HL Deb 26 April 1993 vol 545 cc72-9

7.11 p.m.

Baroness Flather

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

This is a wholly admirable Bill, which was chosen by Mr. Jim Lester in another place on being successful in a ballot after no fewer than 18 years of trying. It combines Jim Lester's local authority background with his abiding interest in creating ever-stronger links with the newly democratic countries of Eastern Europe, as well as with less developed countries overseas. He has worked unstintingly towards this end throughout his parliamentary career. It was therefore quite natural for him to hasten to remove the doubt which had suddenly appeared as to the ability of local authorities to provide any assistance at all to equivalent bodies abroad.

The position on "technical twinning"—that is, on technical assistance to twinned overseas authorities —had always been uncertain. However, with lawyers working for individual authorities and the Local Government International Bureau concluding that, on balance, sufficient powers could be inferred to allow authorities to undertake such work, it was certainly understood that there would be no legal problem if the cost of such assistance were to be paid from central government grant.

What brought the issue to the fore was, of course, the sudden increase in demand from Central and Eastern Europe. Following the collapse of communism in Central and Eastern Europe in 1989, there was keen interest on the part of Ministers at the Department of the Environment, and in the local government communities, in assisting the setting up of stable and efficient systems of local government in these newly democratic countries. This was seen as having the potential to make a major contribution to the achievement of political stability and economic recovery there.

The result was, first, a series of Foreign Office-sponsored programmes of assistance to local government in Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria and, secondly, the technical links scheme. The technical links scheme was set up by the Foreign Office and the Local Government International Bureau in June 1991. It was a joint central-local government initiative, financed by a £700,000 per annum allocation from the Know-How Fund. Its purpose is to contribute to the growth and management of local democracy. Projects aim to deal with urgent technical difficulties, such as environmental, public health, infrastructure or service delivery problems.

Secondly, a programme was set up by the EC, called the Ouverture programme, on the initiative of Strathclyde Regional Council. In addition to Strathclyde Regional Council, selected Spanish, German and Italian local authorities were involved. The programme is funded by the European Community.

Local authorities showed a strong initial interest in both schemes and nine projects were approved in November 1991. However, by December 1991 doubts had begun to arise over local authorities' powers to do such work. For technical twinning, local authorities have relied on the discretionary power in Section 137 of the 1972 Act, on the economic development power in Section 33 of the 1989 Act, and on the power to carry out work conducive or incidental to their functions under Section 111 of the 1972 Act.

A court case on another matter dealt with the scope of Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972, on which some local authorities had relied. It became clear that Section 111 could not be used because the provision of assistance overseas could not be regarded as conducive or incidental to the discharge of an existing function.

At the same time, lawyers advising the Audit Commission argued that the use of Section 137 and Section 33 was inappropriate because both required expenditure carried out under them to bring direct and commensurate benefits to the authority's area or inhabitants. It was difficult to see how overseas technical assistance could be said to provide such direct benefits. The Audit Commission's lawyers concluded that they were unaware of any powers under which local authorities in England and Wales could carry out such work.

It was clear that, unless action could be taken to remedy these legal doubts, there was a risk of losing an extremely effective scheme for getting assistance to Eastern Europe. Jim Lester, by choosing this Bill, has made it possible to save this initiative and British local government's capacity to use its expertise in this manner.

The Bill is a simple two-clause Bill. Its purpose, set out in the Long Title and in Clause 1(1), is to provide local authorities with a power to provide advice and assistance on any matter in which they have skill and experience to overseas bodies engaged in any of the activities of local government. The Bill originally provided for that assistance to be given to overseas bodies engaged in local government. Under the present drafting of the Bill, a British local authority can provide advice and assistance on any matter in which it has skill and experience. This is not restricted to its own functions or to the activities which it and the overseas body have in common. It can provide assistance to any overseas body that has some function or activity in common with or comparable to British local government.

Clause 1(3) makes this power subject to a requirement for the Secretary of State's consent. This is the part of the Bill which has been least welcomed by the local authority associations and they have pressed for its removal. However, it is felt that this is a necessary safeguard to ensure that no significant costs of overseas assistance will fall on the council taxpayer. The consent requirement is not meant to be a heavy-handed control. It is there as an ultimate safeguard. The Secretary of State proposes to give a general authorisation for the provision of technical advice and assistance within the scope of the Bill. That will cover work which is carried out under projects such as the technical links scheme and Ouverture; work where the costs of the work fall below specified de minimis levels; assistance where work up to a specified cost arises out of town-twinning links (that is, up to twice the expenditure which was incurred on these links during the previous year or, where there was no such expenditure, up to twice the town-twinning links planned for the current year); and, finally, assistance where the cost is equal to the income which the local authority receives for providing it.

Clause 1(5) prohibits financial assistance. Originally, the clause simply prohibited all financial assistance. However, the associations pointed out that that would prevent them from donating equipment, such as fire engines, for which they no longer had any use, but which retained a notional capital value. That was accepted, and the current wording is designed to allow such assistance while maintaining the prohibition on financial assistance.

Clause 1(6) is a standard clause, the purpose of which is merely to authorise any expenditure necessary by the Department of Employment, the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office in administering the power provided by the Bill. Clause 1(7) lists the local authority bodies which are to be given the new power. The only significant omissions are parish, town and community councils. The reason for that is merely that Jim Lester and Ministers concluded that since those councils do not employ technical officers it is unlikely that they would have much to contribute to the provision of technical assistance abroad.

Once the Bill is on the statute book, local authorities will at last have a clear power to provide technical advice and assistance overseas. Despite their understandable reservations about the consent requirement, I believe that the associations see the Bill as a significant step forward which will enable authorities to proceed confidently with the projects under the Technical Links Scheme, Ouverture and other schemes. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time —(Baroness Flather.)

7.21 p.m.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, perhaps I may first apologise for my husky voice. I have a cold, but I realise that the Bill is not to be sniffed at. I shall keep as far away from the Dispatch Box as I can. I shall begin by congratulating the noble Baroness not just on her good fortune in being a friend of my friend Jim Lester, but on the excellent way she has served the House by explaining so clearly the problems and the solutions that the Bill encompasses. I, like the noble Baroness, and no doubt others who are interested, read carefully the proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee, and on Third Reading in another place. It is clear that, although one or two reservations were put forward in another place on behalf of the local authority associations, there is a depth of goodwill which transcends any party difficulties.

I am happy to begin and end what I have to say by telling the House that we on the Labour Benches recognise the necessity for and value of the Bill. I was interested to read what Mr. Jim Lester said in another place, especially when he described how his interest in the subject was first aroused. He attended a meeting of the International Union of Local Authorities in Toronto in 1970. One's interest in a subject can be stimulated and maintained for a long time as a result of personal experiences. I went to a similar conference a year or two earlier when I was the council leader of the London Borough of Enfield. In the 1960s I had the good fortune to go to the conference before the one in Toronto.

The conference I attended was held in Belgrade, Yugoslavia. I have vivid memories not just of the conference but of the subjects discussed. The differences between Delhi and Pittsburg were debated. The problems resulting from the environment in which people lived in those cities was one of the major subjects. Since then, as a result of the friendships I made and the interest that was aroused, I have always had a high regard for the contacts made at local government level. The noble Baroness has a long experience of serving in high office in local government. I am sure that she will share my feelings.

I was taken by a phrase used by Mr. Lester (col. 106 of Hansard) who produced the slogan, "Think globally, act locally". That is a fair summary of the feeling behind the Bill. From what the noble Baroness said, it is plain that no one will be under any illusion that this will be a free lunch for those involved or a free ride on a vehicle that will do great things; it is not.

I like the concept that we in Britain have a local government structure from which it is possible for other parts of the world to benefit. Those of us who have been involved in local government have a great deal for which to be thankful. I hope that we do not go too far down the road of saying that what we in this country do, and what the Government have done to local government, provides a model that we should export to other parts of the world. For instance, my good friend Mr. Tony Banks, in his speech in another place, reminded us that there have been 144 Local Government Acts since 1979, 51 of which have been major measures. They did things such as removing control of the budget from local authorities; reducing the rate support grant, which has been cut drastically under this Government; abolishing key local authorities such as the GLC and the other metropolitan counties; transferring key services such as education from local government; taking control nationally of teachers' pay from the local authority body. They have done a great deal of harm with regard to capital receipts. It is a bit rich if people believe that we are the acme of perfection when giving advice on accountability to other nations.

Having said that, we can all be grateful that the authorities interested in this matter recognise that the Bill is too good an opportunity to be missed. I am sure that in Committee I shall be tabling one or two amendments which have already had a canter over the course in the other place. The noble Baroness rightly said that the associations (the Association of County Councils, the Association of District Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, CoSLA and the Local Government International Bureau) all expressed reservations about the requirement for consent. The noble Baroness was quick to say that too much should not be made of that point and that consent would not be withheld for reasonable projects. However, the associations tell me that they see no need in principle to import a requirement that the Secretary of State give his consent to individual schemes.

Local authorities are responsible bodies, acting within the law and accountable to their electors. They are subject to increasingly tight ministerial control of their overall expenditure. We understand that there is no likelihood that the provision will be dropped; nevertheless, we shall raise the matter. Then there is the "without prejudice" clause. It would have been preferable had the Bill included a clause making it clear that the new power would have no effect upon any existing power to provide technical assistance to bodies outside the United Kingdom. We believe that the clause could be re-drafted to meet the legitimate concerns of the authorities while keeping to the mainstream of what is wanted.

General powers are intended to be used only where no more specific powers exist. I shall wish to raise in Committee the subject of powers for parish, town and community councils. There was previously some doubt as to whether those lower-tier authorities were to be included in the Bill. It is now clear that in England and Wales, at least, a number of such councils are in the process of developing technical twinning or partnership links with local communities in Eastern and Central Europe and Africa. That is something which should be encouraged. An amendment at a later stage might serve a useful purpose. Mr. Lester told us what was going on at the moment. He told us that under the existing scheme Bradford is represented in Czechoslovakia; Doncaster, Hull, Dorset, Berkshire, Scunthorpe and Southampton, are all working in Poland; and Hungary has schemes from Croydon, Chorley and Kent. Therefore, we can see that a great deal is being done by authorities in all parts of the country, whether the councils are controlled by Conservative, Labour or any combination of the parties.

We have a useful additional shot in the armoury of local authorities which, despite the enormous burdens under which they labour, believe they have a contribution to make. They want to use their resources and expertise not least among their officers and in the initiatives which they have started. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Flather. She can be assured of the support of Members on these Benches. We look forward to improving the Bill a little further in Committee.

7.30 p.m.

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, perhaps I may first say how pleased I am that my noble friend Lady Flather, who has such a distinguished record in local government, is taking the Bill through the House. As my noble friend explained, the purpose of the Bill is to empower local authorities in Great Britain to provide advice and assistance in matters in which they have skill and experience to bodies outside the UK which have equivalent or comparable functions.

There is nothing new about local authorities providing such assistance. It has often arisen out of the educational and cultural links between British and foreign communities which are commonly known as "town twinning", though it has in the past been on a small scale and incidental to the main twinning activity. Lawyers working for many local authorities, and indeed for the Local Government International Bureau, have in the past concluded that powers permitting such activity could he implied or inferred.

Certainly, as my noble friend explained, it was always understood that if the cost of technical assistance overseas —so-called "technical twinning" —were borne by central government there could be no difficulty in terms of legality. So that when, following the events of summer 1989 in Eastern Europe a strong wish arose in British local government to provide advice and assistance to local authorities in those countries the Government were only too keen to support that. It led to the creation by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and local authority associations of the Technical Links Scheme. There were initially a substantial number of applications from local authorities for funds to carry out work under it. But by December 1991 doubts had arisen about authorities' powers to undertake such work. Unless we could take action to remedy those legal doubts it was clear that we would lose an extremely effective scheme for getting vital practical assistance to Eastern Europe. The situation could be remedied only by primary legislation but there were and are no appropriate government Bills available to allow us to clarify the legal situation here.

We are, therefore, delighted that my noble friend is taking this Private Member's Bill through your Lordships' House. The Bill has the Government's strong support. It offers an excellent example of co-operation between central and local government. Starting from just after First Reading in another place there has been a series of very constructive meetings and detailed correspondence between the Bill's sponsor, the Government and the local authority associations. Throughout we have aimed to accommodate the concerns of local government. As a result the associations have given the Bill their full support.

The associations' principal concern about the Bill has been the fact that the power to provide technical assistance is subject to the Secretary of State's consent. We are afraid that there have to be safeguards against the hopefully remote possibility of an irresponsible authority wasting council tax payers' money. But that is not meant as a heavy-handed control. To meet the associations' concern, the Bill has been amended to provide for the Secretary of State to give a general authorisation. The result will he that applications for the Secretary of State's consent will be very much the exception and that most technical assistance will be covered by the general authorisation.

Other anxieties have related to the need for a "without prejudice" clause, a relaxation of the prohibition on financial assistance and whether the Bill should empower parish and town councils to provide technical assistance overseas. The Bill has already been amended in order partially to meet some of those anxieties so far as that is possible. But the associations have been asked to provide further information on them so that they can be considered again in time for Committee stage.

My noble friend's Bill is a small measure but one of considerable potential value. It would enable British local authorities to provide vitally needed technical advice and assistance to local government in Central and Eastern Europe and also in the wider world. In doing so it will in a small but important way be helping to build democratic and economic stability in those countries. I commend the Bill to the House.

7.35 p.m.

Baroness Flather

My Lords, perhaps I may comment on what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Graham. I was delighted to hear that he counts Jim Lester as a friend, as do I; indeed, he is not only a friend but a mentor. Since I have been a Member of your Lordships' House I have received a great deal of help, advice and encouragement from Jim Lester.

I was sorry to hear a note of politics creep into the discussion; I had hoped that we could keep that out. At least we may be sure that we shall not export what central government may or may not have done to local government in this country but only what local government is able to provide by way of expertise to those who will benefit from that.

The noble Lord, Lord Graham, spoke of local authorities being responsible bodies in relation to the consent of the Secretary of State. Perhaps because I spent 15 years in local government I can say that some authorities are responsible but some are not. The vast majority are responsible but we know only too well that some are not and, therefore, some safeguard may be necessary.

As regard town and community councils, we are still waiting for evidence from the local authority associations. It is not ruled out that they will be included but as yet the associations have not provided the required amount of evidence. The associations' case for providing a "without prejudice" clause is that it has been found by the lawyers of the Audit Commission that there is no specific power to provide such assistance to authorities overseas. The local authorities associations are asking that that particular power, which does not exist, should be preserved. It is somewhat convoluted that we are here trying to introduce a new Bill specifically to provide that power while saying at the same time that the power which existed should be preserved. The fact is that no such power exists.

I commend the Bill to your Lordships.

On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 8.10 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

[The Sitting was suspended from 7.38 to 8.10 p.m.]