HL Deb 24 July 2000 vol 616 cc59-60

52 Clause 21, page 15, line 26, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

("() as to the circumstances in which meetings mentioned in subsection(2), or particular proceedings at such meetings, must be open to the public,

() as to the circumstances in which meetings mentioned in subsection (2), or particular proceedings at such meetings, must be held in private,")

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I beg to move that the House agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 52. With the leave of the House, I shall speak also to the other amendments in the group.

The Commons amendments in the group provide the foundations of the robust regime for public and media access which we are establishing for councils' new executive constitutions yet take account of the debates on this issue both in this House and in another place. The access regime will ensure that people will know what decisions the executive is planning to take, how they can make their input into those decisions, what decisions have been taken and the reasons for those decisions.

Using the powers provided in Commons Amendments Nos. 52 and 53, we intend to make regulations establishing this regime. We have drafted those regulations. The last draft of them was placed in the Library of the House on 3rd July. The regime will also include a requirement that where a council's executive meets to take key decisions—those which impact on the lives of people in local communities—those meetings must be open. That touches on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in an earlier debate. Our aim through those regulations, taken together with statutory guidance, is to deliver both the letter and the spirit of the intention for open meetings without compromising the aim that an executive can have proper time and space to allow it to think the unthinkable away from the public glare or that, for example, a mayor is able to call his or her colleagues together at short notice to chew over an issue.

We will ensure that our intention for open meetings cannot be subverted by an executive separating a pertinent discussion about a key decision from the meeting where it collectively agrees that decision or through its scheme for delegating formal decision-taking to an individual member of the executive or an officer of the authority. The principle is clear. Where executives meet formally to discuss key decisions, they should do so in public regardless of who will formally take the decision. In that way I believe that we meet the concerns previously expressed and the concerns underlying Amendments Nos. 52A and 52B standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Those amendments, as drafted, may not achieve the outcome which I have described. I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendments. Our amendments, together with my explanation, will meet most of the objections that have arisen in relation to access to the meetings of the executive.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 52.—(Lord Whitty.)