HL Deb 19 December 1991 vol 533 cc1540-53

4.7 p.m.

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 15.

Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 82: Page 15, line 13, after ("State") insert ("after consultation with the local authority associations and such other organisations as are appropriate").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Secretary of State intends to issue guidance to the commission on the procedures it will be required to follow for the conduct of its reviews. This amendment seeks some clarification about the precise nature of the guidance. I hope the Minister will give an undertaking that the draft guidance will be circulated to the local authority associations and other interested parties for consultation. I believe that would improve the chances of a consensus being reached on the best procedures to be used by the commission. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, directions under Clause 15 are concerned with the commission's procedures. When we discussed the commission's procedures in Committee, we indicated that my right honourable friend intends to issue guidance to the commission about its procedures and then direct it to have regard to the guidance under this clause.

We have already said that we intend to invite views on a draft of this guidance and I can assure the noble Baroness that the views of the local authority associations will be sought. As noble Lords know, we have already issued for consultation our draft guidance to the commission on the general policy which the commission should adopt. In the light of my assurance that the local authority associations will be consulted about our draft procedural guidance, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, I could not be happier with that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 16 [Consultation with the Audit Commission]:

Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 83: Page 15, line 29, at end insert ("and shall on request supply a copy of such information to any other body likely to be affected by proposed structural changes").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a rather different amendment. It concerns the disclosure of information. The Audit Commission in commenting on proposals from the Local Government Commission may require local authorities to supply it with all such information as is reasonable.

This amendment would ensure that relevant local authorities should also be able to receive copies of such information. On the assumption that the Local Government Commission will ask the Audit Commission for its views—which must be sensible—and on the assumption that the Audit Commission will, in turn, ask local authorities for information in addition to that already publicly available—that seems probable—I believe it would be helpful to ask that such information be mutually revealed, district to county and county to district.

Local authorities cannot rely just on using existing published material. County councils, for example, may have little detailed knowledge about the cost of collecting the community charge. It would be useful for districts in turn to have information on the disaggregated costs of certain county council services. We need that co-operation between all local authorities.

We are not asking for additional research, merely that the information which the Audit Commission thinks relevant should be made available. The fear is that that information may not be forthcoming because in the 1985–86 reorganisation of the metropolitan counties some councils withheld information. There are already signs that CIPFA is finding it difficult to collect the information it normally collects. It has been withheld in case it appears to give information and therefore ammunition to local authorities in the ring.

The information we have in mind will relate to the following areas. District councils may be interested in knowing the number of children with learning difficulties or on the risk register. They might want to know about highway maintenance standards and repair requirements, future plans and shortfalls in funding. In relation to social services they would want to know about caseloads and the level and nature of the cost of administrative support. They might want to know about repairs for the property portfolio or contracts for services which have been put out for CCT. They might want to know about some of the more specialist functions such as archive services and archaeological units. They need that information in order to know how best to discuss the situation with the Local Government Commission.

We are not asking for additional information but, for those reasons, we ask that the information which the Audit Commission itself will probably solicit should be made available so that there is, to coin a phrase from another debate, a level playing field as to the information employed when discussing and submitting arguments to the Local Government Commission. I beg to move.

Earl Howe

My Lords, we appreciate that when the Local Government Commission comes to consider their area many local authorities will wish to make the case that they should have unitary status. Others may wish to argue that a two-tier structure should remain in their area. Obviously, authorities will want to back up their arguments with proper evidence, which may include information about services provided by other local authorities. That seems to us eminently sensible.

There are of course difficulties. Fortunately, much information about local authority services is already in the public domain. However, we are aware that some local authorities may be reluctant to pass on information about their services to others in their area. There is nothing to be gained by adopting that attitude. Efficient and effective local authorities should be willing to release information about their services.

We have therefore considered what arrangements might be made to ensure that information about the provision of services which is relevant to proposals for changes to local government structure is available to interested parties when local authorities are not willing to release it themselves.

Paragraph 4(3) of Schedule 2 to the Bill will confer on the Local Government Commission the power to request from public bodies, including local authorities, the information which it requires in order to make its recommendations. The commission would have the power to make that information available to local authorities and other interested parties if it judges that that would be in the interests of achieving the best structure for the area. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State proposes to ensure that the commission makes use of its power in that way by direction under paragraph 4(4) of Schedule 2.

In view of that commitment—and I put it as strongly as that—I hope that the noble Baroness will not feel it necessary to press the amendment.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, again I am delighted, and I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 84: After Clause 16, insert the following new clause:

("Consultation with Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of

Schools in England

.—(1) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England shall, if so required by the Local Government Commission, provide it with a written opinion as to the likely impact of any proposed structural changes on the quality and efficiency of education provided by such schools as are likely to be affected by the changes, and his opinion may in particular refer to services provided by any local authority.

(2) Where the Audit Commission has been required under section 16(1) to provide a written opinion, the Chief Inspector may exercise his functions under this section, at his discretion, jointly with the Audit Commission.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this may appear to be a complicated amendment but the argument does not need to be complicated. Under Clause 16 the Local Government Commission has the power to require the written opinion of the Audit Commission on proposed structural changes. One of the aspects on which the Local Government Commission ought to require information is the effect of structural change on education, and particularly education in schools.

The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, no doubt has experience of HMI from her local government days. I am sure that she will confirm that the inspectors are very grand persons indeed. They always insist that they report directly to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State speaks only to God. It is not easy to require HMI, or Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in particular, to respond to any request without proper authority. It seems to us that the proper authority ought to be statute in the form of this proposed new clause.

There is anxiety about how unitary authorities—which will inevitably mean that school education is brought down to a lower level—will fare under the guidelines proposed for the Local Government Commission. In paragraph 16 the draft guidance states that the number of schools operating as grant maintained is likely to rise significantly. That may affect the number of schools left to be run by perhaps smaller education authorities. I am not against smaller authorities or smaller education authorities, but the best possible educational advice should be provided for them. For that purpose, it seems appropriate to require Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools, at any rate in England, to provide guidance to the Local Government Commission, conjointly or not with the Audit Commission, but on the same basis as the Audit Commission is required to provide written opinions. I beg to move.

4.15 p.m.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, I support the amendment from these Benches. I am sure that underlying this is the concern of everyone involved with education; namely, that the quality of education should not be prejudiced by further change. Our education services must cope with plenty of change. They keep their heads above water, but sometimes with difficulty.

I was interested to learn from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that the Secretary of State has a dialogue with anyone. We have perhaps implied that he has only a monologue. I support the amendment.

Earl Howe

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will be pleased to know that we have a great deal of sympathy with the spirit of the amendment and intend to ensure that Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools is properly consulted by the Local Government Commission. A wide variety of organisations, some of which are public bodies, are in a position to draw on their specialist knowledge to give the commission advice on issues relevant to its work.

It would not be feasible to list all those organisations in the Bill. The Audit Commission, with its special responsibilities for the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the whole range of local authority service provision, is a special case. We propose to ensure that relevant bodies and organisations are properly consulted by including in our procedural guidance to the commission a list of organisations that the commission should consult about its work. I can assure the House, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England will be on that list. I have already told the House that there will be consultation about the contents of the guidance.

We fully intend that the Local Government Commission should seek the advice of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England for precisely the purpose highlighted by the noble Lord. This amendment is not necessary, and I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I am sure that the noble Earl will be able to reassure me about the status of being on that list. I want to be assured that being on the list means that Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools will feel that he has been given the authority to give guidance to the Local Government Commission and will not feel, as has so often happened in the past, that his responsibility to the Secretary of State for Education and Science is not in conflict with being on the list.

Earl Howe

My Lords, there is no question that Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools will be expected to respond to any approaches made to him about the impact of local government changes on the provision of education services. He will be among many on a long list, but there is little doubt that his advice will be required in every single instance of a proposed change in local authority structures.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I am grateful for that entirely satisfactory answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Nicolmoved Amendment No. 85: After Clause 16, insert the following new clause:

("Impact of proposed structural changes

. In conducting a review, the Local Government Commission shall seek the views of English Nature, the Countryside Commission, the National Rivers Authority and English Heritage, on the likely impact of proposed structural changes on the ability of local government to perform its statutory environmental functions.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I suspect that the answer to this proposal will be much the same as that which has just been given to my noble friend. Perhaps I may say first that the noble Lord, Lord Moran, regrets that he could not stay to discuss the amendment this afternoon and he apologises to the House.

This amendment requires the Local Government Commission to consult the statutory environmental organisations on the environmental implications of the proposed structural changes. Looking at the amendment, on reflection I suspect that it would have been better had we simply said "the statutory environmental organisations" instead of attempting to list them. After all, the names spelled out there are names which could well change in the next year or two. However, I hope that noble Lords will agree that that is a small point. At Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, moved an amendment to require the Audit Commission to provide a full measure of the costs, including environmental costs, of any reform proposals. In his response the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said: I hope that it will not be thought from our debates so far that the Local Government Commission will have no access to advice on environmental issues. We shall be issuing guidance to the Local Government Commission about organisations it should consult in conducting its reviews. I can say that it will include suitable environmental organisations…the Bill does not in any way invalidate or weaken the impact of any previous legislation requiring local authorities to perform those statutory environmental functions".—[Official Report, 5/12/91; col. 440.] We welcomed that statement but felt that Amendment No. 85 would reflect the Government's intentions as stated in the environmental White Paper This Common Inheritance, First Year Report. The Government said: The proposals should result in local authorities better able to reflect community interests and to rise to the environmental challenge. The new Local Government Commission will consider the need for effective environment protection in developing these proposals".

It seems important that the statutory organisations should be consulted over and above anyone else who may claim to have an interest in environmental matters. Theirs is the true expertise and they are in a position to offer sounder and less partial advice than many other organisations. As we heard, the commission itself is small and is unlikely to carry sufficient environmental expertise among its members. It is therefore essential that a provision of this kind should be in the Bill. I beg to move.

Viscount Mills

My Lords, throughout this Bill I have been active in promoting the importance of the environment when considering the activities of local government. Consequently, I have considerable sympathy with the noble Baroness's amendment. I should declare that I am an employee of the National Rivers Authority, which is one of the organisations mentioned in the amendment.

As the largest environmental protection agency in not only England and Wales but also Europe, the NRA has considerable expertise in environmental matters, particularly in relation to the aquatic environment. As such the NRA, if called upon, would be well placed to give local authorities professional advice as to the likely impact of proposed structural changes on the ability of local government to perform certain of its statutory environmental duties, at least those relating to the water environment. However, I consider of equal if not more importance the need for the Local Government Commission to consider the likely impact of proposed structural changes in local government on the ability of organisations such as English Nature, the Countryside Commission, the NRA or English Heritage to perform their statutory environmental duties.

In answering this amendment, I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that those needs will also be met.

Earl Howe

My Lords, the House will recall that we had a most useful debate on the environmental advice available to the commission at the Committee stage of the Bill. An assurance was given that the commission would indeed have access to advice on such issues. We fully share the noble Baroness's concerns and those of my noble friend on the ability of local authorities to perform their statutory environmental functions.

My noble friend Lady Blatch and I have already explained to the House that there are many organisations which are in a position to draw on their specialist knowledge to give the commission advice on issues relevant to its work, and that we do not consider it feasible to list those organisations on the face of the Bill. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State intends to issue procedural guidance to the Local Government Commission to which, as we have already said many times, it will be required to have regard and on which there will be consultation. That guidance will list a variety of organisations with relevant knowledge and expertise in a number of different areas, all of which the commission may consult about the implications of its work. I can assure the noble Baroness that those organisation listed in the amendment—English Nature, the Countryside Commission, the National Rivers Authority and English Heritage—will be included on the list of bodies from which the commission will be asked to seek advice. As she rightly said, they are uniquely placed to provide the advice that the commission will require.

For those reasons, the amendment is not necessary. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw it.

Baroness Nicol

My Lords, I do feel so able. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 17 [Implementation of recommendations by order]:

[Amendments Nos. 86 and 87 not moved.]

Clause 19 [Regulations for supplementing orders]:

Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 88:

Page 18, line 7 at end insert: ("(e) the ability of the local authority for any area by agreement to carry out work for and supply goods and services to another local authority").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment raises the issue of cross boundary tendering. It follows the earlier discussion on joint and lead authorities.

Local authorities have traditionally collaborated in the provision of some services through joint arrangements, lead authorities and so on in order to get better plant, expertise or central purchasing where it would be uneconomical for individual authorities to maintain particular facilities for occasional use. That was permitted, for example, under the Local Authorities (Goods and Services Act) 1970 and again under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 for contractual arrangements in relation to computer facilities. It also applies to agency arrangements for highways, and so on.

The amendment seeks to ensure that such arrangements will be able to continue. It is a matter of some concern because the Audit Commission has expressed doubt about the ability of, and the extent to which, local authorities may provide services for other authorities. It has been challenged, for example, in Milton Keynes by the district auditor even though the Audit Commission believes that it is sensible to do so. Perhaps I may quote from the Audit Commission's consultation paper which states: The consultation paper recognises the potential for inter-authority co-operation, but should not ignore the difficulties which current legislation causes in cross boundary tendering when extended competition requirements are juxtaposed with widening inter-authority co-operation. This is an area which the Government may wish to consider further when the legislation is prepared". In other words, taking on board what the Minister said earlier today about the important use as a reserve power of joint arrangements and lead authority arrangements, for those to be possible and plausible we need clarification from the Minister on the ability of local authorities to cross boundary tender in order to provide those services for each other in a sensible and flexible way. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, the power of local authorities to provide services to each other is regulated by the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970. Reference has been made to the views expressed by the Audit Commission on the nature of those powers. In effect, the commission believes that they are not designed to give authorities the power to enter into trading arrangements with each other for the purpose of making a profit or extending employment opportunities. On the contrary, their purpose is simply to allow authorities to turn genuine surplus capacity to account rather than to allow them to build up their own trading empire.

Ministers have made it abundantly clear in public speeches that they fully endorse this interpretation of the legal position under the 1970 Act. We also believe that it is quite wrong that authorities should have the power to enter into competition with the private sector for the provision of services to other local authorities. Such competition would never be fair since a local authority, when the going gets rough, can always at the end of the day fall back on the public purse while the private contractor will always be subject to the ultimate discipline of the bankruptcy court. Such municipal trading inevitably puts the finances of the local authority which indulges in it at risk, with a real danger of imposing further burdens on hard pressed local taxpayers.

The intention behind the amendment must be to give local authorities wider powers to enter into trading activities of this kind. We believe that that would be wrong. I must therefore ask the noble Baroness whether she will withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, and with the leave of the House, will she explain what implications she believes her reply will have on joint arrangements and inter-authority arrangements?

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, there is nothing to preclude authorities from working together. The provision precludes, first, trading for profit; and, secondly, where CCT operates local authorities should not compete with the private sector in respect of another local authority.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, I note the Minister's reply. We may wish to come back to this on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.30 p.m.

Clause 20 [Agreements as to incidental matters]:

[Amendment No. 88A not moved.]

Clause 23 [Staff commissions]:

Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 89: Page 20, line 30, leave out ("may") and insert ("after consultation with such bodies representative of existing local authorities or of staff employed by such local authorities as appear to him to be concerned, shall, not later than one month after the passing of this Act").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if we discuss also Amendments Nos. 90 and 91. The purpose of the amendment is to lay a duty upon the Secretary of State to set up a staff commission within one month of the passing of the Bill. It further requires that the composition of the staff commission shall be determined after consulting interested parties—that is, the local authority associations and the local government trade unions—about it.

I am sure that the Minister will agree that safeguarding staff interests is a prerequisite for making a success of any plan to reorganise local government. Whatever we and other politicians decide, the job of implementing the plans and keeping services to the public running while the changes come into effect has to be carried out by local authority employees. It is therefore essential that staff can be confident that they will be treated fairly and consistently during the process of change, because it is humane and decent to do so and because it is in the interests of government and will help to ensure the successful outcome of their planned reforms.

The amendment would help to reassure staff in two ways. First, it would guarantee the setting up of a staff commission within one month of the passing of the Bill; and, secondly, it would ensure that the establishment of the commission would be subject to discussion by the Secretary of State, the local authority associations and the trade unions.

A staff commission should be set up speedily once the Bill has been passed. A promise to do so now will do much to reassure the staff about the future. Once the commission is established, it can begin to set the ground rules for the smoothest possible transition to the new system. Even though the first changes (possibly in Humberside and Avon) might not become effective for many months, the knowledge that ground rules would be established in advance and that machinery to deal with problems was already in place, would allay the staff's genuine fears. It would also be a sensible preparatory arrangement. Setting up a staff commission at the last possible moment will leave staff in limbo and will present the new commission and its officers with time pressures which will militate against its effective performance. Here is a chance for the Government to be proactive for a change.

In her reply to similar arrangements tabled in my name, and moved succinctly—if I may say so—by my noble friend Lord Desai in Committee, the Minister, who seemed to miss my presence at that debate—

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

She did.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, I feel flattered by that. The Minister may have felt that it was a good miss, because I might have been more wordy than my noble friend. I am certainly being so now. The Minister expressed the Government's opposition to the thinking that I have so far outlined. Although she accepted that staff commissions have been useful in past reorganisations, she suggested that that applied only if a major reorganisation took place on a single day. There is a strong case that the changes should take place on a single vesting day—I have another amendment down about that point—but that sensible course of action seems to be ruled out by the Government and the Minister. The fact is that it makes no difference whether 2,000 or 20,000 people are involved. The position that they face will be exactly the same. Indeed staff will expect—and they have every right to expect—that the same standards of fairness and consistency are applied to them, whatever the size of the change.

The noble Baroness argued also that, in choosing to move on an area-to-area basis, the Government would reduce the time span of uncertainty for staff and that that would be confined to a period which would commence at the time the commission begins its review of the employing authority's area. It will end when the changes are implemented. With all due respect to the noble Baroness, that argument does not hold water. Uncertainty and anxiety will begin for all staff on the day that this Bill becomes law. Anyone who has worked in an industry which has been reorganised, as I have, or who has negotiated on behalf of staff affected by that reorganisation will know what uncertainty means to staff.

The anxiety of staff will be intensified by the first review and will last until their own employing authority has been reviewed and change implemented. The period may last for four or five years, if I understand correctly the remarks about the timetable made by the Baroness in Committee.

The harsh fact is that this piecemeal style of reorganisation will result in prolonging, and for some staff intensifying, the period of uncertainty which is necessarily caused by reoganisation, whether the reorganisation involves 5,000 or 50,000 people. Those people are entitled to be treated with even-handed consistency. The commission may have periods of relative inactivity, but it can and should be established at the outset; not "for its own sake", as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, dismissively remarked on 5th December but for the sake of loyal and hard working staff and for the sake of ensuring a smooth transition to the new structure.

The purpose of Amendment No. 90 is to ensure that the Secretary of State must consult the staff commission before he makes decisions about staffing issues like transfers, compensation for loss of office, pensions and so on in respect of any particular structural changes which he proposes. I believe that the best way for the Government to deal with legitimate staff anxieties as to how reorganisation will affect them will be to incorporate into the Bill a set of clauses dealing with the transfer of staff, continuity of employment, compensation for loss of office and early retirement.

The Local Government Act 1972 did just that. It is a great pity that we are not doing that in this Bill. I commend this approach to Ministers. I urge them to reconsider their policy. Should they decide to do so, I should be happy to withdraw the amendment. However, in the absence of any such assurance, I believe that this amendment offers a certain qualified measure of assurance to staff. Its effect would be to ensure that the staff commission would have a further duty to the three already specified. That duty would be to advise the Secretary of State about orders or regulations he may wish to make regarding the transfer of functions and so on, so far as they relate to the full range of staffing matters which I have already mentioned.

Such an amendment would clarify the situation and would specify the role of the staff commission in a way that the rather vague terms of Clause 23(1) (c) do not. It would emphasise that the role is preventive and does not merely try to solve problems after they have arisen. It would also reassure staff to know that there is a body whose entire remit is to safeguard staff interest as a key role in the process of developing the transfer and compensation regulations.

While we all expect draft regulations of this kind to be circulated for comment before final decisions are made, to enshrine this principle in the Bill so far as the staff commission is concerned makes good sense. It will also help to dispel the unfortunate impression given by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in her reply to my noble friend Lord Desai when he moved Amendment No. 215 on 5th December. The noble Baroness seemed to imply that the savings she expects to be generated will come largely from staff savings. I take that to be a euphemism for large-scale redundancies. I hope that I am wrong.

I would argue that such a statement puts the cart well and truly before the horse. Surely it is up to the Local Government Commission to decide the new structure and how existing functions shall henceforth be discharged. How can the noble Baroness be so sure at this stage that it will lead to staff savings?

I sincerely hope that the amendment will be supported. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, through these amendments the noble Lord requests that there should be automatic establishment of staff commissions irrespective of whether there is need for them. Further, he asks that they should be established far in advance of any established need foreseen by the Local Government Commission.

I made a full statement in Committee on staffing matters, including the need for staff commissions. The need for a staff commission will depend on the scale of the changes proposed in any one area. Where major structural changes are proposed, the Government accept that there may well be a need for one or more staff commissions to be established. I can certainly assure your Lordships that, where a case for the establishment of staff commissions is made, we shall not hesitate to use the powers in the Bill. In some areas, however, the changes proposed may be quite minor and it would be wrong to set up a staff commission to deal with problems that can quite easily be sorted out by the local authorities involved in the reorganisation.

In the Government's view it would not be useful to have staff commissions in place so early in the review; the proposed Local Government Commission will be asked to undertake a review of local government in England area by area and we do not know how extensive a reorganisation of local government will result from that review.

Clause 26 makes provision for the Secretary of State to make orders or regulations on these matters. It would, of course, be open to the Secretary of State to ask any staff commission to give him advice on these issues. And indeed, where a staff commission is established, Clause 23(1) (c) would require the commission to advise the Secretary of State on the steps necessary to safeguard the interests of the staff. That already seems wide enough to encompass the matters covered in the amendment. In my view, therefore, the amendment should be rejected.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, time is moving on. The noble Baroness does not seem to understand the fear felt by staff that their interests will not be properly safeguarded. She will not give an undertaking that staff commissions will be set up. She will only say that if the Government feel that they should be set up, they will be set up. As I say, the staff fear that the whole object of this exercise is considerably to reduce, whatever the cost to services, the number of staff employed by the local authorities.

If these commissions were set up, the staff would at least obtain the assurance that an independent body, formed after proper consultation with the local authorities and trade unions, was working in their interests and looking after their legitimate concerns. However, it appears that I am not getting that message through to the Government. There will be a further opportunity to do so at Third Reading and indeed, when the matter goes to the House of Commons, it can be explored at great length at Committee stage.

In the meantime, and bearing in mind the fact that people want to leave for their Christmas Recess and, in spite of everything, wishing the noble Baroness, her colleagues and everybody else in the House the compliments of the season, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 90 and 91 not moved.]

4.45 p.m.

Schedule 3 [Amendments consequential on Part II]:

Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 92:

Page 31, line 37, leave out ("section 10 of the Fire Services Act 1947") and insert ("section 6 of the Fire Services Act 1947 (power of the Secretary of State to make combination schemes)—

  1. (a) in subsection (2), after the word "thereto" there shall be inserted the words "or subsection (2A) of this section applies"; and
  2. (b) after that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(2A) If, in a case where the authorities to whom notice of a proposed scheme has been given under subsection (2) of this section do not assent thereto—
  1. (a) it appears to the Secretary of State that the proposed scheme contains only such provision as is appropriate in consequence of an order under Part II of the Local Government Act 1992 containing provision for giving effect to a structural change (within the meaning of that Part); and
  2. (b) the period (if any) that has elapsed between the making of that order and the giving of that notice does not exceed twelve months, the Secretary of State shall be under a duty to consider any representations made by those authorities with respect to the proposed scheme within such period as may have been specified in the notice, but shall not be required under that subsection to cause a public local inquiry to be held."
 1A. In section 10 of that Act").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, as noble Lords will be aware, draft guidance to the Local Government Commission makes clear the Government's belief that police forces and fire brigades would not be viable for areas smaller than present county boundaries. Therefore, Clause 18 of the Bill provides for any new unitary authorities to be treated as counties for the purposes of the amalgamation of police areas under the Police Act 1964, or for the combination of fire authority areas under the Fire Services Act 1947. The intention is that where any devolution of county functions to smaller unitary authorities is to take place, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary should have the power to amalgamate the new authorities to create viable police and fire authorities. In many cases it is likely that this will involve the re-creation of existing police and fire authorities.

In a similar spirit of Christmas, and wishing everyone a very happy Christmas, I hope that these amendments can be accepted.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, these are sensible amendments and we have to support them.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 93:

Page 33, line 25, at end insert: (".—(1) In paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to that Act (obligation to hold public inquiry before making amalgamation scheme if an objection is made), at the beginning there shall be inserted the words "Subject to paragraph 3A below".

(2) After that paragraph there shall be inserted the following paragraph—

"3A. If, in a case where a notice of objection with respect to any proposed scheme is received by the Secretary of State as mentioned in paragraph 3 above—

  1. (a) it appears to the Secretary of State that the proposed scheme contains only such provision as is appropriate in consequence of an order under Part II of the Local Government Act 1992 containing provision for giving effect to a structural change (within the meaning of that Part); and
  2. (b) the period (if any) that has elapsed between the making of that order and the giving of the notice 1553 which is required to be given under paragraph above in relation to that scheme does not exceed twelve months, the Secretary of State shall be under a duty to consider that objection but shall not be required to cause a local inquiry to be held in respect of it." ").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Forward to