not new, but shed more light and picked up on the non-LAA service providers as well. We are looking at setting targets at a national level where they genuinely drive up improvement on the ground. I know that Councillor Merrick Cockell, the chair of London Councils who has been praised by my noble friend, has welcomed this.
- Time
- 19:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HanhamConservative
- Quote
- Hansard will be very confused by the pronunciation. The name is Councillor Merrick Cockell. He is getting called all sorts of things and I happen to know him quite well.
- Time
- 19:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- I am very grateful for that intervention. I apologise to the gentleman and I shall try hard to get it right next time. The noble Lord wants to achieve knowledge about progress being made. The most recent White Paper implementation plan sets out how we will work with the LGA, representatives of local authorities and their local partners to keep guidance to a minimum. We all need to work together. That plan promises regular updates on progress against White Paper delivery. That sort of information will be useful, robust, informative and most helpful. The updates will be published on the White Paper section of the Communities and Local Government website. That is the way to do it. I do not think that the Secretary of State should have a role because it is not appropriate and is another layer. Ultimately, it will achieve what the noble Lord wants.
- Time
- 19:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Bruce-LockhartConservative
- Quote
- I thank the Minister for that. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, put his finger on it by saying that there is not a common understanding here, which is why we need a reporting mechanism. Central government thinks that the burden of bureaucracy is getting less and local government feels that it is getting more. The whole point of doing an annual report is to clarify that, so that we do not argue about it and can get on with improvement, and reporting that to Parliament I feel would be helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
- Time
- 19:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord Dixon-SmithConservative- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 246C:
- Time
- 19:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord BestCrossbench
- Quote
- I strongly support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. I am not sure whether I have declared my interest as president of the Local Government Association. The time has come for local government to boldly proclaim the good news about what it does and not feel inhibited or restrained by this code. As was rightly pointed out, the code arose at a time when—I think that we have to be honest—the GLC and Mrs Thatcher were at loggerheads. Those days are long gone. Local government has grown up and there are better relationships between local government and central government. Those in local government are now the place-shapers and community leaders, and they need to feel uninhibited in putting out good information and using the power of communications, whereas this code greatly inhibits people from doing just that. The code is interpreted in different ways; it is ambiguous, even though it is very narrowly confined. The heads of communications in local authorities take different views on what is in and what is out and how far you can go. Lawyers, when consulted, always take the most cautious possible view. It is important for local government to defend itself robustly when myths and misinformation are put out, not least by the BNP, on issues such as housing. We hear statements that are simply falsehoods in relation to local authority practices—for example, that they house only members of black and minority ethnic communities. Local authorities need to be able to robustly challenge misinformation and to feel uninhibited in so doing. Members of the other place now receive the opportunity to spend a communications allowance of £10,000 on publicising the good work that they do, which is in interesting contrast to local government, in which people feel very inhibited. When the press often carries the bad news and negative stories about local government, it is very important that that inhibiting code be removed and the opportunity is given to say the good things about local government.
- Time
- 19:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Bruce-LockhartConservative
- Quote
- I, too, support the amendment. Democracy simply does not work without information, so this is an important amendment. We have heard a great deal, quite rightly, from the Government about the importance of strong leadership—indeed, it is a theme throughout the Bill. You cannot have strong leadership and people setting out clear visions and making hard decisions unless they can do so in the press. The amendment is absolutely right.
- Time
- 19:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- I do not oppose this amendment, but it is worth those of us in London reflecting sometimes on how we feel about the publicity put out by the Mayor of London, which is a very extreme example of the case. It is not all quite as straightforward as we may have heard. Of course, in part the view that you take of the publicity depends whether you are running the administration or in opposition. It is absolutely right that a council should be able to communicate as its own citizens feel appropriate, but the issues raised about the use of council resources and the facilities made available to other parties on the authority, and so on, require some attention as part of the overall approach.
- Time
- 19:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- I think that I can give the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, some support and good news, which he can pass on to the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. When we consulted in January on the general principle of a central code, the overwhelming response from local authorities was that a national code was still important, because there needs to be consistency in how certain things—particularly the areas around political usage and types of information—are treated. So there is still continuing recognition of the value of that. However, it was also clear that there is concern about the content, style and ownership of the code, and I am very happy to indicate that we are now going to consult not only on the content of the code but on whether it is necessary for the code to be issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government, or whether it could be a matter for local government representatives. We will maintain consistency through a national code, while thinking about what really needs to be in the code, exploring suggestions on the content of the code and on how it might be updated from the world of local government and the stakeholders, for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. We will think about how it could be simplified or clarified to support new roles such as advocacy, for example. We are ready to consult local authorities before issuing any new code, and about what form that might take. We are very keen to address robustly the challenge of misinformation—and clearly that will be one very important thing that we want to get right. In this context the help of the LGA will be invaluable as we come to frame a new code.
- Time
- 19:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Dixon-SmithConservative
- Quote
- I am most grateful to the Minister for that very helpful reply. It is particularly good to know that the Government are intent on consulting local government and doing something about this matter. She has not put a timescale on it, but perhaps that would be going too far. I note the reservations expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The Mayor was one of the persons—I nearly used an unparliamentary expression—who probably gave rise to the code as we have it, but that is one of the ironies of life. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, and my noble friend Lord Bruce-Lockhart for their interventions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
- Time
- 19:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Bruce-LockhartConservative
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 246CA:
- Time
- 19:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Graham of EdmontonLabour
- Quote
- Proposed new Subsection (1D) of the amendment states: “The powers mentioned in subsection (1B) may include any of the following”, which obviously implies that they could include all of the following. When I realise the enormous cost implications of decisions that might be taken independently, but which have to be carried financially by the Government, I sometimes wonder where we are getting to. At the end of the day, he who pays the piper calls the tune. If decisions which ultimately are the responsibility of central government—as they inevitably are—are influenced, guided or directed by others, we get into dangerous waters. Other mechanisms may provide some form of independence but if—
- Time
- 19:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HanhamConservative
- Quote
- I always hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Graham. I think that he is talking to Amendment No. 246CB, which looks as if it follows on from Amendment No. 246CA, which is about the independent commission. However, the independent commission is carried on in Amendment No. 252B. I think that the noble Lord is talking about the devolution of the community strategy, including welfare and pensions. If I am wrong about that, I hope that he will forgive me. My noble friend Lord Bruce-Lockhart will want to have a crack at the next amendment, in which case the noble Lord, Lord Graham, can have another go.
- Time
- 19:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Graham of EdmontonLabour
- Quote
- I assure the noble Baroness that I do not intend to come back to this and repeat my remarks because, standing on its own, I think that it was a very good contribution. I rest my case.
- Time
- 19:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- Interesting matters have been raised. Given the time, it is not appropriate to have the full-scale debate that I should like. However, I make a couple of comments. I absolutely take the point about the implication of all this—that local authorities would be left with next to no discretion. I was rather saddened that the approach seems to be a different centralised approach, not individually local as I should have liked. To say that it ducks the issue of how tax should be raised is too harsh, because it has not attempted to deal with that. It is interesting to see where the demarcation should be between analysing the costs and some of the other things laid out under “functions” and the debate about how money should be raised. My next comment is not intended to be picky but truly to inquire. The “financial provisions” paragraph refers to the “total council tax precepted”. Is the word “precepted” intentional or should the phrase read “total council tax raised”? I believe that “precepted” has a particular meaning in this context. I hope that we get an opportunity to discuss all this when we are not under such time pressure.
- Time
- 19:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- I agree with the noble Baroness that these are important issues. I shall respond fairly quickly, which does not reflect the importance attached to the issues raised. This was not a firm proposal from Sir Michael. He raised it as a possibility. The idea has powerful advocates and I understand the rationale for it. However, I should point out two things. First, the existing process is complex. I would not say that it is confined to anoraks but people do not generally engage with it easily. However, central and local government have done their best over recent years to debate openly the issues involved in the way local government prioritises, dedicates and spends money. I shall give a few examples of that. Secondly, as I said last time we debated this, however finely the line is drawn around the functionality of doing something, there will be a trespass into areas of political decisions. Paragraphs 6(1)(e) and (f) of Amendment No. 252B propose that the report of the independent commission could look at, “the effectiveness of the mechanisms by which funding is made available to, or raised by, English local authorities”— and— “the basis of distribution of grants” made to local authorities. These are political judgments. With the best will in the world one does not want to remove accountability. That was the burden of the argument that I made last time we debated this. The noble Lord speaks with authority and integrity. The formula grant distribution system for local government is already the subject of extensive consultation with stakeholders and engagement with Parliament. The Department for Communities and Local Government leads discussion and consultation with local authority finance experts and all interested government departments through the officer level settlement working group. Consultation document, are published where changes are proposed. On 17 July the department published a consultation document, Local Government Finance: Formula Grant Distribution. Full details are available on the department’s website and printed copies are available in the Library. We invite responses. It is an open process which will be looking at the formula grant for 2008 to 2011. Similarly, the process of looking at future spending plans in CSR07 has been open and rigorous. We have held seminars with those involved, with local authority representation, co-ordinated by the LGA. We have talked to interest groups, such as the Association of Directors of Social Services, and worked closely, as the noble Lord knows, to identify key spending areas, such as children’s services and adult social services to build up, improve and open out our evidence base. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Wanless report also drive us in that sense. The noble Lord will know that we have tough measures in place in the form of the new burdens doctrine, to make sure that departments make realistic assessments of the costs of any net new burdens. Therefore, while the process may not be entirely satisfactory from many people’s points of view, it is tough and open, as far as we can make it open within the framework of negotiations, which by definition are sometimes rather sensitive. Returning to the point, there is a difficult line to be drawn between those decisions and the question of where responsibility for spending stops. Is it not right that Ministers should be able to come to both Houses of Parliament and account for what has been decided and what is done?
- Time
- 19:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Bruce-LockhartConservative
- Quote
- I am grateful for the responses. Perhaps I did not explain that, as in Australia, the base increase in grant is always set by the Government. That is the Government’s job. It is simply the distribution, equalisation, population, demographic changes and the cost of new legislation which goes to the commission. Sir Michael Lyons was careful in his suggestions and if the amendment’s objectives are shared, I hope that we can continue to discuss them with the Government. I hope that the Government will continue to discuss them with the Local Government Association. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
- Time
- 19:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Bruce-LockhartConservative
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 246CB:
- Time
- 19:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- I know that the noble Lord feels passionately about this. I am at one with him about the outcomes he wants to achieve. He brings added value to this House as a result of his experience, and it would be good to have a proper debate rather than a truncated one. I hope that there will be an opportunity for that in the autumn, when we will be talking about contextual differences and the sort of things that the Government are bringing forward through, for example, the sub-national review and the proposed new duty regarding the assessment of economic issues. I hope the noble Lord will not be too disappointed when I say that, although I understand why he feels passionately and we share his commitment to reducing worklessness and creating opportunity, his chosen method is not easy for us to accept. I will explain why. The amendment would make modified sustainable community strategies a means through which local authorities could raise money and circumvent any legislative restrictions on their powers. That would have unwelcome consequences. It would permit local authorities that change their sustainable community strategies in the way he envisaged to vary the conditions by which claimants receive their benefits and to have much greater control over benefits administration. They would also be able to assume the Secretary of State’s role in respect, for example, of Jobcentre Plus and Connexions services. There are even more wide-ranging changes which would not be subject to parliamentary debate or wider consultation. The Secretary of State would be required to fund any transfer of powers or duties to such local authorities. That is the context and part of the response to the amendment. However, the other argument is that the power of well-being, which is quite powerful, is available to local authorities under Section 2 of the 2000 Act. It was there to fill a gap, to become a power of first resort, to incur expenditure, give financial assistance to any person, enter into arrangements or agreements and do anything in relation to, or for the benefit of, any person or area situated outside the area as well as inside it. It is an extensive power but it has been so little used for innovative purposes that we are now going to address it. We plan to launch a publication to help different target audiences in local authorities to move the agenda forward. Some of what the noble Lord wants to achieve could be achieved by the better understanding and use of the well-being power. We have some good local examples of how it could be used. Section 4 of the 2000 Act places on local authorities a related duty to set out a community strategy for improving well-being and they must link together. However, the well-being powers are subject to certain limitations, which are set out in Section 3(1) and (2) of the 2000 Act. Those limitations cover taking actions that are expressly prohibited in legislation and raising money by means of precepts, borrowing or otherwise. Among other things, the noble Lord’s amendment would permit local authorities to circumvent that. That would create a problem. Section 3(1) prevents the exercise of the well-being power where there is a prohibition, restriction or limitation on their powers contained in any enactment. We know that those limitations are in legislation for good reasons. The well-being power framework also contains a power under Section 5 of the Local Government Act 2000 which permits the Secretary of State, by order, to amend legislation that prevents local authorities from exercising the power or obstructs them in doing so. Of necessity, this power is quite bureaucratic because, when it is used, it requires wide consultation with local government and is subject to parliamentary scrutiny and debate. The detail of this procedure is set out in Section 9 of the 2000 Act. We would expect local authorities to draw any such legislation to the attention of the Secretary of State, although it has not occurred very often.
- Time
- 19:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Bruce-LockhartConservative
- Quote
- I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. I am grateful that she shares my objectives and motives, and I hope that we can continue to discuss this matter. I was not sure that I agreed with her when she said that equity means that we have to have a national system. One problem with a national system is that it tends to be a Whitehall, one-size-fits-all, top-down system. We need systems to be locally tailored to local circumstances and to individual circumstances. I do not totally accept that this is just about being more ambitious with the power of well-being. In the United States, where individual states picked up President Clinton’s very bold welfare reforms and were able to bring in their own powers, we could see that devolution made a real difference on the ground. As I said, I am grateful for the Minister’s response and I hope that we can continue to discuss this issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 239 [Orders, regulations and guidance]:
- Time
- 20:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 246D:
- Time
- 20:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 246E and 246F:
- Time
- 20:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 247:
- Time
- 20:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- I understand that Amendment No. 255C excludes all members of an executive from a standards committee. Why did the Government think that necessary? What is being amended is the exclusion of the leader from the standards committee, but the executive is a part of the authority. There is a whiff of setting the back-benchers against the executive on this. I do not know whether that was in the Government’s mind. The noble Baroness said that Amendment No. 272 would give clarity. I am delighted that those who need to know understand the provision. At an earlier stage, I raised the point that for some parts of the Bill it would be helpful to have a flow chart to follow through the processes and to find out when the relevant elections are and which elections are relevant. I am not sure whether the term “relevant elections” has the same meaning throughout the Bill. It is defined in different places. That observation is more indicative of weariness at this stage of the Bill than anything else. However, perhaps I have given the Minister an opportunity to consider the standards point.
- Time
- 20:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- There is nothing sinister in Amendment No. 255C. By amending Section 53 of the Local Government Act 2000 so that members of an elected executive are unable to sit on a standards committee of a local authority, it is consistent with the existing arrangements, which prevent an elected mayor or executive leader sitting on a standards committee. Since standards committees have been established, members of the executive have never been able to be members. It is not a policy change; it is simply terminology. My background notes on Amendment No. 272 are elliptical in the extreme. The noble Baroness’s point refers to Part 3 of the Bill. I should be grateful if she will allow me to write to her on that. On Question, amendment agreed to. Clause 239, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 240 and 241 agreed to.
- Time
- 20:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 247ZA:
- Time
- 20:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- It may not be a bang but neither is it a whimper. It is an important point. The amendment seeks to narrow the Secretary of State’s power to amend other legislation in implementing the Bill by amending Clause 242. I am assured that provisions such as Clause 242 are very common in legislation. They are taken so that it is possible, in implementing a Bill, to make necessary amendments to other legislation that needs tidying up as a result of the Bill’s passing. They also ensure that Ministers have sufficient powers to ensure that Bills can be implemented in full. Clause 242 would not allow Ministers to make secondary legislation that extended beyond the scope of the provisions of the Bill. It would be unfortunate, however, if necessary amendments to other legislation could not be made to give proper effect to the Bill because of technical doubts over whether the power to do so would be wide enough. The power already has built-in limits on its use. Moreover, all orders made under it will be laid before both Houses and, if the Government wish to amend primary legislation using the power, that will be subject to a debate in this House. I appreciate the forensic techniques that the noble Baroness has employed throughout our consideration of the Bill. It is a fitting climax to Clause 242.
- Time
- 20:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- It is a fitting climax in that I get slapped down. I know that the wording is common. That does not make it right. The Minister used the phrase “tidying up”. In the amendments that we are no doubt about to race through, we see the complexity and scale of the provisions that any one Bill requires to tidy up other pieces of legislation. I still believe that “supplementing” is a broader term and has broader connotations than are appropriate. However, it would not be appropriate for me to continue at greater length now. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 242 agreed to. Clause 243 [Extent]:
- Time
- 20:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 247A to 249:
- Time
- 20:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 250 to 252:
- Time
- 20:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 253 to 254A:
- Time
- 20:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 255A to 262A:
- Time
- 20:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 263 to 272:
- Time
- 20:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 273 to 279:
- Time
- 20:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 279A:
- Time
- 20:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 280 to 286:
- Time
- 20:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗