HL Deb 12 February 1998 vol 585 cc1325-40

7.40 p.m.

Report received.

Clause 1 [Experimental decision-making arrangements]:

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 26, at end insert ("delegated to that committee").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the above amendment I wonder whether, in the spirit of the Motion just taken on resuming the House, it should perhaps be Amendment No. 1¾,or something similarly precise. In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 13 and 17 which have been grouped with it, although they cover rather different issues.

Before I speak to Amendment No. 1, perhaps I may take a moment of the time of the House to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, and the Minister for the very considerable amount of time that they have given to discussing the concerns that have been expressed during earlier stages of the Bill. In particular, I should like to thank them for their role as regards the amendments which are before the House tonight, some of which I realise took a considerable amount of work to achieve. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and 1, have expressed a number of concerns on previous occasions, although I appreciate that I was perhaps a little more awkward than others. Nevertheless, I very much appreciate the work that has been done. I hope that the House will feel that the amendments are worth while.

My underlying concerns—about whether this is the right approach to innovation and whether internal arrangements should be the prime target for innovation—may remain, but I am a realist. I realise that the Bill is what we have before us. Having raised matters which are now within the amendments I, like other noble Lords, have been very glad to put my name to them.

I believe that they will make a better Bill.

There are some amendments, those in this group and one or two others, which are tabled solely in my name. I hope that the House will understand—indeed, I have already explained the position to the noble Lord and the Minister—that these have been tabled not in a spirit of cussedness but simply as a mechanism for getting comments from the sponsor of the Bill and from the Government on the record. That is the reason for my moving this and other amendments.

Amendment No. 1 seeks to add to the end of Clause 1(2)(d)(ii) the words, "delegated to that committee", in order to describe the functions which the members of that committee may discharge. I do so in order to understand whether the arrangements may include the delegation of some, but not all, functions of the authority; and, in particular, how this clause relates to Clause 1(3)(b) which uses the terminology, any functions of the authority which the committee is able to discharge". I remain uncertain as to whether those provisions are somewhat circular; in other words, is the authority able to discharge only those functions which fall within Clause 1(2)(d)(ii), and, indeed, how does that loop arise? I hope that I have made myself clear in that respect.

Amendment No. 13 proposes that the details of the arrangements included in the application should include, arrangements for the performance of the ceremonial role of mayor of the authority". Over a number of years in local government, I have come to realise that the mayoralty is of great importance to a number of residents and that is much more material than its importance to those councillors who take on the role. However, it is quite clear that the attendance of the mayor, demonstrating the commitment of the authority represented by the mayor, and so on, is something which many people value greatly. Therefore, I should be glad to have on the record—and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has written to my noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood in this regard—how the ceremonial role may be performed in a situation where there is an elected mayor.

I turn finally to Amendment No. 17. Again, I draw attention to the provisions in Clause 6 in connection with any proposed change to the arrangements. I refer in particular to the provision that a mayor may have what is in effect a veto on any proposed alterations. Subsection (3) says that, the local authority may not pass such a resolution"— as part of the approach to the Secretary of State— without the written consent of the…[elected] mayor". I am concerned about this, among other matters. I wish to understand how that provision will apply when there is a change of control in the administration of the authority. Again, this matter has been discussed privately, but it is not altogether obvious on reading the Bill. Indeed, one would not necessarily expect it to be.

When there is an election, the incoming administration may perhaps express very different views about its own internal management. Similarly, there may be no overall control of the authority in a situation where, to have an elected mayor, might—although not necessarily—go against any attempts to reach a consensual arrangement which groups in such circumstances will be striving to achieve.

Further, I am also concerned to understand how the Secretary of State can prevent what perhaps I can describe as the improper use of the veto. An elected mayor with executive authority will have very considerable powers. I have an instinctive distrust of how being in that situation may give the individual ideas about the retention of his position which might not necessarily be shared by others. Moreover, if an authority wants to move away from the model of a cabinet committee, executive ordinary mayor or an elected mayor, I am concerned to know how it could do so. With the individual having such a power of control, it would be helpful to understand more fully in what circumstances it may be used and how it may be overcome, if indeed it can be. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, as this is the first opportunity for me to speak today, I should like to make a few general comments. I believe that the process we have been through in this House on the Bill has brought us to a shared understanding and shared goals across the House on many, if not all, the issues raised by this legislation. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, to the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for the way that they have contributed to this opportunity to look at such issues in a spirit of consensus. I am also grateful for the opportunity that the amendments provide for me to clarify a few further points which I hope will be of assistance to the House.

Under this Bill, an authority would propose—in no little detail—the arrangements that it wished to pursue. Those arrangements would need to define the powers of the various elements in the proposed arrangements and the range of functions in each case over which they are to be exercised. The Secretary of State would then give effect to the proposals by making an order permitting the authority to run the proposed experiment and making the necessary legislative arrangements.

I believe that all of us, from all sides of the House, welcome the permissive rather than the prescriptive nature of the Bill, grounded as it is in the distinguished experience and knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in the field of local government, and the breadth of options for experiment that the Bill will enable.

Under the Bill, the experimental arrangements proposed by a local authority could comprise a cabinet system as permitted by Clause 1(2)(d). Such a system is one where there are executive functions discharged by the executive committee corporately but where some or all of its members also have executive responsibilities allocated to them to be discharged as individuals acting alone. With regard to one of the specific points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, it would be perfectly proper for the arrangements proposed by the authority to define the scope of the role of these individuals. That would mean that at least some of their responsibilities would be allocated to them at the time the arrangements were set up, as opposed to being delegated to them by the executive committee after the experiment had begun. They could still have further functions delegated to them by the executive committee, if the approved arrangements allowed this, but the committee would not be the only source of their responsibilities.

The allocation of responsibilities might be clearest where it is defined in the arrangements themselves and the Government are keen to ensure that this is possible under the Bill. I regret that the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to this clause would unfortunately tend to narrow the range of options available under the Bill and the Government cannot therefore support it. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. has also proposed that the Bill should include in the list of those matters to be covered in an application the question of the ceremonial role of the mayor. It is clear that this is an important issue—no one understands that more than myself. My first experience of local government was in Preston with its long, fine charter and the ceremony of the guild mayor. It is an important issue that will have to be addressed by authorities in designing their experimental arrangements and the Bill contains a number of possible modifications to legislation on this point. However, the Government would much prefer to deal with this issue in the guidance to be issued to local authorities under the Bill and we give a commitment to do so.

Finally, and most importantly, the Bill provides at Clause 6(3) that where an authority is conducting an experiment with an executive mayor any proposal by the authority to change the arrangements unilaterally would be wrong. The noble Baroness's amendment would remove the need to obtain the mayor's support. We would view such a step with some concern. It is, of course, possible that there will be disagreements between the executive mayor and the rest of the authority. They will have differences of view and, in the case of a directly elected mayor, each will have separate mandates from the electorate. We believe that this separation of roles will not lead to a climate of conflict but rather to a new consensual approach to decision taking.

The noble Baroness referred to an authority which was under no overall political control. I believe that this atmosphere of consensus and co-operation within some of the new models could contribute to that consensus approach. This should apply to changing the nature of the experiment as it does to any other matter. Authorities should live by the constitution they set up in their approved experimental arrangements. Disputes should be settled within the procedures the authority had defined, and the Secretary of State, in considering proposals for experiments, will ensure that these procedures are adequate.

The provision requiring the executive mayor's approval for an application to change an experiment is necessary to prevent the authority unilaterally from denuding the mayor of his functions or writing him out of the story as a form of conflict resolution. It is an important safeguard and therefore the Government cannot support the noble Baroness's amendment. If any disagreements reached the stage where the experiment had collapsed and had to be wrapped up, the Secretary of State could act to do so. But this would happen only in the most extreme circumstances.

These innovations will last for a specified period and will be accompanied by clear evaluation of their effectiveness. If the mayor is directly elected he will remain in place when control changes, assuming his election does not occur at the same time as that of the rest of the council. It is important to note that if he is indirectly elected, he could be replaced by a council vote.

Lord Hunt of Tanworth

My Lords, I much appreciated the opening remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. It makes me all the sadder that at a time when there is general support for most of the amendments being brought forward today I cannot support the amendments in this group.

I can add little to what the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, has already said on the amendment to the definition of the cabinet. But I believe that the Bill should retain the widest scope for experiment possible and that that objective accords with many of the views that have been expressed in this House and elsewhere since this Bill was introduced.

On the question of the ceremonial role of mayors, I welcome the Government's undertaking to cover this in the guidance. Clearly this will be an issue of great interest to some councils and councillors and they will need some advice. I think the crucial point or difficulty—or whatever you like to call it—is that an executive mayor will not chair the proceedings of the authority. There will be a separate chairman. My Bill already contains modifications, at paragraphs 2, 4, 6, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the schedule which will enable a local authority to define its executive mayor as the mayor for the authority but to deal separately and make its own choice about the issue of the ceremonial role; that is, whether the ceremonial role should be performed by the chairman of the council or the executive mayor.

However, the Bill does not contain any power to amend charters. The precise arrangements in each authority where there is a mayor by virtue of a charter (other than one granted under Section 245 of the Local Government Act 1972) will therefore vary, depending upon the precise content of the charter and the relationship between the entities or titles it creates and the exercise of the local authority's functions. Authorities will clearly also need to take account of any such charters in framing their applications for an experiment to the Secretary of State.

Finally, on Amendment No. 17, where there is an experiment with a directly elected mayor there is clearly a separate direct mandate for that mayor. He or she may have sought election on a different platform from any of those of the political groups represented on the council. There are bound to be differences and disagreements. But this is one of the benefits of this model. Such public debate will make it very clear to all—both councillors and the electorate—what the arguments are on a particular issue and how a decision was reached. The public will know why a decision was taken, by whom and be able to weigh up whether they believe it to be right. Surely it must be possible that this will lead to better decision taking and certainly more open decision taking.

I fear that the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would allow local authorities who found that the mayor and the rest of the authority disagreed on a particular issue to use that as a reason for moving to a different form of experiment, without a mayor, or taking that particular responsibility away from the mayor. I think that would be a great pity. Not only would it be an inappropriate form of conflict resolution, but it would cut across a directly elected mayor's own democratic mandate. Clearly that would damage his role as the political leader of the community. I therefore believe that the authority must not have the power—unilaterally, and during the period of an experiment—to change experimental arrangements which include an executive mayor without the agreement of the mayor. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will not press these amendments.

8 p.m.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, as I hope I indicated—perhaps I should fill in the gap between the lines—my amendments were intended to be probing amendments. However, as the debate has continued, it occurs to me how important it will be that the arrangements which are approved, and the time over which an experiment can take place, will need to be dovetailed into the period for which a mayor may be elected.

There is much to go into guidance. I think that the Secretary of State will be somewhat exercised with some of the pieces of the jigsaw. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendment No. 2: Page 2, leave out lines 28 to 30.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 7, 9, 14, 19 and 26. These amendments very much reflect what has always been the intention of the Bill. We have throughout emphasised that the power to experiment with arrangements differing from the traditional committee system must include safeguards for propriety and the rights of minority parties. The spirit of these amendments was in the Bill all along. But a number of concerns were expressed at Second Reading and in Committee and have emerged from discussions involving all quarters of this House. I believe that the Bill will be much improved by the amendments and I wish to thank all those who helped in the discussion and formulation of them.

There are two main strands to the amendments: to clarify the nature and role of the scrutiny function and to reinforce the role of the guidance it is intended the Secretary of State should issue under the Bill.

Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 make it clear that where there is a separate executive arm created within the authority in experimental arrangements under the Bill there must also be scrutiny committees set up to hold that executive, be it a committee or an individual, to account. They also provide for that scrutiny function to include the ability to recommend to the executive, before a decision is taken or implemented, that the matter should be considered by the full council. There is already provision in the Bill to ensure that the scrutiny committees have all the information to enable them to do that. I envisage that such a mechanism would in practice be used only occasionally as it could otherwise become a brake on any decision taking. Nevertheless, I believe that it is a valuable and necessary part of the scrutiny function and I commend the amendments to the House.

Amendment No. 26 places a duty upon the Secretary of State to consult the Local Government Association before issuing any guidance under the Bill. Amendment No. 9 requires that guidance to cover a number of issues including freedom of information, access to information, the functions of scrutiny committees and the circumstances in which the scrutiny mechanism I have mentioned will come into play. Finally, in assessing whether to approve an application to experiment or to change an experiment, the Secretary of State will be required, under Amendments Nos. 14 and 19, to have regard to the extent to which the application is framed in line with the guidance issued. This framework represents a clear guide to local authorities on what will be acceptable under the Bill. The Bill is much improved because of it. I commend the amendments to the House.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, I welcome the amendments, in particular the proposal that a scrutiny committee should become a requirement rather than an option. I welcome the attention given to points raised at the last stage, in particular the role of looking forward, and—if I may call it in shorthand—the power to call in proposals, referring them to the authority.

At the previous stage, I raised the issue of freedom of information, having little expectation that a way could be found to refer to it on the face of the Bill before we have a freedom of information Act. I am delighted that the draftsman has found the mechanism to do so. That is welcome. It is an important point.

In discussing how scrutiny arrangements can work, I realise that considerable energy will be required, in particular from leaders of the opposition. We should not be too casual in our references to scrutiny. It will be a difficult process. Much of the provision will require a change of culture; and that is not generally easy. But since these proposals are designed to recognise that some councillors are by nature, and given the time they have available, more suited to taking executive decisions, others—I say it in no way pejoratively—are more suited to the role of back-benchers dealing with constituency ward matters.

If there is to be an executive cabinet, that will by definition attract from the party running the administration those who have the time, energy and talents. It will require a great deal of effort, I suspect, by the leaders of the opposition parties to fulfil the scrutiny role that this model demands. I wish them luck.

Perhaps I may ask one question. It refers back to an amendment at the previous stage. Am I right in thinking that if the amendments are incorporated in the Bill it will be possible to give part of the scrutiny function to neighbourhood or area committees? As I said last time, if there is a neighbourhood structure it is important that the scrutiny fits into that structure. I do not know whether the Minister or the noble Lord, Lord Tanworth, will be able to confirm that.

This point is not intended to be carping. I wonder whether the word "and" needs to be inserted at the end of subsection (3)(c) since it has been omitted at the end of subsection (3)(d). I shall be happy to be told that the provisions are alternative rather than cumulative. That may be the reason that the word is not inserted at the end of the previous paragraph.

Lord Bowness

My Lords, the Bill deals with potentially major changes as to the way local government in England and Wales is run. I expressed reservations at Second Reading about a Bill which contains such major changes not being a government Bill. I am sure the Minister will understand that some of those reservations exist. Nevertheless, without in any way derogating from the thanks, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, for the discussions which they initiated. They enabled a number of us to contribute improvements to the Bill which I think have been worthwhile. I should like to take this opportunity to put those thanks on the record.

Clearly, these amendments are among the major changes to which I refer. I certainly welcome and support the safeguards that are implicit in the amendments, particularly Amendment No. 3. Although the changes may well be welcomed by local government—and we can all see the need for improving the decision-making process in local government—the safeguard that is built in by these requirements is most important. I am therefore happy to support the amendments.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, I, too, am happy to support these amendments. I am grateful to noble Lords who contributed to improving the quality of this important piece of legislation. The new Clauses 2, 3 and 4 are very important. They begin to define the role of members within a new system of local government. Indeed, it might be argued that they begin to empower members and define the role of the new councillor that these arrangements will put in place.

The scrutiny function within local government has a good way to go yet in terms of the development of a model for the future. This provision will also require new skills on the part of elected members. It will probably begin to improve the quality of decision-making. Scrutiny is all too often looked upon as something that takes place after the event. I fancy that elected members will now look on scrutiny as tending to prefigure and work out future policies. The scrutiny function, as it is beginning to be defined in the clauses, will offer a great deal of help to those who wish to see greater checks and balances within local authorities. I rather suspect that with the recent publication by the Government of their consultation document on improving the quality of local democracy, all councils will seek to have a scrutiny function built into the way they work. This will add considerably to the quality of local government and perhaps begin to enhance the quality of local authority members, strengthening, I hope, their ability to act and define the interests of their constituents.

There is a further issue that relates to scrutiny. As this provision takes form in the future, and as part of the longer debate as to how we view local government in the future, I should like to see the scrutiny role of the individual councillor more closely defined, perhaps as providing a right of scrutiny for individual councillors.

I am therefore very happy to support the amendments. It says a great deal for the collaborative efforts that Members of this House can make to improve the quality of legislation. I am pleased that we have progressed together on this matter. I trust that our colleagues in another place will learn from this and that the Bill's progress will not be conducted in an adversarial spirit but in a spirit of co-operation, so that the improvements made in this House can be taken forward into the operation of local government.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, I can add little to what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and other noble Lords have already said. The Government support these amendments and are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and to those noble Lords whose names are to the amendments, for the support that has been given.

On the particular point regarding the role of neighbourhood or area committees and the scrutiny function, the authority is free to choose which elected members are appropriate in its eyes to serve on the scrutiny committee. However, as a result of our deliberations, such a scrutiny committee must reflect political proportionality. It is not my experience that area or neighbourhood committees have ever exactly matched that, and they should choose between elected members who have time, detailed knowledge, and so on. However, it could be argued that area committees could inform the scrutiny process and play a very important role.

8.15 p.m.

Lord Hunt of Tanworth

My Lords, I merely wish to echo the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington. I can see a role for neighbourhood committees. But also, if scrutiny is to become a meaningful function, it is important not to dissipate the power of a scrutiny committee on a party-proportional basis and with the right to call in and advise the council. The authority of scrutiny committees needs to be built up rather than dissipated. But how they exercise that function and the extent to which neighbourhood committees and so on are involved are matters for discussion and will perhaps figure in the guidance.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendment No. 3: Page 2, line 34, at end insert— ("(4A) Except where they include only such arrangements as are mentioned in subsection (2)(f) above, experimental decision-making arrangements must include arrangements—

  1. (a) for the appointment of one or more scrutiny committees of a local authority to scrutinise the discharge of any functions of the authority to which the experimental decision-making arrangements relate: and
  2. (b) enabling that or those scrutiny committees, in such cases or circumstances as the arrangements provide, to recommend that a proposed or future discharge of any such function be considered by the authority before the function is discharged.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Strabolgi)

My Lords, I have to inform the House that if Amendment No. 4 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 5.

Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendment No. 4: Page 2, line 36, leave out from ("any") to ("to") in line 38 and insert ("scrutiny committee of a local authority").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when speaking to Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendment No. 6: Page 2, line 49, leave out ("exercise") and insert ("discharge").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 8, 15, 20 to 25 and 27 to 32. These amendments are all technical drafting amendments. I do not think that they raise any significant issues for the House today. I am grateful for the wide support that they have attracted from your Lordships, and in particular for the helpful comments on drafting from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which have led to a number of these amendments.

Although these are largely drafting and technical amendments, I wish to draw the attention of the House to a few matters raised by them. Amendment No. 8 is a recasting of an important new clause proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Bassam and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, in Committee. It requires authorities to review their decision-making arrangements at least every four years. But the clause in the form accepted in Committee does not define a deadline for the consideration of the results of such a review. The recast clause as proposed in my amendment ensures that an authority will prepare a report on its review and consider it within six months of completing the review.

Turning to Amendments Nos. 21 to 23, the policy has always been to ensure that the Secretary of State could, without a prior application to do so from the authority concerned, revoke the order permitting a particular experiment if it had clearly failed and the authority in question was incapable of resolving the situation itself.

It was also the intention to ensure that any order bringing an end to an experiment in these circumstances should be able to make such transitional other provision as was necessary for the orderly return to operating under the standard legislative framework. These amendments clarify that and ensure that the intent is delivered by the Bill. This is a necessary long-stop, designed for circumstances which I am sure we all hope we shall never encounter.

Finally, I wish to speak briefly to Amendment No. 15, which clarifies that which has always been the intent of Clause 4(4)(d) of the Bill; namely, that the Secretary of State should be able to make modifications to legislation other than those set out in the schedule to the Bill, both to the enactments modified by the schedule and to others. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, I understand the need for Amendment No. 15. But it seems to me that the scrutiny function of Members of this House and of another place will be required when orders are put before us. It may even argue a little more strongly for the affirmative resolution procedure. The scope for changing legislation through an order, which many Members of this House have criticised at great length over the years, is quite extensive as a result of the Bill and even more of this amendment.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, I can add little to what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has already said. However, I wish to place on record a word or two about the amendment to Clause 4(4)(d). While the amendment itself merely clarifies what was already the intent, it could cause some to think again about the provision more generally. I hope that what I am about to say will reassure the House and those who read the record of this Report stage.

In one sense the provision appears wide, enabling the Secretary of State to make modifications which are not listed in the schedule to legislation as it affects a particular authority which he thinks are necessary or expedient. But this power is clearly constrained to making such provision as is necessary to give effect to a proposal from an authority which he has approved. He could not approve an application unless the arrangements it included were in line with the guidance he had issued and, if I may speak to Amendment No. 26 for a moment, which we have already indicated we intend to support, the guidance would only be issued after consultation with the Local Government Association. As a result of the valuable amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, at Committee, such modifications could not be made unless he had consulted the authority first. Then, even after the order has been made, the authority could choose not to pursue the experiment.

There is therefore no question of this power being capable of being used by the Government to force authorities into forms of experiment which they had not intended to pursue.

To conclude, the Government support these amendments and are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for bringing them forward and for the support given to them from other Members of the House.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendment No. 7: Page 3, line 31, at end insert— (""scrutiny committee", in relation to a local authority, means any ordinary committee of the authority which is appointed to scrutinise the discharge of any functions of the authority:").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment in the debate on Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 2 [Review of decision-making processes]:

Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendment No. 8: Page 3. line 39. leave out from ("Act') to end of line 44 and insert ("conduct a review of the efficiency, effectiveness, openness and accountability of their decision-making arrangements.

  1. (2) In conducting a review under this section, a local authority shall take reasonable steps to consult local government electors, and other interested persons, in the authority's area.
  2. (3) A local authority shall within six months of the completion of a review under this section—
    1. (a) prepare a report on that review; and
    2. (b) consider that report.
  3. (4) A local authority's function with respect to the consideration of any report under this section shall be discharged only by the authority.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment in the debate on Amendment No. 6. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendment No. 9: After Clause 2, insert the following new clause— GUIDANCE

  1. (".—(1) In formulating experimental decision-making arrangements, a local authority shall have regard to any guidance from time to time issued by the Secretary of State.
    2. 1337
  2. (2) Guidance under this section shall (in particular) include provision with respect to—
  1. (a) freedom of information;
  2. (b) access to information;
  3. (c) the functions of scrutiny committees;
  4. (d) the cases or circumstances in which scrutiny committees may make recommendations as mentioned in section 1(4A)(b) above.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment in the debate on Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 3 [Applications for approval of experimental decision-making arrangements]:

Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendment No. 10: Page 4, line 3. at end insert— ("(1A) Before passing such a resolution as is referred to in subsection (1) above in respect of experimental decision-making arrangements, a local authority shall take reasonable steps to inform and consult local government electors, and other interested persons, in the authority's area about the main features of the arrangements.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 10, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 11, 12, 16 and 18. It has always been the intention of the Bill to make local authorities more aware of the needs and desires of the people they serve. Amendment No. 10 extends that principle to the formulation of an application to the Secretary of State to operate experimental arrangements. It requires a local authority, before passing a resolution to make an application to experiment, to take all reasonable steps to inform and consult their electorate and other interested parties, such as local businesses and volunteer groups, on the nature of their proposed arrangements. Amendment No. 12 requires the authority to include in its application to the Secretary of State a copy of a report describing what actions they took to consult in this way and a summary of the views expressed.

Amendments Nos. 16 and 18 make similar provision for the circumstances where an authority is seeking to change its experiment.

The amendments will ensure that local authorities wishing to experiment with innovative forms of decision-taking arrangements will be fully aware of the views of their electorate. I believe that this will assist those authorities in choosing the most appropriate form of experimentation for their area and enable them to proceed in the knowledge that they have public support for their chosen course of action. I beg to move Amendment No. 10.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, I can add little to what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has already said. The Government support the amendments and are again grateful to the noble Lord for bringing them forward and for the support given to them from other Members of the House.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]

Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendment No. 12: Page 4, line 9, at end insert— ("(ca) must be accompanied by a copy of a report which describes the steps that the authority took under subsection (1A) above and which summarises the views that were expressed to the authority about the arrangements:').

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment in the debate on Amendment No. 10. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]

Clause 4 [Approval of applications under section 3]:

Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendment No. 14: Page 4. line 46, at end insert ("and (b) to the extent to which the experimental decision-making arrangements have been formulated in accordance with any guidance for the time being issued under section (Guidance) above.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment in the debate on Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendment No. 15: Page 5, line 16, after ("or) insert ("those or any other").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment in the debate on Amendment No. 6. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 6 [Applications for extension or variation of experimental decision-making arrangements]:

Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendment No. 16: Page 6, line 41. at end insert— ("(2A) Before passing such a resolution as is referred to in subsection (2) above in respect of an application under paragraph (b) or (c) of that subsection, a local authority shall take reasonable steps to inform and consult local government electors, and other interested persons, in the authority's area about the main features of the varied arrangements.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment in the debate on Amendment No. 10. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]

Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendment No. 18: Page 7, line 20, at end insert— ("(ba) must be accompanied by a copy of a report which describes the steps that the authority took under subsection (2A) above and which summarises the views that were expressed to the authority about the varied arrangements;").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I also spoke to this amendment in the debate on Amendment No. 10. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 7 [Approval of applications under section 6]:

Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendment No. 19: Page 8, line 27, after ("process;") insert— ("(ba) to the extent to which the varied arrangements have been formulated in accordance with any guidance for the time being issued under section (Guidance) above;").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment in the debate on Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 10 [Extension and variation of arrangements etc: orders under section 7(6)]:

Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendment No. 20: Page 11. line 22. at end insert ("(but with the reference in section 9(8)(c) to section 7(5) above taken as a reference to section 7(6) above)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment on the debate on Amendment No. 6. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 12 [Termination of experimental decision-making arrangements]:

Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendment No. 21: Page 13. line 7, at end insert— ("(6A) The Secretary of State may—

  1. (a) in connection with the approval of an application under subsection (3) above, or
  2. (b) of his own motion,
make an order which revokes any order made under this Act in relation to a local authority. (6B) An order under this section which is made by the Secretary of State of his own motion may specify a date upon which a local authority must terminate the operation of experimental decision-making arrangements.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment in the debate on Amendment No. 6. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendments Nos. 22 and 23: Page 13, line 14, leave out subsection (9). Page 13, line 26. after ("section") insert—

  1. ("(a) may make such supplemental. incidental, consequential or transitional provision (including provision modifying enactments or applying enactments with or without modifications) as the Secretary of State thinks necessary or expedient; and
  2. (b)")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, if the House agrees, I should be delighted to move Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 en bloc. I spoke to them in earlier debates and no major points arise from them. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 13 [Interpretation etc]:

Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendments Nos. 24 and 25: Page 13, line 40, at end insert— (""scrutiny committee" has the meaning given by section 1 above;"). Page 13, line 40, at end insert— (""local government elector" has the meaning given by section 1 above;").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

8.30 p.m.

Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendment No. 26: Page 13, line 45, at end insert— ("(3) Before issuing any guidance under this Act, the Secretary of State shall consult the Local Government Association or such other representatives of local government as appear to him to be appropriate.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 26 in the debate on Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule [Modifications of enactments which may be specified in an order under section 4 or 7]:

Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendments Nos. 27 to 31: Page 16, line 18, after ("below") insert ("or section 4 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970"). Page 16, line 23, leave out ("exercise") and insert ("discharge"). Page 16. line 29, leave out ("exercise") and insert ("discharge"). Page 17, line 31, leave out ("exercise") and insert ("discharge"). Page 17, line 39, leave out ("exercise") and insert ("discharge").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments in the debate on Amendment No. 6. With the leave of the House I shall move them en bloc. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

In the title:

Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendment No. 32: Line 5, after ("authorities;") insert ("to provide for periodic reviews by local authorities of their decision-making arrangements;"). End Amendment No. 32.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure.

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

[The Sitting was suspended from 8.31 to 8.38 p.m.]