HC Deb 13 June 1989 vol 154 cc815-7
Mr. George Howarth

I beg to move amendment No. 147, in page 24, line 6, after 'State', insert 'subject to subsection (1A) below'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this, it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 148, in page 24, line 13, at end insert— '(1A) no regulations may be made under this subsection except in circumstances where, in relation to an individual authority, that authority has not, within twelve months of the passing of this Act—

  1. (a) considered proposed revisions to its Standing Orders, having regard to the content of guidance issued by the Secretary of State;
  2. (b) made such revisions to its Standing Orders as it considers reasonable as a result of such consideration.'.

Mr. Howarth

Amendment No. 148 is consequential upon amendment No. 147. We are seeking to amend clause 17, which gives the Secretary of State power to regulate and, subject to such variations as may be authorised by regulation, to impose on local authorities the duty to adopt certain procedural standing orders. The amendment seeks to delay that process, so that if the Secretary of State has issued some suggestion or guidelines about what should be contained within the standing orders of any given local authority or group of local authorities and they do not comply within 12 months, the Secretary of State can make a regulation for them to do so.

The amendment arises because we have argued consistently that too much compulsion is placed on local authorities to do things that, in most cases, are not necessary. Earlier this evening, in a debate on another group of amendments, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) made the point that local authorities generally were being expected to do many things and to comply with many changes as a result of some Government-perceived abuses by a handful of local authorities, mostly in the London area. To some extent, I agree with my hon. Friend.

As the Minister knows, I served on a local authority for about 14 years and we never moved outside our own standing orders. We had perfectly adequate standing orders with which we complied for the most part. If anybody breached those standing orders, it was pointed out to him and dealt with effectively. From time to time we amended them, as circumstances changed.

There is nothing unique about that. The majority of local authorities have adequate standing orders that enable them properly to carry out the duties and responsibilities of a council. We do not see why the vast bulk of those local authorities should be compelled by the Minister to carry out various changes to their standing orders, as determined by the Minister.

It is particularly rich that this Secretary of State, who spends more time in the courts than almost any Secretary of State in history answering for the irregularities of his Department, should be forcing local authorities to change their standing orders to meet some as yet unspecified regulation that the Government may wish to apply.

10.45 pm

The clause is not necessary but, given that it exists, if the Secretary of State wants to take those powers, why does he not say to the local authorities, "Here are some suggestions. You have 12 months to consider them. If you have not considered them after 12 months, I have reserve powers to do something about it"?

We do not like this compulsion, which is neither necessary for most local authorities, nor useful. It is deeply offensive to the vast bulk of local authorities and I urge the Minister at this stage, if he is serious about wanting to do something, to accept our amendment as it will give him those reserve powers without having to take draconian steps at the beginning of the process rather than waiting 12 months to see what happens.

Mr. Trippier

I should have guessed that the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) would be selected to move the amendment because he is always so nice and reasonable about everything. I am delighted that he referred to his local authority of Knowsley so many times in Committee. It is not very surprising to many Conservative Members that Knowsley has not had much trouble with its model rules as it has only one Conservative member on its council. I do not suppose that he could have done much about the opposition—

Mr. George Howarth

There are four now.

Mr. Trippier

I apologise. It seems that there are now four. We must have won one or two council by-elections since I paid my last official visit there. It is certainly a high percentage increase.

It may well not be necessary to implement and to make statutory the model rules and I shall not be too hard about that point. However, I draw the House's attention to the fact that the Widdicombe committee recommended that the clarification and strengthening of standing orders might take the form of statutory provision. As we explained in the White Paper, "Conduct of Local Authority Business"—it is there for all to see—the Government would prefer voluntary guidance to be prepared by the local authority associations and the relevant Government Departments. That is already in hand. A working party of representatives of Government Departments and the local authority associations is at present preparing revised draft model standing orders. As we explained in the White Paper, we believe it is right to take powers to enable a statutory core of standing orders to be prescribed should that be judged desirable. The Government consider that core standing orders should cover various topics such as—these were discussed at the meetings to which I referred—the right of the minority party to put a matter on the agenda of the council or one of its committees or sub-committees; and provision to give chief officers the right to advise orally or in writing on any matter coming before a council or its committees for decision provisions to limit the powers of councils to suspend their standing orders.

Clause 17 would provide a power to require these on a uniform, national basis. I have looked carefully at the amendment proposed to clause 17 and it seems to me that its general objective is to leave the question of the adoption of standing orders entirely on a voluntary basis. Seemingly that is what the hon. Member for Knowsley, North is suggesting. I hope to convince the hon. Gentleman that we are approaching the matter on that basis but feel it right that there should be a power to enable a statutory core to be prescribed if necessary.

I hope that the amendment will be either withdrawn or rejected.

Amendment negatived.

Forward to