§ 10 Leave out Clause 9
§ Lord WhittyMy Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10. In speaking to Amendment No. 10 I shall speak also to the other amendments in this group and indicate a preliminary view.
Commons Amendment No. 10 goes to the heart of the Bill. It is the policy that every council must adopt a new constitution giving increased efficiency, transparency and accountability. It was to sustain that policy that the Government and the House of Commons rejected the previous view of this House on the basis of a Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that this should all be left to voluntary action by councils. For that reason, also, we cannot accept Amendments Nos. 10A, 11A and 13A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, which have the effect of negating this fundamental requirement for change. His amendments would allow the status quo—even if he says that in practice many councils would do a different thing—and would cut across the whole of the Government's strategy. That is in total opposition to a main plank of the Bill. While it goes against the grain for me to accuse the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, of being an extremist, in this context he takes an extreme position.
In previous debates in this House and in another place there have been calls for greater flexibility in the Government's position. We have listened. We have talked to local government. Amendment No. 10B, and so on, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would give additional flexibility of the type sought. The approach encapsulated in the amendments is one which, after discussion, we are persuaded, both by the noble Baroness's arguments and by many in local government, is acceptable. It is an approach which the LGA has warmly welcomed. The chair of the LGA has "urged all parties in the Lords to support" the noble Baroness's amendments. Indeed, while the Joint Committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, which scrutinised the draft Bill, made a case for more flexibility, it did not argue that the status quo should be an option. The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, ignore that broad consensus.
In contrast, the noble Baroness's amendments reflect growing consensus in this area. The Government have listened and have taken the issue on board. The amendments open the possibility that for certain councils the options for new constitutions from which local people can choose will, in addition to the range of executive constitutions, include constitutions based on a modernised committee system. As I shall make clear in speaking to later amendments, we have sought to enhance the powers available to overview and scrutiny committees which, as we have continuously stressed, are central to all our new arrangements.
We are prepared to accept that for small shire district councils in England—those with a population of fewer than 85,000—this kind of revamped 22 committee constitution could work in terms of delivering the increased efficiency, transparency and accountability which the Government and everyone wish to see. The amendments in the noble Baroness's name will also allow the Secretary of State, and in Wales the National Assembly, to specify in regulation other descriptions of groups of councils which could have this additional flexibility.
I speak also to Amendments Nos. 12, 14 and 17 and in that context will ask the House to oppose Amendments Nos. 12A and 14A, again in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. Those amendments deal with a separate issue. The Commons amendments in this group will put in place a clear process for making available to councils other options for executive arrangements which go beyond the three broad frameworks on the face of the Bill. The amendments respond to and build on the amendments proposed in this House by Opposition parties and others during Third Reading. They provide further flexibility.
The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, would not provide that flexibility. They would not deliver an effective and practical regime for making available additional forms of executive.
In terms of the somewhat complicated procedure today, I point out that were the House to accept Amendment No. 10A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, many of the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, with which we agree, and with which we ask the House to agree, and which are the cornerstone of the amendments in her name, could not be moved. I shall, therefore, ask the House to adopt what I think is the compromise position and not the position of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10.—(Lord Whitty.)