Debates — Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act

1st reading in the Lords

22 Oct 200786 speechesView in Hansard ↗

Lord Greavesmoved Amendment No. 5:
Speaker
Lord GreavesLiberal Democrat
Quote
moved Amendment No. 5:
Time
16:39
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Morgan of DrefelinMy Lords, I hope I can reassure the noble Lord. I appreciate that this is the first opportunity we have had to discuss…
Speaker
Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
Quote
My Lords, I hope I can reassure the noble Lord. I appreciate that this is the first opportunity we have had to discuss his concerns because this amendment was not moved on Report, so I hope I can take him through the Government’s thinking in some detail. We do not believe there would be any benefit in applying the noble Lord’s amendment as it would have no material effect on the Bill. The word “appropriate”, which appears in Clause 56(2), is clearly defined in Clause 56(3). The noble Lord asked me to clarify the Government’s reasons for introducing these provisions and I am happy to do so. I remind the House that decisions on electoral arrangements are matters for the Electoral Commission following recommendations made to it by the Boundary Committee for England. It is therefore for those bodies to decide what the number of members per ward should be when conducting electoral reviews. I know that the noble Lord is well aware of that. The Government have brought forward Clause 56 because we believe that where community identities can be represented, effective and convenient local government provided and equality of representation delivered, it is desirable that all local government electors should be able to vote in all local government elections in their area. As I said in Committee, the Electoral Commission stated in January 2004 that it was fundamentally unfair and, in their view, unacceptable that within an individual local authority some electors should have fewer opportunities to vote and influence the political composition of the authority than their neighbours in a different ward. Where there are elections by halves and the wards have two councillors, and where there are elections by thirds and the wards have three councillors, equity of opportunity to electors is provided at the ballot box. Having said that, I can deal with the noble Lord’s specific concerns. If there are elections by thirds and you have three-member wards in the area, all electors will have the opportunity to influence the composition of the council at each election. We believe that that is desirable. Where there are single-member wards and elections by thirds, electors will be able to vote in only one of the three elections held during a four-year electoral cycle. We believe that, where it is possible to avoid this situation, it is desirable to do so. The noble Lord asked us to clarify when single or two-member wards might be recommended where there are elections by thirds. As I have already explained, decisions in individual areas are for the Electoral Commission to make. I hope that the rationale behind Clause 56 will be seen as straightforward. It has been drafted to ensure that the Boundary Committee and Electoral Commission will be able to continue to reflect the individual circumstances in each local authority area. The statutory criteria within Section 13 of the Local Government Act states that the committee and commission shall have regard to the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities, the need to secure effective and convenient local government, the need to secure equality of representation and the desirability of securing that each ward in the district returns an appropriate number of councillors. There is a distinction between “need” and “desirability”. We have ensured that having the appropriate number of councillors per ward is desirable. If—I think that this is the situation that concerns the noble Lord—the Boundary Committee and the Electoral Commission cannot reflect the community identity and interests of an area and provide equality of representation and effective and convenient local government while providing for the appropriate number of councillors, then we would expect them to recommend a different number of councillors. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that it is important that electoral arrangements reflect the local circumstances. If, having conducted an electoral review of an area with elections by thirds, consulted local people and considered the evidence before it, the Boundary Committee decides that it is not possible to meet the statutory criteria with anything other than two-member wards, it will be able to recommend that. We strongly believe that the Boundary Committee and Electoral Commission should at least be required to consider—I emphasise “consider”—whether it is desirable, when weighed against the other statutory criteria, for every elector to vote in every election. Where there are elections by thirds and the Boundary Committee can recommend a two-member or three-member ward and the other statutory criteria can be met by both, we believe that it would be desirable for a three-member ward to be recommended as it would allow the electors in that ward to vote in every election. Finally, I clarify that this clause does not apply to councils which hold whole-council elections because, where those elections are held, every elector votes in every election once every four years. Noble Lords will recall that councils operating whole-council elections can make a request to the Electoral Commission for an electoral review to provide for single-member wards under Clause 55, if they so choose. I hope that I have successfully explained why the provisions in Clause 56 have been brought forward. The noble Lord said that this is a small issue but we have tried to give it the justice that it deserves. I appreciate his concern and have attempted to emphasise the important roles of the Boundary Committee and Electoral Commission. I hope that, with that full explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Time
16:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord GreavesMy Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s response and for the effort that she has made to engage in a proper discussi…
Speaker
Lord GreavesLiberal Democrat
Quote
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s response and for the effort that she has made to engage in a proper discussion of the different issues. I still do not think that the Government have tackled the real questions of community interests and identity which lie behind this. I am grateful for the assurance that “appropriate” and “divisible” mean the same thing in this context and that it is non-judgmental in that sense. That will help. It is down to the Boundary Committee and the Electoral Commission to come up with recommendations, and they make those recommendations in the context of the legislation. There is absolutely no doubt that if the balance has not been shifted entirely to one end of the spectrum—and I understand from the Minister’s comments that that is the case—it has nevertheless shifted some distance along. If this provision is passed, it will not be where it was. That continues to concern me. I know that the Electoral Commission said that it is fundamentally unfair and unacceptable for some wards not to poll when others do. I have only ever heard that argument from the Electoral Commission. I have never heard anyone in areas that poll by thirds and which have single-member wards in rural areas complain about it. They ask questions such as, “Are we up this year?”, and “Why not?”, but nobody is marching in the streets waving placards about the issue. It is an academic issue that was invented by the Electoral Commission when it produced this report—which, frankly, everyone thought had been put on a shelf and forgotten about. Although it is a small issue, it is a big one in the 50 or 60 local authorities where it will apply and where in future they will find that the system has changed. And they may not like it. There will not be a huge amount of bother and people will not march in Whitehall with placards when it happens, but some people in some places will be very upset by it. Despite what the Minister has said, which is helpful, I think the Government have been misguided in the wording of this clause. I shall not press the matter further today. I am not someone who keeps bound copies of Hansard around the walls of my house but occasionally I mark and file away copies in the hope that I will remember where they are when these issues are raised. This is one such issue and I can assure the Minister that her words today may be quoted in the future. I thank her for her answer and beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 6 not moved.] Clause 59 [Change of name of electoral area]:
Time
16:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Andrewsmoved Amendment No. 7:
Speaker
Baroness AndrewsLabour
Quote
moved Amendment No. 7:
Time
16:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Andrewsmoved Amendment No. 8:
Speaker
Baroness AndrewsLabour
Quote
moved Amendment No. 8:
Time
16:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Andrewsmoved Amendments Nos. 9 and 10:
Speaker
Baroness AndrewsLabour
Quote
moved Amendments Nos. 9 and 10:
Time
16:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Andrewsmoved Amendments Nos. 11 to 22:
Speaker
Baroness AndrewsLabour
Quote
moved Amendments Nos. 11 to 22:
Time
16:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Andrewsmoved Amendment No. 23:
Speaker
Baroness AndrewsLabour
Quote
moved Amendment No. 23:
Time
16:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Andrewsmoved Amendment No. 24:
Speaker
Baroness AndrewsLabour
Quote
moved Amendment No. 24:
Time
16:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Andrewsmoved Amendments Nos. 25 to 28:
Speaker
Baroness AndrewsLabour
Quote
moved Amendments Nos. 25 to 28:
Time
16:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Andrewsmoved Amendment No. 29:
Speaker
Baroness AndrewsLabour
Quote
moved Amendment No. 29:
Time
16:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Scott of Needham Marketmoved Amendment No. 30:
Speaker
Baroness Scott of Needham MarketLiberal Democrat
Quote
moved Amendment No. 30:
Time
16:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness HanhamMy Lords, we are not wholly against appointed councillors, and we have not been. However, we need to be sure that safeg…
Speaker
Baroness HanhamConservative
Quote
My Lords, we are not wholly against appointed councillors, and we have not been. However, we need to be sure that safeguards about this will appear in secondary legislation. I assume—but maybe I am incorrect—that there is a difference between co-opted and appointed members. In general, members are co-opted on to specific committees, such as social services or education, because they have specific expertise. Appointed members could be used to fill places when there is a not a full slate of candidates at an election. We want reassurance that appointed councillors will not be supernumerary to the council to any great extent and that they will make up gaps that have not been filled during an election or there will be a cap on the number that can be appointed. We need reassurance. I am not as strongly against this as the Liberals, and I shall not support them if they go to a vote, but we need to be sure that secondary legislation will spell this out in the sort of detail required to answer the questions that have been raised. I do not think you can have appointed councils. If there is a parish council of 25, it is clearly ridiculous to have 25 appointed councillors. You either have to have a limited number to make up the 25, or it has to be said that there cannot be more than two or three, as is the case with co-opted members. We seek reassurance from the Minister that there will be proper controls over this and proper structures by which appointed councillors can be appointed. The trouble about under-18s is that they become 18 very quickly, so whether they would be allowed to carry on once they are over 18 is another question.
Time
16:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Morgan of DrefelinMy Lords, I hope that I can offer the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, the reassurance that she is looking for, but I feel…
Speaker
Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
Quote
My Lords, I hope that I can offer the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, the reassurance that she is looking for, but I feel that I will disappoint the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. I am aware that she is unhappy with these proposals, and I hope that I can reassure her. We had full discussions on this matter in Committee and on Report, and I support the comments made by my noble friend Lady Crawley at earlier stages of the Bill. I shall reiterate a couple of her comments, but we have discussed this principle. When we considered this clause in Committee, my noble friend Lady Crawley gave assurances about the regulations that we have in mind for this clause. In particular, she said that, “the regulations we will bring forward will ensure that the number of appointees in any parish council can only be small. By small, I mean no more than one or two in most councils. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, talked about larger market town councils. We would consider a figure of three or four appropriate for such councils”.—[Official Report, 11/7/07; col. 1484.] She was clear that we are talking about a small number of appointees. We have also said that we are working with the sector on the regulations. I believe that they will offer the proper safeguards and controls that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, is looking for. It is important that they are being developed with the sector. That is continuing, and we want to establish a clear view on this before bringing regulations to this House for full and proper scrutiny, if that is what the House wants to see. In those circumstances, having stressed that we have discussed this extensively already, I am not persuaded that it is either necessary or desirable to put these specific rules in the Bill. I believe that there is actually not very much between us. I understand that the noble Baroness does not support this measure, but, given that we have already decided that the measure is staying in the Bill, I would prefer it if the Government could work through the details properly with organisations representing parishes and town councils. I will deal with some of the specific points raised. We need to be clear that co-optees are co-opted to a vacant parish council position, and that appointees—although we are talking about a small number—would be appointed for a shorter period of time. On the point that an under 18-year old is not under 18 for very long, we would not expect them to be appointed for more than a year. I think it is very clear that councillors who are co-opted become councillors, whereas with the development of the regulations we would envisage that appointees would not, for example, be expected to chair important committees. The role of the appointed parish councillor is, as we have said in the past, to ensure that particular skills can be brought to the council where it feels they are lacking; to deal with an issue about diversity if the council feels that it is lacking in a particular diverse group; and, as we have heard, to involve young people. This route could be used to ensure that young people become involved in a parish council. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, particularly pointed out that the National Association of Local Councils does not approve of this measure. I am advised that, particularly when we are talking about the involvement of young people, 16 to 18 year-olds, there is support for the use of the appointed route to promote the involvement of young people. There is support for this measure. I recognise noble Lords’ concerns that we need to have in place proper controls and safeguards. That is why the Government are working with stakeholders to develop regulations that will be brought before both Houses. We are talking about small numbers. I understand that people would be concerned if parish councils were going to be swamped by appointees; but that is absolutely not going to be the case. This is about adding value to parish councils should they wish to do that. With that reassurance I hope that the noble Baroness will consider withdrawing her amendment.
Time
16:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness HanhamMy Lords, before the Minister sits down, can she clear up a slight confusion over whether these regulations will be und…
Speaker
Baroness HanhamConservative
Quote
My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can she clear up a slight confusion over whether these regulations will be under the affirmative or negative procedure? The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, was quite clear that it would be negative and therefore the matter would not come back to the House. The Minister has now said that it will be considered by the House. It would help to know what the procedure is going to be.
Time
16:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Morgan of DrefelinMy Lords, if I may clarify that point, the procedure will be negative.
Speaker
Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
Quote
My Lords, if I may clarify that point, the procedure will be negative.
Time
16:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Scott of Needham MarketMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee certainly had somet…
Speaker
Baroness Scott of Needham MarketLiberal Democrat
Quote
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee certainly had something to say about the fact that these changes would be brought forward without the House having a full opportunity to debate them. I want to remark briefly on the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. Her experience on principal councils is the reverse of the situation in parish councils in that they do not co-opt people to serve on sub-committees but do so in order to make up the numbers where an insufficient number of people have put their names forward. I am not clear from our debate about the status of these new councillors with regard to the number of councillors on a parish council. Parish councils cannot increase or decrease their size willy-nilly they are set in local statutes. They have to apply to the district council to vary the numbers. None of our debates has made it clear where appointed councillors would fit in. It is very clear where co-optees stand, but this is a new category and we do not know the position. I am concerned not just about the principle of appointment, but the practice. It may be possible for appointed councillors to replace elected councillors. We have not had a full debate about that. I remain profoundly unhappy about this measure. However small, parish councils are local government units. As I have said before in debates—
Time
17:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Morgan of DrefelinMy Lords, I should like to try to make this clear. We do not envisage that appointed councillors will replace co-opted…
Speaker
Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
Quote
My Lords, I should like to try to make this clear. We do not envisage that appointed councillors will replace co-opted councillors. A co-opted councillor takes a full councillor position. Appointed councillors are not the same; they have a shorter term of office which will be set out in regulations. They are extra to the council and will be there to add skills and experience and to enhance diversity. They are not there to replace co-opted councillors, and certainly not in any way to replace elected councillors.
Time
17:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Scott of Needham MarketMy Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for clarifying the point. Nevertheless, I and my colleagues on these Benches remai…
Speaker
Baroness Scott of Needham MarketLiberal Democrat
Quote
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for clarifying the point. Nevertheless, I and my colleagues on these Benches remain concerned that what we have here, albeit on a micro scale, is a constitutional change. It introduces appointees to what have previously been democratically elected bodies, and to leave all the detail to regulations is not satisfactory. This provision has been brought in with just a few lines in the Bill, with the detail left to secondary legislation. As we know, parliamentary scrutiny is not always of the quality that your Lordships would like to see. Therefore I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Time
17:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Morgan of Drefelinmoved Amendment No. 33:
Speaker
Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
Quote
moved Amendment No. 33:
Time
17:28
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord GreavesMy Lords, I read these government amendments and thought they were fairly sensible. I could not explain the detailed te…
Speaker
Lord GreavesLiberal Democrat
Quote
My Lords, I read these government amendments and thought they were fairly sensible. I could not explain the detailed technicalities as the Minister has done but I congratulate the Government on seeing sense on the matter. This kind of thing will affect only a few people in a few places on a few occasions, but it is important. In view of what the Minister said, I shall definitely keep on file a copy of today’s proceedings in Hansard. On Question, amendment agreed to.
Time
17:28
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Andrewsmoved Amendments Nos. 34 and 35:
Speaker
Baroness AndrewsLabour
Quote
moved Amendments Nos. 34 and 35:
Time
17:28
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Andrewsmoved Amendment No. 36:
Speaker
Baroness AndrewsLabour
Quote
moved Amendment No. 36:
Time
17:28
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Andrewsmoved Amendments Nos. 37 and 38:
Speaker
Baroness AndrewsLabour
Quote
moved Amendments Nos. 37 and 38:
Time
17:28
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Tylermoved Amendment No. 39:
Speaker
Lord TylerLiberal Democrat
Quote
moved Amendment No. 39:
Time
17:28
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness AndrewsMy Lords, this is a refreshing return to some of the fundamental principles in the Bill. I could not agree more with th…
Speaker
Baroness AndrewsLabour
Quote
My Lords, this is a refreshing return to some of the fundamental principles in the Bill. I could not agree more with the noble Lord in that I do not for a moment believe that Whitehall knows best. The thrust, burden and tone of the Bill and of the debate at each stage of our proceedings has been to reinforce and verify the fact that Whitehall does not know best but is in a more balanced partnership with local government which can reflect the real needs of the local community. That is reflected, in some ways, in local area agreements against the background of the country as a whole and its needs. The noble Lord was quite right that the Bill is about empowering local communities and local councillors. Various provisions celebrate the role of local councillors and strengthen their visibility. I shall talk about the community call for action in a moment. The Government started this process with the White Paper; and the Roberts commission will now take us there in terms of the quality and scope of the people we want to see in local government and the tasks they have to undertake. Two arguments flow from that: the noble Lord deployed the wider argument in relation to the new unitaries but also about the making of place. So much has been said about place-making in recent months, led by Michael Lyons, who introduced the term. I believe it is powerful and effective to talk about making places; the partnerships which are reflected in the Bill and the local area agreements are about people coming together to say what they want about the place they live in and agreeing on how they deliver that through local government, now working in much more explicit and determined partnerships. Beyond place-making in the local area, the noble Lord talked about other things that we have addressed in the Bill. How do we work beyond a local area so that the sub-region and all its natural contours can also be reflected in the devolution of power in the making of, for example, multi-area agreements, which will grow from the local area agreements? My honourable friend in another place talked about the disposition of power to make something of the sub-region—transport, of course, has a particular relevance, but there are other factors outside local areas as well.
Time
17:28
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord TylerMy Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s comments; she has entirely fulfilled my expectation. She has made as mollify…
Speaker
Lord TylerLiberal Democrat
Quote
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s comments; she has entirely fulfilled my expectation. She has made as mollifying and positive contribution as she has on previous parts of the Bill. However, I worry when I hear that there is a technical reason for what otherwise seems to be a simple statement of the obvious. She says that local authorities will be very much involved in the preparation of LAAs—I understand that—but we wanted to have that in the Bill. She has used all the right phrases to try to make me feel better about this and I appreciate that. The Minister has spoken of the way in which the partnerships may operate; I accept that. She accepts that sub-regions may well be the right units for looking at transport and economic planning issues; I agree with that. Indeed, I am worried when Ministers say that they absolutely agree with me—it makes me think that perhaps I have made a mistake—but on this occasion I understand precisely why she is saying that. My worry is that it is one thing to say—and this will be on the official record—that this a locally driven agreement, but when we seek to put that in the Bill it appears not to be possible to do so. She said that it is not possible to take central government out of the picture, but that is not what we were intending to do. We simply wanted to make sure that the responsible authority as defined in the Bill should be able to seek an LAA definition. There is still a flavour of a top-down bureaucratic approach here. I take everything the Minister says and I understand it, but I am sure my noble friends and other Members of your Lordships’ House will want to make sure that when the guidance comes forward it is not just putting on paper a firm conviction that the man or woman in Whitehall knows best. However, I appreciate the care the noble Baroness has taken and the assurances she has given us and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 108 [Duty to have regard to local improvement targets]:
Time
17:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Hanhammoved Amendment No. 40:
Speaker
Baroness HanhamConservative
Quote
moved Amendment No. 40:
Time
17:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness AndrewsMy Lords, I feel that I have answered most of these amendments previously and I try not to repeat myself. I appreciate…
Speaker
Baroness AndrewsLabour
Quote
My Lords, I feel that I have answered most of these amendments previously and I try not to repeat myself. I appreciate the spirit in which the noble Baroness has moved the amendments and the seriousness with which we have debated over the past three stages the relationship between local and central government, but the amendments would have the effect of destroying that partnership by removing the key partner. We would be left with a situation in which local authorities would be dictating to central government what central government’s priorities were, which would be unbalanced and unrealistic. The most interesting feature of an LAA is the requirement for discussion-based negotiations between local partnerships and central government. We believe the right balance has been struck and that we cannot take the responsibility away from central government; it will be the only way in which central government can signal priorities and involve individual localities. It sits alongside the significant decision to strip down the national indicators from 1,200 to 200, which has been much welcomed by local government. Along with that, the performance regime has been lightened to meet the real risks and challenges and it now has far greater freedom to determine how to meet local needs. The problem with the noble Baroness’s amendments is that they would pre-judge the negotiations that have already begun and will go on over the next six months. We have already made clear in the operational guidance that we published on 18 September that these new-style LAAs will have to have robust and open negotiation at their hearts. The effect of the amendments would be to try to distinguish prior to the approval of targets the ones which are of local interest and those which are of national interest. We presume a conflict of interest, which I addressed previously, because I do not see why that should be seen to be the case; it is a false distinction. The effect of the amendments will be that from within the draft LAA local partners will need to specify which targets are of national interest. There is a presumption that the Secretary of State is a tyrannical figure dictating to localities rather than negotiating with them. That is not the case. We are talking here about the role of the regional officers, a collection of delightful and efficient people who are well known in the locality and know the area well. There will be priorities that they will want to tackle and there will be total agreement on the fact that they are both locally and centrally important. As I said, the priorities may be reducing worklessness or may be improving school standards; they will be different in different areas. It will depend on the circumstances of each case whether or not they are designated as national targets. Essentially, those will be the only targets which are reported on because the local targets, the non-designated targets, will not have to be reported on. If we removed the Secretary of State from the process, we would have a purely local agreement. Within that, local authorities would not find themselves totally free of central government’s priorities, health and welfare; what they would find was that central government departments would employ their own individual targets for each authority along with separate performance management, so we would be back to a situation in which there were far more targets and far more—I would not say anarchy—but individual negotiation. We are trying to get away from that sort of situation. In the kindest spirit I suggest that what noble Lords propose is not only unrealistic but actually means that we would have to turn away from those genuine improvements that we have made to reduce the role of local government and which we see now in the LAAs, which introduce a new and better way of doing things and have been welcomed. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept those arguments. She has been valiant in her championing of local targets and local authorities, as I always suspect she will be, but I hope that she can now withdraw her amendment.
Time
17:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness HanhamMy Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. We may see government officers in a slightly different light, and I am no…
Speaker
Baroness HanhamConservative
Quote
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. We may see government officers in a slightly different light, and I am not entirely sure that across local government the Minister’s bright view will be accepted. However, as she says we have had quite a lot of debate on this matter. It is now going to be a question of sucking it and seeing whether the provision is going to work in the right way. I hope that all the words that the Minister has spoken today and on other occasions to the effect that the Secretary of State will have a light-touch regime will be borne out—and borne out by all those regional officers. That is where the negotiations will take place, so the Secretary of State’s view must be passed down to them. I am sure that it will be, but we shall wait and see. I have taken this as far as I can go and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 110 [Revision and addition of targets]: [Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 not moved.] Clause 111 [Designated targets: revision proposals]: [Amendments Nos. 43 to 48 not moved.] Clause 121 [Powers to require information from partner authorities]:
Time
18:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Andrewsmoved Amendment No. 49:
Speaker
Baroness AndrewsLabour
Quote
moved Amendment No. 49:
Time
18:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness HanhamMy Lords, I thank the Minister very much for the effort that has been put into this matter. We have been trying to see…
Speaker
Baroness HanhamConservative
Quote
My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for the effort that has been put into this matter. We have been trying to see our way through it throughout our consideration of the Bill, and the Local Government Association and local authorities are very concerned about it. I understand that the Local Government Association is now content with what has been done. We always thought that it would be right to bring the Police and Justice Act under the local government Bill in this respect. However, reading the provision as carefully as I can, I think that the Police and Justice Act, given the way in which it has been amended, does what the local government Bill would have done—crime and disorder matters have been brought under it. However, I have a question for the Minister. I seek to clarify that the words “crime and disorder committee” appear in the Police and Justice Act 2006. As regards a local authority, we need to be clear that a crime and disorder committee is a scrutiny committee that oversees crime and disorder. I assume that that will be different in the various local authorities. In some it will be Cabinet overview and scrutiny; in others it will be a specific committee. However, we need to be clear that the local authority will not have to establish a specific crime and disorder committee. I say for the benefit of Hansard that the Minister is nodding in agreement to that view; that will save the Minister from having to respond. I thank her for that. We are now where we wanted to be; the community calls for action are tied up and can be dealt with in exactly the same way through both these pieces of legislation. Therefore, I need say no more other than again to thank the Minister. We discussed this during the Recess. An enormous amount of work has been done since then, which I very much appreciate.
Time
18:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord GreavesMy Lords, I wish to ask the Minister a question to clarify something in my mind. Where there is a crime and disorder co…
Speaker
Lord GreavesLiberal Democrat
Quote
My Lords, I wish to ask the Minister a question to clarify something in my mind. Where there is a crime and disorder committee by whatever name at a district level in a two-tier area, does the new system mean that references to that committee can be made by either a district councillor or a county councillor? Is that what is being put forward? It seems to me entirely sensible, but it is a question that I should like to be answered. As I understand it, crime and disorder committees in two-tier areas will exist in some form at both the county and district level, and so the right to refer is not being taken away from district councillors at a district level but will apply also to county councillors to that district level committee. Is that the case?
Time
18:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness AndrewsMy Lords, I believe that that is the case.
Speaker
Baroness AndrewsLabour
Quote
My Lords, I believe that that is the case.
Time
18:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Harris of HaringeyMy Lords, before my noble friend responds to the points that have been made, I should declare an interest as a vice-pre…
Speaker
Lord Harris of HaringeyLabour
Quote
My Lords, before my noble friend responds to the points that have been made, I should declare an interest as a vice-president of the Association of Police Authorities and as a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority. I apologise to your Lordships for this being my first intervention on this very interesting Bill, which I have followed with enormous interest, particularly some of the more arcane points, of which this is no doubt one. It is a relief to see the marvellous way in which joined-up government operates. I recall that during the debates on the clause that we are now amending in the Police and Justice Bill I sought assurances from the noble Lord who took that Bill through the House that what was being offered in terms of overview and scrutiny and the community call for action would be consistent with the local government Bill that we had been promised would be introduced in this Session. That Bill is now before us. My noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton assured us that there had been lots of talk between the relevant government departments and that what would be proposed would be consistent. Presumably, we can be assured that my noble friend’s amendment has been discussed with all the relevant government departments and that there is a feeling that this is totally joined up and that everyone is working together on precisely this point. I noticed that on 6 July my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton said on behalf of the Government in respect of this issue: “The Secretary of State continues to offer assurances that we still believe it appropriate to include the police authority on the overview and scrutiny committee functions, and the regulation-making power in Clause 18”— whatever that might have been at the time— “allows for that flexibility”.—[Official Report, 6/7/06; col. 391.] I should be grateful if my noble friend could clarify whether there will continue to be an expectation that police authority members will be involved in the crime and disorder committee, however it is constituted in any particular local authority. It is doubly important that that assurance is given due to the interesting definition of “crime and disorder matter” that will now be in the Bill. The definition of a, “local crime and disorder matter”, as being a matter that, “affects all or part of the electoral area”, means that there is a very broad definition of crime and disorder. For example, if you were living in a remote and rural part of Merseyside, you might feel that the problem of the level of crime and disorder prevalent in certain parts of the city of Liverpool was creating an effect in which policing resources were drawn from your local area to deal with pressing crime problems elsewhere. That is likely to be a common feeling. I recall from my time as chairman of the Metropolitan Police Authority that assumptions were often made in what purported to be some of the quieter London boroughs that resources were being drained from them to deal with problems elsewhere in London. The effect of this definition is that it will be possible to say that the crime and disorder committee should be discussing everything that relates to crime and disorder in the entire police authority area, because that will affect the resources that are available to deal with crime and disorder in the electoral area concerned. I am sure that many crime and disorder committees, or whatever they will be called, will have lots of other things to do and will not necessarily do that. However, this definition enables that to happen. Under those circumstances, being able to call on the advice and involvement of someone from the police authority in question who will be able to put those resourcing issues, for example, in a broader context will be an essential part of it. I hope that when she replies my noble friend will be able not only to clarify the question about how the definition is intended to be applied but to repeat the assurance given by my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton that police authority membership will be included on such overview and scrutiny committees.
Time
18:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness AndrewsMy Lords, I shall start with my noble friend, who speaks as usual with great authority. First, on being joined up, we h…
Speaker
Baroness AndrewsLabour
Quote
My Lords, I shall start with my noble friend, who speaks as usual with great authority. First, on being joined up, we have tabled the amendment precisely as a demonstration that the Government are very much of the opinion that we should bring the two systems, which were separate, into line with each other. That is a very good example of departments working together for a common cause. My noble friend used a quotation from my noble friend Lord Bassam. We were looking forward to having that debate on Amendment No. 54, which is to be moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, who has similar concerns. I was going to use that quotation and say that it is very much our expectation that the statement is still accurate. My noble friend is right in that respect. On the use of the word “affects”, we want to ensure that people affected, for instance, by the proverbial neighbour from hell are not prevented from getting help from their council simply because it is across electoral boundaries. I hope that that is another example of joined-up activity. In relation to the other questions, it would be worth restating the status of the crime and disorder committee, which was in the Police and Justice Act. Section 19 creates the crime and disorder committee. In authorities where there are executive arrangements, it will be an overview and scrutiny committee; elsewhere, it is just a committee of the council. District and county councils will refer their issues to their crime and disorder committees and county councillors will refer their concerns to their committees. They are parallel systems. There will not be overlap, which is why I said when responding to the amendment that it was important that there would be proper co-ordination at local level. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that.
Time
18:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Harris of HaringeyMy Lords, will my noble friend clarify the point about affecting a local area in a bit more detail? Her example of a ne…
Speaker
Lord Harris of HaringeyLabour
Quote
My Lords, will my noble friend clarify the point about affecting a local area in a bit more detail? Her example of a neighbour from hell who might be just over an electoral boundary was a good one. What about a situation in which people want to raise the fact that a football stadium at the other end of the county is having an impact on the level of policing resources available in a district some miles away? There will often be a belief—correct or not—that police resources are diverted to deal with a particular public order matter or level of crime and consequently that there are insufficient levels of resources in a particular area. I can see why people might feel strongly about that. If this is the intention, every crime and disorder committee can discuss just about anything to do with policing in a police authority area. If it is not the intention, we need some clarity from the Government on the limits of issues which legitimately affect the area and which the crime and disorder committee can legitimately discuss.
Time
18:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness AndrewsMy Lords, to an extent we are trying to anticipate what the crime and disorder committees will do, and they have not ye…
Speaker
Baroness AndrewsLabour
Quote
My Lords, to an extent we are trying to anticipate what the crime and disorder committees will do, and they have not yet been formed. As I understand it, in the example that my noble friend used, the issue could be raised, but it would be for the committee to decide whether it was too remote. I suggest that we are straying slightly outside the amendments and the stage that we are at. I will write to my noble friend about these matters, or perhaps we can have a conversation privately. On Question, amendment agreed to. Clause 122 [Overview and scrutiny committees: reports and recommendations]:
Time
18:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Andrewsmoved Amendments Nos. 50 and 51:
Speaker
Baroness AndrewsLabour
Quote
moved Amendments Nos. 50 and 51:
Time
18:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Andrewsmoved Amendment No. 52:
Speaker
Baroness AndrewsLabour
Quote
moved Amendment No. 52:
Time
18:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Andrewsmoved Amendment No. 53:
Speaker
Baroness AndrewsLabour
Quote
moved Amendment No. 53:
Time
18:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Harris of Richmondmoved Amendment No. 54:
Speaker
Baroness Harris of RichmondLiberal Democrat
Quote
moved Amendment No. 54:
Time
18:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Harris of HaringeyMy Lords, the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, clearly seeks clarification on the position of…
Speaker
Lord Harris of HaringeyLabour
Quote
My Lords, the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, clearly seeks clarification on the position of police authorities in respect of overview and scrutiny committees. One gauges from her speech that if the response from my noble friend the Minister were to say that regulations will make that clear, that would be more than sufficient to enable the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment. Perhaps my noble friend would consider what can be within the scope of the regulations, because I remain concerned that a number of such committees will have a very wide definition of which legitimate crime and disorder matters they can consider. It is clearly a matter for them to decide how broadly to define their activities, but, for example, the London Borough of Barnet has maintained throughout the past seven years that the level of resources put into policing in that borough are totally inadequate and unfair in respect of the resources that the people of Barnet pay in terms of the police precept. The London Borough of Newham repeatedly states that it should be able to run the police service in its borough. It seems to me that both of those boroughs’ overview and scrutiny committees are likely to say that they should be able to look at any matter falling within the purview of the police authority in London—covering all 32 boroughs—because it impacts on the level of policing in their areas. I hope that my noble friend will be able say that the regulations may define what are and what are not legitimate matters for overview and scrutiny committees to look at in particular boroughs. I am grateful to my noble friend for the offer of a letter, but these are important matters. I am not as sanguine as the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, in thinking that the arrangements under the Police and Justice Act would have worked wonderfully, because I am not convinced of that. However, given that something will be implemented, we must all try to make sure that there is clarity on what legitimate issues can be discussed by the committees and to ensure that, if those issues impact on wider questions of resources, the police authority is present and has a role.
Time
18:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness AndrewsMy Lords, I am not entirely sure that I can give my noble friend much satisfaction. I feel that I have strayed slightly…
Speaker
Baroness AndrewsLabour
Quote
My Lords, I am not entirely sure that I can give my noble friend much satisfaction. I feel that I have strayed slightly into a debate on a different area of policy. The basic issues are complex. Both noble Lords who have spoken are expert and are used to debating with each other on these matters. What I have to say in response may sound rather basic. Perhaps I may answer the noble Baroness’s question. Section 20(5) of the Police and Justice Act gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations as to the co-opting of additional members to serve on the crime and disorder committee of a local authority. I was interested in the way that the noble Baroness analysed the history of this. I accept that the intention was to hold the partnership to account—she is right—and I have no doubt that the main focus of those powers was intended to be the co-opting of members of police authorities. Subsection (6) goes on to provide that those regulations, “may provide for a person co-opted to serve as a member of a crime and disorder committee to have the same entitlement to vote as any other member”. My noble friend Lord Bassam can rarely have been quoted so widely and with such enthusiasm, and I am sorry he is not on the Bench alongside me to enjoy it. He said that the Secretary of State continues to offer assurances that we still believe it appropriate to include the police authority in the overview and scrutiny committee functions, and the regulation-making power in Clause 18—now Section 19—allows for that flexibility. That statement, I say again, is still accurate. The problem with the noble Baroness’s amendment is that, in the light of that statement, it is inappropriate that we should suddenly decide to deal with the matter in primary legislation. We have already decided to deal with it by regulation and—to deal with the noble Baroness’s concerns—in regulations. I take the points my noble friend raised about what regulations might contain, how judgments will be made and the impact that will have generally. I have already referred in passing to the fact that Sir Ronnie Flanagan’s review of the police service continues. One of the reasons we were not intervening in the Bill in this way is that we are waiting for that review, which is due around the end of this year. We have to consider it carefully, and we will bring to the House any of its recommendations that appear to require new legislation. A key focus will be the accountability of the police service and Sir Ronnie may well have something to say in that context about the role of police authorities, the role of crime and disorder committees and the relationship between the two. I cannot address those questions in the degree of detail I am sure my noble friend would like me to.
Time
18:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Harris of HaringeyMy Lords, I understand the dilemma my noble friend is in. Am I to interpret what she has said to mean that in a year’s…
Speaker
Lord Harris of HaringeyLabour
Quote
My Lords, I understand the dilemma my noble friend is in. Am I to interpret what she has said to mean that in a year’s time we might be debating a Home Office Bill that will recast the proposals for how crime and disorder committees might operate and how they will relate to these issues? In that case, perhaps the best approach would have been to leave well alone and not implement the relevant section of the Police and Justice Act.
Time
18:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness AndrewsMy Lords, my noble friend is clearly playing devil’s advocate, which is something he can do but is not his usual style.…
Speaker
Baroness AndrewsLabour
Quote
My Lords, my noble friend is clearly playing devil’s advocate, which is something he can do but is not his usual style. I cannot answer that question, just as I cannot pre-empt what Sir Ronnie Flanagan is going to say. His remit is to review the police service and, in particular, to look at the accountability of the police. I am sure the noble Lord has already seen the interim report. We will have to see; I can do no better than that at the moment. By the same token, I hope the noble Baroness will understand why I am reluctant to accept her amendment at this stage of the Bill.
Time
18:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Harris of RichmondMy Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for dealing with this issue and giving some sort of reassurance that the regula…
Speaker
Baroness Harris of RichmondLiberal Democrat
Quote
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for dealing with this issue and giving some sort of reassurance that the regulations will ensure that one representative of the police authority will sit on every local authority overview and scrutiny committee. I hope that will be written in the regulations. I understand that it cannot be in the Bill as it was not in the Police and Justice Act. There are, and will remain, significant concerns about the potential for the misuse of the community call for action, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has graphically illustrated, although at the end of the day it is the reputation of local government that is most at risk in that respect. I am grateful to the Minister for her reassurances and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 182 [Conduct that may be covered by code]:
Time
18:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Tordoff)My Lords, were Amendment No. 55 to be agreed, I should not be able to call Amendments No. 56 to 58 because of pre-empti…
Speaker
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Tordoff)Liberal Democrat
Quote
My Lords, were Amendment No. 55 to be agreed, I should not be able to call Amendments No. 56 to 58 because of pre-emption.
Time
18:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Hanhammoved Amendment No. 55:
Speaker
Baroness HanhamConservative
Quote
moved Amendment No. 55:
Time
18:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness HamweeMy Lords, I am pleased that the noble Baroness has tabled these amendments. I still have difficulty, not just with the…
Speaker
Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat
Quote
My Lords, I am pleased that the noble Baroness has tabled these amendments. I still have difficulty, not just with the concept—there are different views about offences committed in one’s private capacity and so on—but with the words, “where that conduct would constitute a criminal offence”. In her explanation the Minister tried to take us around in circles. I fear we dropped off one by one, and I was one of the first. I hope she will be able to set all this right today. I have difficulty with part of what the noble Baroness has included; namely, the conduct being, “directly relevant to the performance of their official functions”. There is a range of views on this and mine is probably at the tougher end. A councillor’s actions go to reputation. On the previous occasion, the Minister used paedophilia as an example that might well not be directly relevant to the performance of official functions; nevertheless, you do not want a convicted paedophile undertaking some of the functions of a local authority because, as I said, there is an issue of reputation. However, we must be much straighter and clearer than the Bill currently is about what conduct would constitute a criminal offence.
Time
18:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness AndrewsMy Lords, we certainly wrestled with this very complicated idea and I did my best to explain the issue. It is complicat…
Speaker
Baroness AndrewsLabour
Quote
My Lords, we certainly wrestled with this very complicated idea and I did my best to explain the issue. It is complicated but I can now take the House a little further forward and give a bit more background. However, I say to the noble Baroness at the start that she and I are absolutely at one: we are all concerned that a council’s reputation should not get tarnished or pre-empted in terms of the standards regime and the courts. I shall try to give her that assurance but I have to take her through why we cannot accept the amendments as they stand—because they do not deal with the problem that we have identified. The opposition amendments concern Clause 182 and the remit of the ethical regime to include conduct in a local authority member’s private capacity. Taken together, they aim to provide that the principles which govern the conduct of members, the model code of conduct they are required to follow and any additions to the code adopted by an authority should include conduct in members’ private capacity only where that conduct constitutes a criminal offence for which the member has been convicted and which is directly relevant to the official functions of a member. I appreciate how hard the noble Baroness has tried to address the problem by adding the words that she has, and that is why I am sorry to disappoint her. I certainly understand the concerns of noble Lords about the remit of the ethical regime for local authority members and why they believe it should be limited to include only certain conduct. I certainly agree with the need to limit carefully the private conduct with which the code should be allowed to concern itself in the interests of fair play for councillors. The intention behind the amendments is obviously to moderate the effect of the ethical regime by linking the remit of the code to conduct in members’ private capacity which constitutes a criminal offence for which the member has been convicted and which is directly relevant to the member’s official role. Nothing divides us here. I agree that there should be no right—or, indeed, opportunity—to treat a councillor as guilty of an act undertaken in his or her private capacity in advance of the usual criminal process. As I indicated on Report, our intention is that the new conduct regime for local authority members should have that principle at its heart. As I will explain, the standards regime will reflect that in the same way as the 2000 Act already provided for it in respect of the official conduct of councillors. I shall explain the issue in a little more detail. It is important to have on the record that we have not invented a new regime for private conduct. We are bound by the framework principles on which the 2000 Act, the code of conduct and the conduct regime were based. The regime was deliberately designed to ensure that councillors were as clear as possible about what was and was not covered, and clear that they could take advice on what sort of conduct might fall within the scope of the regime. Since then, the test of that has been whether conduct while performing a councillor’s role—that is, at the time the potential offence was committed—was capable of being “an offence” under the code. As I explained, in all logic, a breach of the code can apply only to the time at which the actions take place; it cannot be made retrospective. It is fair to say that, although not everyone is in favour of the code in principle—certainly, Members of this House have spoken against it—this aspect of it has not been challenged by local government. Therefore, we have simply replicated the principles and frameworks set out in 2000 in relation to private conduct. I know that in the amendment the noble Baroness has tried to address what she sees as a problem but, given the existing framework of the regime, an amendment to the rules in the way proposed using the phrase, “for which the member … has been convicted”— even given the attempt to make the conviction a certainty—would not remove the problem because, logically, the code would still have to be applied at the time the conduct was committed. As I said, the code cannot, in law, be linked retrospectively to conduct. That restriction would apply even in the case of the phrase referring to conduct that, “subsequently results in a criminal conviction”. As I have said, it is impossible for any conduct ever to have been found to be criminal conduct at the time it was undertaken. A member who has, for example, been accused of an offence relating to child pornography cannot have been convicted of that offence at the time of committing it. This replicates the principles and frameworks on which the regime was set up in 2000. However, perhaps I may be more positive and set aside the differences between us in terms of the means and set out how my intentions meet those of the noble Baroness. What we are providing for, and what we will make absolutely clear in guidance, is that no one should be presumed guilty until proved so. I also want to see that the ethical regime does not operate separately from the criminal process and ensure that no sanction in respect of a criminal offence is imposed by the regime unless a criminal court has first issued a conviction. Our approach to achieving that is to provide certainty in the Bill that the regime’s remit will include conduct in a member’s private capacity which would “constitute a criminal offence”. In effect, that wording means conduct which is capable of being regarded as a criminal offence, and, as we discussed, it allows us to be very clear in secondary legislation about what conduct should be regarded as an offence for the purpose of the ethical regime. That is one form of clarity. The second is to make it clear in regulation and guidance—here, we will replicate the guidance that already covers official conduct and we will promote it as such—that the judgment on whether a criminal offence has been committed will remain a matter for the courts. Critically, we will make it clear in guidance that, when an allegation involves a criminal prosecution, the procedure of the standards regime must be put on hold to await the outcome of the criminal processes. During that time, the standards committee will not be able to suspend the councillor and nor will the monitoring officer be able to pursue the investigation of the allegation. In the light of that, the only way that a standards committee will be able to conclude that there has been a breach of the code in respect of a member’s private conduct is if the court has convicted the member of that conduct. Therefore, there is nothing new about the sort of provisions that we have in mind to ensure that cases are put on hold when the criminal process is under way, not least because the Standards Board has in place long-standing guidance to its investigators in cases where investigations into members’ official conduct might prejudice or conflict with police investigations or the court process. The relevant guidance states: “An investigation should be deferred when there are ongoing criminal proceedings, a police investigation into the member’s conduct, and we cannot proceed without investigating similar alleged conduct or needing to come to conclusions of fact about events which are also the subject of some other investigation or court process”. Therefore, we are neither creating a new offence in respect of members’ private behaviour in addition to those already on the statute book, nor creating a new mechanism for judging whether an offence has been committed. The system will rely on the existing rules of the criminal system and on the existing practice whereby the decision-making processes of the ethical regime will not be triggered unless the usual legal processes have indicated that a member has committed the criminal offence. The ethical regime will not kick in merely where there is an allegation and neither a standards committee nor the Standards Board will be able to intervene in or make decisions on criminal allegations in advance of, or in anticipation of, the operation of the proper criminal processes. The effect will be exactly as the noble Baroness intends by way of her amendment. The approach for conduct in a member’s private capacity to fall within the code where that conduct would constitute a criminal offence is supported by the local government world, including the LGA. As I have already mentioned, I am very happy to put that on the record for everyone’s security. In addition, the amendments seek to provide an additional limitation on the remit of the ethical regime, so that members’ conduct in their private capacity would fall only within the remit of the ethical regime where that conduct constitutes a criminal offence for which the member has been convicted and which is directly relevant to the performance of the official functions of the member. You will not be surprised to hear me say that that is contrary to our policy intention. Indeed, that was one of the problems we had with the JCHR report.
Time
18:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness HanhamMy Lords, I thank the Minister for that very detailed reply. It is a pity that this legislation does not tie itself up…
Speaker
Baroness HanhamConservative
Quote
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very detailed reply. It is a pity that this legislation does not tie itself up with the model code of conduct 2007. It does not say the same thing and it would have been better if it had. Everyone will need to consider a criminal offence with the guidelines in one hand, otherwise they will not come to the same conclusion. I am also a little alarmed, as the Minister said that where the Standards Board could work out that something was capable of being a criminal offence, but no charges were brought, it could take that on board. Maybe the Minister did not say that, but we need to be clear about it: where no criminal offence is pursued by the authorities, then the Standards Board cannot suddenly wake up and say, “We think we ought to have a go at that as well”. If the Minister could reassure me about that, I think we have probably chewed this as much as we can. It is really helpful when legislation lines up with other matters, so that we are always clear what we are talking about. Perhaps the Minister could put a written response in the Library so that we can be clear that that is what we are talking about.
Time
19:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness HamweeMy Lords, can the Minister confirm—we had a quick word about this outside the Chamber—that the intention is that there…
Speaker
Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat
Quote
My Lords, can the Minister confirm—we had a quick word about this outside the Chamber—that the intention is that there will be no conviction for this purpose until all opportunities for appeal have been exhausted?
Time
19:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness AndrewsMy Lords, I can confirm both matters raised by the noble Baronesses. I can certainly give an absolute assurance on the…
Speaker
Baroness AndrewsLabour
Quote
My Lords, I can confirm both matters raised by the noble Baronesses. I can certainly give an absolute assurance on the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. The guidance will produce clarity.
Time
19:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness HanhamMy Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. […
Speaker
Baroness HanhamConservative
Quote
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 56 to 58 not moved.] Clause 221 [Arrangements under section 220(1)]:
Time
19:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Andrewsmoved Amendment No. 59:
Speaker
Baroness AndrewsLabour
Quote
moved Amendment No. 59:
Time
19:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Earl HoweMy Lords, this concession by the Government is extremely welcome. I thank the Minister for having taken our concerns aw…
Speaker
Earl HoweConservative
Quote
My Lords, this concession by the Government is extremely welcome. I thank the Minister for having taken our concerns away and for responding so positively. I shall return briefly to the issue I raised in Committee on the position of a private provider of services acting as a host. The Government made it clear that they were not prepared to build in an exclusion covering private providers. If it is inappropriate for a foundation trust to be a host, then in logic it seems equally inappropriate for a private provider to be a host in a local authority area if that provider provides services in that same area. I do not think that there need be anything to stop that organisation being a host somewhere else and managing any apparent conflict of interest in an appropriate way. If the Government are not to amend the Bill in the way that I and others originally proposed—clearly there is no opportunity for them to do so—will they consider making it clear in guidance when it is appropriate for a local authority to appoint a private provider as a host and when it is not? If they were to do so, that would go a long way to resolving some of the residual concerns that I and, I suspect, the noble Baroness still have.
Time
19:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness NeubergerMy Lords, I thank the Minister for this concession. It has given a considerable amount of relief to the noble Earl, Lor…
Speaker
Baroness NeubergerCrossbench
Quote
My Lords, I thank the Minister for this concession. It has given a considerable amount of relief to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and me. There still seems to be the issue—certainly members of patients’ forums are still writing about it—of a host also being a voluntary organisation that is a provider of services, which means there could be a conflict of interest. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us about what might be in guidance to make that more difficult than it appears at the moment. I am very grateful.
Time
19:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness AndrewsMy Lords, when we debated conflicts of interest at earlier stages of the Bill we talked about the practice that volunta…
Speaker
Baroness AndrewsLabour
Quote
My Lords, when we debated conflicts of interest at earlier stages of the Bill we talked about the practice that voluntary organisations traditionally have of managing interests. This is not a new situation to them. Dealing with conflicts of interest was one of the criteria for making a robust arrangement with a host. I take the point about private providers. We wrote to noble Lords addressing some of the issues that were raised about private providers last time round, but we can make it absolutely clear what conduct we would expect in the guidance. On Question, amendment agreed to.
Time
19:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Andrewsmoved Amendment No. 60:
Speaker
Baroness AndrewsLabour
Quote
moved Amendment No. 60:
Time
19:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Earl HoweMy Lords, once again, this is a most welcome amendment. I thank the Minister for agreeing to it, and for her comments a…
Speaker
Earl HoweConservative
Quote
My Lords, once again, this is a most welcome amendment. I thank the Minister for agreeing to it, and for her comments about it. My only question is about the use of “may” in proposed new subsection (2), rather than “shall” or “must”. I hope that the Minster will not take this question as poor thanks for her troubles in any way: is it the Government’s intention to include in the regulations a provision in respect of each of the matters listed in proposed new subsection (2)(a) to (d)? I hope that the answer is yes, otherwise why include this list in the first place? It would be helpful to have that assurance on the record.
Time
19:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness AndrewsMy Lords, I give the noble Earl that assurance. On Question, amendment agreed to.
Speaker
Baroness AndrewsLabour
Quote
My Lords, I give the noble Earl that assurance. On Question, amendment agreed to.
Time
19:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Andrewsmoved Amendment No. 61:
Speaker
Baroness AndrewsLabour
Quote
moved Amendment No. 61:
Time
19:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Earl HoweMy Lords, I thank the Government and, in particular, the Minister for this welcome amendment, which looks set to resolv…
Speaker
Earl HoweConservative
Quote
My Lords, I thank the Government and, in particular, the Minister for this welcome amendment, which looks set to resolve one of the most serious concerns that I and others had on this part of the Bill. I also thank her for her kind remarks, which, I am sure she will know, are reciprocated from this side of the House. There are several features of the amendment that I particularly welcome, not least the fact that we are promised regulations, not merely guidance, and that the length of the transitional period is left flexible, at least for the time being. I have a number of questions. We all want to ensure that the transitional arrangements, whatever they are in individual cases around the country, are substantive and meaningful. Can the Minister give us a clearer idea of what mechanisms will be in place to ensure that local authorities do not engage merely in token forms of activity? We need to prevent that. For example, local authorities should need to be able to prove that during the transitional period patient and public involvement, including specific visits and monitoring of services, has taken place at no less a level of intensity than would be expected and to demonstrate this to the Department of Health. As an aspect of that, it might be appropriate for local authorities to publish the relevant details of PPI activities on their websites. What more will local authorities be asked to do in order to demonstrate that they are not simply going through the motions? In support of that, how will the department encourage forum members to collaborate with local authorities during the transition? How will they ensure that they are properly supported and funded, and how will the work in progress of forums be taken forward under the provisions of Clause 227(3)? Secondly, when are the draft regulations likely to be published? Doubtless the fact of these transitional arrangements will become known about quite soon among the generality of patients’ forum members, but until each forum knows precisely what the local authority in its area is intending to do as regards implementing the regulations, there may be a sense of unreality in the air, given that the only thing that forums know for sure is that they will cease to exist on 31 March. Early publication of the regulations is essential if we are not to see forums and their members dispersing in a manner that will make these arrangements harder for local authorities to implement. Thirdly, given that there will almost certainly be insufficient time to consult on the regulations, could the Minister explain why the word “shall” or “must” does not appear in subsection (3) of the amendment instead of “may”? I am sure that there is a good answer to that, but is there any significance to it? Lastly, I return briefly to the issue of private providers. How will the Government ensure that private providers of health or care services are obliged to respond to requests for information and visits from those charged by the local authority with implementing the transitional arrangements? If the duty of a private provider to respond to such requests is enshrined in the service contract, it may in many instances be specific to patients’ forums rather than to individuals carrying on activities in the transitional period. How will the Government make sure that private providers are under an equal duty to respond even after forums are abolished? In the Minister’s letter to me, for which I thank her, she indicated that in relation to the activities of LINks the matter would be subject to directions given to PCTs. Will the same apply to the transitional arrangements? If so, who will monitor the extent to which PCTs and independent contractors abide by the content of such directions?
Time
19:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness NeubergerMy Lords, I agree absolutely with everything that the noble Earl has said. As noble Lords can hear, I am losing my voic…
Speaker
Baroness NeubergerCrossbench
Quote
My Lords, I agree absolutely with everything that the noble Earl has said. As noble Lords can hear, I am losing my voice, so I will not say much. I thank the Minister for the letter that she wrote to the noble Earl and me, in which she made it very clear that accompanying the regulators on visits would be an expectation. It is very important that that will be in the guidance and I am truly delighted by that. On the point raised by the noble Earl about independent and private providers, there is a further complication, which was drawn to my attention only today. Increasingly, there will be some private provision of support functions to the PCTs. Some of that may include part of public and patient involvement. I wonder how, and not only in the transitional arrangements, the Government think that in the guidance and the regulations it can be made very clear—whoever is involved, be they private, voluntary or public sector, whether they are involved in providing support to patient and public involvement or whether they are the organisations that need to allow access—that somehow everybody will be treated equally. That is what we are really getting at; we want to know that this will be a level playing field.
Time
19:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness AndrewsMy Lords, I will take those questions in order; I will have a better chance of answering the last one if I start with t…
Speaker
Baroness AndrewsLabour
Quote
My Lords, I will take those questions in order; I will have a better chance of answering the last one if I start with the first one. I say to the noble Baroness that this Bill has proved deeply unhealthy. At some point everybody on the Front Bench has lost their voice. We will be well out of it at the end of this. The noble Lord makes important points on the transitional arrangements. He has identified some of the ways in which this could be done, in relation to the website, the monitoring of services and so on. We have tried in this area, as well as in others, to achieve the right balance in giving people power, in enabling them, in giving them money and now in giving them scope, by way of transition, to go and do things that they think are right and proper and will make a difference. They can draw on their experience. The amendment that we debated earlier about the governance mechanism will substantiate the sort of changes that we want to see. That will make it absolutely clear that this is not tokenism but that these are real changes. The activities are being undertaken, including investigating and monitoring reports, which can be logged up—and certainly one would be looking at the relative levels of activity in inspections, visits and so on. In those arrangements for governance, we identified decision-making arrangements, using money wisely and making sure that a membership is in place, for example. They are tough and will be explicit. The department will keep a very close eye on this over the next few months. On the timescale of the regulations, the noble Earl rightly said that we do not have time to consult, given where we are. That is why I stressed that we would be working with stakeholders to make sure that we have the common-sense approach that we need. We will bring forward the regulations as soon as we can. We will be looking to have them in place in the New Year. I take the point that time is very important. On the question of “may” and “shall”, we intend to introduce regulations on all the matters to which the noble Earl referred. I will write to him on that point because there may be other points of detail that would be useful to pick up. I will certainly have to write on some of the questions raised about private providers. I am advised that directions will apply during the transitional period in relation to the independent sector. The Department of Health will make sure that there is compliance with those arrangements. Those are important questions and I am not really equipped to give more of an answer, but I can certainly make sure that we write. On Question, amendment agreed to. Clause 226 [Sections 220 to 225: interpretation and supplementary]:
Time
19:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Andrewsmoved Amendments Nos. 62 and 63:
Speaker
Baroness AndrewsLabour
Quote
moved Amendments Nos. 62 and 63:
Time
19:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Morgan of Drefelinmoved Amendment No. 64:
Speaker
Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
Quote
moved Amendment No. 64:
Time
19:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Earl HoweMy Lords, I welcome these amendments and thank the Minister most warmly for having agreed to them, and of course I acce…
Speaker
Earl HoweConservative
Quote
My Lords, I welcome these amendments and thank the Minister most warmly for having agreed to them, and of course I accept fully the assurances that she has given. I wonder whether she will allow me to ask a couple of questions on the content of the clause as a whole. First, in new Section 242A, we debated on Report the phrase “prescribed matters” and the uncertainty about what that phrase might cover. I would appreciate an assurance that no less than is currently provided for in the Health and Social Care Act 2001 is to be covered by the prescribed matters. I sought at the last stage to alleviate this potential difficulty by asking for consultation on the regulations, but the Government did not agree to that, so it would be extremely helpful to have an undertaking that at least the basic 2001 Act involvement provision—that is, the planning of services, planning changes in services and decisions about the operation of services—will be applied to the prescription of the matters to which the duty is to apply and that the regulations will be used only on the first and any subsequent occasions to expand on this core principle rather than reduce those principles. Secondly, in new Section 242B we are being asked to accept some extremely sweeping provisions that permit strategic health authorities, which are effectively branch offices of the department, to override local involvement work by PCTs, even where that work has already begun. That introduces a risk that a strategic health authority could undertake involvement work across one of the very large areas they cover without the sensitivity that only local involvement work by PCTs can bring, and which can then be precluded under this clause. For example, a reduction in the number of GP practices may make economic sense across a whole area, but the precise configuration can be determined only through the involvement of patients, so that transport and access difficulties that apply locally can be factored in. If that is left to consultation under Section 7 of the Health and Social Care Act, and if it is a substantial variation, it may well be too late to consider creative options for co-location that the public might generate when they are given the opportunity to do so. When I probed the purpose of these provisions on Report, the Minister indicated that they had been included to avoid duplication. However, the powers, if read literally, are drafted in a much wider way. Therefore I wonder whether I could have the Minister’s confirmation that the provisions are intended only to avoid duplication of involvement with the same people on the same issues and will be used only for this purpose. Thirdly, I would appreciate her confirmation that the provisions and any regulations will not be used to prevent, inhibit or override local involvement by PCTs with patients or their representatives locally; and finally, that the exercise of any powers by strategic health authorities in respect of whatever range of directions in new Section 242B is to be put in place will be decided by strategic health authority boards in public session and reported in the same way. There needs to be transparency here. All this gives rise to the question: how will compliance by strategic health authorities with these provisions be monitored and reported on, and who will performance-manage strategic health authorities on their involvement duties? PCTs are monitored by the Healthcare Commission on their patient and public involvement, but can the Minister confirm that the commission also has a remit under the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 to monitor strategic health authorities, and that this monitoring function of the commission will apply to the new provisions in this clause?
Time
19:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness NeubergerMy Lords, I simply want to support the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in what he has said about the monitoring arrangements. We…
Speaker
Baroness NeubergerCrossbench
Quote
My Lords, I simply want to support the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in what he has said about the monitoring arrangements. We are grateful for these amendments, but as they stand the intention is not absolutely clear, so some guidance from the Minister on what the Government mean would be enormously helpful. As we come to the end of this part of the Bill, I want to say how helpful it has been to have the sorts of conversations we have had with the noble Baronesses, Lady Andrews and Lady Morgan. It has been a great pleasure to work on this part because I think that we have come a long way. We would still like a little more clarity, but we have made good progress—even if one by one we have been losing our voices.
Time
19:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Morgan of DrefelinMy Lords, I hope that I will not lose my voice, at least for a moment so that I can help the House with further clarifi…
Speaker
Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
Quote
My Lords, I hope that I will not lose my voice, at least for a moment so that I can help the House with further clarification along the lines requested by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger. It may be helpful to set out a little background in order to assist noble Lords in understanding the new duty on SHAs provided for in the government amendment introduced on Report. The only services SHAs are themselves responsible for are nationally commissioned, specialised services. In commissioning those services, as I have said, SHAs are subject to the existing Section 242 duty to involve. What we are providing for additionally in new Section 242A is a duty on SHAs to make arrangements to involve patients and the public in, for example, the development of strategic frameworks within which services across a whole area are delivered. We have placed a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out the circumstances under which this duty would apply. As I said on Report, it is expected that these regulations will be developed with the key stakeholders I listed at that stage. The policy intention is that the duty will apply where an SHA is developing the future configuration and method of service delivery across the area for which it is responsible. We will be building up those regulations through a process of involvement to avoid the irony alluded to by the noble Earl on Report, but I would expect them to be comparable with the provisions already contained in Section 242—here I hope to reassure the noble Earl—the planning and provision of services, the development and consideration of proposals for changes in the way services are provided, and decisions to be made affecting the operation of services, but in the context of the whole area rather than one discrete PCT area. Other areas may emerge as the health service evolves, and there may be other circumstances that require SHAs to involve people in other aspects of the development of strategic frameworks. I can therefore reassure the noble Earl that we are talking about expanding, not reducing, the provisions in Section 242. On strategic health authority directions to PCTs, let us be very clear that it will generally be for PCTs to involve patients and the public, as set out in Section 242. Only in very particular circumstances might an SHA want to take over that responsibility. For me, the phrase “take over that responsibility” is key, because we are talking not about that responsibility disappearing but about it being taken over by the SHA. Yes, we did say on Report—and I am happy to reiterate now—that we are aiming to avoid duplication. We are not about preventing local consultation or about preventing the PCT consulting; we are making provision for a strategic health authority to take over a PCT’s responsibility. The situation might arise in which all PCTs in an area involve people in local arrangements within a strategic framework. Strategic health authorities would then be able to co-ordinate a single involvement exercise, rather than there being several very similar PCT arrangements with a similar timeline. Let me therefore reassure noble Lords that we intend to achieve a co-ordinated involvement process that avoids unnecessary duplication. There is absolutely no intention to limit involvement in any way. I absolutely agree that there can be no involvement and consultation without transparency. We do expect that SHA boards will receive reports and will be involved in decisions about consultation. That is exactly the role that one would hope boards would have. We therefore expect people to continue to be involved and that our proposals here expand, not reduce, opportunities for involvement. Given the assurance that I have been able to give the noble Earl and the noble Baroness, I hope that they will feel able to support the amendment. On Question, amendment agreed to.
Time
19:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Morgan of Drefelinmoved Amendment No. 65:
Speaker
Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
Quote
moved Amendment No. 65:
Time
19:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Graham of Edmontonmoved Amendment No. 66:
Speaker
Lord Graham of EdmontonLabour
Quote
moved Amendment No. 66:
Time
19:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness HamweeMy Lords, I declare an interest, to which the noble Lord referred, as a joint president of London Councils, although I…
Speaker
Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat
Quote
My Lords, I declare an interest, to which the noble Lord referred, as a joint president of London Councils, although I have to say that it has not briefed me on this and I did not know where the amendment came from. I also declare an interest as the prospective recipient of a similar provision in the Greater London Authority Bill, as it probably just about still is. The noble Lord raises an important matter, although I am surprised that he managed to slip it in at Third Reading without anyone waving yellow or even red cards at him, but there we go. I shall comment on the clause as it is presented to your Lordships. The issue of payments of different types to members of local authorities requires quite a lot of attention. Clearly it becomes even more of an issue as the roles change, but it is not such a recent matter that members have taken decisions that have affected their careers very substantially by choosing to go down the route of public service. I do not oppose the principle that those who have been employed full-time, or pretty much full-time, should receive some sort of severance payment when that office comes to an end. However, the noble Lord limits the provision in a number of ways. First, it is limited to members holding certain positions. We discussed at earlier stages of the Bill the difficulty of those who chair, for instance, an overview and scrutiny committee being perceived as less important than those in an executive position. I would not like to see a severance scheme that did not allow for full consideration of the range of involvement in local government, although I appreciate that the amendment would not set up such a scheme but would provide a framework to enable a scheme to be drawn up. Secondly, I do not know whether, in the noble Lord’s mind, the failure to be re-elected includes failure because of deciding not to re-stand. As I understand it—I may have got this a bit wrong; I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I have, but the principle applies—the scheme that applies to Members of Parliament was changed when it became clear that some MPs, who did not want to continue but who did not want to lose out on the severance payment, stood in a hopeless seat. That is not a good situation to have. The scheme that has been worked up and which is likely to apply following the enactment of the Greater London Authority Bill extends beyond those who have failed to be re-elected in the normal sense of the word. Perhaps I should have put this in the first category, but there are also members who are re-elected as councillors but who do not go into the cabinet—they do not have an executive position. The noble Lord may not be aware of my final point—taxation—over which the Greater London Authority has just stumbled. Although some of us think that public service feels very much like employment, it is not treated as employment. Therefore it does not have the same exemption for the first £30,000 of redundancy pay as employment does. If you are a Member of Parliament, a Member of the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament, special provisions apply and I hope that similar ones will apply in London. I also hope that in due course they will be looked at as applying to council officers, because despite this being the last knockings of the Bill, the noble Lord raises an important point.
Time
19:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness AndrewsMy Lords, the noble Baroness is right: it is fitting that we conclude Third Reading not only with an amendment introduc…
Speaker
Baroness AndrewsLabour
Quote
My Lords, the noble Baroness is right: it is fitting that we conclude Third Reading not only with an amendment introduced by my noble friend Lord Graham, who has been such a good friend to this Bill and a good friend to the issues that have been raised, but on a note about the role and reward of councillors. Although I cannot engage in the detail of the debate, interesting points were raised. I understand the noble Lord’s concerns. However, the Councillors Commission is considering this matter as one of a range of issues it is examining in an attempt to widen the pool of councillors and improve the vitality of local authorities. That is where we came in with this Bill: how do we ensure that we have a system of local government genuinely fit for the next century with all of the energy, commitment and intelligence that we can muster? It is not appropriate for me to comment on this matter until the Councillors Commission has reported on 10 December 2007. Before I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment, I would like to say that this has been a steep learning experience for me. I have enjoyed the passage of the Bill and I have been grateful for the patience of noble Lords on both sides of the House, including my own side. We have had a very thorough debate on the Bill. We have debated it for 55 hours in this House and 111 hours in both Houses. I do not know how many hours the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, accounted for—we could go back and find out—but it was certainly a significant proportion. The debate has been very thorough, both wide and deep, and of great quality and I thank everyone for being so assiduous and careful in their scrutiny. I am very sad that we are losing the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, who seems to think that she will find the Home Office portfolio even more interesting. We will miss her very much, because she spoke with enormous authority, warmth and good sense. I always knew that I should listen carefully to what she had to say. We will do so in her new role and we wish her well. On that note, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Time
20:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Graham of EdmontonMy Lords, last week, Question Time was dominated by a debate on hornets and I think the nest from which they came was i…
Speaker
Lord Graham of EdmontonLabour
Quote
My Lords, last week, Question Time was dominated by a debate on hornets and I think the nest from which they came was in my amendment. It was a hornets’ nest and I acknowledge at once the difficulty I had in seeking to include it at Third Reading. I am well aware of the conventions, but I tabled the amendment, it was accepted and here we are. I am grateful for the points that were made; they were made very sensibly. I take heart from the fact that the Minister said that these and other matters were in effect in the hands of the commission that is sitting. Perhaps something good will come out of that along the lines of my amendment. I am grateful to the Minister. I am grateful, too, for the comradeship that has been demonstrated by all participants in the Bill. With those words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Time
20:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness HanhamMy Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to thank the Minister for her kind comments. I have enjoyed se…
Speaker
Baroness HanhamConservative
Quote
My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to thank the Minister for her kind comments. I have enjoyed seven years of local government here and I am moving on elsewhere, although not necessarily looking forward to that. I thank the Minister for all that she has done; for her kindness and her sense of absorbing what we were saying. We always thought that she was listening even if she was not always able to deliver.
Time
20:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Scott of Needham MarketMy Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Baroness and her team for the many hours that we have spent on the Bil…
Speaker
Baroness Scott of Needham MarketLiberal Democrat
Quote
My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Baroness and her team for the many hours that we have spent on the Bill. I also thank my own colleagues, especially my noble friend Lady Hamwee, who is almost certainly about to expire at any time and my noble friend Lord Greaves, who is not in his place at the moment. His attention to detail, the result of his many years of experience, has resulted in changes which might otherwise not have taken place. That shows the value of detailed scrutiny of legislation by your Lordships' House.
Time
20:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness AndrewsMy Lords, before we move on, I should like to say a warm “thank you” on behalf of the Government, and I suspect everyon…
Speaker
Baroness AndrewsLabour
Quote
My Lords, before we move on, I should like to say a warm “thank you” on behalf of the Government, and I suspect everyone else in the House, to the Bill team who have worked tirelessly, ceaselessly, expertly and joined-upedly, because we have been working with the Department of Health as well as the Department for Communities and Local Government. They have been marvellous, especially my private office. Thank you very much. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 237 [Orders, regulations and guidance]:
Time
20:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Andrewsmoved Amendments Nos. 67 and 68:
Speaker
Baroness AndrewsLabour
Quote
moved Amendments Nos. 67 and 68:
Time
20:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Andrewsmoved Amendment No. 69:
Speaker
Baroness AndrewsLabour
Quote
moved Amendment No. 69:
Time
20:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Andrewsmoved Amendment No. 70:
Speaker
Baroness AndrewsLabour
Quote
moved Amendment No. 70:
Time
20:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Andrewsmoved Amendments Nos. 71 to 78:
Speaker
Baroness AndrewsLabour
Quote
moved Amendments Nos. 71 to 78:
Time
20:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Andrewsmoved Amendment No. 79:
Speaker
Baroness AndrewsLabour
Quote
moved Amendment No. 79:
Time
20:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Andrewsmoved Amendments Nos. 80 to 82:
Speaker
Baroness AndrewsLabour
Quote
moved Amendments Nos. 80 to 82:
Time
20:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness AndrewsMy Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. Moved accordingly, and on Question, Bill passed, and returned to th…
Speaker
Baroness AndrewsLabour
Quote
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. Moved accordingly, and on Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.
Time
20:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗

Show 78 more speechesShow less

EnactedLocal Government and Public Involvement in Health Act