INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS ETC

HL Deb 01 February 2000 vol 609 cc170-201

(".—(1) A local authority which is operating executive arrangements must prepare and keep up to date a document (referred to in this section as their constitution) which contains—

1. (a) such information with respect to the discharge of their functions (including functions which are the responsibility of the executive) as the Secretary of State may direct,
2. (b) a copy of the authority's standing orders for the time being,
3. (c) a copy of the authority's code of conduct for the time being under section 36, and
4. (d) such other information (if any) as the authority consider appropriate.

(2) A local authority must ensure that copies of their constitution are available at their principal office for inspection by members of the public at all reasonable hours.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 24 [Guidance]:

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 238: Page 13, line 11, leave out subsection (2).

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 239 and 240 not moved.]

Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 25 [Elected mayors.]:

Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 241 and 242: Page 13, line 27, leave out ("of") and insert ("made by or under'). Page 13, line 27, at end insert— ("(1A) Except to the extent that regulations made by the Secretary of State under this section otherwise provide, an elected mayor of a local authority is to be treated for the purposes of the enactments relating to local government as a member and councillor of the authority.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 243 not moved.]

Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 26 agreed to.

Clause 27 [Voting at elections of elected mayors]:

Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 243A: Page 13, line 38, leave out subsection (1).

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 243A, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 245A, 245B and 245C. This group of amendments deals with the voting system for the election of a mayor, should such an election take place. Perhaps I may straight away that, contrary to popular impression, I have spent over 30 years in the Liberal and Liberal Democrat Party and have not spent all my time talking about different voting systems. I recognise that those issues do not greatly excite people, but apparently that is not the case here tonight.

This is an extremely important issue. Should we come to electing a mayor, as in London we shall be doing shortly, it is important that the person who is elected can demonstrate that he demands substantial support. The purpose of our amendments is to substitute the supplementary vote system proposed in the Bill with the alternative vote system. There are important differences. I am fortunate in that the way that the alternative vote system works is set out extremely clearly in Amendment No. 245B. I do not need to take the time of the Committee tonight nor test my intellectual abilities in explaining that.

The defects of the supplementary vote system, which has the effect of eliminating all but the top two candidates, mean that if there are four or more candidates, which is most likely in any mayoral election, the voters who have to decide on their second preference will have to try either to determine that their second preference vote may well be wasted because their favoured candidate will be eliminated or try to determine who, in effect, will come second.

Whatever the rightness or wrongness of their choice, it means that, for many, their second choice will be wasted. The result will be that the successful candidate very likely will be elected with the support of less than half the people who turned out to vote. If we are investing the power that we are in an elected mayor, it must be important that that person is able to demonstrate that he has genuine popular support.

We did not succeed in persuading the Government of the rightness of this system for London, but we now offer them another opportunity. I am sure that in the months since we dealt with this issue in the GLA Bill, the Minister will have reflected further and seen the weaknesses of the system that the Government have inflicted upon us for London. They will not wish to repeat that mistake for the rest of the country and will now recognise the support which exists for the elections to take place under the alternative vote system. I beg to move.

Lord Lipsey

Unlike the noble, Lord Tope. I have spent much of my life thinking about electoral systems. I was going to suggest that we all put on our anoraks for the next hour! However, having listened to this afternoon's debate, I find that there is a subject still more "anorakial", if I may coin that word, than electoral reform, and that is local government reform. That is a subject discussed with lightness and levity compared to the debates we have had this afternoon. Nevertheless, it is a very important subject on which I wish to detain the Committee for a couple of moments.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that I find it slightly ironic that this amendment should come from the Liberal Democrat side of the Committee because the whole purpose of the electoral system is to find the most legitimate way of electing a mayor. Members on that side of the Committee are not terribly keen on mayors in any event. Therefore, I am not quite sure why they should rally to this cause.

I am extremely keen on elected mayors and I want to see the best possible system. That is why I intervene in this debate. The Government have chosen an extremely respectable method for the choice of mayor. It is better by tons than the first-past-the-post system. If we had a first-past-the- post system for electing a mayor, according to some calculations which I did this afternoon, it is quite likely that the winning candidate would have the support of less than 10 per cent of the electors in his area. That would not be much of a legitimacy for him to carry into action.

Therefore, the SV is a perfectly respectable system. It has a number of strong features to commend it. It was the choice of the committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Plant for national elections. It is nice and simple. Academic research has found that people like using it. It does not give weight to people's mild choices. It does not matter whether you prefer the Green Party to the Monster Raving Loony Party because those parties are well down on the list of most voters. But that system was chosen for London and there is a sort of Occam's Razor effect in the electoral system as there is in matters philosophical. So there is a case of substance there which is why that system was chosen for London.

On the other hand, there is a strong list of features which should commend AV to the Committee. It was the choice of another committee—that chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, on which I had the great privilege to sit—for electoral reform for Westminster. It is simple to use. Indeed, it is used for the lower House in Australia where there is compulsory voting and, therefore, it is not necessarily the case that every voter is the enthusiastic expert who goes to the polls in this country.

It gives voters more freedom. For example, they can choose between the Green Party and the Fascist Party, which for many of us would be quite an important choice to make. And crucially—and this was the point to which the noble Lord referred—it is the only system which means that when the last ballots are counted, the winning candidate invariably has more than half the votes. That is a powerful case for the AV.

As regards a change since the Bill for London, I would have thought for that Bill it was even-Stevens: there was a case for the SV; there was a case for the AV; and I certainly do not criticise the Government for opting for the SV. But let us look at the concrete situation in which we find ourselves. SV is fine so long as there are only three serious candidates, which has been the case in the country until now. It works fine. But let us suppose in a couple of weeks' time, as I richly hope, my party chooses Frank Dobson as its standard bearer and let us suppose that Ken Livingstone runs as an independent and the Liberals have their charming Mrs Kramer and the Conservatives have their charming Mr Norris. In that case, people's third and fourth preferences may become terribly important.

I know that some members of my own party—I would not necessarily count myself among them—would do anything to stop Ken Livingstone being chosen. They want to be able to put him fourth. But under the SV system, they do not have that choice. It is only their first two choices which will count and, therefore, they do not have that fully articulated option to express their choices right through.

What has happened in London may happen in other cities. I can imagine situations in which the three parties put forward candidates and some local dignitary or independent puts himself forward. The people there should have the full choice which the AV grants them. We cannot tell the future, but if we were looking again now at a system for London, although I believe the Government made a perfectly good choice at the time, the system of AV would have been better in the situation in which we find ourselves.

Therefore I ask the Minister to reflect on these questions. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed this evening because the issues require serious consideration. I ask him to go further at a later stage and tell the House that, having reconsidered the arguments, he now sees the case made out for the alternative vote.

Lord Whitty

I see the Conservative Front Bench has no role to play in the slightly esoteric argument taking place among the electoral reformers.

I have considered the alternative proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. Indeed, it was considered at some length during the deliberations of the commission chaired by my noble friend Lord Plant of Highfield. It may be that that was not the final word of wisdom on the matter. I know that my noble friend Lord Lipsey has sat on other commissions and my noble friend Lady Gould of Potternewton has had the distinction of being a member of all of them. Therefore, she is probably the greatest source of wisdom on these matters.

Nevertheless, there is a difficulty in accepting the view put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. It may be said that one difficulty we brought upon ourselves; namely, that we have already adopted the supplementary vote system for London. But having done so, the system must have some clarity about it in terms of how the votes are designated. Most people can move quite easily from putting one cross on a ballot paper to putting two. The final run-off, in effect, is between two persons. Therefore, there is a clear choice. It provides a clear solution. It is simple and easy to understand and results in a clear winner.

But even if I were slightly hesitant in those arguments, the fact that we have already chosen one system for London is important in that respect. That system has been chosen for the election of a mayor of London, which is the highest-profile contest that we are likely to see, and some people will say, "Thank goodness for that". The election of a mayor for London will be a high profile political event. Why should we have a different system and how do we explain the need for a different system to the electorates of those other authorities which choose to elect a mayor?

My noble friend Lord Lipsey has explained to the Committee the supplementary vote system. It has certain advantages. The alternative vote system also has advantages and I accept that the balance is a fine one. Nevertheless, I do not believe that there is a clear argument for departing from the decision which we took in relation to London when choosing the system for the election of mayors of other cities and local authorities. Therefore, I am not moved to accept the amendment and I understand that we may return to this matter when we shall probably have a longer and even more arcane debate. However, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Tope, not to pursue the issue this evening.

Baroness Hamwee

I shall write down "amendment for Report" now. Before my noble friend responds, perhaps I can ask the Minister to accept that in the alternative vote system, although electors may vote all the way down a list, they need vote only for one, two or three or however many candidates they choose to vote for.

Many of us who advocate the system recognise its benefits in allowing that amount of flexibility but also in allowing, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, indicated, one to show one' s opposition to a candidate as well.

I am sure that my noble friends have had the experience which I have had. We use the system of single transferable votes within our party for internal elections. There have been several occasions when I have had quite clear views as to those I would not want to see elected. I have worked on the ballot paper, starting from the top, down a few, then to the bottom and up for a few and then filled in the middle.

Given that we seem to be moving so fast in the direction of "personality politics", there may well be occasions in mayoral elections when certain candidates will raise strong feelings among the electorate, both in favour of and against. The alternative vote system would allow those feelings against to be expressed in a way that is not possible with the supplemental vote system.

As we continue with the Bill I gain the increasingly distinct impression, perhaps wrongly, that because mayors in general were thought to be a good thing, Downing Street—maybe particularly the Prime Minister—felt that there should be mayors up and down the country. We are in a situation where we have to work towards that somehow, however many problems are identified and analysed in the legislative process. To say that because we have a particular voting system in London we must therefore apply it directly in other cities and districts seems in no way to support intellectually the argument for mayors. I believe that such argument is becoming weaker as we continue with the Bill.

9 p.m.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood

Perhaps I may point out that most people are perfectly capable of ranking 15 items in order of preference, let alone four or five.

Lord Tope

I am not surprised that the Minister rejected the amendments. On these Benches, one tends to get used to that. However, I was disappointed with the way in which he dismissed not my arguments but the much more able and experienced arguments of his noble friend and, indeed, those of his own party's electoral commission and all the bodies with which the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, was involved. I am pleased to see that the noble Baroness has joined us for this part of the debate.

I hope I do not do the Minister an injustice by saying that all the arguments are dismissed on the grounds that the mistake has been made once in London. Perhaps it is a mistake recognised with hindsight on his Benches but, I have to say, not on ours. Therefore, having got it wrong for London, the same mistake has to be inflicted on the rest of the country. That appears to be almost exactly what he was saying.

He also appeals to say that the British electorate is not capable of writing down, "1, 2, 3, 4, 5" instead of "X, X". The Minister is not a patronising man.

However, that was a patronising statement, although I am sure unintended. I am disappointed by the way in which the Minister dismissed the arguments. I suspect he did so because his brief required it of him rather than because his head told him to do so.

As he goes home and thinks about the issue—I am sure he will think of little else tonight—I hope that he will perhaps consider the plea, not from these Benches but from his own, to reflect further before the same mistake is made for the rest of the country as is now being demonstrated has been made for London. This small change in the voting system is important. It could easily be made and is one which the Government should now adopt. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 244: Page 13, line 39, leave out from ("have") to end of line 4 on page 14 and insert ("one vote and the candidate receiving the greatest number of votes shall be returned as the elected mayor").

The noble Lord said: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, will not think it ironic to find the Conservative Party trying to change the system of voting for mayors back to first-past-the-post. Ai least there is an element of consistency in what we advocate. Not only that, we advocate a system which appears to satisfy everybody in the other place. There seems to be no sign at present that they have any wish to change it. One might have thought, therefore, that the first-past-the-post system, which has the merit of even greater simplicity, if perhaps an element of unjust brutality, would be preferable to devising even more complex systems of voting than the one inflicted on London.

The whole authority is an experiment as the Greater London Authority does not exist. It is just being brought into being. Perhaps, therefore, it is not unreasonable to have an experimental system when dealing with an experimental authority. If the Government had been prepared to sit back, draw a deep breath and wait to see how it worked before inflicting the system on the rest of the country, I might have been more willing to go along with what I would call the direction of their legislation. I nearly said "the drift" of their legislative programme. As stated by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, they appear to be committed to a system in which mayors are a good idea, therefore everybody should have them.

In many parts of the country the local government system, although interfered with over the years by numerous governments, has nonetheless been in existence for a long time. We are dealing with longstanding responsible bodies which know exactly the meaning of local administration and do it well. Nonetheless, they are to be changed. If they are to have elected mayors, they will also have inflicted upon them this marginal system of proportional representation. The British people are adaptable and will make of it the best they can. However, as in so many things, I expect that they would prefer the system with which they are familiar. It may not always produce the most just result. However, if we were to explore the result of the last general election there could be some argument about justice and the fact that the Government received fewer votes in 1997 than their predecessors, the Conservative government, in 1992. The difference in results is extraordinary.

However, that is the system we accept and it would seem reasonable to argue for it. Amendment No. 244 would bring that about. If Amendment No. 244 is accepted, Amendment No. 245 would not be necessary. Schedule 2 appears after this amendment. However, perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to it at the same time. Schedule 2 would also be unnecessary in the event that Amendment No. 244 is accepted. That is the reason why Schedule 2 be agreed to is on the Marshalled List. I do not intend to discuss it again. I understand the procedure, that it must be separate, but I shall certainly not speak to it again.

Our position is clear. We are convinced that the ground on which we are standing is perfectly adequate. I am not optimistic that the Minister will accept my remarks. But if he were to try to impose on Members of Parliament in the other place what he is trying to impose on local government, he might have an interesting debate on his hands. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty

I fear that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is right in divining my intentions in relation to this amendment. I regret that I cannot accept it.

The Government have the benefit of consistency, albeit slightly less long-run than the consistency of the party opposite in defending first-past-the-post to the last ditch in all circumstances and at all times, in that we consider that our proposal in relation to the supplementary vote to be the appropriate one for mayoral contests. We enacted that in relation to London and consider it to be appropriate here.

We do not consider the first-past-the-post system to be appropriate for a mayor. As alluded to in the previous debate, it could lead to a mayor in a four-sided contest succeeding with around 28 per cent of the vote. That is not an appropriate way in which a mayor for any local authority should be elected. Therefore, though I have some intellectual cross-over with those advocating the alternative rather than the supplementary vote and feel that there is a fine argument in that regard, I do not feel that there is a fine argument here.

We cannot read across from Westminster seats, whatever one's view may be on how we elect people to the other place. For the institution of mayor we must have a result which at least means that a substantial proportion of the population voted for the mayor either as first or second choice, and not just a potential minority as the amendment suggests. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will not proceed.

Lord Dixon-Smith

I hear what the Minister says. He may well end up with a minority mayor whatever happens if he finishes up with only a 30 per cent poll.

So one has a problem. However, I have said what I have said. I do not withdraw any of it, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments No. 245 and 245A not moved.]

Clause 27 agreed to.

Schedule 2 [Election of elected mayor]:

[Amendment No. 245B not moved.]

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clause 28 [Entitlement to vote]:

[Amendment No. 245C not moved.]

Clause 28 agreed to.

Clause 29 [Power to make provision about elections]:

[Amendment No. 246 not moved.]

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 246A: Page 14, line 21, at end insert— ("( ) the requirements for nomination of candidates for the position of elected mayor, and").

The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 246A, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 246B and C and 247A.

The first of these amendments seeks to insert in Clause 29 a requirement for the Secretary of State to make regulations as to the nomination of candidates for the position of elected mayor. I included this provision as I am not clear that it is otherwise covered. It seems to me that some attention needs to be paid to the number of nominators that a candidate for the position should have. If a potential elected mayor needs nominations only from the same number of electors as any other councillor, I question whether that would be appropriate. The number for councillors is not large and an elected mayor would, by definition, be representing and dealing with a much wider area. It may be that the Government have in mind a multiple of the number of nominations needed by a candidate to be a councillor. But this is a matter which needs attention.

Amendments Nos. 246B and C deal with the question of elections for the return of elected mayors. I sought to include two relevant points, referring not just to mayors but also to other members of an executive who are directly elected. It seems to me that the way in which the elections of a directly-elected cabinet are dealt with should be set on a fairly similar basis to that which applies to the return of elected mayors. Finally, Amendment No. 247A deals with a similar point to that covered by Amendment No. 246A. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for the issues that she has raised on these amendments. We do not believe that Amendments Nos. 246A and 247A are necessary because the Government already propose powers in the Bill to make such regulations.

Clause 29 already proposes to enable the making of regulations about the conduct of elections by applying or incorporating previous enactments with or without modification. That includes legislation on nomination requirements for candidates. In addition, government Amendment No. 242, to which I spoke during the first day in Committee, provides that the mayor is a councillor and a member (including nomination requirements for candidates) unless regulations provide otherwise. Therefore, we consider that Amendments Nos. 246A and 247A are unnecessary.

However, we broadly agree with the points made by the noble Baroness in speaking to Amendments Nos. 246B and 246C. In fact, this issue goes wider than Clause 29 of the Bill; indeed, it applies equally to other clauses, in particular Clauses 25, 26, 27 and 28. Therefore, we wish to take the matter away and consider it carefully before returning to the Chamber. In the light of my response, I hope that the noble Baroness will not feel it necessary to press her amendments tonight.

Baroness Hamwee

I thank the Minister for her reply. I wonder whether she can tell the Committee what the Government have in mind with regard to the number of nominations for an elected mayor. Is this a matter that has been considered?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

We have not yet come to a firm view on whether the nomination requirements for mayoral candidates should differ from those for other councillors. We would like to give the matter further consideration. Perhaps it will be helpful if I point out that regulations under Clause 29 will be subject to the draft affirmative procedure and, as I have already indicated, subject to consultation with the electoral commission once it is established. Therefore, this Chamber will have another opportunity to debate the issue when those regulations are considered.

Baroness Hamwee

I thank the Minister for that further response. By now she will be very clear that our view is that the number of nominations required for a candidate for elected mayor should be rather more substantial than for a councillor. I am aware of the difficulties that at least one of the independent candidates for mayor of London is having. He is spending all his time going round the boroughs gathering up the 330 signatures that are required, but that figure may be on the high side for mayors outside London. I am grateful to the Minister for her comments about Amendments Nos. 246B and 246C, and beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 246A.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 246B and 246C not moved.]

9.15 p.m.

Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 247: Page 14, line 24, at end insert ("and (c) the recall of the Mayor in the event of a loss of confidence and the filling of a casual vacancy").

The noble Lord said: This amendment would give the Secretary of State power to make regulations to provide for the recall of the mayor, should that become necessary and appropriate. I am, again, conscious that we are returning to a subject that we debated on a number of occasions during the progress of the GLA legislation. We failed to convince the Government at that time. However, it is possible that, during the course of events in the Conservative Party before Christmas, the Government began to wonder whether they were right to resist this proposal. I suspect that they may be wondering even more now as regards events which may well unfold in their own party in two or three weeks' time.

We are discussing an extremely important issue. In the case of an elected mayor, whether in London or, with slightly less profile but still high profile, in other major cities, we are vesting in one person very considerable power; and, indeed, even greater profile and influence. I do not put forward lightly the proposal that such a person should easily be recalled simply through any party shenanigans, for whatever reason. But the fact that such a person should be elected for four years and be beyond any recall— subject, of course, to the law of the land—must surely be wrong.

I cannot think of any other elected politician in this county—or, for that matter, in most other countries— with considerable personal power who cannot be recalled for any matter other than clearly breaking the law, or going demonstrably mad. Surely we should have some provision for the recall of a mayor in circumstances upon which we may speculate tonight, but perhaps it would be better not to do so. We can all envisage circumstances when that action might become necessary and it is clearly unsatisfactory at that stage to find that nothing can be done.

I am aware that when we discussed the GLA Bill the amendments we sought to move were objected to at least in part as a consequence of the different mechanisms that we suggested for recalling the mayor. I accept that that was only part of the argument, but it was certainly a part of it. In this amendment we seek to give that power to the Secretary of State to determine. The Secretary of State, of course, can do no wrong and will be far more capable of dealing with this matter than the humble Members on these Benches trying to construct amendments. However, I say in all seriousness that I hope this amendment concentrates on the principle of the issue rather than on the mechanics of achieving the outcome which we seek. The principle is extremely important. We should not allow people to attain such considerable personal power without any means of recalling them under any circumstances. I hope that the Government will give this issue further consideration. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty

As the noble Lord said, during the passage of the GLA Bill we discussed this matter several times in connection with the role of the mayor. The question of recall of the mayor became a matter of relatively high drama in this Chamber. I suspect that the arguments behind the amendment will resurface. However, we do not even know what mechanism the noble Lord proposes, as he proposes handing responsibility for the mechanism of removal to the Secretary of State to prescribe in regulations. At least during the passage of the GLA Bill several different mechanisms to remove the mayor of London were proposed. I objected to all of them on the principle that one group of elected politicians should not be able to take a decision—I was going to say "conspire"—to remove another directly elected politician. That does not apply in any other part of our constitution.

It is not correct to say that there is no means of removing the mayor; indeed, the noble Lord in effect referred to them. The mayor will be subject to the law of the land and to local government regulations. Demonstrable insanity is catered for in local government provisions, as it was in the London Bill. Should a mayor be removed for political reasons, or should this important office be subject to recall on the basis of a political arrangement by other elected politicians? We have a judicial procedure in the event of crime being committed. If, however, it is a case of political misdemeanours as viewed by the mayor's opponents within the council, or by some other group that regulations may prescribe, I do not believe that is a legitimate case for recall and I would resist any amendment on those lines.

I accept that there is a slightly stronger argument for recalling a mayor through popular mandate: that is, through a petition or through the demand of a minimum number of the electorate. However, at what figure does one pitch a petition or trigger a ballot to make it legitimate as a means of overthrowing the decision of the majority of the electorate—if the mayor is elected on a majority, or a number close to a majority—without making it appear ludicrously high and unattainable? Therefore there are problems of legitimacy as regards any political means of attempting to recall the mayor.

I do not accept that that is a sensible way to deal with an office which we expect to last a full four-year term and to be responsible for delivering a wide range of services. I do not accept that the mayor should be restricted or recalled because perhaps he or she is not of the same political persuasion as the majority, or a temporary majority, of the council, or there is an issue on which the 5 per cent threshold—if that is to be the relevant threshold of the electorate—might be mobilised through good organisation. It would gravely inhibit the mayor to carry out a four-year strategic approach to his or her task on the basis that such a response as I have described might be provoked if a particular issue was unpopular.

I therefore oppose the amendment in principle in relation to political removal. It is there already in practice in terms of legal crimes and Local Government Act crimes; it is not necessary to get the Secretary of State, with his admittedly vast ingenuity, to draft regulations which would enable the removal of a mayor part-way through his or her term. I oppose the amendment. I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue it.

Lord Tope

I am perhaps a little less surprised at that response, although I am still saddened that we cannot move the Minister even on the principle.

I accept entirely that any measure to remove an elected mayor should not be taken lightly and only in the most extreme circumstances. We would all hope that such circumstances would never arise. But it is probable that, sooner or later, somewhere they will arise. Let us take, first, the circumstances under current legislation in which a mayor could be removed. Demonstrable insanity is not always easy to demonstrate; sometimes it takes some time to do so. Indeed, some would say that insanity is demonstrated merely by wishing to seek the office in the first place. However, in all seriousness, insanity is not easily demonstrated. It also takes time to prove criminal activity through the judicial process. During such processes, the administration of the area concerned is undoubtedly paralysed and polarised.

I understand the principle that concerns the Minister—I share that concern—that someone who has been democratically elected should not easily be removed from office. That is important. One of our proposals under the GLA Bill—I do not want particularly to return to these matters—was described as the nuclear option. In a city as large as London, any popular vote in terms of petition numbers and so on was a practical impossibility. We suggested that the members of the assembly, by a very large majority—I forget the exact figure—should have the right to dismiss the mayor but, in so doing, would dismiss themselves as well. No assembly is likely to vote by a large majority for such an option unless it is absolutely necessary, because its members would then be facing the electorate and having to justify the action they had taken. I thought that was a very fair proposal to deal with such circumstances—which we hope will never arise, but might—in a city as large as London.

We have deliberately not chosen mechanics, which would give the Minister another easy option to shoot us down, but rather we have tried to concentrate on the principle that unfettered power to an individual should not be allowed. There should be some means of recalling a mayor under extreme circumstances without a lengthy and paralysing judicial process in regard to criminal matters or in regard to matters of sanity or insanity.

Lord Whitty

I apologise to the Committee. I was reminded when the noble Lord said "under extreme circumstances" that there was one measure I failed to mention in my previous remarks—that is, that the new ethical framework will apply to the mayor as it will to other office holders. Therefore the question of disqualification or suspension could arise in that context. Again that is not a political removal but a quasi judicial removal. I thought, for the record, that the noble Lord should recognise that that circumstance is already covered.

Lord Tope

I am pleased to hear that. Again, I do not think that that adequately covers the point. Now is not the time to press the matter further, although I suspect that we shall return to it at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 247A not moved.]

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 247B: Page 15, line 1, leave out subsection (4) and insert— ("(4) The return of an elected mayor at an election may be questioned in accordance with any enactment or regulation enabling the questioning of the return at an election of a member or councillor of a local authority.").

The noble Baroness said: I shall not take long. Subsection (4) of Clause 29 provides that no return of an elected mayor is to be questioned other than by an election petition. My amendment reverses that and gives me the opportunity to ask the Minister what the Government are excluding in the subsection. It appears to provide greater protection for the mayor than for other elected councillors and that requires justification on the record. I beg to move.

9.30 p.m.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

As currently drafted, subsection (4) of Clause 29 provides that mayoral elections may be challenged only by election petitions under regulations which apply the provisions of Part III of the Representation of the People Act 1983. This deals with the procedure for questioning local elections. Amendment No. 247B would replace that with wording which seeks to apply automatically the Representation of the People Act provisions about the questioning of elections. The noble Baroness's amendment would therefore appear to be unnecessary since it only seeks to achieve what regulations made under the current version of the subsection will achieve. The benefit of doing this by regulations is that they will be able to take account of the particular circumstances of mayoral elections where necessary. The noble Baroness's amendment does not allow for such fine tuning. I hope that she will feel able to withdraw it.

Baroness Hamwee

It may be the time of night, but I am not sure what the Government are achieving here. Perhaps I had better read what the Minister said. It is inappropriate that the problems arising from the election of councillors are dealt with in primary legislation but in the case of an elected mayor are to be excluded from primary legislation and dealt with in secondary legislation. If anything, the regulations dealing with the election of mayor should be on the face of the statute, as is the case with elected councillors. It is a great pity that yet again something which was thought by previous Parliaments to be sufficiently important to be included in statute is being taken out of primary legislation and left for secondary legislation. However, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 29 agreed to.

Clause 30 [Provisions with respect to referendums]:

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 248: Page 15, line 7, leave out ("five") and insert ("three").

The noble Lord said: I would not wish to raise the Minister's hopes that I have suddenly become a convert to the desirability of having many referendums just because I have tabled this amendment. If that were the case, the certifiable condition referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, might well be applied to me. It would certainly be certifiable inconsistency!

The amendment was tabled in the expectation, which, as I suspected, would not be borne out, that we could enable local authorities to reverse out of the cul-de-sac which the Minister was driving them into by giving them an option to have a referendum to return to a more traditional form of administration. That is not the case, but it was the motivation behind the amendment. Therefore, when the time comes I shall seek to withdraw it. I beg to move.

Baroness Hanham

I rise to speak to Amendment No. 249 standing in my name. I seek to amend the provision because it seems wishy-washy. When does a five-year period start? By the time one reaches the referendum process, the authority will have produced a lawful scheme, consulted locally, notified. the Secretary of State and made the many and far-reaching changes consequent upon the proposal. Therefore, the start of the five-year period should relate to the passage of the resolution under Clause 20(1). That gives us a cut-off period so that the local authority knows from when the five-year period is to run. Otherwise, I suspect that the matter will have to be set out in regulations.

Baroness Hamwee

My Amendment No. 257A is in this group. It may seem unnecessary and I hope that the Minister will tell me that it is. It seeks to establish that the term "referendum" as used in the Bill means a referendum under the provisions of the Bill—or the Act, as it will be. It seems a matter of common sense that the Secretary of State's regulation-making power in respect of referendums cannot extend to referendums on other legislation. All the amendment seeks is confirmation of that point.

Lord Whitty

I regret that I cannot accept any of the amendments. In relation to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, we considered the five-year period for some time. It seems to us the most sensible period for a number of reasons. The principal reason is that it does not seem sensible that, having introduced a new executive structure, within the first term of that executive structure there should be another process started for yet another change. We therefore consider that the period between referendums would have to be at least four years and, in reality and in practice, five years; after the end of a full term.

With regard to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, I take the point about having a clear start date. It may well be that that needs to be dealt with in regulations. However, the amendment as drafted would have a perverse effect. Not only would it make it impossible within the five-year period for local people to trigger a referendum when the council had opted for an executive structure, but it could, at least notionally, mean that a council seeking to avoid ever having a referendum could simply tweak its executive arrangements, pass another resolution under Clause 20 and therefore roll on the process for ever. I am sure that was not the intention behind the noble Baroness's amendment but, nevertheless, it could be its effect.

I turn to Amendment No. 257A proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I assure the Committee that the Government do not intend to use the provisions of the Bill, and in particular this clause, to prevent a local authority from holding referendums on issues other than executive arrangements if they wish to do so and have the powers to do so. But a definition of "referendum" for the purposes of Part II of the Bill would not be appropriate because wherever the word occurs it needs to be read in that particular context. It does not have a single meaning applied throughout Part II. For example, in Clause 22 it means a referendum under that clause; in Clause 23 it means a referendum under that clause, and so on.

In Clause 30, the effect of subsection (7) is to ensure that references to referendums in Clause 30 are clearly references to referendums held under that clause. Any other definition in one clause could not necessarily be read across to the others. I hope that that is clear and that the noble Baroness will therefore not pursue her amendment. I hope also that the other amendments will not be pursued.

Baroness Hamwee

Before the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, responds, I obviously did not make myself clear. I was not seeking to apply different definitions to different references to referendums in the various clauses; I believed that I had found the right place to include an amendment covering the whole of the Bill. My point was not the distinction between different types of referendums within the Bill but referendums within the Bill and under other pieces of legislation. It seems to be quite clear that the Government do not intend the various provisions on referendums in the Bill to be read over into any other legislation, but since we do not have a definition of "referendum" as such in a way that limits it, it seemed to me worth pursuing the admittedly rather pedantic but possibly important point. Furthermore, I wanted to make the reason for my amendment clear to the Government, as I obviously had not done so before.

Lord Dixon-Smith

I indicated earlier that it was not my intention to press the amendment. I therefore beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 249 to 251A not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 252: Page 15, line 20, at end insert ("or referendums").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 253: Page 15, line 24, at end insert ("(including the publicity to be given with respect to the consequences of the referendum)").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 254: Page 15, line 27, leave out paragraph (d)

The noble Baroness said: Paragraph (d) states, permitting a referendum to take place in a manner which does not involve a poll".

I have never come across such a provision. One could, I suppose, do this by telephone or one could have a MORI poll, but I assume that a referendum is meant to be done by formal polling and formal marking up of a referendum question. It may be that regulations will describe what a "non poll" is. I should be grateful for an explanation. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty

I shall try to clarify the intention behind this provision. The noble Baroness will be aware that yesterday we gave the Representation of the People Bill its Second Reading. Among other things, such as rolling electoral registration, that Bill provides for local authorities to pilot innovations in electoral practice and for those successful innovations to be used more generally in elections.

There are some obvious possibilities, which may or may not commend themselves to the Committee, such as conducting an entire election by postal vote, or over the Internet, or by the telephone, which do not involve a poll in the sense that we normally refer to it. Under the Representation of the People Bill, those will be available for piloting. They will obviously require further legislation if they are to be put into general use. Clearly, such possible innovations could apply to referendums as they could to elections. If the amendment were accepted, it would delete from the scope of the Bill the power to make regulations as to how those alternative ways of casting votes could be used and whether any of those innovations could be used in this context. That would be an unnecessary loss of flexibility. The regulations themselves would have to be tightly written. Nevertheless, I do not think that this Bill should prevent that flexibility applying to referendums.

Baroness Byford

I rise to support my noble friend's amendment. Perhaps the Minister will clarify this point for me. Whatever form one is using, one is actually taking a poll. There is some form of judgment at the end of the day. That surely is a poll. The difficulty is that the words as set out in the Bill assume a poll in the conventional sense and not in ways that may be used in the future. However, at the end of the day, people are giving an opinion, which surely must be a poll.

Baroness Hamwee

I support that view. I have the same difficulty with the provision and was glad to see that an amendment had been tabled by the noble Baroness.

However, I am slightly more disturbed having heard the Minister's response. I do not want to appear to be a dinosaur, unwilling to contemplate the possibility of new voting methods. However, if there are to be new voting methods, they deserve careful parliamentary scrutiny. They should not be the subject of regulations which may not receive parliamentary scrutiny. If that is so, it does not seem necessary to have these words on the face of the Bill. The changes could be made in legislation introducing new methods of voting.

9.45 p.m.

Baroness Hanham

It is still my belief that the wording is wrong. If any of the innovations described in the Bill are used, those are still a poll. Proxy voting is part of a poll; it is a formal examination of how people want to vote. The provision states that this, does not involve a poll". Therefore, it raises the question: when is a poll not a poll, and when is it a fiddle?

Lord Dixon-Smith

I had not expected to intervene in this debate, but I have considerable sympathy with everything that is being said on this side of the Committee. At the very least, in the interests of clarity it would be helpful if the Minister would agree—even if he is not prepared to withdraw the words from the face of the Bill—to take the matter away and examine it to see whether he can return with a more felicitous way of stating what the paragraph attempts to put out. As matters stand, we could debate the issue of when a poll is not a poll, or whether a poll is a poll, until midnight and get no further, and have no greater clarity at the end of the discussion.

Lord Whitty

We could indeed, and those who are fascinated by electoral law may be tempted to do so. However, my understanding of the position under electoral law is that a poll, as tightly defined, means attendance at a polling station. Under provisions in different parts of the Representation of the People Act for a proxy vote or a postal vote, they are to be added to the poll conducted at the polling station. Therefore, we are dealing with a rather tight implication of "poll" as originally defined.

I reassure noble Lords that, were we to come forward with regulations which applied the clause in relation to referendums and provide innovative means of voting—and the only point under debate is whether, with the passage of the representation of the people legislation, we should include the referendum as one form of election which could be subject to pilot studies in that regard—those regulations would (a) have been subject to the views of the electoral commission and (b) would be subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses. I hope that that provides some assurance to noble Lords to keep the present form of words on the face of the Bill.

Baroness Hanham

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 31 [Power to make incidental, consequential provision etc.]:

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 255: Page 15, line 36, at end insert— ("( ) Before making an order under this section the Secretary of State must consult representatives of local government and of any other persons affected by the proposals.").

The noble Lord said: Clauses 30 and 31 together, among other provisions, give the Secretary of State power to combine the normal local elections with a local referendum, to take place on the same day at the same time.

I can applaud and commend the economy in such a move. It may be that, not even being optimistic, we can understand how local electors could separate the two ballot papers and manage that. However, if that kind of combination is to be brought about, we should be sure that at the very least there is thorough consultation with those who might be directly affected by such a proposal, which might well affect an individual local authority. It should be stated on the face of the Bill that the authority should be consulted. The amendment that I have tabled requires the Secretary of State to, consult representatives of local government and … any other persons affected by the proposals".

The Minister may assure me that that will occur anyway, and if he does so I shall be happy to hear it. In the meantime, I believe that it is worth putting this requirement on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty

I believe that the situation to which the noble Lord refers is already covered. However, the noble Lord must recognise that Clause 31 merely makes incidental, consequential, transitional and supplementary provisions and therefore no new policy is represented in this Bill. The Government already have a concordat with the Local Government Association—to which the clause and no doubt the amendment refer—which is the representative body for local government in England and Wales, to consult on all issues, in particular on developments that directly affect the structure of local government. Therefore, anything of substance that emerges will be covered by that concordat. However, in practice, matters of substance are likely to occur not under this provision but under other clauses which are covered by explicit consultation arrangements. Therefore, on the basis of either the voluntary concordat or other provisions of this Bill the noble Lord's objectives are met.

Lord Dixon-Smith

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, which I shall study. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 31 agreed to. Clause 32 agreed to.

Clause 33 [Interpretation of Part II]:

Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 256 and 257: Page 16, line 6, at end insert ("unless the context otherwise requires"). Page 16, leave out line 18.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 257A not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 258 to 262: Page 16, line 34, leave out ("of") and insert ("made by or under"). Page 16, line 35, leave out ("and 16") and insert ("to 17"). Page 16, line 35, after ("of") insert (and Schedule 1 to,"). Page 17, line 7, leave out ("A local authority's function with respect to") and insert ("Section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 does not apply to the function of). Page 17, line 8, leave out ("may be discharged only by the local authority").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 258 to 262 en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 263: Page 17, line 9, at end insert— ("( ) Nothing in this Part shall prevent, in the case of a London borough, the person who is referred to in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Local Government Act 1972 as the Mayor of the borough from using the title and style of Mayor.").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 263 is tabled in order to make absolutely certain that nothing in this Bill disturbs the traditional arrangements in London under which a borough has a mayor, albeit not an elected one, who can continue to use that title and style. This is a matter of history and tradition. One can well imagine that in years to come there will be a deal of confusion in local government, not exclusively in London. There will be a Lord Mayor of London, although he represents only the City, and an elected mayor of London. There will also be a mayor of a borough who will fulfil all the traditional roles of a mayor. Further, there will be an elected mayor of a borough. Therefore, it is not an unlikely prospect that for the ordinary elector of London there will be four mayors all of whom will have legitimate authority over him, and that may cause a degree of confusion. I do not regard that as a straightforward situation.

The scope of this amendment is limited. It may be that in response the noble Lord will tell me that it is unnecessary. However, so far as concerns the people of London, within a particular borough the mayor is their first citizen and an important figurehead within the community. I do not believe that any of us in this Committee, including the Minister, want to erode that situation in anything that we do in this Bill. Of course, out in the country one could have the equally amazing situation of an elected mayor of a county council, an elected mayor of a district council, and an elected town mayor. I suspect that the possibility for confusion there would be equally great. We have not addressed that issue. However, should the Minister choose to cover it in his reply that would be helpful.

The amendment ensures clarity and that nothing in the Bill disturbs the current arrangements. I am not aware that any of us wish to do so. I believe that it was worth tabling the amendment. I look forward to the Minister's reply. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

As the noble Lord acknowledged, we discussed last week the issues surrounding the title of "mayor" in relation to Amendment No. 75, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The amendment would preserve the title of "mayor" for chairmen, or chairs, of London boroughs.

The Government are strongly of the view that there should be clarity about who is the directly elected mayor where councils adopt such arrangements. Local people need to know who is the elected mayor and therefore who is to be held to account for the services provided by the authority. It is for that reason that the Government believe that where there is an elected mayor the title of "mayor" should be used by that person and not, for example, the chairman, or chair, of the council.

If the amendment were to be accepted, it would be possible for a London borough to have two mayors. We do not think that that would lead to a position of clarity. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord does not believe it to be necessary to press the amendment.

Baroness Hanham

I believe that this is one area in the Bill—there are many—which will cause enormous consternation. To state that the civic mayor cannot be called "mayor" will challenge the community's feelings on the purpose of the Bill. The name "mayor" is well loved and well recognised. It is well supported in particular in the London boroughs. Mayors are well received. To call a civic mayor "chairman" or "chair" seems to be moving in the wrong direction. I realise that the issue has been discussed previously. I simply wish to put my oar in and say that, if any area will be misunderstood, it will be this one.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

I somewhat cautiously put the alternative use of the title "chair" or "chairman", having looked carefully around the Chamber to see which noble Lords and noble Baronesses were in their places.

Where a London borough, or a district council with borough status does not opt for that model and does not have an elected mayor, it will be able to continue as before. We recognise that, in some cases there is a derivation other than from the borough status alone, for example through ancient local custom, charters, and so on. We believe it is important that people should be able to distinguish the option of the local community for a directly elected mayor with executive powers. I ask the noble Baroness to consider this. In those circumstances, the issue would have been widely discussed and therefore is less likely to cause confusion for the local population.

Lord Dixon-Smith

I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. I appreciate the need for clarity. If it had not been for that need, we would not have tabled the amendment. We shall study carefully the noble Baroness's response. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.

10 p.m.

Clause 66 [Allowances and pensions for local authority members]:

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 263A: Page 41, line 4, at end insert ("including regulations to limit the number of councilors in any authority to whom special responsibility allowances may be paid").

The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak to Amendment No. 265A and also Amendment No. 264A, which is an amendment to the Minister's amendment, Amendment No. 264. My noble friend Lord Tope will speak to our two other amendments in the group. Perhaps others would like to speak to their amendments first, so that my noble friend can co-ordinate his remarks.

As to Amendment No. 263A, I failed to find language that is appropriate to the point. I appreciate that providing regulations to limit the number of councillors to whom special responsibility allowances may be paid might indicate that it is not for a local authority to determine how to deal with such allowances. That is not the case because that, together with other ways of conducting business, is a matter for the local authority.

I want to see whether the Government have any response to the situation in at least three authorities where special responsibility allowances are paid to all the members of the controlling group. I understand that in a couple of instances, the number of committees was changed to make that possible. The councils brought to my attention were Swansea, Milton Keynes and Aberdeen. Those authorities may take the view that all councillois of the same political persuasion as those running the administration have particular responsibilities different from opposition members. There is something odd and the system is being distorted if it distinguishes between members of political parties. I do not believe that the system was designed for that purpose.

I was, like others, cheered when the possibility of particular allowances was introduced because it went a little way to recognising the special responsibilities of councillors who undertake arduous and time-consuming jobs. To extend those allowances in the way that at least a small handful of authorities have done is stretching the provision. I hope that there is a way of addressing the problem. I beg to move.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

In speaking to Amendments Nos. 265 and 377, I fully understand that when amendments are submitted, their wording may not entirely achieve the objective.

I first served on a council 40 years ago when the expenses regime was vastly different from today. There have been great advances, which I have always supported, to make it possible for men and women to serve their community as councillors. I have no objection to that but I refer to a parliamentary Question answered recently by my noble friend's ministerial colleague, Beverley Hughes, in the other place: Our policy, as set out in 'Modern Local Government: In Touch With the People' … is that financial support for councillors must reinforce the culture of the modern council and address, as far as possible, any disincentives to serving in local politics"— [Official Report, Commons, 24/1/00; WAl23W] I live in Loughton in Essex which is around 20 miles from here. It has a town council of 22 members serving a population of 30,000 people. It was set up in 1996 after a period of 63 years during which Loughton had no council of its own. It does good work. It is small in the hierarchy of councils and no great claims are made for its status.

However, I should like the Minister and his colleagues to pay attention to what I believe to be an anomaly. I have been told that one councillor said that in the three and a half years since the election, he had given 200 hours of his time at council meetings. Others had done the same. We know that nowadays councillors can receive thousands of pounds in allowances to compensate for all kinds of things. However, councillors in a place like Loughton, who live in the town, need to travel around three miles to attend council meetings at the far end of the town. It costs £1 each time they use the bus. But they are not reimbursed because the meetings they attend are inside the area; they do not leave the prescribed area.

Perhaps noble Lords may say, "What is a pound?". For an elderly person—an old age pensioner—who is giving up his time, who might attend 30 meetings a year, that amounts to £60 in travelling expenses. Again, noble Lords may say, "What is £60? That is not much". Again, for an old age pensioner who is giving up his time, that is a considerable amount. This matter should be examined.

The amendment I have tabled is attached to changes made in the Local Government Act 1972. In my researches I noted that the then Conservative Minister, Lord Sandbrook, speaking of claims for expenses by councillors generally, stated that: We are all agreed that the allowances should be such that good potential council members are not dissuaded from serving on local councils by financial restraints or worries—[Official Report, 18/9/72; col. 846.] I wonder whether my noble friend sees this as an opportunity to put right an anomaly that has been allowed to fester? I do not believe that town councils will disappear, but I do believe that a sense of injustice and unfairness may creep in, especially as in comparison, others who call themselves councillors in different kinds of councils with different responsibilities still receive recompense for their time and—more importantly—for their travel.

I know that my noble friend Lord Murray of Epping Forest, who knows Loughton a great deal better than I, may well rise to say a few words in support of this amendment. I simply say to the Minister that there are many councils—I estimate that there could now be 10,000 small parish and town councils—and the expenses would add up. However, that would be nothing against the good will of this non-partisan Government. When this matter was raised in Loughton Town Council there was no party animus. Something would be moved by one party and seconded by others, and I raise this issue in a nonpartisan way. In this House one often wonders how one can take advantage of a peg on which to hang something. I do not want to hang the Minister, either out to dry or otherwise. However, I wonder whether he will agree that this is an issue which his colleagues can look at before the next stage of the Bill. I beg to move.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

I should like to speak to Amendment No. 264, although I believe that the Minister will not speak to it until he officially replies to it.

Clause 66 concerns giving councillors a fair deal for the amount of work that they put in. I welcome it from that point of view. For a long time councillors have suffered the jibes of whoever was in opposition whenever it was proposed that there should be an increase in allowances. If there was a change of administration then the boot was placed quickly on the other foot. The rise of independent panels which suggest a fair rate of allowance, not dependent on attendance, is a step in the right direction.

However, I am afraid that Amendment No. 264, which addresses pensions, is probably a step sideways because it singles out executive members for special treatment. Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Minister has been at pains to tell us that other members of the council—the non-executive members—are equally important and will fulfil important roles. Certainly, one can imagine that the chairmen of the overview and scrutiny committee or committees, depending on how many there are, will have their work cut out. If they are doing their work properly, they should have no less an arduous task than the members of the executive. Although they are not making decisions, they are formulating policy and checking up on those decisions. Much of the time they will be the interface with the public which the executive members probably will not be under the models that we have heard described. Therefore, are they not entitled to pensions? If not, I wonder whether the Minister can explain why. Is it due to the fact that their job is less difficult, will take less time or be seen as being less important?

I believe that there are a number of reasons why the decisions as to who should receive pensions will be left quite rightly to an independent panel, which will be set up locally. However, that panel should have the freedom to look at all the members of the council equally and to decide whether or not a particular post merits a pension. It should not be on the face of the Bill that executive members can receive pensions and other members cannot.

I should also like to support briefly the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, because I believe that parish councillors are another group of people who often give up substantial amounts of time, particularly the chairmen of parish councils and town councils. As a result, they are frequently out of pocket. Not only have they given up their time but they spend their own money attending meetings, and so on. It is becoming difficult to secure democracy on the cheap. We are in an age when we should not expect democracy to depend on whether or not people can afford to pay their own money. There will never be a representative cross-section of society if we depend on that.

Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be able to solve my problems with his Amendment No. 264 and that we can see some equity in the way that councillors are treated, particularly with regard to pensions.

10.15 p.m.

Baroness Thornton

I too wish to ask a question on Amendment No. 264. Of course, I must lend support to my noble friend Lord Graham whom I regard as our shop steward in these matters in any event. In that case, what else can I do but support him?

The amendment addresses itself to allowances and pensions. The draft regulations address themselves to remuneration panels which are not mentioned in the amendment. Should the Bill not be clearer about the role of remuneration panels in setting the allowances? The local government White Paper said that every council should have such a panel and that the Government would consider proposals in relation to making changes to allowances. They said they would deal with that. But it is not clear on the face of the Bill that those arrangements will be put in place. Therefore, I seek clarification about that link which seems to be missing.

Lord Murray of Epping Forest

My noble friend Lord Graham is too modest to expatiate on his own modesty. Perhaps I may underline the modesty of the amendment proposed. For example, the noble Lord could have referred to telephone bills. He has not done so. He has confined the amendment to dealing with travel expenses. I emphasise to the Committee that that would not cost central government one penny. It would cost local electors a few coppers, but a very few coppers. I am sure that they would not begrudge that in order to make it possible for everybody to accept nomination for election. I hope that the Government will not begrudge it either.

Baroness Hanham

Will the pension schemes and superannuation schemes run by local authorities be authorised to pay pensions to members? If not, the schemes will have to be self-funded and self-financing on an annual basis. If we are not careful we shall encounter the same problems as those encountered by the police with their self-funding pension schemes.

Lord Tope

As suggested by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, I rise to speak on Amendment No. 265A and shall attempt to do so in the co-ordinated fashion promised by my noble friend. The effect of the amendment would be to remove the power of the Secretary of State to specify maximum rates for travel and subsistence allowances for councillors. That power is something of an anomaly these days because there are no longer any government-imposed limits on local schemes of allowances, subject to the provisions in this Bill relating to an independent panel.

That is a real issue and a real problem but it is an anomaly because the operation of government-imposed maximum rates has presented practical difficulties for loca1 authorities and particularly for individual councillors for many years. Typically and inevitably, maximum rates for overnight accommodation do not keep pace with the prevailing rates in major cities and particularly in London, Europe's most expensive city—of which I see the noble Lord, Lord Smith, has some experience—which many councillors must visit when attending Local Government Association meetings. Those maximum rates do not keep pace with the prevailing rates and that often results in members being out of pocket when staying away from home on council business.

Similarly, it is nonsense that central government these days should specify maximum rates for councillors' meals; namely, how much councillors may be allowed to claim for breakfast, lunch or dinner. Councils are now multi-million pound businesses and really should be given the power and authority to determine reasonable amounts for such allowances. That is an anomaly and I hope that the Government will now take this opportunity to correct it.

I turn now to Amendment No. 264A. I assume that it is in order for me to seek to amend an amendment to which the Minister has not yet spoken. I shall do so anyway. It relates to a subject which has been dear to my heart for years and years in local government; that is, cycle allowances. I say immediately that if this amendment is passed, it will be much too late for me but it will be in plenty of time for many others.

Members of your Lordships' House may be paid a cycle allowance. I have no doubt that many of your Lordships claim it regularly. Members of the other place may be paid a cycle allowance. Employees of local authorities may all be paid a cycle allowance, if appropriate. The one category of people who may not lawfully be paid a cycle allowance is that of elected councillors. That is ludicrous. Many councillors of all parties have been in the forefront of promoting the green agenda, green transport, and, in particular, the promotion and encouragement of safe cycling.

Many councillors use bicycles as their preferred means of transport and sometimes as a means of demonstrating in a practical way what they advocate that their councillors and local residents should he doing. However, they are in effect penalised for doing so. Were they to use a car, they could be paid a reasonably generous mileage allowance. Because they choose to use a cycle, which is much more environmentally friendly, they cannot be paid an allowance. I do not claim that, if we were suddenly to receive cycle allowances, all councillors would take to their bicycles. Sadly, I fear that that is probably not the case. However, it is clearly an anomaly that they cannot be paid anything.

I have raised this on a number of occasions over the years. The answer I have received from successive governments is that they recognise this to be an anomaly but it needs primary legislation to correct it. This is our opportunity. We have the primary legislation. It is a small amendment and one which would correct an obvious anomaly which singles out councillors for no apparent reason.

In the past, governments have been able to say that that cannot be done because it needs primary legislation. Now we have this opportunity, I hope the Government will take it. If they choose not to do so, now and in future they will have to explain to councillors and others why they are singling out councillors as being unable to be paid cycle allowances. I do not think this Government—or, for that matter, the previous one, but certainly this one— would wish to do that. Therefore, I feel rather more optimistic than usual when moving or speaking to an amendment that we shall receive a positive response. Both amendments are fairly minor but significant in their consequences. I hope the Government will consider them and feel able to respond positively.

Lord Smith of Leigh

I should like to speak to Amendment No. 264 and Chapter 15 of the draft regulations. Both provisions seek to recompense people who serve their local communities. I agree with my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton, who referred to people who work at parish and town council level who equally try to serve their public.

I agree with the statement in Chapter 15 which suggests that we abolish the attendance allowance for local councillors. My own council did that last year on the advice of an independent panel which made a recommendation on pay. However, I suggest to my noble friend the Minister that there are occasions when an attendance allowance may be required. There are a number of occasions in my council when we expect groups of councillors to make quasi-judicial decisions on matters such as applications for village greens. Such matters can last over several days or weeks when people give evidence and so forth. We expect small groups of members to attend. I hope that perhaps we can consider recompensing the members who act on those occasions.

I support the suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, concerning pension rights. The Bill as drafted differentiates between executive members and other members of the council. The provision recognises that people who serve on large authorities make sacrifices as regards their career and pension rights. That could be true whether people are serving at executive level or even senior levels. Certainly those who have played a lead in the scrutiny roles of local authorities will be equally busy as executive members. I hope that that matter will also be considered. We are not asking for them to receive pension rights but for the independent panels which will be set up to review that point.

I support the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that, when setting rates for local councillors, departments do not always upgrade them in line with inflation. Certainly, hotel prices in London are somewhat more than I am able to claim as a local councillor from Wigan.

The one thing that is different these days is that, if one travels by Virgin trains, one no longer pays for food. We may arrive late, due to sheep on the line or numerous other excuses, but we are provided with free food. That food may not be worth eating: certainly some of the meals I have had were not worth eating. In an earlier comment, a reference was made to making meals with one's partner. I believe I am booked in for next Wednesday; that is my earliest engagement in that regard.

On a more serious note, there may be occasions when councils need to recompense non-executive members who are putting a lot of work into quasi-judicial work on the council, which the Government recognise is an important role. Secondly, perhaps we can consider extending pensions beyond executive members. We would be grateful for that.

Lord Whitty

Perhaps I should start by setting out what Amendment No. 264—the Government's new clause—attempts to do, which will wrap up some of the concerns expressed during the debate.

The policy in Amendment No. 264 arises from the document Local Leadership, Local Choice, referred to earlier in the debate. There are basically two limbs to the policy; it is proposed, first, that the attendance allowance should be abolished because in many cases it represents a perverse incentive; and, secondly, that there should be other changes, including making the payments to some councillors pensionable, aimed at recognising the role that they play and the expenses they incur.

In order for that to be implemented and to prevent some of the political and internal problems that arise from payment of allowances and pensions, each council is required to establish an independent panel to make its recommendations on allowances and pensionability. Changes to an authority's allowance scheme should only be made after recommendations have been made by such a panel and an authority may only decide that a member's allowance shall be pensionable if that panel so recommends.

Furthermore, the amendment gives the Secretary of State the power to issue statutory guidelines to underline those arrangements. The bulk of the policy will be delivered in regulations made under this clause. Those will be detailed arrangements which will need to change from time to time in accordance with the approach under current regulations.

Finally, the amendment clarifies the ability of councils to make payments to councillors who necessarily incur expenditure on the care of children or other dependants in the course of their duties as councillors. I know that that provision will be widely welcomed. It is therefore a whole new system introducing an independent panel, which a number of councils have already adopted, and a new system of defining who shall be paid allowances and what payments shall be pensionable.

In relation to each of the amendments, perhaps I should start with the good news. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, so bowled me over with his enthusiasm for the bicycle that I accept—wearing my integrated transport hat—that there is an injustice in this regard and that we should look at it. I hope he will accept that I will take the matter away and consider how best we can remedy the anomaly. If we were to make a concession in that area, then I hope the noble Lord will consider whether or not it can apply to him.

Baroness Hamwee

I wonder whether I can suggest to the Minister—I do not know whether my noble friend made this comment having himself in mind— that, if this amendment were to be incorporated in the Bill, we should make sure it refers to "cycles" rather than "bicycles" because tricycles ought to be the subject of allowances as well.

Lord Whitty

I shall need to take advice on that point. I suspect that there will not be an enormous implication for public expenditure if we relate it to tricycles; nevertheless, we shall need to consider it.

However, I am afraid that I cannot be quite so forthcoming as regards the other amendments in this group. Perhaps I may, first, address Amendment No. 264, which would give the Secretary of State the power to limit the number of councillors in any authority who may receive a special responsibility allowance. I believe that all this will be wrapped up in relation to the independent panel. Without passing judgment on any particular council that has been mentioned, I appreciate that there is an identified problem here in that some authorities seem to pay this allowance to a rather large proportion of their members. I believe that the independent element in the system will take care of such anomalies and potential abuses.

I turn next to the amendment tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Graham which relates to parish councils. I take note of some of my noble friend's points in this respect. Of course, a parish council may pay its chair an allowance to meet the expenses of his office and parish councillors are entitled to travel, subsistence and attendance allowance, or financial loss in respect of certain duties, but, as my noble friend said, they are outside of the parish or town council area. We think that there would probably be few cases where there would be serious expenditure considerations, but we will look into the matter. I have to say that the chances of movement in that area are not guaranteed. I shall need to seek further advice on the matter.

As regards Amendment No. 265A, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the Committee may recall that the White Paper committed the Government to a review of all current rules on travel and subsistence, as well as on compensation, for co-optees. The Government are attracted to the proposition from the noble Baroness that we should not be in a position to set ceilings for travel and subsistence. We believe that the method of determining allowances should very much be a matter for local decision" based on the independent panel. We need a thorough review, as envisaged by the White Paper. We do not wish to pre-empt that review; but, nevertheless, the objectives of the proposed new clause will be taken care of in that review.

A number of other points were made in relation to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, as regards clarifying where remuneration should be available, and in relation to the remarks made by my noble friend Lady Thornton en the role of remuneration allowances and panels. I believe that the amendment we have already brought forward clarifies much of that area of policy. Nevertheless, with the agreement of noble Lords, I should like to consider further the various points that have been raised in that respect to see whether the powers would permit a rather different policy to be implemented. If the Committee will bear with me, I shall consult certain people on allowances and return to the matter at a later stage of the Bill's proceedings.

Allowances within councils are a fairly emotive subject, but this is not something that has affected me very directly in recent years. There are some serious problems to be addressed, some of which need to be addressed in our review. I hope that I have said enough to convince the Committee that their particular concerns will be taken care of in the course of that review under the new system. I trust, therefore, that they will not press for changes—

10.30 p.m.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

Before my noble friend the Minister sits down, I should like to say that I am grateful for what I would call a glimmer of light and hope in that he is prepared to look at the matter. However, I hope that he will bear in mind the infinitesimal sums of money that the public will bear. As my noble friend Lord Murray said, what we want is the sanction, the right: we want the words that will enable the local council to reimburse people their bus fare. We are not talking about thousands of pounds of allowance and we are not talking about paying massive hotel bills. We are talking about ordinary little people whom we are trying to encourage to run literally their parish council.

I have not had the pleasure of serving on a parish council: mine was the London Borough of Enfield, of which I had to honour to be leader in the 1960s. It is a different world. People who serve on parish councils are entitled to equity and justice. They do not want payments or allowances. They want to be reimbursed for the cost of a bus fare. I am grateful that the Minister is prepared to reconsider the matter. I hope that he will recognise that he could bring enormous satisfaction to thousands of people who at present cannot legally claim their bus fares when attending meetings on behalf of their communities.

Baroness Hanham

I hope that the Minister will answer the question I asked; namely, whether, as members had not contributed to the superannuation pension funds of local authorities, they will be entitled under legislation to receive pensions out of those superannuation funds, which are largely for the staff?

Lord Whitty

It is intended that they would be paid through the local government scheme. Therefore an employer contribution would need to be paid in respect of those individuals who would be pensionable under the new service. It may be helpful if I write 10 the noble Baroness explaining the matter in more detail.

Baroness Hamwee

This is a difficult area. The exchange of views that has just taken place reminds me of the problems that have arisen with regard to the Police Service and the Fire Service where pensions comprise an enormous part of an authority's budget. There are important issues with regard to who has contributed to the pensions which have to be paid.

Much of what the Minister has said is welcome. I am particularly glad that we appear to have made some progress on behalf of those who use cycle transport when carrying out their duties. It seems to me that a number of the points that have been made should be capable of being taken forward without waiting for the review. I refer to the upper limit on expenses in this regard. I shall not ask the Minister to respond to that point now. However, I leave him with the thought that there may be many areas where local authorities resent the interference of central government with regard to issues connected with allowances, expenses and other such matters. To be able to look to central government to take a decision on these matters away from the "heat" of a particular local authority—clearly that would happen under the arrangements which are proposed—would be welcome. If such an arrangement could be put in place quickly, in particular in regard to expenses, that would be welcomed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 264: Leave out Clause 66 and insert the following new clause—