Local Government (Experimental Arrangements) Bill [H.L.]

HL Deb 27 January 1998 vol 585 cc160-200

7.5 p.m.

Lord Hunt of Tanworth

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

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hunt of Tanworth.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Lyell) in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Experimental decision-snaking arrangements]:

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, leave out lines I7 to 19.

The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 grouped with this amendment. Also grouped with this amendment is Amendment No. 12 in the name of the noble Lord. Lord Hunt of Tanworth.

Without wishing to make a Second Reading speech at this point—but it should at least occupy a minute or two until those concerned with the Bill are able to hear the arguments on these amendments—perhaps I may say a word or two about the attitude of these Benches. As I said at Second Reading, we are not against innovation in the powers of local authorities, in the electoral arrangements applying to local authorities and in democracy, as well as efficiency, with which the Bill is concerned.

We are most concerned that any new administrative arrangements should not overshadow innovations that are possible without new legislation, such as "localisation", if I may use that term to encompass many different mechanisms; nor indeed the varied responses to the new challenges that have faced local government over the past few years.

I was struck by a comment on comparisons between local government in different countries. It is striking that much of the language of reform is universal. Elsewhere, as in Britain, the phrases that recur are against monopoly and bureaucratic uniformity and in favour of deregulation, accessibility, responsiveness, choice and efficiency—in other words, a much wider agenda than this Bill purports to set.

I was also struck by the comment in paragraph 5.11 of the Widdicombe Report dealing with proportionality that the current model of government is one which has proved itself sufficiently adaptable to accommodate all the various circumstances to which the report referred in relation to the composition of authorities.

Having made that general point, I turn to the group of amendments. My amendments are concerned with the establishment of an executive ordinary member. We do not seek to wreck the Bill; and it is partly in regard to that that my amendments do not concern themselves with the powers of a directly elected mayor—another of the models proposed in the Bill.

I believe that the public probably has some understanding of the concept of an elected mayor. I am much less sure that the public understands what might be undertaken by an ordinary member in whom executive authority has been vested. I may betray my age when I say that, as a councillor, I was one of the generation brought up on the concept that governance and management are, and should be, separate.

Voters elect the council; in many cases they elect individuals and they will vote not on a party ticket. But I do not believe that they expect to elect someone who may turn out to have considerable executive powers, with little check on them. Voters expect leaders of authorities to lead but I do not believe that the public expect leaders to be vested after an election with executive powers. By and large they elect councillors for a range of attributes such as political values, priorities, and, of course, the efficiency that they demonstrate, but not primarily for their managerial skills.

I know that there are some residents who expect that if those of us who are councillors are not at home to answer our phones it is because we are out picking up refuse or possibly even constructing multi-million pound budgets with little help from our officers.

I still see the distinction between strategy and politics and the executive role of local government. Therefore, I have put down a range of amendments to delete the references to vesting powers in executive ordinary members. In re-reading the Bill last night, it occurred to me to wonder, particularly seeing an amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, dealing with social services, whether an ordinary member to whom powers have been delegated might be reluctant to exercise the serious and complex powers involved with social services. Therefore, in moving the amendment, I take the opportunity to ask whether an ordinary member in that situation can refuse to exercise any of the powers that the authority attempts to vest in him or her. I can see also that an ordinary member might not want to have the responsibility, for example, of taking planning decisions. The whole planning area is only too vulnerable to corruption. I put it in that way. I do not believe that there is as much corruption as some cynics believe. But it is an area where members must be absolutely scrupulous.

One slightly different amendment is Amendment No. 7. It appears to allow delegation to be passed on to another stage, to go down another tier. I was also brought up on delegatus non potest delegare: if you have power delegated to you, you may not delegate it on to another.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will deal with his amendment, Amendment No. 12, with regard to scrutiny. My comment on it at this stage is that the amendment is not one with which I seek to argue. I observe that it does not require a scrutiny committee. The mechanisms would operate only if there is a committee. Therefore, I do not take issue with it. I do not believe it is necessarily a complete solution to my concerns in that area, but we shall return to the question of scrutiny later. I beg to move.

7.15 p.m

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

The Government welcome and support this Bill. We do so because the Bill is not prescriptive but enables those authorities who volunteer to find a better way of doing things, one which suits their own particular needs. Equally we do so because we believe that the opportunities which the Bill opens up are opportunities which, in the right circumstances, will be well worth trying out.

I am bound to say therefore that the Government view the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, with some regret. Their intended effect is to rule out some of the opportunities for experiments which the Bill currently provides. There would no longer be any ability for an authority experimenting under the Bill to give any of its functions to a single member of the council except for an executive mayor. The effect would be to cut out of the Bill a whole swathe of options for experiment which are currently attracting considerable interest in local government.

Our regret is not primarily because the amendments would simply reduce the range of options open to authorities but rather because the amendments would remove the opportunity for authorities to experiment with arrangements which we, as government, believe could prove to be immensely worthwhile. They would be worthwhile in terms of modernising local government and helping councils more effectively to engage with, and be accountable to, their communities.

I share many of the noble Baroness's concerns about the need for councils to be open, to promote rather than prevent public participation, to open up decision making, and to allow local people a real say in the governance of their communities. But we believe, as do many others, that perhaps part of the problem in the past has been the traditional committee structures. In these structures the executive, scrutiny, and representational roles of councillors are easily confused. By separating out these functions it will be possible to make clear just who has taken decisions and to allow sharper scrutiny of those decisions. That in turn should lead to improved decision making, greater openness and accountability: aims, I believe, which are shared on all sides of the House.

The kind of experiments which the noble Baroness's amendments would rule out are exactly some of those which are centred on achieving this separation of the executive, scrutiny, and representational roles. I am not saying that we are certain that any one of these models is necessarily right. But we are saying that councils should be given the opportunity of adopting, say, the cabinet system, or to have a system of lead members.

As the noble Baroness said, these are not new ideas. Like her, I can remember the changes in local government, having started my local government career at the time of the innovations of the Bains Report and the proposals that followed. For example, the ideas were identified in the 1993 report of the joint local government/central government working party, established by the right honourable Member for Henley, which looked at the internal management of local authorities. That working party's membership was drawn from the local authority associations—in which I declare an interest as a member—and the Audit Commission; and it had among its members Professor George Jones, Professor of Government at the London School of Economics.

In its report the working party examined a number of models, including the cabinet system, the lead member system, and the single party executive committee. It identified the safeguards each system would require, the benefits of each and the legal implications. The Bill before us tonight will give councils the opportunity to try out such models for decision taking. The Bill reflects the work and study of that expert working party. Yet these are the decision taking arrangements which the noble Baroness's amendments would rule out as an option for local authorities.

These models are now being actively explored by local authorities. That is not because of some cynical judgment that they will allow them to take decisions without any interference from the public or the opposition, whether inside or outside their own party. Rather the reverse. It is because they see the benefits which might accrue for the quality of local democracy.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will wish to consider whether it is possible to take away these possibilities—to put this particular genie back in its bottle—without disappointing many responsible, forward-looking and democratic councils and councillors. Perhaps more importantly, do we wish to shut off an opportunity which could lead to real improvements in local democracy?

I understand the concerns about safeguarding the position of minority parties. But I believe that having a clear executive, drawn from the majority party, open to public criticism and review by members from all parties represented on the council, strengthens minorities as compared with their position in the traditional committee structure. This model is used widely throughout the world, both in the constitutions of central government and at the local level.

The models envisaged by the Bill which sharpen executive responsibilities equally sharpen scrutiny. Amendment No. 12, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, would write on to the face of the Bill an essential element of the scrutiny framework; namely, that a scrutiny committee must reflect the political balance of the council as a whole. We have included in the draft guidance which we placed in the Library of the House this requirement for scrutiny committees to reflect the council's political balance. But the Government have no hesitation in supporting the noble Lord's amendment and would commend it to all. Equally, for the reasons I have outlined, I hope that the noble Baroness, particularly in the light of the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will not wish to pursue her amendments.

We support the principle of the opportunity for local authorities to pursue a variety of models. My personal experience of local government is that for many years there has been a tendency for someone to base a particular model and proposal on the basis of his experience as a Member of Parliament with regard to the local authority or local authorities within his locality. What is right for a small village in the middle of Yorkshire may not be right for Brighton and Hove or for Kingston. Therefore, we welcome the opportunity that the Bill gives to local authorities to make those local decisions under full public scrutiny and with the opportunity to consult the people most closely involved at local level.

Lord Hunt of Tanworth

As I think your Lordships are aware, I chaired the all-party Select Committee on relations between central and local government and in doing that had the honour and pleasure of working alongside the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. One of the conclusions of our report on which we were unanimous was that local authorities should be empowered to experiment with innovative ways of taking their decisions. The question we are now facing is: which ways?

In the course of our consideration we took evidence from a large number of people and bodies and we paid particular attention to the models for decision-taking which had been considered and set out in the 1993 report of the joint working party between the Department of the Environment, as it then was, and representatives of local government. While we did not firmly recommend any one of those models ourselves, we did float them as possibilities and recommended that authorities should be empowered to try them out. That is precisely what the Bill as currently framed seeks to achieve.

The noble Baroness's amendments to Clause 1 would, I believe, prevent any individual member of an authority except a directly elected mayor from having any ability to take decisions on behalf of the authority acting alone. This would take away a range of options described in the 1993 joint working party report and in which there is already significant interest in the local government world. For example, it would not be possible to adopt what is loosely called the cabinet system, where a committee collectively would have executive functions in addition to other functions given to individual members of the committee. It would not be possible to have a lead member either within such a cabinet system or otherwise. It would not be possible for an elected mayor to delegate some of his or her functions to another member of the council forming part of the mayor's cabinet. Surely, in the context of a mayor with a wide range of functions, such an arrangement would make perfect sense. But I do want to make it clear that a fundamental principle behind the Bill is that any separate executive would be held publicly to account, perhaps most importantly through scrutiny by members of all parties elected to the council.

It is worth saying a few words about what we mean by scrutiny. Typically, scrutiny would not merely mean criticism of decisions already taken. A scrutiny committee would have full access to information; it would be able to review general strategy as well as discuss the effect or sagacity of decisions already taken; and it would make recommendations on future policy or criticise what had been done. All of that would be done in public, and all by the council or a committee or committees whose membership would reflect the political balance of the council as a whole. We gave that assurance at Second Reading, but it is such an important point that I decided to table an amendment, which we shall be discussing later, to this clause to guarantee that scrutiny committees would be politically balanced in this way.

Such scrutiny could give all non-executive councillors, even the back-bench members of the majority group. a much greater say in the direction and decisions of the authority on which they serve. As I have said, it would lead to greater accountability and better decision-making, but it all relies upon clarity about who is taking the decisions in the first place.

To return to the noble Baroness's amendments, their effect would be severely to limit the scope for experimentation under my Bill, experimentation which I believe could result in the very improvements to decision taking in terms of accountability and openness which I believe the noble Baroness wishes to see. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, in the light of this discussion, not to pursue the amendment, which would shut off a major range of experiments provided for under the Bill and truncate the Bill very considerably. For my part, I am persuaded that, if the Bill is to give local authorities the opportunities they need and should have, it must allow a full range of experiments. But at the heart of many of these is all-party scrutiny. That is why I commend Amendment No. 12 to the Committee.

Baroness Hamwee

Can the noble Lord deal with my question as to whether a lead member—an individual member—to whom functions are delegated or loosely transferred by the local authority may say, "That is too big for one member to decide upon. That is inappropriate. I do not think I will exercise that area of authority". I mentioned social services and planning. I am not clear whether the executive member has to carry out all the functions which the local authority might, under this model. load upon her or him.

Lord Hunt of Tanworth

We shall come shortly to an amendment dealing with a social services committee. On the particular question which the noble Baroness put to me, I might have to take advice, unless the noble Baroness. Lady Farrington, can provide the answer. I would personally—and subject very much to correction—find it very difficult to believe that one could delegate to someone something which he or she was unwilling to have.

Baroness Hamwee

I asked that question out of curiosity but also because I wanted to highlight how serious I regard this point.

Perhaps I may make it clear that I am not seeking by this group of amendments to rule out all the models that are proposed. Both the noble Lord and the Minister suggested that the amendments would mean ruling out the model of a cabinet committee. I am not seeking to do that and I do not believe that the amendments would achieve that end.

The Minister talked about separating out the functions—separating executive scrutiny and the representational role—and suggested that that would lead to greater clarity. She also said—I hope I have written it down correctly—that the proposals could lead to real improvements in democracy. I accept that they could affect efficiency, and I have doubts about their beneficial effect on democracy. However, that is not a matter we need to pursue today other than by making clear our concern on this point. I do not think, either, that the proposals will necessarily lead to clarity in the minds of the public. That is why I chose this model on which to concentrate.

We shall return to the question of scrutiny. I very much welcome the comments made by the noble Lord. He said that scrutiny is not just a question of looking backwards. That is something which a number of noble Lords mentioned at Second Reading. I am glad to hear that. I am concerned to understand how it can work. If one has a committee of members who can look forward, in the words of the amendment, to scrutinise the exercise of any functions … to be determined", will that not lead to the sort of logjam which these amendments are seeking to overcome? If a decision has not been taken, but members can scrutinise it in advance, that means that there has to be some mechanism whereby proposals can be tabled for the members to consider. That of itself could be a recipe for slowing everything down and having completely the opposite effect to the one intended. I do not know whether the noble Lord might wish to make some comment on that as we are in Committee and, indeed, an extremely select committee, if I may put it that way.

7.30 p.m.

Lord Hunt of Tanworth

As I understand it, there is no intention that scrutiny need work in a way which slows things down because not everything needs to go through the two stages. There is the crucial question—and there is an amendment later which bears on this—as regards the availability of information, of agendas and minutes. The scrutiny committee should be able to grip something at any stage and question the executive and make its views clear.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

I shall try to be helpful. I seek to reassure Members of the Committee that all the models envisaged by the Bill which sharpen executive responsibilities do equally sharpen scrutiny. Any exercise of an executive function will be subject to scrutiny by a politically balanced committee. That is not necessarily something that happens in authorities where decisions are taken by leading members of the majority political group, either at what is called a party meeting or an executive meeting of some sort where there may not be any officers present and where the individual members, even of the majority group, let alone any minority opposition groups, have no opportunity to question and acquire information.

To facilitate that, the schedule to the Bill ensures that there is a requirement placed on any individual councillor empowered to take decisions alone to keep a record of the decisions taken and to make that available to the council. Furthermore, the guidance which the Government are required to issue to local authorities under the Bill, should it be enacted, will set out checks and balances that are required to make such models work and to ensure effective and proper local government.

It may also stipulate that certain regulatory functions may not be undertaken by an individual member. Many Members of the Committee have seen the first draft of that guidance, which the Government have placed in the Library of the House. That is being written in discussion with prominent academics in the field and with the Local Government Association. We are likely to cast the net still wider to ensure that the guidance results in applications which are acceptable to all and provide for the democratic and open local government. I do not know if this has been helpful.

A scheme of delegation will be set up in the arrangements to be approved by the Secretary of State. I believe that that will be helpful. It could allow onward delegation by an executive member to another of his or her political party. The degree of scrutiny would continue. It is an important issue that the opportunity to scrutinise the powers is there on a politically balanced committee level.

Baroness Hamwee

I am grateful. Some of the comments which the Minister has just made provide something of a lead into the next group of amendments. I am not proposing to push the matter further at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 2: Page 1, leave out lines 22 to 24.

The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, 1 shall also speak to Amendment No. 6 which is grouped with it. These amendments are about proportionality and political balance. As regards the last group of amendments the Minister commented on decisions now being taken by leading members in small groups in private without the opportunity for scrutiny. I entirely accept that that is the way in which many council groups operate. However, having taken a decision in private, there have to be public meetings. Members of the public and the local press can attend such meetings. At those meetings there is a chance for opposition councillors and, as the Minister has suggested, for back-bench members of the majority group to question the decisions.

It was said to me by one of my colleagues in local government that the only good thing that the Conservatives did for local government was to introduce proportionality on committees. The Widdicombe recommendations were enacted in 1989. It has occurred to me that that period is less than the aggregate of the eight years plus four years proposed in this Bill for experiments. In other words, we have not had 12 years in which to assess practice under the Widdicombe arrangements although I regard them as important and successful.

I will he the first to say that there are huge dangers of complacency in a large council group or in a group which has no opposition at all. The chair of the Local Government Association, Sir Jeremy Beecham, went on record quite early after the formation of the LGA in lamenting the virtual absence of Conservative councillors in the big cities. I share the concern about our system not reflecting voting patterns and producing overwhelming, imbalanced councils. What use would there be in a better political spread of councillors if the minorities are excluded from decision-taking?

I believe that the rights of minority parties are the rights of the electors. They are expressing concerns of a group of electors. As we see ourselves on these Benches, they provide at the very least constructive opposition, which sometimes might be outright opposition. However, very often it is constructive opposition. That is especially the case under electoral arrangements which are based on the first-past-the-post system. That means that the number of councillors elected, as we all know, is not an accurate reflection of the political preferences of the voters—certainly not of the political preferences that might be expressed—if there were a system which allowed them to express their preferences. The current system means the opposition councillors and voters are locked out. Opposition councillors have a role in contributing to decision-making and to hold the majority administration to account.

We shall talk later about access to information. I accept what has been said about record-keeping and about the ability of members, and indeed the public, to have access to local authority records. However, the question of access is more than just a matter of being able to look at the papers after the event. It is a matter of how one can use one's position effectively. It is about, for instance, the opportunity to question officers of the authority through the chair of the committee; the opportunity to have real freedom of information and, as I have said, the opportunity to play a full part in the decision-making process.

In the mid-1980s, a colleague, Councillor Chadwick in Sheffield, was involved in a case following his exclusion from certain of Sheffield Council's operations. His need to know was supported by Mr. Justice Woolf, as he then was, who said: The fact that the information was refused and attendance was not permitted underlines the dangers that can follow from allowing a sub-committee of the council to be used as the forum of a particular party group". That perfectly expresses my concerns. That is why I have tabled these two amendments. I beg to move.

Baroness Miller of Hendon

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has spoken ably about Amendments Nos. 2 and 6. Unfortunately, I have been suffering terribly today with nosebleeds so, rather than stand here and risk an accident, I shall be very brief and say simply that we support the noble Baroness in these amendments.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is soon well. We shall all understand if she suddenly leaves the Chamber and we shall not take offence. Perhaps I can be of some comfort to her. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was most unkind and unfair when referring to the previous government's record with regard to local government. They did many things of great benefit. I cite as an example the abolition of the poll tax.

In speaking to these amendments, it may be helpful if I refer to the fact (in the interests of getting it on the record) that already in local government there is the opportunity for delegation to a committee, from a committee to a sub-committee, and from either the main committee or the sub-committee to an officer. The process of onward delegation is already being practised in local government.

There may be many arrangements in local government that can be allowed under the current legislative framework which could turn out to be more effective than the existing arrangements within a particular local authority, both in terms of accountability and the quality of the decision-making which results. I stress that we are talking about "enabling" as opposed to "imposing" an opportunity for innovation.

One model would be where there is a clear executive body drawn from the majority party which is subject to open criticism and review both by the other members of the authority in the same party group and by those from the opposition parties. It is a model used throughout the world in both central and local government, not least our own parliamentary system. I am aware that the use of the "cabinet system" by majority parties has not always been supported by opposition or minority parties. It would be a shame if we got to a point where a particular concern being expressed by those who happen at a particular time and in certain authorities to be the minority ruled out experimentation with the system altogether. I can think of authorities which are controlled by the party of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which have an executive committee model which, I understand, is a single-party executive committee. I may be wrong. If I am, I shall be interested to know and am open to correction.

I stress the importance of having a range of opportunities for innovation. Both the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, have already made it abundantly clear, both this evening and in the draft guidance produced by the Government and placed in the Library of the House, that it will not be acceptable for a scrutiny committee to be other than in line with the political balance of the authority. That guidance also makes it clear that the scrutiny committee should meet in public, wherever local authority meetings are currently required to do so. I know that the noble Baroness will agree that the rules about openness to the press and public in local government are extremely valuable. There is therefore no question of sidelining minority parties. They will have a crucial role to play in any of these models for decision-taking. I would argue that there is therefore no justification for amendments, which, if carried, would also take a broad range of worthwhile experimental arrangements out of the scope of the Bill. For these reasons I ask the noble Baroness not to seek to pursue these amendments.

7.45 p.m.

Lord Hunt of Tanworth

I have already stressed that the purpose of this Bill is to enable local authorities to experiment with a wide variety of arrangements for taking their decisions, but not at the expense of proper, effective or open government—indeed, the intent is quite the opposite. I am as keen as the next person to ensure that there is the appropriate political balance in a committee where this is necessary. But there is a wide body of opinion from all areas of the political spectrum which would wish to allow local authorities the option of taking decisions within structures where the executive arm was not necessarily in line with the political balance of the membership of the authority.

At one level, a model such as a single-party executive committee is just reflecting the reality of what currently goes on in local government in authorities of every political colour. The majority group will typically come to a decision and then it will be debated by the full council. Sometimes the line can be agreed by unofficial meetings of the few leading players within the majority group. A number of the majority party may have had little or no influence in the decision, but would still be required to vote for and defend it.

However, a model which brought such unofficial meetings within the formal decision-making structure of the authority and provided for access to the necessary information and scrutiny of the decisions taken would enable officers to advise the policy-making process within the formal structure of the authority and could lead to an enhancement of local democracy and to better decisions being taken. A requirement that the membership of all committees of the authority should reflect the political balance of that authority would, in my view, work against the opening-up of the decision-making process. The real decisions would still be taken behind closed doors, outside the authority's committee structure.

I do not argue for this particular experimental model as my preferred option. I merely point out that many authorities would like to adopt such an experiment and that, if implemented correctly, it could improve local democracy. I stress that all the experiments possible under this Bill must be most carefully designed and implemented. In particular, it must be right that the function of scrutinising the decisions taken by any executive arm, be that an individual or committee, should reflect the political balance of the authority.

However, I do not accept that there are sufficient grounds for concern for experiments which include committees which do not reflect the overall balance of the authority to be excluded from the options available for temporary experiments under this Bill. It may be that some authorities, particularly (but not exclusively) those with no overall political control, would wish to experiment with executive committees which do reflect the political balance of the authority as a whole. I would welcome such experiments. But experiments with single party executives could be perfectly valid in other authorities. I therefore believe that the amendments moved by the noble Baroness would overtly constrain the room for experiment which this Bill seeks to give to local authorities, and I cannot support them.

Baroness Hamwee

I like the concept of winning Brownie points by abolishing a tax which achieved so little support in the first place.

The noble Lord says that many authorities want this sort of model. I have to say that I wonder at their motives. Of everything which is in this Bill, this causes me the most concern. The temporary experiments to which reference has been made could last as long as 12 years. Yes, they are temporary in the great scheme of things, but it is still quite a long time.

I do not believe that committees which do not reflect proportionality and do not reflect the political make-up—I am repeating words which have been used within the answer—will enhance local democracy or open up local authority. Formal meetings involving members of the opposition and back benchers allow the opportunity for interaction between those members and the officers, even if the majority group has decided what it wants to do and is going to go ahead and do it. I have been a member of committees where, very properly, the proposals of the majority group have been put to the test. Quite often, of course, it helps the majority group. I am not suggesting that one should not allow them to undertake experiments or different arrangements because I know better than they do, but the fact is that if proposals are put to the test publicly by the opposition and talked through, then they are better decisions for that.

The Minister suggested that there are committees in authorities run by my own party which operate on this basis. I am not aware of any, but that is not to say that I know how every Liberal Democrat-run authority, of which I am happy to say there are now many, conducts itself. However, if they conduct themselves in this way they will be subject to the current rules. If they are subject to the current rules and they do conduct themselves in this way, there is no need for change, so I am a little perplexed by that. It may be that the operation is not quite the same as is now being proposed.

I believe that I have said enough to indicate the strength of my concern. I will want to consider very carefully what both the noble Lord and the Minister said in their responses to what I regard as fundamentally the most difficult point within the Bill. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 3: Page 1, line 25, leave out ("some or").

The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 3 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 4 and 5. These are relatively small amendments, designed to seek from the noble Lord further explanation as to how the committees will work.

The first pair of amendments suggest that where there is to be a cabinet committee it would require a majority of its members to discharge the functions of the authority, not, as I believe could be the case, some of its members. I may be technically wrong in saying that because, of course, it might require the majority of the committee to take a decision on behalf of that committee but, if that is so, then I wonder why the words "some of the members" are used here.

The third of the amendments seeks to understand the limits on the functions delegated to the committee. The wording of the Bill would allow the committee to discharge any of the functions of the authority. I assume that there has to be specific delegation by the authority in a full council meeting, but I may not be correct. This is a probing amendment to understand how the machinery would work and to seek to understand what the criteria are in designing how that delegation should be expressed in a committee resolution. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

I believe that these amendments are still intended to prevent authorities adopting cabinet forms of decision-making. By that I mean models where individual members have responsibility for discharging functions of the authority acting alone, but who also meet together in the committee to take decisions corporately. At the risk of repeating myself I believe that such models could be very valuable as a response to the current committee structures which do not always serve authorities and their communities well. We do not want to see this whole family of models eliminated from the options available to authorities and we cannot therefore support the amendments.

As I believe that this is an important area, I hope I shall be forgiven if I go into more detail. The Government cannot accept Amendment No. 5, either with Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 or without them. It may be that the functions of an individual acting alone were given to him or her by dint of the proposals approved by the Secretary of State or by some subsequent delegation either from a committee or another member—the mayor, for example—if the approved arrangements permitted such further delegation. An individual acting alone would be discharging functions which had been given to him or her by some route or another, not necessarily merely those which had been first delegated to the committee of which he or she is a member.

I have spoken so far as to what I believe is the intent of these amendments. However, their actual effect would be that Clause 1(2)(d)(ii) would state that one or more ordinary committees of the authority or a majority of the members of which are able, acting alone, could discharge any of the functions of the authority delegated to that committee. This suggests that the actual effect of the amendments would be that the authority could give responsibilities to the individuals so long as they totalled more than the other members of the relevant committee without such responsibilities. This seems at variance with the intent of the other amendments, and the noble Baroness may wish to reconsider whether this is her desired result. However, even if it is, the Government would still feel constrained to oppose Amendments Nos. 3 and 4.

It seems to us to be unduly restrictive to prevent an authority creating a committee of nine, four or whom were also able to take defined decisions acting alone, for example. The authority's proposals under the cabinet system would set out who would be responsible for discharging functions. A cabinet would have functions which it could exercise as a committee, but it could also contain members who would be able to discharge some functions acting alone, no doubt in practice after discussion with the cabinet.

I am sorry for the length of my answer but I believe that it is helpful to have it on the record. This is clearly an area in which both the Conservative Opposition and Liberal Opposition groups have expressed concern.

8 p.m.

Lord Hunt of Tanworth

I can add little to what the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, has said. I believe that the same arguments apply to the discussion that we had on some of the other models. The models which these amendments would prevent seem to me to be perfectly valid. They are used in central and local government across the world and should be available in this country to local government for experimentation as and when they fit local circumstances. I regret that I cannot accept these amendments.

Baroness Hamwee

I end the debate on this group of amendments more concerned than when I began. I do not believe that my amendments would have the effect which the Minister has suggested. Leaving that aside, as I understand it arrangements can be made for the appointment of a committee some of whose members can discharge functions. This is not dissimilar from the point that I made in the Committee earlier in relation to levels of delegation. It may be appropriate to delegate to a delegate, but for that delegate then to delegate on is a matter that should be viewed with some concern. I believe that that obscures the way in which the authority will operate.

I am somewhat confused by the arguments on my amendments. I shall read the responses to see whether I can tie them up with the points that I have made. I do not believe that the points have been answered. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 4 to 10 not moved.]

Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendment No. 11: Page 2, line 22, after ("committee") insert ("or an officer").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 11, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 47. These are technical amendments which are intended to make explicit that authorities may design social services committee, both to other committees and to officers of the authority. The need for these amendments arises only from the fact that there is specific legislation on the discharge of the social services functions in local government which differs from the general framework in the Local Government Act 1972, to which the schedule otherwise refers, and a desire to give local authorities scope to experiment in this area similar to that which they have in relation to all their other functions. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

The Government support these amendments. They clarify that the starting position should be that similar scope for experiment applies in principle to each function of a local authority, including social services. In practice, it is possible that particular structures would not be appropriate for some services or functions. But we do not wish to see the room for manoeuvre in designing experiments unduly constrained by the initial legislation where this is avoidable, as we cannot at this stage predict the ideas for experiments that authorities may put forward should the Bill be enacted.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendment No. 12: Page 2, line 34, at end insert ("(4A) Experimental decision-making arrangements may not include arrangements for the membership of any ordinary committee of a local authority which is appointed to scrutinise the exercise of any functions of the authority to be determined otherwise than in accordance with the political balance requirements.").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to Amendment No. 12 when the Committee debated Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 13: Page 2, line 39, after ("efficient") insert (", effective").

The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 13 and speak also to Amendment No. 14. I believe that Clause 1(5), the subject of these amendments, is pivotal to the Bill. It requires that the proposed arrangements are likely to improve the decision-making process and that regard is to be had to effects in certain areas, one of which is that the arrangements are likely to lead to the authority's decisions being taken in a more efficient and accountable way.

One would not quarrel with efficiency or accountability. I have sought to add another two adjectives to deal with effectiveness and openness. I believe that "effectiveness" is about the outcome of an action and "efficiency" describes the means. I dare say that all noble Lords involved in this Committee stage are well aware of the Audit Commission's strictures about efficiency and effectiveness. One is told by the commission that these are different aspects. A lack of efficiency may not be caused by administrative arrangements; indeed, there may be other reasons. For example, because local authorities are large in population and in budget terms compared with councils elsewhere, or because of the average number of councillors per council. There are lots of reasons for lack of efficiency. I believe that "effectiveness" more closely describes what I should like to see in a local authority.

To mix all of the words up, one can be efficient in a democracy only if one is sufficiently open and accountable. It may be that accountability includes openness. I table these amendments, in particular the second one, to ask both the noble Lord and the Minister to expand on the operation of Clause 1(5)(a). Like other noble Lords, over the years I have had experience of differing views of those from different backgrounds which have been brought to bear on the decision-making process. After the abolition of the GLC I remember very well the early meetings of the business-led organisation London First, which involved representatives of local government. For me it was characterised by the very different approaches of the two sectors. Those who came from a business background when presented with what they believed to be a good idea said, "That's great. Let's do it"; those who came from local government said. "That's great. Let's consult on it". There is something to be said for both approaches, but openness and taking the matter outside the council chamber is a matter of which we should not lose sight. An executive mayor or cabinet committee must have a particular task to meet levels of openness that may not need to be expressed in the case of committees which are, in any event, required to be open. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

When I chaired the education committee in an authority, which necessarily has the largest budget, the Audit Commission's use of the terms "efficiency" and "effectiveness" were always linked with the heavily-stressed "economy" when people spoke to me.

The Government will be content for the words in Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 to be inserted and become part of the Bill. They are clearly in line with the benefits which we anticipate will arise out of the experimentation under the Bill.

Lord Hunt of Tanworth

I too am happy to accept these amendments, which reflect the aims of the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for moving them.

Baroness Hamwee

I commend the amendments to the Committee.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 14: Page 2. line 39, after ("efficient") insert (", open").

The noble Baroness said: I have spoken to the amendment but I did not say thank you on the previous occasion. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 15: Page 2, line 43, leave out ("for members of the authority") and insert ("to call for the attendance of and reports from any executive mayor. executive elected mayor, executive ordinary member, the Chairman of any ordinary committee and any officer entitled to discharge any functions pursuant to subsection (3) and ").

The noble Baroness said: In speaking to this amendment, I will speak also to Amendments Nos. 16 and 17.

I apologise to the Committee for the fact that on Amendment No. 15 the words "for members of the authority", which it is proposed to remove, should not be removed, even though the clause would still read comprehensibly with those words taken out.

What I seek to do by these amendments is to understand a little more fully—the point has, to some extent, been dealt with by Amendment No. 12—the powers of the scrutiny committee; its powers to call for the attendance of individuals and for reports from them. If the powers are not specifically provided by the Bill. will the committee have those powers? I come from the school of hard knocks, and have often been told that if the power of a local authority is not expressed. then it does not have it.

Amendment No. 16 seeks to widen the activity a little by assessing and reporting on the proposed exercise of any such function. This may have been overtaken to some extent by Amendment No. 12.

Amendment No. 17 arises from a report of a recent conference on this subject at which Professor Stewart, who is noted for his energy in looking at ways of doing things locally and his support for local government. suggested that there might be a connection between the scrutiny function and decentralised committees working on a localised neighbourhood basis.

As was said on Second Reading, many authorities—particularly those run by members of my party, but not only so—have put into place new administrative arrangements which include neighbourhood localised area committees. Are those committees to have any sort of role in the scrutiny procedure?

It would be a great shame if the advances made in this area—the innovations which have been so successful—were in any way held back by such committees not being properly involved in the scrutiny of the executive. I look forward to comments on this matter. I beg to move.

8.15 p.m.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

Although the Government may share the concern which appears to have prompted Amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 17, we cannot support them.

Amendment No. 15 goes into some detail about the powers that may accompany the exercise of the scrutiny function. We would expect scrutiny committees to operate in very much this way in a number of authorities but we do not believe that it is helpful to set all this out in legislation. The detail set out in this amendment may not be appropriate to each authority; for example, it may be that most chairs of an authority are non-executive members who would be responsible for the scrutiny function, rather than subject to it as they would be under this amendment.

Furthermore, this amendment is constrained to only those functions discharged by a person acting under arrangements made under Clause 1(3) of the Bill. Might not an authority want to set up similar processes for scrutiny of decisions made through structures which are currently possible under existing legislation? I am not sure, because we do not know what sorts of experiments local authorities may propose. I do not know, therefore, whether this amendment would cause any difficulties in such circumstances. It does seem likely that it might.

It would also be curious to define in a rather precise way one particular process which will then form part of the criteria for assessing whether an authority's application should be approved. An authority which produced proposals that included different but equally effective procedures for scrutiny and that suited its own circumstances might well have less chance of approval than if it adopted the set format in this amendment, even if it were unsuited to that authority. This would be an unfortunate result from such a well-meaning amendment—one with which many of us could sympathise but not, therefore, support.

Much the same argument applies, in our view, to Amendment No. 17. 1 do not argue here either for or against the presence of area committees in any structure a local authority might adopt. But, again, it is perfectly conceivable that an authority could define arrangements which brought decision making closer to the people without necessarily adopting a formal area committee structure. So why use this as a criterion for judging whether a particular proposal would improve matters? We find this amendment also too prescriptive.

Turning to Amendment No. 16 the arrangements suggested by this amendment would be a recipe for a hamstrung authority, particularly when taken with Amendment No. 15. The structure these amendments would create is one where any decision which is to be taken by any means other than that which would be permissible under the current legislative framework would be held up if the scrutiny committee so wished, until such time as it had called for evidence from various quarters, including the executive, and reported on the proposal. Such arrangements, if applied in a general way, could make it very difficult for any separate executive, be it a committee or an individual, to operate effectively. They do not seem appropriate in a Bill which seeks to promote more effective decision taking.

Some of the ideas underlying these amendments may be seen in many applications from authorities—and the Government may often welcome the arrangements where this is so—but scrutiny arrangements will not always take the form described in these amendments. We therefore do not believe that they should appear as part of the criteria for judging whether a proposal is likely to improve the decision-making process. For those reasons, we cannot support the amendments.

The powers that an authority will have will be established by the arrangements approved by the Secretary of State, and the legislative modifications made by order under the Bill. One would expect that in any particular experimental set of arrangements. the scrutiny committee may perform the processes referred to in the amendment. I hope that the noble Baroness will understand that we do not seek to negate them as possible, or even probable, arrangements within particular processes; rather we seek to prevent their becoming prescriptive or part of the automatic criteria.

Baroness Hamwee

Before the noble Lord speaks, will the Minister assist the Committee as to whether, as seems to be implicit in her answer, scrutiny committees will have those detailed powers without legislation providing for them? That was the objective of some of the amendments in the group. I am interested to know whether it is necessary to specify the powers in the primary legislation.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

I understand that part of the process of submitting an application will be to ensure that there has been wide consultation and that there is support for the proposed system. It appears to me—I shall write to the noble Baroness if I am wrong—that a scrutiny process would inevitably form part of the application if it is to meet the criteria laid down in the legislation to be taken into account by the Secretary of State.

Baroness Hamwee

I fear that I am not making myself clear. I accept of course that a scrutiny arrangement is to be required. My concern is to know whether the detailed powers to call for reports, for instance, should be specified in the primary legislation, or whether the power of scrutiny encompasses such a power. I accept that the point may be too detailed for the Minister to respond to now. It is not a frivolous point, but I am sure that the Minister is not suggesting that it is.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

I, of course, recognise that it is not a frivolous point. My understanding is that the noble Baroness's fears are groundless, but should that prove not to be the case I shall ensure that she is informed.

Lord Hunt of Tanworth

The Committee will remember that on Second Reading some Members argued that a Bill which was designed to free up things and allow local authorities to experiment was already itself too prescriptive. We must be careful about loading more and more into the Bill to tell local authorities how they should go about these experiments. Neither they, we, nor the Government know the answers, though we should expect to learn a good deal as a result of the experiments which may be of more general application later.

For those reasons, and those the Minister gave, I am reluctant to accept the amendments. I hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue them. I should like to offer one suggestion entirely without commitment; that is, the Government might consider whether this is the sort of issue where, in a sense, we are all saying that we want the same thing, but it is a question of whether it is spelled out in legislation or whether it is something that could be dealt with in the guidance for local authorities, which has been placed in the Library. I hope that at this stage the noble Baroness will not pursue the amendments.

Baroness Hamwee

It may be that the point can be covered in secondary legislation applying to the particular authority and to the particular arrangements. I believe that the Minister wishes to intervene.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

It may help the Committee were I to say that the scrutiny committees could have powers to call for reports, and so forth. How a scrutiny committee will work will be established in the approved arrangements. Paragraph 3 on page 4 of the draft guidance refers to that. I hope that that makes the position clearer.

Baroness Hamwee

We are all interested to make this matter work. In connection with Amendment No. 16, the Minister has confirmed that the scrutiny committee will be required to make assessments. I was a little surprised by her description of the amendment as too prescriptive.

With regard to Amendment No. 17, it is a shame not to allow that direct relationship with neighbourhood committees. Again, I shall not seek to take the matter further now. I do not intend to restrict the exercise of executive powers, merely to see, if they are to be given to a cabinet model or an individual, how they would fit in with the effective neighbourhood committees which are now in operation.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

I hope that the Committee will forgive me. The noble Baroness referred to "not allowing". My understanding is that the existing arrangements could be continued and allowed. There is obviously wide acceptance that such committees have worked well in many authorities. We wish to avoid prescription, not to cease to allow.

Baroness Hamwee

I did not mean to indicate that I thought that the provision sought to stop neighbourhood committees. I should like them to be allowed to fulfil the scrutiny role rather than that the scrutiny be undertaken by a central committee. If an authority has devolved powers to neighbourhood committees in a way which does not follow the old conventional models, the "shame" to which I was referring is the shame that those committees with the devolved powers do not have a direct opportunity to scrutinise what the executive is doing. That may be another point to which we can return at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 not moved.]

Clause I, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Hunt of King's Heath moved Amendment No. 18: After Clause I. insert the following new clause— REVIEW OF DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES

1. (" .—(1) Every local authority shall not less than once every four years after the commencement of this Act consider and review the efficiency and effectiveness of its decision-making processes.
2. (2)Every local authority shall as part of a review under subsection (1) consult the community interests in its area.
3. (3)The conclusions of a review under subsection (1) shall he reported to a full meeting of the council of the local authority.").

The noble Lord said: The intention of the amendment is to require a local authority, at least once in a four-year period, to undertake a review of its decision-making structure, and to report to full council. One of the most important aspects of the Bill is that it is permissive: it does not seek to be prescriptive. That must surely be right in our endeavour to develop the role and confidence of local government.

I wish to see an approach to local government which tries to widen its discretion rather than to require it just to react to the diktats and circulars of central government. It is clear that many local authorities will wish to take advantage of the Bill, if enacted, as soon as possible. Yet more will wish to reflect on the success, or otherwise, of those local authorities which will be in the first wave of experimentation.

I suspect that a third group of local authorities will say no to begin with and will bury their heads in the sand, not wishing to return to reviewing their decision-making structure. The amendment refers to that group of authorities. If local government is to be the dynamic, innovative source of government at local level which the 21st century requires, it is important that local authorities examine their decision-making structure and ensure that it is as up to date as possible

Many of us have been influenced by the Audit Commission's report of 1997. It stated that too much of a burden is placed on councillors, often unproductively, by committee meetings which focus on detailed issues. The Audit Commission stated: Such committees can assume large amounts of management time, slow down decisions and duplicate each other's work".

We must take that comment seriously. We must encourage those local authorities which may be reluctant in the first instance to undertake a review to consider whether their traditional approach to decision making is up to the needs of local government today and tomorrow. This is a modest amendment which seeks to encourage that without being prescriptive.

I beg to move.

8.30 p.m.

Baroness Hamwee

I support the amendment. Many authorities will review the efficiency and effectiveness of their processes more frequently than every four years, but it is good to require them to do so in a formal manner. I recognise instantly the example of a committee which focuses on spending £500 but fails properly to debate spending £5 million.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hunt of King's Heath and to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, for tabling the amendment. The Government fully support the permissive structure of this Bill, but we want to encourage local authorities to take advantage of the opportunity it affords them. We do not want to ask for volunteers in the manner of some army sergeant major. We want authorities themselves to come to the view that they need to address their decision-making processes and the way in which they engage more widely with those they serve.

The Government therefore welcome the thrust of this amendment, which would require authorities to review periodically their own decision-making arrangements and, in the course of that review, to consult those they serve. This is clearly good practice. We often hear of cases where an organisation seeks views from its customers on what it does and how it might be done better and comes away from the experience wiser, humbler and with a determination to improve. Even the best of us can always benefit from a little constructive feedback. A number of authorities are already doing something like this; for example, producing and maintaining democracy plans.

However, this amendment places no compulsion upon any authority to experiment under this Bill should it become law. It merely ensures that every so often an authority should think about these issues and take a view on whether it is operating as it would wish. The Government believe that this would be a very useful discipline. We are therefore content for this amendment to be made. But I would mention to the Committee that on studying the detail of the text the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, may see a need for certain further amendments to take this new clause fully into the Bill.

Lord Hunt of Tanworth

I have listened with interest to this short debate and I, too, have sympathy with the aims of the amendment. I should be content to accept it. However, as the Minister said, we would like the opportunity to consider the text and its possible relationship to other amendments. If further amendments are required they can be brought forward at a later stage.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 2 [Applications for approval of experimental decision-making arrangements]:

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 19: Page 3, line 34, after ("resolve") insert ("in accordance with subsection (1A)").

The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 19 is a paving amendment for one of the amendments in the next group. It may be convenient if I speak to both groups together. I do not intend to move Amendment No. 44 during the Committee stage. Amendment No. 19 deals in part with the mechanisms for resolution. I suggest that resolutions should be taken by at least a majority of two-thirds of the local authority membership and with the agreement of the leaders of all the political groups of the authority. Leaders are normally designated. Although the term may sound loose it reflects practice.

When considering the constitution of an organisation, it is conventional to seek more than a bare majority. I do not suggest that a local authority should be run in the same way as a local golf club, but there may be lessons to be learnt. Decisions for such fundamental administrative change should be made on the basis of more than a bare majority or even a resolution passed on the casting vote of the chairman or the mayor. It would also be possible for a large group to force through such changes, but I do not believe that it could healthily be done without a consensus across the authority. Many authorities have no overall political control. Members of those authorities will have to have a debate as to the benefits of any arrangements which may come from any side of the authority.

The second group of amendments relates to information and consultation. Amendments Nos. 23 and 34 deal with the mechanisms for consultation. They refer to publication in local newspapers. I have suggested that because that is increasingly required in legislation dealing with the dissemination of information by local authorities; for instance, league tables and so forth. That is not to say that local newspapers necessarily have enormous readerships, but at least they have a role in alerting residents to what is happening.

Amendment No. 26 deals with similar issues and I support it. Amendment No. 24 proposes more than information. It proposes that there should be a local referendum. That was something floated on Second Reading and it is well worth pausing to consider it. It moves away from a traditional approach to local government and is something on which local groups of residents, the community, should have the opportunity to have their say.

The proposals, which are increasingly being discussed, for directly elected mayors are of course controversial. I do not seek to argue now against directly elected mayors. I shall perhaps do so on other occasions. But it is a considerable constitutional move.

On 7th May we are to have a referendum when Londoners can express their views on a new form of constitutional settlement. I believe that local people should be given the opportunity not just to express their concern about an elected mayor with executive powers, if they have such concerns, by perhaps abstaining in the election for mayor when that comes, but by having a full involvement in the process. A referendum will mean a full debate in a way which general consultation will not achieve because people's minds will be focused.

I strongly advocate reliance on the good sense of local people, of local electors. If a local authority believes it can win an argument for a model which involves a directly elected executive mayor, it should take that argument to local people. It should not take to them a decision made, I admit, not behind closed doors but within a council chamber. It should use the opportunity for a local constructive debate. I beg to move.

Lord Hunt of King's Heath

I should like to speak to my Amendment No. 26 and also to Amendment No. 23. One of the key purposes of the Bill must be to enhance accountability of local authorities to the public and their local community. An implication of that is that there should be greater public participation in the work of local government and being able to feed into the decisions which local authorities make.

Therefore, it seems sensible that one of the criteria under which the Secretary of State may make a judgment in relation to an application is the extent to which the local authority has consulted about the proposals with its local communities. Indeed, a local authority which has had the confidence to consult and take note of that consultation is much more likely to implement successfully the proposed experimentation.

Amendment No. 26 does not specify how that consultation should be undertaken, and I think that is right. But we know from the practice of a considerable number of local authorities that they are using innovative techniques, including citizen's juries, focus groups and centralised committees to get a feel of what the local community thinks.

Therefore, it seems to me that while not being prescriptive about the technique to be used, a local authority should have to show that it has used some of those participatory techniques. The advantage is that in seeking to propose experimentation, it will have much wider community debate and support. It will also give the Secretary of State more confidence in agreeing to the proposal.

8.45 p.m.

Baroness Miller of Hendon

I would have some difficulty in supporting Amendments Nos. 19, 20 or 22. Unless I have misunderstood, I am concerned about the wording in subsection (1A) which provides that the leaders of all political parties must vote in favour of the resolution. One can envisage a situation in which perhaps there is one political group with only one, two or three members. It seems to me that even if you have 80 per cent. or 90 per cent. in favour of the resolution, it could still be vetoed and that could be quite dangerous.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood

I very much support what my noble friend said and I support also the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of King's Heath, as regards the need for consultation on these matters. While we are on the subject of elections of mayors and how that should be accomplished, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, will explain to the Committee what will happen to the ceremonial role associated traditionally with ordinary mayors or chairs of local authorities.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

I regret to say that the Government are concerned that the cumulative effect of the amendments might be to strangle experimentation at birth. In a way it is helpful that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lord Hunt of King's Heath have managed to bring together this group of amendments.

First, the authority would have to resolve to pursue a particular experiment by a two-thirds majority including each leader of a political group. Such a veto for a political group leader is, we believe, unprecedented and it is certainly not something with which the Government feel comfortable. It could allow very small groups to exert undue influence over the decision on whether to experiment and, if the authority does experiment, the shape of that experiment. Furthermore, there are very few matters in local government which require a two-thirds majority.

Next, it would have to consult widely and then win a referendum. I regret to say that this would all look like a set of expensive obstacles to many in local government. Our fear is that this whole process might be seen as so tortuous that some authorities may be put off from embarking upon it, in particular, those which are less committed to change than some others but which were prepared to look at the possibility of experimenting. I think many in the House this evening would agree that that would be counter-productive. I am afraid therefore that the Government could not support Amendment No. 19.

I also regret that we cannot support Amendment No. 24. The authority would have to publicise the proposed amendments and conduct a referendum, only putting forward the proposal for approval by the Secretary of State if there is a positive vote in the referendum. But there are many major questions which are not answered by this amendment. Who would draft the question? Who would be the returning officer? What campaigning would be allowed by whom and who would pay for it? And so on.

I do not mean to suggest that it is not desirable for authorities to consult the community they serve as part of the process of framing an application to operate experimental arrangements. Indeed, our view is very much the opposite. As the Committee will be aware, this Government are committed to modernising local government to make it more open, responsive and consultative in its operation and outlook. They do not want to achieve this result through compulsion, but through exhortation, encouragement and leadership.

The Government would not therefore wish to be prescriptive about how any consultation might take place, or when, or how much of it there ought to be. These are matters which are properly local decisions. However, we do sympathise with the objective of ensuring public consultation in this area. Therefore, I wonder whether the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friends Lord Hunt of King's Heath and Lord Bassam may be able to bring forward on Report a suitable amendment which meets the spirit of Amendments Nos. 23, 26 and 34, and which could incorporate both the important points raised by my noble friend Lord Hunt and also the essence of the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which deal with informing as well as consulting the public. I hope that response is helpful and that suitable amendments will be tabled on Report.

Lord Hunt of Tanworth

I, too, have doubts about making this Bill more prescriptive, as I have said many times before. For the reasons given by the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, I would be reluctant to accept these amendments. However, I very much sympathise with what she said about consultation. I hope very much that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lords, Lord Bassam and Lord Hunt of King's Heath, will take up that suggestion and bring forward something at a later stage which will meet the objective which I think we all share.

Baroness Hamwee

I am grateful for that suggestion. For my part—I note that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of King's Heath, nods his head—I should be happy to undertake some collaborative venture. The Minister commented on the cumulative effect of these amendments. She will not be surprised to hear that if I cannot have all of them, I shall of course settle for some of them. There are not sufficient stages in the legislative process to deal with such amendments one by one. The noble Baroness said that the amendment regarding the referendum left unanswered many questions such as who would draft the questions and who would be the returning officer. I wonder whether I should say, "Don't tempt me". However, I shall not be tempted tonight.

More seriously, the response from the Government highlights the fact that a group with a tiny majority—as I have said, that may result only from a casting vote—will be able to entrench its position through such an experiment. Such a group could, through the use of a casting vote, propose new administrative arrangements which would, frankly, give it a much more comfortable time. I do not think that we should easily accept that. However, for the moment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Hunt of Tanworth

Before the Question is put, I realise that I did not give the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, an answer to her question. That is partly because I do not know the answer. I am afraid I shall have to write to her in that respect.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 21: Page 3. line 36, leave out ("eight") and insert ("four").

The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 21 concerns the period during which experimental arrangements can exist. Clause 2 allows for experimental decision-making arrangements for a period not exceeding eight years. I am proposing four instead of eight. The period of eight years seems to me to be a considerable time in the life of a local authority. That constitutes two terms of election for a councillor. That period also covers a local authority's own elections, whether they are all out elections or annual elections in the case of those which have annual elections.

I am unclear how a new administration coming into office during the middle of the period—I accept that my four-year suggestion does not wholly meet this point because the four-year period might straddle an election; but an eight-year period is bound to do so—even one of the same colour as the previous administration, can be expected to respond to arrangements such as those we are discussing which will have been put in place by its predecessor.

However, more importantly, experiments are experiments. If you want to have an experimental road closure, you do not close the road for eight years and wait for responses. If you want an interim response to a planning application—I appreciate that these are service functions and narrow points—you would give permission for a period of, say, a year. You are told that if it does not work properly within that year, it does not have much chance of being continued; but, if it does work properly, you ought not to continue with the experiment.

I have tabled this amendment to probe as much as anything and to find out what is in the minds of the noble Lord and, indeed, of the Government in proposing such a long period because I do not think I have yet heard any argument to support the proposed length of the period. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

As has already been said this evening, the purpose of this Bill is to enable experiments to take place. The purpose of any experiment is to learn something. It may be that a whole new rich seam of practice emerges as a result of the experiments under this Bill which would justify variety in decision-making arrangements in the longer term. On the other hand, it may become clear that there are one or two models which are clearly more beneficial in our culture and society than others that have been tried. No one knows yet, or could know, until the experiments had run for a number of years.

Either way, it is likely that there will be the need for some legislation towards the end of the period in which these experiments will take place to provide for the longer term. I suggest that it is placing a rather awkward timetable upon the Government to expect them to learn all there is to learn from these experiments in only four or five years, prepare and agree draft legislation and bring it forward to enactment when there might be other pressing legislative priorities, all within a maximum of eight years.

It is not as if there is a lack of safeguards in the arrangements proposed which should cause us to worry about conducting an experiment over a longer period. Authorities will not be allowed to experiment unless they have had their proposals approved by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. He will not approve any proposal which does not conform with the guidance he will issue, a very early draft of which has been placed in the Library of this place.

An authority could apply to the Secretary of State for permission to cease operating an experiment if it felt it was not working well. In extremis, if an experiment had, by some chance, disintegrated and the authority did not appear capable of resolving the situation itself, the Secretary of State could end the experiment by revoking the order which gave effect to it. That would have the effect of requiring the authority to return to operating under the current legislative framework.

The Government do not see any benefit in reducing the period in which experiments can be pursued. Neither do we accept that there are any particular problems with the eight-year period currently envisaged. Indeed, we would argue that there are positive advantages and therefore urge the Committee to oppose this amendment.

In speaking to an earlier amendment the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to the history of local government. She spoke of a period in which the relationship between central and local government was perhaps not good. One of the concepts that marked that period was a Monday morning launch of a pilot project, then an assumed evaluation the following Monday in favour of its working well. Thereafter, the following Monday, it was extended through legislation which usually involved orders which could not be voted against in this Chamber. I hope that the noble Baroness will do nothing to erode the eight-year period which enables full and adequate evaluation.

9 p.m.

Lord Hunt of Tanworth

How long is temporary? It is a difficult question to answer. But the objective of experiment is to learn. There may be cases where a period of up to eight years will prove desirable. For example, where an authority has adopted a model with a directly elected mayor, it is likely that the dynamics of the situation and the relationships between the different parties will still be developing after four years, as such a model would be a considerable departure from existing practice. Moreover, if the experiment with an elected mayor were to last for two terms rather than just one, it would be more likely to involve cohabitation between a mayor and a leading group on the council of different political complexions. Experience of these circumstances would be very important in assessing how models with executive mayors could best be introduced in this country more permanently, if at all.

There is another point which the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, mentioned. When these temporary experiments come to an end, they either cease or have to be replaced by primary legislation. There is the problem of assessing the experiment, deciding whether it should be a matter of primary legislation, achieving a place in the programme and getting the legislation through. It is difficult to contemplate a period of less than eight years. I hope that the amendment will not be accepted.

Baroness Hamwee

The Minister is most beguiling in reminding us of former bad practices. I am not necessarily persuaded that in order not to put something in place by a week on Wednesday one must have it in place as a temporary arrangement for eight years. However, I shall not pursue the matter at this time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 22 to 24 not moved.]

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 25: Page 3, line 42, at end insert? ("( ) must describe the electoral arrangements for the election of any executive elected mayor;").

The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 27, 28 and 32.

Amendment No. 25 relates to electoral arrangements. It provides that the information in the application will include a description of the arrangements for the election of any executive elected mayor. I hope that I may tempt the Minister to offer some encouragement to those of us who support a move to more modern and fairer methods of election. I refer to the preferential model by the alternative vote; or—I do not think that it is such a good model—the supplementary vote, which does not allow the expression of preferences through the list, instead of the first past the post system.

I do not simply bang the old Liberal Democrat drum that we are in support of proportional representation by single transferable vote. We are. But we are most concerned not about the detailed mechanism but about the need to include the electorate in order to help it feel that it is part of the process and has a real opportunity to influence the outcome, and in order to make elections more inviting.

A preferential system avoids the dangers of the imposition of an elected mayor with. for instance, 20 per cent. of the vote. I am sure we can all imagine how that might come about: with a long list of candidates, the vote is split and a person comes top of the poll but with a small majority and unable to demonstrate majority support across the electorate.

The country appears to be moving towards more proportional systems. I do not have great expectations that the Minister will be able to say that the Secretary of State will not permit such an election unless there is to be a preferential system. However, I hope that she will be encouraging about the need to include the electorate in the process.

Amendment No. 27 seeks to find out the expectations of the Minister as regards the arrangements in respect of a power of recall of an executive, elected mayor, and a power of veto. In other words, apart from scrutiny, are any constraints to be written into the arrangements? I should like to have on the record the expectations in that connection.

Amendment No. 28 provides that the information includes an estimate of the costs of the new arrangements. Among the electorate, cost can be controversial. The electorate wants the services to be provided; it is a little less happy about paying for them; and it is much less happy about paying for what are regarded as the fripperies of local government—although many of us would regard them as the support systems. An executive elected mayor, or a lead member. perhaps a cabinet committee (but it is most starkly demonstrated in connection with individuals), will need considerable support to carry out his or her functions: There will be the overall costs of the mayor's or member's office; and the staff required to assist in the exercise of the functions. The question of political officers is addressed either in the Bill or in one of the later amendments. Government increasingly have support from political advisers. I do not seek to argue against that. I merely use the debate to highlight that it will be an on-cost of such a new arrangement.

As regards allowances for council members, I do not have much sympathy with many of the criticisms made by the public. Members of local authorities are expected to do jobs which require them to be paid allowances in order to concentrate on those jobs. Nevertheless, it is a matter of public concern and I seek to suggest that information regarding these should be part of the application.

The final amendment in this group, Amendment No. 32, is concerned with any modifications. The Secretary of State can come back to a local authority and say: "Your application is by and large OK, but I should like you to modify it in the following ways". The Bill appears to allow the Secretary of State to impose arrangements modified by him without consultation with the local authority. I hope that consultation with the local authority on amendments would be automatic; however, in Amendment No. 32 I seek to ensure that that is the case. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

In Amendments Nos. 25, 27 and 28, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, flags up some important and legitimate areas of concern such as the relationship between the elected mayor and the rest of the council; electoral arrangements; and the system of allowances proposed by the council. They are, nonetheless, detailed matters compared to the general formulation of other parts of Clause 2(2) and therefore sit rather oddly here.

That does not mean that these matters are not important to the Government. Clearly, the relationship between the mayor and the rest of the council is crucial. But, as a number of Members present will have seen, most of these issues are already covered by the draft guidance placed in the Library. We shall continue to develop that guidance in further consultation with the local government associations, academics and others. I believe that is the proper way to address these issues, rather than by amendment tonight.

Amendment No. 32 would require the Secretary of State to consult an authority before making any order which includes modifications to legislation for that authority which do not appear in the schedule to the Bill. That is precisely what the Government would intend in such circumstances. We believe, therefore, that the amendment is not necessary, but equally we would not want to stand in its way should the Committee wish to see it as part of the Bill.

Lord Hunt of Tanworth

Amendment No. 32 seems very sensible and in line with what I hope would always be the practice. If the Government are content to be placed under such a requirement, for my part I see no difficulty at all with the proposal. However, I am not attracted to laying down a requirement in the Bill for local authorities to set out what their allowance structures, etc., are intended to be. It seems to me that this and some of the other matters mentioned are more properly dealt with outside legislation. Under the Bill, if the Secretary of State states a requirement in his guidance that a particular issue should be covered in an application to experiment, he may not then approve an application unless he is satisfied that the authority has had regard to that guidance in framing its application. I should therefore not be willing to support those amendments.

Baroness Hamwee

The assurances given with regard to a number of the matters I mentioned are very welcome, and I shall move Amendment No. 32 at the appropriate point. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 25.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]

[Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 not moved.]

Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendment No. 29: Page 4, line 13, leave out ("subsection (2) above") and insert ("this section").

The noble Lord said: This is merely a technical amendment intended to insert the correct internal reference into the clause and to clarify its purpose; namely, to ensure that local authorities shall have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State in describing the arrangements which are the subject of their application. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

The Government support this amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 30: Page 4, line 17, at end insert ("after consultation with the Local Government Association and such other representatives of local government as appear to him to be appropriate.").

The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 36. In these amendments, perhaps rather cheekily, I suggest that there should be consultation with the Local Government Association or other representatives of local government in connection with the guidance. I have every expectation of being told that that is what is happening. But we used to make this request when the Conservatives were in control. I see no reason not to put down the same point now. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would expect, the amendments are exactly in line with the Government's approach. As I have already said, we have made available in the Library of the House a very early draft of the guidance the Secretary of State would be required to issue if this Bill were enacted. The Government are committed to an open consultative approach to the drafting of this guidance as it is clearly very important that we get it right. We have therefore already consulted the LGA and the department's panel of prominent academics on the drafting of this guidance and fully intend to continue doing so. The Government would therefore be happy to support these amendments in principle, though we might wish to see the amendments elsewhere in the Bill.

Lord Hunt of Tanworth

With regard to these amendments I have to declare an interest because, as the Committee is aware, I am the honorary president of the LGA. Members of the Committee will not be surprised, therefore, that I, too, shall be content to make explicit the LGA's rightful place in determining the guidance to he issued to local authorities.

I noted what the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, said about the possibility of there being a more acceptable way of working the provision into the Bill. I wonder, therefore, whether the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, might be prevailed upon to withdraw the amendment at this stage, on the understanding that I will take advice and bring back similar provisions at a later stage.

Baroness Hamwee

I am content. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.15 p.m.

On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Lucas

I wish to take the opportunity to question the noble Lord, or perhaps the noble Baroness would like to answer for him, as to how it is intended that the powers under this clause should operate after the Welsh assembly becomes fully functional.

My understanding, which may well be erroneous, is that the powers under Clause 2 will pass in their entirety to the Welsh assembly and that no residual right will remain with the Secretary of State for Wales. But perhaps I am mistaken and everything will stay with the Secretary of State for Wales, or the powers may even in some way be divided. I should be fascinated to know how the division will work and what exactly it is envisaged should happen under the Bill. I am sure that everything is known and planned and it is only my ignorance that needs to be satisfied. However, I should be delighted if either the noble Lord or the noble Baroness were able to do that.

While I am on the subject, presumably if we were to insert the words of the amendment we have just discussed into the Bill there would need to be separate provision for whatever the equivalent of the Local Government Association in Wales is or will be.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

I rise after careful thought and with some trepidation, as I have to declare a past interest as chair of the Association of County Councils for England and Wales, before its demise, and leader of the Labour Group of members of the Association of County Councils for England and Wales.

The power of the Secretary of State in Clause 2 is no different from the powers of the Secretary of State in other legislation to approve or direct. In so far as the power would relate to Welsh authorities, it would need to be considered alongside all other similar powers in the legislation for the Welsh assembly. I hope that that helps the noble Lord.

Lord Lucas

I do not find it at all helpful. I am sure that the Government must know how they intend to deal with the matter and whether these are powers which will remain with the Secretary of State for Wales or powers that will go to the Welsh assembly. I wish to know the Government's intention. I shall be content for the noble Baroness to promise that she will write to me a detailed, informative letter on the subject, but I shall not be content to let the matter pass with less than that.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

It would be discourteous of me to refuse to write but I am sure it would be equally discourteous for me to indicate that the letter would contain all the information that the noble Lord wishes to have. I feel there is little else to add, except to tell him that, of course, the Welsh Local Government Association is part of the LGA and is therefore being consulted on all the proposals.

Lord Lucas

Yes. I shall refer to the second matter first. It may be part of the LGA now, but it will not be by the time the Bill is operational. Presumably the Welsh Local Government Association does not envisage continuing in subservience to the English association when Wales has its own local government.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

I can assure the noble Lord that at no time in my long experience over many years with colleagues, authorities and officers in Wales, have they ever accepted that they are subservient. They are equal partners, and where it appears appropriate and beneficial to them to join in concert with English local authorities they do so, as they do with associations in other parts of the United Kingdom when appropriate. But please let it not be said in your Lordships' Chamber that the Welsh are subservient.

Lord Lucas

I am delighted with that, but I hope that when it comes to the noble Lord drafting whatever clauses he does draft, he will bear in mind the necessity to mention the Welsh separately and to give them due place in the Bill, which, as I understand it, will result in them operating the powers of the Secretary of State, and, presumably, having a separate interest in consulting the Welsh, whereas our Secretary of State will have no interest in consulting the Welsh. It will be a parallel consultation rather than a cross-consultation.

I await with interest the noble Baroness's letter. I shall be fascinated if it contains as little as she has been able to say to me this evening because I had presumed that the Government had thought out what they intend to do rather than leaving it to the last minute. However, in anticipation that the letter will contain everything I need to know, I am content to leave the matter there for now.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 [Approval of applications under section 2]:

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 31: Page 4, line 29, at end insert ("and ( ) he has considered the implications for freedom of information").

The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 37. These amendments are concerned with freedom of information. Clause 3 deals with the Secretary of State's actions on receipt of an application and with the matters to which he must have regard. We are in a period when freedom of information is firmly on the legislative agenda. I welcome that. I would have hoped to be able to propose an amendment which provided for consultation with the information commissioner, which I believe is the term given in the White Paper to the officer who will be charged with overseeing the application of freedom of information regulations. However, we do not yet have legislation.

My amendment, which is a rather poor relation of that suggestion, proposes that the Secretary of State must have, considered the implications for freedom of information". I hope that, with this probing amendment, I will be able to obtain from the Minister assurances that those implications will be seriously considered.

I mention them because of the concern about the opportunities for doing things in smoke-filled rooms—that is the way anything about which one is suspicious is often characterised—and actions being taken where scrutiny will not be wholly adequate because the best type of scrutiny may fall down. We talked earlier about the need to look at actions before decisions are taken. I remain concerned that scrutiny will be a backward looking process and that information surrounding an authority's decisions, whoever takes those decisions, may not be as free as one would like it to be. I have therefore put down the amendment in the hope that the Minister can give assurances that the implications for freedom of information will be very much in the Secretary of State's mind. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

Heaven forfend that I should ever hanker after smoke-filled rooms for decision making! The Government are committed to the principles of freedom of information. We have proposed that there should be a freedom of information Act applying right across the public sector, including local government. The Government therefore fully support the sentiments behind the amendments.

As my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster explained in another place when announcing our White Paper on freedom of information, we have now embarked on an extensive and open consultation on our FOI proposals. This will continue through much of this year. First, we will be consulting on the proposals in the White Paper. That will be followed by draft legislation, again for consultation.

Our intention is that when considering applications from local authorities to operate experimental arrangements, my right honourable friend will have regard to the developing FOI regime and the detail of its application to local government. In the draft guidance, which we have placed in the Library of the House, we state that proposals put forward by local authorities should, be consistent with statutory requirements for access to information, and will need to take account of moves towards 'Freedom of Information'".

The point raised by the noble Baroness is an important one. We do, however, need to be careful that any reference to freedom of information introduced now into legislation will not cut across any wider developments as we, in our consultations, work up our wide and robust FOI regime. I would suggest, therefore, that if it would be helpful to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I would be happy to discuss with them what might be the most appropriate form of an amendment, encapsulating the concept of the noble Baroness's currently proposed amendments on FOI, which could be brought forward at Report.

Lord Hunt of Tanworth

I agree that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has correctly identified an important area which local authorities will need to address in their applications to operate experimental arrangements. If she is willing to take up the suggestion which the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, made, I shall be happy to do so. It should then be possible to prepare an appropriate amendment on freedom of information for Report, which I shall be happy to see brought forward, if that is the wish of the Committee.

Baroness Hamwee

Of course I am willing. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 32: Page 5, line 4, after ("State") insert (", after consultation with the local authority,").

The noble Baroness said: I spoke to this amendment earlier and an indication was given that it would be accepted. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 [Applications for extension or variation of experimental decision-making arrangements]:

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 33: Page 6, line 31, leave out subsection (3).

The noble Baroness said: With my last group of amendments I shall be even quicker than I have been on previous groups. I tabled these amendments because, as I read the Bill, any extension or, more particularly, variation of the arrangements requires the consent of any executive member or executive mayor who may be in place. It seems a very dangerous proposition to give that individual an in-built right of veto of any variation. I do not believe that I need expand on that. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

Amendments Nos. 33 and 45 would remove the duty on a local authority with an executive mayor to obtain the written consent of their mayor before applying to the Secretary of State to extend, vary or terminate the operation of experimental arrangements.

If this duty were to be removed and the application successful, it would allow the council to discharge some of the functions, which by virtue of the arrangements the mayor may discharge, or even remove the mayor without his or her consent. In extreme cases it would be possible for the council to seek to use this power as a means of conflict resolution. Clearly, this represents an inappropriate way of resolving a conflict between the mayor and the council. It would appear particularly inappropriate for a council to be able to remove the powers of a directly elected mayor with his or her own mandate from across the authority.

We, the Government, would much prefer that local authorities should operate within the framework for conflict resolution they set out in their original proposal. As noble Lords may be aware, the need for such a framework is highlighted in the draft guidance which has been placed in the Library of the House. It is our belief that both local authorities and the Government are likely to learn far more from the operation of experimental arrangements if conflicts are resolved through a predetermined set of procedures rather than the removal of an element of that experiment. I therefore ask the Committee to oppose Amendments Nos. 33 and 45.

9.30 p.m.

Lord Hunt of Tanworth

I, too, am reluctant to accept these amendments. I have little to add to what has been said, but I should like to expand a little on the area of consent, which I believe is central to this Bill.

Before making any application to the Secretary of State, an authority is required to pass a resolution of the full council. In doing so, consent is rightly sought from the council to undertake an experiment. When an authority undertakes an experiment with an executive mayor, it is equally important that consent is sought from the mayor before his or her role is changed or even abolished. As the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, pointed out, this is particularly relevant where the mayor has been given a direct mandate from the electorate of the authority to exercise certain powers. The removal of the principle of consent in this case would appear to undermine the basis for experimentation under this Bill. It is on those grounds that I must oppose these amendments.

Baroness Hamwee

I am unpersuaded but, as there is pressure on time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]

Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendment No. 35: Page 6, line 39. leave out ("the written consent referred to in") and insert ("any written consent required by").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 35, perhaps I may speak also to Amendment No. 46. These are further technical amendments which ensure that the provisions of the Bill recognise that mayoral consent will not always be required for applications to the Secretary of State made under Clauses 5 and 11, because not all experiments will have executive mayors. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

The Government support these amendments, which help to clarify the purpose of these clauses.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No.36 not moved.]

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6 [Approval of applications under section 5]:

[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]

Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendment No. 38: Page 9. line 1 leave out ("approves") and insert ("has approved").

The noble Lord said: This technical amendment will help to avoid any possible confusion over the effect of this clause by clarifying the provision that the Secretary of State may approve only one application by a local authority to extend the experimental period. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

The Government support this technical amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7 [Extension of arrangements etc: orders under section 6(4)]:

Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendment No. 39: Page 9, line 32, after ("above") insert ("(taking references to the arrangements there mentioned as references to the existing arrangements)").

The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 are technical amendments which will help to avoid any possible confusion over the effect of this clause by clarifying the requirements for publicising and the decision to extend or vary experimental arrangements. These amendments ensure that the correct documents are available for public inspection. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8 [Variation of arrangements etc: orders under section 6(5)]:

Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendment No. 40: Page 10, line 32, at end insert ("(taking references to the arrangements and the order there mentioned as references, respectively, to the varied arrangements and the order under section 6(5) above)").

The noble Lord said: I have just spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 [Monitoring of experimental decision-making arrangements]:

Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendment No. 41: Page 11. leave out lines 40 and 41.

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 41,I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 42 and 43. These amendments are intended to allow the reporting period for reports, by the monitoring officer and the head of the paid service of an authority, upon the operation of experimental arrangements to begin from the date on which the arrangements themselves begin.

The need for Amendment No. 41 arises from the fact that, as the Bill stands at the moment, the first monitoring report may cover only a few months, or even less, of actual experimentation. The amendment will enable local authorities to report on whole year periods, a move which I believe will allow them to gain the maximum possible information from their experiments. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

The Government support this amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendment Nos. 42 and 43: Page 12, line 7, leave out ("experimental period begins") and insert ("authority begin to operate experimental decision-making arrangements"). Page 12. line 8, leave out from ("which") to end of line 10 and insert ("ends on or before the date on which the authority terminate the operation of experimental decision-making arrangements.").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11 [Termination of experimental decision-making arrangements]:

[Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 not moved.]

Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendment No. 46: Page 12, line 33. leave out ("the written consent referred to in") and insert ("any written consent required by").

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

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.

The Schedule [Modifications of enactments which may be specified in an order under section 3 or 6]:

Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendment No. 47: Page 14, line 3, at end insert— ("Section 4 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970

1. .—(1) Section 4 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 (joint committees and sub-committees) shall be amended as follows.
2. (2) At the appropriate place there shall be inserted the following subsection— "(2A) A social services committee of a single local authority may delegate to an elected mayor any of the functions of the committee."
3. (3) At the appropriate place there shall be inserted the following subsection— "(2B) A social services committee of a single local authority may delegate to an ordinary member of the authority any of the functions of the committee."
4. (4) At the appropriate place there shall be inserted the following subsection—"(2C) A social services committee of a single local authority may delegate to an officer of the authority any of the functions of the committee."
5. (5) At the appropriate place there shall be inserted the following subsection?— "(2D) A social services committee of a single local authority may delegate to another ordinary committee of the authority any of the functions of the committee."
6. (6) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted— "(3A) Subsection (7) of section 1 of the Local Government (Experimental Arrangements) Act 1998 (interpretation) shall apply for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of that section.").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment in connection with an earlier amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendment No. 48: Page 16, line 32, at end insert— ("Section 100G of the Local Government Act 1972 8A.—(1) Section 100G of the Local Government Act 1972 (principal councils to publish additional information) shall be amended as follows. (2) After subsection (2) there shall be inserted— (2A) So much of any written record kept by a single member of a principal council under paragraph 45A of Schedule 12 to this Act as does not disclose exempt information shall be open to inspection by members of the public at the offices of the council until the expiration of the period of six years beginning with the date on which the function to which the record relates is discharged. Section 100H of the Local Government Act 1972 8B.—(1) Section 100H of the Local Government Act 1972 (supplemental provisions and offences) shall be amended as follows. (2) In subsection (4) (offence in connection with document required by section 100B(1) or 100C(1) to be open to inspection by public) for "or 100C(1)" there shall be substituted "1(H)C(1) or 100G(2A)".").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 48, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 49 to 55.

It is a key element of each experiment made possible by my Bill that the fullest possible access to information ought to be afforded to both the councillors of the authority and the public, to support both the scrutiny function and open government more generally. These amendments ensure that this is the case.

Paragraph 13(3) of the schedule provides for a councillor (including an elected mayor) who is able to discharge functions of the authority acting alone by virtue of Section 101 of the 1972 Act as modified for the particular authority in question by the Schedule to my Bill to keep a record of how he has discharged those functions. As the provision currently stands, it is incomplete, in that functions discharged by an individual councillor as a result of Section 4 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 as modified by the schedule are not caught. Amendment No. 53 remedies this.

This record is then to be the mechanism for ensuring that both councillors and the public can find out easily what decisions have been made by an individual councillor acting alone. Paragraph 8 of the schedule to my Bill provides for the record to be open to councillors. Amendment No. 48 ensures that the public will also have access to the record for six years, as would be the case for the minutes of a meeting. It also backs up this right by bringing failure to make this record available to the public within the scope of the offence in Section 100H of the 1972 Act again. just as would be the case for the minutes of a meeting. These are important amendments which will underpin the openness of many of the models made possible by the Bill.

Amendment No. 51 is designed to make similar provision in the case of social services functions in respect of all those bodies within an authority that might have delegated responsibility for those functions. Section 101 of the 1972 Act prevents an authority from delegating to a committee or sub-committee those functions which stand referred and are delegated to the social services committee. This amendment extends that provision to mayors and other councillors who are able to take decisions acting alone, both for consistency's sake and to avoid legislating by omission.

Amendment No. 54 is a technical but important amendment to the Representation of the People Act 1983. It ensures that the election for a mayor who is a councillor can be held at the same time as those of the other councillors for the authority and of other authorities. Thus, the elections of all councillors for the same authority which are due on the same day can be combined and those can also be combined with the election of any local parish councillors, for example. This is important if the nonsense of voters forming separate queues at different ballot boxes in the same polling station is to be avoided.

Amendments Nos. 49, 50, 52 and 55 are minor technical amendments intended to assist the Secretary of State when making an order to allow the operation of experimental arrangements. Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 are intended to ensure that the drafting of the modifications to the Local Government Act 1972 is consistent with the rest of that Act. Further, Amendment No. 52 is intended to insert the definition of an "ordinary member" into that Act. Similarly, Amendment No. 55 is intended to insert the definition of an elected mayor into the correct part of the Representation of the People Act 1983. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for tabling these amendments this evening. The Government's agenda for local government is founded on a desire to see open, responsive, democratic and effective local authorities. An important part of achieving this vision is the ability of local authorities to experiment under this Bill with structures which give them both more streamlined decision-making arrangements and greater public scrutiny of the resulting policies and decisions. Amendments Nos. 48 and 53 are crucial to the openness of authorities experimenting under this Bill and the Government therefore welcome and support them. I urge noble Lords to do likewise.

I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for tabling Amendment No. 54. It would clearly be a nonsense to force local government elections normally held on the same day to be held either separately in the same place or to shift one of them to a different date. The former could cause difficulties for polling in many areas and the latter could significantly affect turnout in the election which was moved to a different date. It therefore clearly makes sense to combine these elections, and the Government support this amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said Amendments Nos. 49, 50, 51, 52 and 55 are merely technical and are tabled for the sake of clarity and consistency. The Government are happy to support these amendments.

On Question, amendment agree to.

Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendments Nos. 49 to 55: Page 16, line 44, leave out ("that individual") and insert ("he"). Page 17. line 6, leave out ("that individual") and insert ("he").

Page 17, line 39, at end insert—

1. ("(12) In subsection (10) (section shall not authorise local authority to arrange for discharge by any committee, sub-committee or local authority of any functions required to he discharged by specified committee) after "discharge by any" there shall he inserted "elected mayor".
2. (13) In subsection (10) before "committee, sub-committee" there shall he inserted "ordinary member-.").

Page 18, line 16, at end insert— ("(c) after the definition of "open space" there shall he inserted?— ""ordinary member" has the meaning given by section I of the Local Government (Experimental Arrangements) Act 1998;"."). Page 19, line 5, after ("above") insert ("or section 4 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970"). Page 19, line 7, at end insert— ("Section 36 of the Representation of the People Act 1983

1. .—(1) Section 36 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (local elections in England and Wales) shall be amended as follows.
2. (2) After subsection (3AC) there shall be inserted"—

"(3AD) Where the polls at

1. (a) the ordinary election of councillors for any electoral area falling within paragraph (b) of the definition of "electoral area" in section 203(1) below, or an election to fill a casual vacancy occurring in the office of such a councillor, and
2. (b) the ordinary election of an elected mayor for any electoral area falling within paragraph (a) of that definition, or an election to fill a casual vacancy occurring in the office of such an elected mayor, 201 are to be taken on the same day and the elections are for related electoral areas, the polls at those elections shall be taken together…").

Page 19. line 22, leave out ("after the definition of "local government election" there shall be inserted") and insert ("the following definition shall be inserted at the appropriate place").

The noble Lord said: As the remaining amendments are technical and have already been explained, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 49 to 55 en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.