HL Deb 19 June 1985 vol 465 cc342-7

8.23 p.m.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Carnegy of Lour.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD HAYTER in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Access to meetings and documents of certain authorities, committees and sub-committees]:

Baroness Carnegy of Lour moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 9, leave out lines 5 to 15 and insert—

  1. ("(a) specifying those powers of the council which, for the time being, are exercisable from time to time by officers of the council in pursuance of arrangements made under this Act or any other enactment for their discharge by those officers; and
  2. (b) stating the title of the officer by whom each of the powers so specified is for the time being so exercisable;
but this subsection does not require a power to be specified in the list if the arrangements for its discharge by the officer are made for a specified period not exceeding six months.").

The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 1, I should like for convenience to speak also to Amendment No. 5.

Amendment No. 5: Clause 2, page 20, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 6 on page 21 and insert—

  1. ("(a) specifying those powers of the authority which, for the time being, are exercisable from time to time by officers of the authority in pursuance of arrangements made under this Act or any other enactment for their discharge by those officers; and
  2. (b) stating the title of the officer by whom each of the powers so specified is for the time being so exercisable;
but this subsection does not require a power to be specified in the list if the arrangements for its discharge by the officer are made for a specified period not exceeding six months.").

Amendment No. 1 applies to England and Wales, while Amendment No. 5 applies to Scotland. They both perform the same purpose. They substitute revised wording in the provision requiring authorities to maintain a register of powers delegated on a continuing basis to officers. The amendments simply bring the provision into line with the wording already used in the Local Government Act 1972 and the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. Neither of these Acts refer to the term "delegated", as in the Bill, but instead state that a local authority may, arrange for the discharge of any of its functions by an officer of the authority". That is the change brought about by these two amendments. They do not alter at all the substance of the provision. I beg to move.

Baroness Nicol

It may be helpful to the noble Baroness, and perhaps a comfort to those who are yet to speak, to know that we do not oppose any of these amendments. We accept that they are necessary, either as drafting amendments or to cover a point which was not properly covered in the Bill, and none of them will be opposed. I should just like to say that I find it a little disconcerting that a Bill which has been heavily amended at every stage—a very small Bill to begin with—should still be being heavily amended when it reaches this House. I understand that the Government supported the Bill from the beginning and I find it a little strange that better help was not given in the drafting at an earlier stage.

There is also the point that we felt that some expansion of the Bill was necessary, and I should explain to your Lordships that the reason we have not put forward these amendments is that we were given to understand that to do so might delay the passage of the Bill. Therefore, this is all that the Committee will hear from me this evening.

Lord Skelmersdale

I should like to congratulate my noble friend on her perspicacity in observing that the Bill does not, as drafted, properly bring itself into line with the Local Government Act 1972 for England and Wales and the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, and that these two amendments do exactly that. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, should feel disconcerted. This is of course a Private Member's Bill and the Government have given approval to it, as she well knows, both in this House and in another place. The objective of the Bill, surely, should be that it is drafted in a right and proper form for the statute book, so that in the unlikely event that litigation is ever sought there is a properly formed Act of Parliament on the statute book on which such litigation can be based. I do not see that it matters whether it is in this House or in another place that the ultimate drafting perfection takes place.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 12, line 10, at end insert— ("(f) a combined fire authority").

The noble Baroness said: In speaking to Amendment No. 2, perhaps I may also speak to Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 7. Amendment No. 3: Page 12, line 22, leave out ("or (e)") and insert ("(e) or (f"). Amendment No. 4: Page 12, leave out line 37 and insert (" "and the ward" onwards; and (c) in relation to a combined fire authority, with the substitution for the words "ward or division" of the words "constituent area". (5) In this section "combined fire authority" means a fire authority constituted by a combination scheme under the Fire Services Act 1947."). Amendment No. 7: Schedule 2, page 33, line 15, at end insert—

("Fire Services Act 1947 (c.41)

In section 8 of the Fire Services Act 1947 (constitution and powers of fire authorities constituted by combination schemes) after subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(3A) Meetings of a fire authority which is (as well as one which is not) constituted by a combination scheme are open to the public, and documents relating to such meetings are open to inspection by the public, in accordance with the provisions of Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972." ").

This group of amendments incorporates within the Bill combined fire authorities. The Bill already applies in Scotland and in England and Wales, where a single council is the fire authority, or where new joint authorities are to be set up in Greater London and the English metropolitan areas. Amendment No. 2 extends the Bill to cover the possibility of combined fire authorities being set up in England and Wales. No such authorities exist at present, but they could be created under the Fire Services Act 1947 to cover two or more counties. It therefore seems sensible for the Bill to cover this contingency.

Extensions in Amendment No. 2 mean that the Bill will then cover all fire authorities and will be consistent with the Bill's application to police authorities. However, it is worth noting that Amendment No. 4 also corrects a small drafting error. At Report stage in another place, the words "and the" were inadvertently left hanging in mid-air in the provision requiring a register to be maintained of members of joint boards or joint committees. Amendment No. 4 removes these two superfluous words. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

8.30 p.m.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour moved Amendments Nos. 3 and 4:

[Printed above.]

On Question, amendments agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

Before the Committee leaves Clause 1 perhaps I may mention the fact that three matters may require tidying up at the Report stage. I apologise to the noble Baroness for the rather dilatory nature of this process. The Bill has changed very much during its progress in another place and I think it is extremely important to local authorities that we should get this Bill right because it is going to be a very important Bill for them.

The first matter is the relationship of the Bill to the Data Protection Act as provided for in Section 100A(3)(b) and Section 100H(4) and in equivalent sections in Clause 2 relating to Scotland. I think that we may need to look at that aspect at the Report stage, and the description of exempt information relating to the proposed service of notice under any enactment, as provided for in Schedule 12A Part I paragraph 13 and Schedule 7A Part I paragraph 13, may need looking at again.

I have had some discussion with organisations representing the disabled and the blind. It seems to me that it is extremely important that local authorities should do their very best to ensure access under this Bill for everyone who wants access, despite any disability they may have. There is real difficulty in legislation of this kind in attempting to cover the varied needs. One tends to end up with inflexible and somewhat inadequate requirements. What is really important is to stimulate awareness and sensitivity and make sure that the access does in fact happen. I have not brought forward amendments on this matter but wonder whether a better approach would be guidance given in a Government circular letter to local authorities after enactment of the Bill. It would be immensely helpful if my noble friend on the Front Bench could tell us whether the Government will endorse this approach.

Lord Skelmersdale

If any proof were needed of my remarks to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, opposite, it has just come from my noble friend in that it is totally a Private Member's Bill.

With regard to the question which my noble friend addressed to me, I think it would be appropriate to remind the Committee that when this Bill was under discussion in another place, my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State stated (this is recorded in their Official Report at col. 639 of 17th May) that he felt that general guidance might well be helpful in the event of this Bill being enacted. I understand that the local authority associations would welcome such guidance in this particular instance. It is perfectly true, if the noble Baroness wants to come back at me, that they do not always welcome guidance; but in this particular case my understanding is that they would.

It is only right therefore that I should respond positively to my noble friend's suggestion that the Government should draw specific attention to the particular needs of disabled and blind people seeking access to local government information. I hope that it will be possible to include appropriate references of that kind. Clearly we would want to consult on any proposed wording, notably with bodies such as the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation (which is more generally known as RADAR), the Royal National Institute for the Blind and the local authority associations themselves. I should like to think that this assurance will meet the concerns that have been expressed outside this Chamber and will show that we have taken on board the points that my noble friend has drawn to your attention.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

I appreciate very much that reply and I am sure that those consultations will bear good fruit.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 [Access to meetings and documents of local authorities and certain committees and subcommittees in Scotland]:

Baroness Carnegy of Lour moved Amendment No. 5:

[Printed earlier: col. 342.]

The noble Baroness said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

Schedule 1 [Exempt information]:

Baroness Carnegy of Lour moved Amendment No. 6: Page 31, line 29, leave out ("or the subject matter of the collective agreement").

The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 6 corrects a small mistake made at Report stage in another place. The words "or the subject matter of the collective agreement" were left stranded at the end of a paragraph which no longer deals with labour relations matters—they are now elsewhere in the Bill. The amendment merely seeks to remove them. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 2 [Consequential amendments]:

Baroness Carnegy of Lour moved Amendment No. 7:

[Printed earlier: col. 344.]

The noble Baroness said: I have already spoken to Amendment No. 7. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour moved Amendment No. 8:

Page 35, line 35, at end insert— ("(2) In section 228 of that Act (inspection of documents)—

  1. (a)in subsection (1), for the words "local authority" there shall be substituted the words "parish or community council" and for the words "the authority" there shall be substituted the words "the council"; and
  2. (b) in subsection (8) (application to parish meetings) for the words "local authority" there shall be substituted the words "parish council".").

The noble Baroness said: For the convenience of the Committee, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 together. Amendment No. 9: Schedule 3, page 36, line 21, at end insert in column 3— ("In section 197, subsection (1).").

These two amendments apply to England and Wales and to Scotland respectively. They are minor tidying up amendments and both have the same effect. There is at present a potential anomaly between Section 228(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 and the provision in the Bill enabling the minutes of local authorities to be available for public inspection. A similar potential anomaly arises in the relevant section of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 and the provision in the Bill. The anomalies can be avoided, however, through excising where necessary Section 228(1) and Section 197(1) of the 1972 and 1973 Acts respectively. For England and Wales this is achieved by restricting the application of section 228(1) to parish and community councils which are not covered by the Bill; for Scotland it is achieved through removing Section 197(1) entirely. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 3 [Repeals]:

Baroness Carnegy of Lour moved Amendment No. 9:

[Printed above.]

The noble Baroness said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.