HL Deb 05 July 1999 vol 603 cc658-74

7.40 p.m.

Lord Hunt of Tanworth rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what progress they have made on plans, referred to in paragraph 8.8 of the White Paper Modern Local Government: In Touch with the People, to introduce a new duty on local authorities to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of their area and accompanying powers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest in that I am honorary president of the Local Government Association. I also want to remind your Lordships of a report of the 1995–96 Select Committee on Central and Local Government Relations that I had the honour to chair. That report argued that, just as there had been a shift in the role of local government from being service providers to being enablers, so local authorities should be encouraged and helped to play their proper role as democratic community leaders in the complex world of local governance.

Therefore, it was good to read in paragraph 8.8 of Cmd. 4014 that: The Government intends to introduce legislation to place on councils a duty to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of their areas and to strengthen councils' powers to enter into partnerships".

That new duty was to enshrine in law the role of the council as the elected leader of the local community, required to produce a strategic plan for the locality and free to enter into partnerships with other bodies. In other words, the council was to take a comprehensive overview of the needs and priorities of its local area and communities in a way that other more specialised and non-elected bodies cannot.

That White Paper was published a year ago, in July 1998, and the new duty still does not figure in either the Local Government Bill, which is to have its Third Reading in the House next week, or so far in the draft Local Government (Organisation and Standards) Bill, currently being examined by a Joint Committee of both Houses.

I want to stress, briefly why I believe that that new duty is so necessary, particularly as I believe that some noble Lords fear that it would open the door to allow local authorities to interfere in the activities of local partners or to force others to work with councils when they do not wish to do so. That is not the intention of the Government. The Local Government Association agrees with the Government that safeguards would be necessary to prevent local authorities unduly impinging on the work of other bodies or prejudicing the latter's statutory functions.

Local authorities are, however, governed by the doctrine of vires and must produce specific statutory authority for their actions. They are not like private individuals who are free to do anything that is not specifically forbidden. Local authorities are unable to act unless given specific authority to do so, with only one limited exception under Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972.

As a consequence, there are already specific examples where local authorities wish to enter into partnerships or commercial activities which all concerned agreed to be desirable and sensible but which were thought that the action would be open to legal challenge over the authority's right to proceed. Those range from matters like the Hertfordshire County Council's plan to set up a company to run its old people's homes and to access private capital, to enable it to improve its facilities, to the way in which the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act inhibits partnership dealings such that the local authority hedge-cutter is not legally entitled to cut a privately owned hedge even if the owner wants him to do so and is willing to pay for the service.

These days we hear much talk of the so-called wicked issues where one agency, acting alone, will not produce effective solutions to deep-rooted problems and of the need for greater cohesion and coherence at the local level for all those whose parallel activities can affect local communities: councils, other public bodies, businesses and voluntary organisations.

The proposed new duty and powers would help to strengthen partnership working in key areas and would also provide an overall framework within which councils would have to perform all their existing functions. So in taking planning decisions, for example, councils would have to consider the likely effects of a decision against the three objectives—economic, social and environmental—and if necessary strike a balance to ensure that the overall well-being of their area is achieved.

Above all, the new duty would remove uncertainties about local government's legitimacy in community leadership and community planning and would encourage local authorities to think and work in a more innovative and experimental way, freeing them to develop partnership solutions, operating across organisational boundaries.

I believe—I hope rightly—that that is also the wish of the Government. I hope when the Minister replies to this debate that he will be able to tell the House that the few clauses needed to give effect to the proposed new duty will be included in the draft Local Government (Organisation and Standards) Bill with which it is so closely linked, as new political structures need to be developed with the community leadership role firmly in mind, or failing that, that it will find some other place in the next legislative programme.

7.48 p.m.

Baroness Goudie

My Lords, the Labour Party manifesto, on which this Labour Government were elected, committed us to place on councils a duty to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of an area. The Government have set about doing just that.

The Greater London Authority Bill defines the principal purposes of the new authority as promoting in Greater London economic development, wealth creation, social development and the improvement of the environment. In furthering any of those principal purposes, the authority will be required to consider the effect that that may have on the remaining purpose or purposes, in so far as that is practicable, and, over a period of time, to secure a reasonable balance between furthering each of those principal purposes. In particular, it must contribute to the achievement of sustainable development.

The new Government lost no time in bringing out their Green Paper, Modernising Local Government: Local Democracy and Community Leadership. That sought views on the implications of a duty to promote economic, social and environmental well-being. The Green Paper made the very valid points that such a duty would spur local authorities more widely to follow the practices of the best in their leadership of their local communities; and would go a long way to remove uncertainty as to the extent of their powers. Removing uncertainty is most important.

The Green Paper also sought views on the need to replace Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972. This of course is the subsidiary power which allows authorities to do anything incidental, conducive or calculated to facilitate the discharge of their functions. The Green Paper made the valid points that shortcomings have been identified by a number of prominent court cases in recent years and that confidence has been undermined, in particular in relation to co-operation and partnership activities.

The Green Paper rightly pointed out that a notable area of difficulty arises from the concept that only one incidental action is allowed, thus creating the position that a series of linked actions becomes unlawful by virtue of being "incidental to the incidental". The Green Paper concluded that, to remove such basic uncertainty, the Government were inclined to replace Section 111 with a new, broader power. This would in particular enable participation in the establishment of joint arrangements. I welcome this approach.

Then last July came the White Paper. Paragraph 8.8 states that the Government intend to introduce legislation to place on councils a duty not only to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of their areas, but also to strengthen council powers to enter into partnerships. There is reference to a new legal framework, but no express reference to Section 111. Indeed, the Greater London Authority Bill contains a provision in the same terms as Section 111. I hope that the Minister will be able to inform us of the current state of the Government's thinking on revamping Section 111.

Much uncertainty has been removed by the Local Government (Contracts) Act 1997, which the present Parliament fast-tracked. It effectively addressed the problem of the "incidental to the incidental". It gave a much needed impetus to the private finance initiative. But uncertainties remain. The 1997 Act deals only with long-term contracts—those intended to operate for at least five years.

Due regard should be paid to the fact that local authorities consist of representatives elected by the public on a wide franchise for comparatively short periods. If they are regarded as mere creatures of specific statutes, with unsatisfactory subsidiary powers, they will not be able to provide civic leadership and act, innovate and integrate on behalf of their local communities. I therefore support the Government's approach and am delighted that it has already been partly implemented.

7.52 p.m.

Baroness O'Cathain

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity provided by this debate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for asking the Unstarred Question. I welcome it not least because it occasioned me to read the White Paper published a year ago.

The White Paper, Modern Local Government: In Touch with the People, is beautifully produced and readable, but it is full of wish-lists which have not been costed and which could have the unwelcome effect of raising expectations at a local level. The section entitled "Promoting the well-being of communities" certainly falls into that category. Practically every single one of the statements, suggestions and strategy proposals looks fine on paper but begs a significant number of questions.

The last thing I want to be is a "Jeremiah"—a prophet of doom—and certainly I subscribe to the overall wish that local authorities should be in touch with the inhabitants of their areas. But the ambitious White Paper would generate huge demands for massive additional resources, both in the financial and in the skills area.

"Blue skies" planning used to have a devoted following—often described as "shoot for the sun and you might reach the moon". But in an age when expectations are constantly being raised to giddy heights, the non-fulfilment of expectations comes as a rude shock. That, in essence, is my health warning; now to the proposals contained in Chapter 8.

Although the Unstarred Question deals specifically with paragraph 8.8 there are other issues raised in the chapter which impinge upon the successful achievement of the promotion of economic, social and environmental well-being of an area. The White Paper, quite rightly, emphasises the need for leadership. Sadly, leaders are in very short supply. We can debate for hours on whether leaders are born or made, and I do not have very firm views on that, but I have very firm views on the fact that leadership can take a long time to develop. Some people are flexible enough to grasp the opportunities when placed in a leadership position, but I fear they are the exception.

In my experience, both as an erstwhile local authority chief officer and more recently having involvement with my own district council on a matter of liaison between the council and the local doctors on the matter of finding an alternative site for a surgery, I can say that "leadership" qualities are not in great supply. This is not to cast aspersions on the calibre of the staff employed but rather reflects the uneasy relationship that exists between the permanent staff and the elected members. Risk taking is not encouraged; time horizons differ greatly, and training for staff seems to concentrate more on servicing the endless committees rather than on originating ideas. There are, of course, exceptions—probably in every local authority—but the demands of this White Paper call for a very large number of high calibre staff with strong leadership qualities.

Ideally, all would-be councillors should be able to demonstrate strong leadership characteristics and leadership training should be high on the agenda for all officers and senior staff. In order to fulfil the proposals in the White Paper dealing with economic, social and environmental well-being, the following skills are essential: communication skills; strategic planning skills; promotional skills and mindsets that can be both flexible and pragmatic—open eyes, open ears and open minds. These skills are not in great over-supply and have seldom been required of local government employees, or indeed of elected members.

The greatest task facing local government in the fulfilling of the obligation to promote economic, social and environmental well-being is the development of strategic plans. Having spent a great part of my business career as a strategic planner, naturally I support the emphasis on that function in the White Paper. But strategic planning is a tedious, detailed, specialised exercise and I can already foresee problems of a most basic kind. Short-termism is a feature of most elected members, whereas strategic planning is by its nature long term in its work. How will that dilemma be addressed? The Government said in paragraph 8.14 that they, will not impose on councils any particular approach to this task [the task of strategic planning]—councils will have flexibility over the precise nature, scope and coverage of the strategy, the level of detailed action it contains and over how they go about preparing it in partnership with other organisations, with the new Regional Development Agencies which themselves will be preparing an economic strategy for their region, and with local people". Gosh! It really will be the heyday for strategic planners; I am afraid I was born too soon!

I have spent some time on this issue because in my opinion it is fundamental to the promotion of economic, social and environmental well-being. Before any progress can be made the plans will have to be drawn up. Before the plans are drawn up the staff will have to be trained in strategy planning. Before training in strategy planning is undertaken, serious attention will have to be paid to the selection and recruitment of people who can undertake such exercises—or indeed who want to. The last thing that is required is another case like that reported today where a local government employee was moved from one function to another without the necessary training and ended up bringing a successful case against the authority for stress. Financial resources are in short enough supply without having them used for payoffs in such cases.

Of course, there is one way of circumventing the problem; that is, to hire consultants. But I implore the Minister to give us the assurance that this will not be the case. The duties placed on local government are worthy but very onerous. I just wonder how they will be fulfilled. In my own area of West Sussex we have the county council, the district council and the town council. Who is going to be responsible for marshalling the ideas, the background data, the market studies and the business plans which are all a necessary part of the process leading to the promotion of economic, social and environmental well-being?

One thing this White Paper has been most successful in achieving is the Interest created by it:. All sections of the population firmly believe that they are going to be instrumental in developing the well-being of their area. But the "wish lists' are endless. For example, the town in which I live has a population of about 3,000. Various groups are looking at various aspects of the well-being of the town, and I was shown the deliberations of just one of those groups, the one dedicated to the needs of public transport. There are eight recommendations and were they to be accomplished it would certainly improve the provision of local transport. Nowhere, however, is there a single costing; nowhere is there any acknowledgement of the fact that most people are and will be wedded to their car; and even with the eight recommendations very little additional flexibility over and above the current situation would be provided.

Yet—and this is a serious point—the people who spent time and energy drawing up this list really do have high expectations of their recommendations being met; in touch with the people, listening to the people. When this list goes to the district council I wonder what will happen. Even more, I wonder what will happen when the list goes to the county council. I think I know what will happen in the latter case. It will be dealt with by the new "Cabinet" which is to be introduced with effect from April 2000, but I fear that the inhabitants of my town will not have the response they either deserve or expect.

The last thing I want to do is appear to be destructively critical of the process and the proposals. I subscribe to the view that local government can and must be improved, but I plead for realism—not least in the allocation of resources and uprating of skills which these exercises will trigger.

7.59 p.m.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, like other noble Lords speaking in this debate I, too, welcome the opportunity provided for us by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth. I should like to declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. As a member of the Joint Committee on the draft Local Government (Organisation and Standards) Bill, I must say that I have enjoyed hearing the debate on the overall vision of a modern local council that has been brought together in the Government's White Paper Modern Local Government: In Touch with the People.

The challenge for local government is twofold: first, to ensure effective decision-making and local leadership; and, secondly, to re-engage our communities so that we work better together and arrive at the best in local services. It is for this reason that I, too, welcome the opportunity this evening to discuss the advantages of including a duty of well-being in the Local Government (Organisation and Standards) Bill. Like many other local government leaders, I welcome the publication of the Bill as a draft. The unique recognition of local and central government's ability to work together, to learn from best practice across the country and also to challenge inertia has led to many councils, like mine, embracing the changes contained in it well ahead of the legislation. In fact, it sometimes seems like a race—an obstacle race—to see who gets to the "modernised council" finish line first.

Such competition is healthy and, perhaps, fun but it also needs to be balanced against the ability properly to hear and respond to suggestions for change and improvement. That is why I wish to speak this evening about the advantages of including the duty of well-being, alongside the proposals radically to change and improve political leadership.

The publication of the White Paper gave us a holistic vision of the role and place of local government. It 'was hoped that the six key areas of the White Paper—namely, new political structures, the ethical framework, best value, improving local financial accountability, promoting the well-being of communities and business rates—would be brought together in a cohesive and comprehensive local government Bill.

However, and understandably, pressure on the parliamentary timetable has led to an incremental approach. The Minister has said in the past that that will perhaps be a 10-year programme. Councillors in my authority quickly organised to meet the overall vision of the modern council and identified the community councillor role as being crucial to delivering more effective consultation and involvement both from and within the community. Community leadership is very much at the heart of modern local government. The new duties and powers for community planning and social, economic and environmental well-being will bring to life this new and powerful role for all new councillors.

Recent elections have confirmed the other continuing source of concern. Fewer than one in four Britons voted in the European elections and 11 per cent fewer people voted in the English council elections than in those held four years ago. I hasten to add that that was not the case in Brighton and Hove, where we had a near 40 per cent turnout, though that is nothing really to be proud of. There have been many theories and proposed remedies for increasing voter turnout. Local government, the government closest to the people, is failing to make that link. Yet we provide vital services every day that people need to access.

The draft local government Bill offers local authorities the chance to develop a system of local governance that is clearly accountable for decisions and able to deliver dynamic leadership. The inclusion of the duty of well-being would add to the other vital components—the ability to develop a system of local governance that is responsive to people's needs and the ability to work together with a range of community stakeholders, including business and the voluntary sector, with a clear duty to secure social, economic and environmental well-being. This duty, as promised in the White Paper, would enshrine in law local authorities' role as the elected leaders of the local community, with a responsibility for the well-being and sustainable development of their area.

Now is the time for the inclusion of this duty. Councillors are moving away from committee structures and want to make better use of their time. This "freeing-up" of councillors' time is linked to the need to attract a wider range of people into becoming councillors. One attraction must be the ability to work closely with the community and represent its views on how local services should be provided. As well as supporting our councillors in this role, we need to ensure that their views are properly informed. The new duty would therefore act as a "power" within the council and as another effective check and balance in the new executive role.

I would go further and simply ask for the inclusion of the duty of well-being in the draft Bill. Community planning, effective consultation and the production of comprehensive strategies for the promotion of well-being will be a considerable challenge to authorities, not least because we are currently required to produce some 40 statutory or non-statutory plans on various aspects of our work.

However, community planning has the potential to deliver significant benefits, including breaking down organisational barriers, contributing to democratic renewal and creating a shared appreciation of the needs of an area and the action required of the authority, its agencies and other groups. To me, this work is essential, not just desirable. It should be about delivering a better form of local government. It is also about engaging with our communities to tackle issues such as deprivation and social exclusion—issues that can only be resolved through effective inter-agency working and a real engagement with local communities.

In conclusion, I believe that the inclusion of the duty of well-being gives a clear message about the role of local government. It gives new and more powerful roles to community councillors and it will provide an incentive for greater involvement with a council which is seen as leading its community. In return, councils will see the benefits of greater co-ordination in planning and in the allocation of resources to meet local identified needs. This, in turn, will give confidence to local people to become more involved in planning local services and, therefore, will sustain interest and involvement.

Last week, the noble Lord, Lord Rogers of Riverside, produced his report on urban renaissance. In it he made over a hundred recommendations, perhaps the strongest and most persuasive of which was that the process of change locally should combine strength and democratic local leadership with an increased commitment to public participation. That observation and frequent references to the important roles that local government perform underline the case for having the power and the duty of general social economic and environmental well-being included early in legislation. We have it for London and I think that that must naturally follow for the rest of the country; indeed, local authorities will be the better for it.

8.6 p.m.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, I hesitate to begin because I thought that there would be a speaker in the gap—

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, I received a second request to speak in the gap but said that there was not enough time because someone was about to speak. However, in the circumstances, perhaps the noble Earl would speak briefly.

8.7 p.m.

The Earl of Listowel

My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for speaking briefly in the gap. I am prompted to do so by the indication given by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, that local government is being re-arranged and more people are being encouraged to become involved in councils. I recently visited the Walthamstow Housing Action Trust. The members of its committee of local residents were all women—indeed, about six or seven women who had become very involved in the development of the trust. Given that the primary cause of youth homelessness among young disadvantaged people is poor relationships with their families, especially with their mothers, it would be most helpful if mothers from housing estates were encouraged to be involved in local government. In that way they would feel empowered, their particular needs would be better met, they would feel better supported and they would, therefore, be better able to support their families.

8.8 p.m.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, for introducing this debate. I very much enjoyed serving on the Select Committee which he chaired. It certainly made me think rather more about some issues that I think I had probably approached in perhaps too facile a fashion. I should also declare an interest as vice-president of the Local Government Association and of the Association of London Government.

It is quite clearly widely agreed that the current limits on local government's powers are both undesirable and impractical. I have used the following example before in your Lordships' House because, I confess, it hurt me deeply. I refer to the case of McCarthy and Stone. When I was chairing the planning committee, my borough thought it would be sensible to charge the developers for advice from planners merely at the cost of their time. I think that £25 an hour was what we had in mind. However, we were unable to do that.

Recently, in considering the Local Government Bill, I discovered advice to a local authority that it may not sell advertising space in its own publication. That is a telling measure as best value and good practice require local publications to be made widely available. Advertising income does not seem a sinister way of ensuring that that should happen. Local authorities need to be able to consult economically, efficiently and effectively.

On a more general point, the public are rightly concerned about the outcomes of local authority activities; that is, the services. I share the view that the less central constraint there is, the better. It must help if local authorities are not hamstrung as to how to provide services. Flexibility and local decisions about how to do things are particularly important in community leadership. As the White Paper states—and as other noble Lords have said—this is probably the most important role of local authorities.

The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has mentioned evidence to the Joint Select Committee on the Local Government (Organisation and Standards) Bill. The aim of the new organisational models is reconnecting people and politics, which I believe is a vital aim, and not just at local level. However, it is notable that the witnesses keep telling the committee that the new duty is more important than the structures. This has been a thread running through the evidence from the Local Government Association and from staff from SOLACE and UNISON. This has not just come from the trade organisations. Over this weekend I have considered evidence from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. It referred to surveys of local authorities that show how many are failing even to make a commitment to produce local Agenda 21 plans. The RSPB states—and I think rightly—that even where there is a non-statutory target a significant minority of local authorities seem to be failing to meet the necessary standard. The target is set by no less a person than the Prime Minister.

The London Forum—a forum of amenity and civic societies—has responded to the committee's request for evidence. It mentions local authorities "listening and responding". It states that, the 'listening and responding' issue is not so easily addressed by structural change". I think that these are important points. It is interesting to note the wide variety of organisations which make them.

In my eyes sustainable development is as much about process as it is about outcome. It is about reconciling demands—the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, talked about a wish list—seeking a consensus across a local community, or indeed across many communities (I think we all accept that one cannot define a community just in terms of geography), distinguishing demands from needs, wishes and aspirations from urgent requirements, and setting priorities. That is about process, but the process itself helps to define the outcome.

Will the new duty be enough? We know all too well the financial constraints that are applied to local authorities. Because the duty—as we have seen it so far—is a duty, do we not rather need a power? The White Paper at paragraph 8.11 mentions that the new duty will be, underpinned with a discretionary power", but is that merely to enable the duty itself to be exercised? The duty is specific but does it merely meet the issues of the day; is it sufficiently wide to see far enough ahead? I wonder whether the duty as it appears to be framed will miss the point. Once it is framed as a duty, flexibility and priority setting may be excluded. The Greater London Authority Bill has had to prescribe on the face of the Bill a reasonable balance between each of its three principal purposes. That Bill amply illustrates the problems of being specific and limiting the scope of activities, or the manner in which a power is exercised.

We have considered the matter of staff for the mayor. We have discovered that the staff whom the mayor can appoint are not full-time equivalents, they are people. In these days of family friendly working practices, as advised by the Government, the mayor cannot appoint more than the prescribed number of people to share a job. Today we have discussed accommodation for the London Transport Users' Committee. I find it difficult to accept that the Bill has to provide in detail how accommodation is to be made available.

As the Select Committee of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has said, and as he has mentioned, the new duty should allow for innovation and for local authorities to make mistakes. When we see the legislative form of the new duty I hope that we shall also see that it demonstrates a trust on the part of the Government as regards other democratic structures. That would be for the good of local government and of local people.

8.16 p.m.

Lord Dixon-Smith

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, for asking this Question which has considerable relevance to discussions that have taken place during the course of the day. While in general I support the Government's intention to introduce legislation to place on councils a duty, as mentioned in paragraph 8.8 of the White Paper, to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of their areas and to strengthen councils' powers to enter into partnerships", I think we have seen in the GLA Bill some reasons why this simple—as one might have thought—little matter has not been included in the draft local government Bill.

The Greater London Authority Bill contains a multitude of checks for the Secretary of State to exercise on how the Greater London Authority can or will work and—if the Secretary of State thinks that it is not working properly—how he may persuade it gently, or forcibly, to behave in a way that he considers proper. Much as I regret that provision, it is perhaps the reason that the Government have hesitated in this regard.

My background in local government does not suggest to me that the Government's attitude in this regard is either wise or correct. I have immense confidence and faith in local government despite the follies of some authorities on some occasions. If we believe in devolution and local democracy and if we believe that local councils will be accountable and will work in the interests of local communities, we also have to believe that sometimes they may get things wrong. We have to be prepared to live with the consequences.

Management structures in local government to improve their relevance, accountability and communications with their communities have been under discussion for a long time. I refer to the Maude Report on management and local government which I think was published in 1968—over 30 years ago. We have come a long way since that time, but the subject is still under discussion and it is still as provocative a matter as it was then. It will still be as provocative in 30 years' time. In this House, where we are long on discussion—unlike local government, which has to take firm decisions which are acted on immediately—that is perhaps unsurprising.

The British public, the electorate and the communities at large—and here I echo the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—are interested in outcomes. As my noble friend Lady O'Cathain illustrated, all the consultation in the world will, on occasions, give rise to idealistic views of what can be done, might be done, should be done. But most people want a clear lead and a clear determination of outcomes. They are not too bothered about being consulted to a great degree provided that the decisions taken on their behalf are the right ones and can be seen to work. I, too, should prefer to see that. One of the problems in the Government's White Paper and their former Green Paper is that we are long on the business of consultation and somewhat short on action.

One aspect which perhaps causes concern appears to be the belief in government—which is inherent throughout the White Paper—that everything should change. It is an interesting ambition. Most people like to leave their mark on the world and it is a good way of setting about things. But I call in aid against that philosophy no less a person than the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor who, when sitting on the Woolsack only last week, said: My Lords, the fact that some things or institutions call for modernisation does not mean that every one does".—[Official Report, 24/6/99; col. 1061.] That does not mean that local government cannot modernise itself and improve its procedures. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, illustrated that his authority, without the backing of new legislation—although it has probably run into some limitations—has already been able to improve the way it works. That also is a fact and a record that one sees in progressive local authorities.

Over the years, I have been fascinated by the way in which good local authorities have introduced new practice, which has subsequently been followed by government and all too often comes up somewhat later in the form of legislation.

I should perhaps return to the present Local Government Bill which is passing through the House. That has what I would call a let-out clause for the Secretary of State to operate in the event that local authorities find themselves unreasonably constrained by a particular piece of legislation at the present time. I suggest that perhaps the constraints, the corsets, under which local government may act are capable—or might be capable when the Local Government Bill becomes law—of being relaxed somewhat.

However, that leads to one aspect to which we should pay attention. As we introduce these more general powers, we change the nature of what I call the vires consideration. Up until now, local government has been obliged to act within the law—and the law is precise. But the new clause that we are debating tonight is not precise; it is general. Indeed, we have the same problem with the Greater London Authority Bill. That is precisely why the Government have felt it necessary to place all these checks on what the Greater London Authority might do on the face of the Bill.

Perhaps the Minister in his reply—to which I look forward—will consider carefully the vires implication of these more general clauses. What is the Government's attitude to the problems they might throw up? It has always been a useful constraint on local government in the past—I have chafed against that constraint as much as anybody; but it has been useful—that it has been bound by the law. As we put in general clauses, that becomes a potential source of difficulty. I wonder what is the view of the Government on that particular problem.

I am grateful to the noble, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, for his Question.

8.24 p.m.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, for raising this issue and to all noble Lords who have contributed. It gives me a chance to explain how this issue fits in with the totality of the Government's approach to local government reform.

In the White Paper, which has been referred to, we made clear our commitment to a comprehensive and co-ordinated agenda, which will modernise the way in which local government will work. It will guarantee the quality of local services and will promote the well-being of communities.

We have already taken action to deliver on some commitments. As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, the electorate are interested in outcomes, and we wish to deliver them. The current Local Government Bill will set in place a new system of best value. It contains measures to improve the delivery of all local authority services, giving a better deal to local people. A beacon council scheme will establish centres of excellence in delivering local government services from which other local authorities can learn. The first round of successful applicants for beacon status will be announced in November. So we have already taken significant steps to establish the kind of modern councils we want to see.

As my noble friend Lord Bassam, who sits on the joint committee, indicated, the Local Government (Organisation and Standards) Bill is now under consideration by the joint committee. It will introduce new structures. A separate executive to make councils more efficient, effective and accountable will also be an important step in making sure that councils are in a position to provide leadership for their communities.

The White Paper made clear that we see community leadership as being at the very heart of the role of modern local government. It also made clear that to do this successfully councils must be both outward-looking and responsive to local needs. For example, tackling the complex problems which blight some of our poorer communities depends on all public bodies working together. Modern councils are well placed to lead this process and to ensure that action is co-ordinated and focused on locally determined priorities. They need to act together with other public authorities in order to do that. We need to take certain steps to remove the constraints on local government, acting with both other authorities and the private sector, to deliver these aims.

Local government will be required to produce new community plans. I welcome the Local Government Association's support and encouragement to launch that new community planning process. I know that many councils are already involved. The process covers a wide range of issues, including, broadly speaking, the well-being aspect and the sustainability to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred.

Community planning will provide a context for the action which authorities and their partners need to take to address community needs. But it is only part of the framework. Just as importantly, authorities will need new powers to build partnerships with other local bodies and to develop and implement innovative, cost-effective solutions to local problems. A central part of that framework, therefore:, will be legislation which gives local authorities the powers they need to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of their areas. We are looking at the way in which legislation might be framed. We want to see an effective framework which gives councils real powers to promote the well-being of their areas.

Of course, we are not talking about powers for authorities to do absolutely anything they like. They will need to be sensible and have appropriate limitations on the scope of their powers, if for no other reason than to recognise that there are wider national interests involved. There are constraints, including constraints on the capacity of local authorities to deliver, given the kind of management and other internal problems to which the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, referred. So there will be limits but within them authorities should be given discretion to take action when they feel the need to promote particular aspects of well-being for their local communities.

The powers must tackle the doubts that currently exist about authorities' scope for action. They must enable councils to work with a wide range of agencies and clarify their ability to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, rightly emphasised the importance of providing a framework for improving co-operation between local partners. The noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, referred to the need to take action and we are already doing so. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, drew attention to Clauses 16 to 18 of the Local Government Bill, which provide the means to remove elements of primary legislation that act as a barrier to the achievement of best value. In particular, they will enable best-value authorities to enter into new arrangements across the whole range of their service responsibilities.

Those powers will be used to facilitate joined-up service delivery—working across organisational boundaries to provide integrated services; develop more service-delivery models, with an emphasis on partnerships between and within local authorities; and clarify the circumstances in which authorities can provide goods and services to others. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, gave a couple of examples of where the present provisions are clearly nonsense and inhibit sensible development. The powers will also be used to make better use of local authority assets. Those provisions will go a long way towards removing the constraints that have hitherto frustrated authorities' efforts to improve the lives of local people.

The well-being legislation will build on all those developments. We will not stop there. Over the coming months, we will look at ways of doing more to remove the barriers that prevent councils and other bodies from working together to tackle the problems that they encounter. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, asked whether they will have the capacities and skills to plan strategically. Developing appropriate skills is obviously an important part of the modernisation of local councils. We will work closely with the Local Government Association and others to explain ways of building the necessary capacity within local authorities. We recognise that constraint will have to be tackled.

We need to learn also from government initiatives such as the New Deal for Communities and the various action zones. We need to build on the work of the Social Exclusion Unit on effective means of tackling social exclusion. In building on that incremental process through the various legislation that will come before Parliament, we are developing an entirely new approach to local government—but there are some horses for courses aspects. A number of noble Lords cross-referred to the Greater London Authority Bill, which is not far from our thoughts today. I understand the relevance of the cross-references but there are important differences between the GLA and local authorities as a whole. The GLA legislation is concerned with establishing from scratch a new strategic body. Providing it with a purpose—to promote well-being—is a necessary part of the powers of that new body. They need to be explicitly so.

The position for local authorities is historically more complex and a lot of baggage—if I may use that word neutrally—comes with it. Local authorities already have a wide range of specific powers and duties and many developed ways of delivering them. They have an even wider range of restrictions on the exercise of those powers. We are not starting with a blank piece of paper. We need to frame the legislation in a way that clarifies local authorities' powers and removes unnecessary restrictions but which recognises that we are starting with something that has organically developed over a long period.

Queries were raised as to why the well-being provisions are not at present in the draft Local Government Bill being considered by the joint committee. We are committed to a comprehensive and coherent agenda for modernising local government and well-being is a fundamental part of that agenda. It almost goes without saying that the transformation of local government will require strong political leadership. That commodity may be in short supply—although I am not quite so pessimistic as the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. A new environment will help to create more positive and innovative leadership but that will take time and will involve leadership in the community as well as in the local authority.

In terms of providing for well-being, my noble friend Lord Bassam, although he supports it being in the Bill, recognises that our whole programme is a rolling programme of introducing various changes. Although the proposed measures are clearly interrelated, it is not necessarily the case that one cannot have a particular measure before the others. Nevertheless, your Lordships will understand that it is not possible to present detailed proposals for every measure at exactly the same time and to indicate now what will be done next. The reform of the structures will relate to all the functions of a local authority—and its powers and duties will follow.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that in implementing well-being, we need to provide a flexible framework to respond to local priorities and to deliver improvements to the local quality of life. That is the historical responsibility of local government and one that it can fulfil under the new scheme. I agree also with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that authorities need a broad power to enable them to promote well-being. It needs to be sufficiently flexible to allow authorities to respond to future changes and opportunities. That is where we will be concentrating our legislative attention.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked gently whether we will be legislating in the next Session for well-being, in the context of the draft Bill or otherwise. I cannot possibly anticipate what might or might not be in the next Session's legislative programme. Nevertheless, I assure the noble Lord that the Government are concerned, along with local government, that a legislative framework is in place that enables authorities to lead their communities and work effectively with other service providers to that end.

The Government have an ambitious programme to modernise local government. Modern, open and accountable councils with strong leadership are uniquely well placed to lead their communities. The delivery of well-being will be greatly dependent on the other changes we are making in local government.

I have welcomed the opportunity to set out the rolling programme for carrying that forward, and we will doubtless take note of the various comments made during the course of the debate when deciding precisely how to do that.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.45 p.m.

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

[The Sitting was suspended from 8.35 to 8.45 p.m.]