Lords Sitting of 9 March 2000

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Wakefield): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Inward Investment
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Lord Wallace of Saltaire asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to ensure that the promotion of inward investment does not disadvantage the growth prospects of British-owned companies.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, there is strong competition from other countries for internationally mobile projects. Projects which do not come to the United Kingdom still generate competition for UK companies. It is sensible to secure the benefits of such projects for the UK where we can. Benefits include supply chain opportunities for existing companies, the creation of new jobs and the introduction of new products and new processes.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I must declare an interest. This is a question about Saltaire. Is the Minister aware that both Pace Micro and Filtronic, companies that have their headquarters in Saltaire, have strongly emphasised their efforts to train electronic engineers and technicians in West Yorkshire? Is he also aware of the attempts of the regional development agency to attract in competing foreign investment without making any comparable plans to provide additional training and thus to alleviate the sharp shortage of qualified staff? Is the Minister aware that the shortage of qualified staff in West Yorkshire is due to the happy growth of those companies? Is he also conscious that encouraging Korean, Taiwanese and other companies into the area may lead to inflation and damage British companies?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is open to any region that does not want to receive prospective investors (because it believes that they will pinch skilled labour) to inform the Invest in Britain Bureau so that that region is not included in any visits from foreign investors. However, I believe that that would be an extraordinarily short-sighted view to take. I agree that it is better to focus on, and to take action to rectify, the identified skill shortages in the region. The regional development agency is in a good position to do that. A further weapon will be the learning and skills councils when they are setup. I believe that the problem should be faced on the skills level and not by trying to keep high technology jobs out of the region.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, is it not a fact that as inward investors in receipt of grants from the
1154
Government have to source a high proportion of their materials in the United Kingdom, the growth of inward investment is therefore a great advantage to UK companies?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I took that as read. Clearly, we want to attract companies to this country. If such companies do not come here, they will go to other countries and compete against businesses here, which will be of no advantage to them, and competition will be increased. If companies come to this country, all sorts of advantages ensue, not only in terms of bringing in high-skilled jobs, but, as the noble Lord rightly pointed out, in terms of the supply chain.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister believe that there is possibly something wrong with the management of a company that is incapable of planning its labour resources and of attracting labour if it experiences any competition?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I can understand the position of a company that has taken a lot of trouble to build up a skilled staff; but there will always be competition and if that does not come from foreign companies, it is likely to come from expanding companies within the region. One has to assume that the way to deal with that is through building up skills rather than trying to keep out competition.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, can my noble friend make it clear whether he is in favour of inward investment? I do not believe noble Lords on either side of the House are opposed to the single market, it having been introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. Do the Government agree that inward investment is not something that we should oppose?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, a major task of the DTI is to attract investment into this country. That is done on the basis that it is good for the economy. I assumed that that was understood in the House and that it was not in dispute.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is particularly surprising to see such a Question on the Order Paper in view of the enormous benefit that this country derives, in terms of employment and prosperity, from inward investment, and that it is particularly surprising coming from a party which, given half a chance, would sell us out to a federal united states of Europe and a single currency?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, one should never be surprised by Questions on the Order Paper. I thought it was in the same category as the third Question on the Order Paper, on beavers!
Lord Peston: My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness speaking from the Opposition Front Bench has missed a trick. What is really surprising is the fact that the Liberals used to believe in free trade. One wonders when they abandoned that position. Does the

1155
Minister believe that inward investment is the most positive and heartening sign of the world's faith in the success of the British economy? Is not that why we should be in favour of it rather than against it?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, of course, inward investment has huge benefits. Equally absurd would be a policy that actually tried to encourage companies to come to this country that were low skilled and did not require highly skilled labour. That is exactly the sort of policy of the past from which we are trying to get away.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this is not a new issue? It is a very old question with which the Liberals have now caught up. Nissan came to this country when I was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. There was some criticism then (for all sorts of xenophobic reasons that Liberals put forward), but that company has contributed not only to the motor industry, but also to the improvement of management skills of all kinds, which have been transferred into the economy at large.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am absolutely amazed that I agree with the noble Lord on an issue on industrial policy.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that inward investment is good, particularly for those of us who believe in free trade? Can he also confirm that this country and its firms invest far more abroad than people from abroad invest here?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we have high ratios in terms of both attracting inward investment and our companies investing abroad. Therefore, we are particularly dependent on free trade and the free movement of capital in such areas, which is greatly to be encouraged.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that Pace Micro and Filtronic have invested a great deal in training staff, including a new MSc course at Leeds University, subsidies for maths teachers at nine schools in Bradford, and subsidies for people to take further maths and physics at A-level? That has all been carried out at their own expense and has not yet been fully supported by regional authorities. Did I understand the Minister to say that in future RDAs will co-ordinate with regional training requirements when considering inward investment to ensure that those skills are provided and that our home-grown companies are not left to train their staff without any assistance from the Government?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the RDAs should look carefully at the skill requirements which follow from inward investment and seek within their powers to take account of that. I confirm that Filtronic received a grant of £5 million to create 500 high quality
1156
jobs at the old Fujitsu plant at Newton Aycliffe, County Durham. I have no doubt that that also had an effect on the local supply of labour.

Apsley House and Wellington Museum
3.10 p.m.
Lord Blaker Lord Blaker asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have made a decision about the future management of Apsley House and the Wellington Museum.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, a review of the management arrangements for Apsley House and the Wellington Museum is under way and we are considering the establishment of an independent charitable trust. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will be asking an outside expert to confirm the viability of such a trust. Key criteria will be safeguards for the public interest with regard to both the collection and the building; enhancing the visitor experience and achieving value for money. This Answer has been cleared with the Wellesley family and the Victoria and Albert Museum.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I have a letter which appeared in the Daily Telegraph this morning, signed by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, which says almost exactly the same thing as the Minister said in answering my Question. Is it in accordance with our conventions that the first statement of government policy should be made in correspondence with the press and not in Parliament? It seems to me rather odd.
I make no criticism of his Grace, the Duke of Wellington, or his family, but the public have a deep interest in this matter. Has not a great deal of public money been spent since 1947, when the 7th Duke gave Apsley House to the nation, on the house and the collection? Would it not be in accordance with the Government's policy of open government to replace press speculation by publishing details of the independent trust to which the Minister referred and the details of any other proposals put forward—for example, by the V&A and English Heritage—so that there could be public debate on this important matter?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord's two questions are in conflict with each other. First, he chides me that the Secretary of State responded to ill-informed press speculation with a letter in the Daily Telegraph this morning. I am relieved that he recognises that what the Secretary of State is saying is the same as what I am saying; I do not know whether that counts as "joined-up government". But then he goes on to say that it is right that that ill-informed press speculation should be counteracted by the Government.
We are being as transparent as we can. We are considering setting up an independent trust. We want to be sure that it will work in terms of its charitable

1157
status; in terms of protecting the building and the collection; improving value for money; and increasing access to Apsley House. We are bringing in somebody from outside, whom we will name as soon as it is agreed, to investigate whether or not that is possible. When we know that, we will make all the details public in relation to the charitable trust. There is no concealment other than on matters which have yet to be decided.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, while I welcome the setting up of this trust, which seems to be the best way out of the current impasse and difficulties, will my noble friend confirm that access to the house and its magnificent collection, so generously given to the nation by the late 7th Duke, will not be restricted in any way as it has from time to time in the recent past?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, existing access is not particularly marvellous. There have only been between 40,000 and 50,000 visitors a year over each of the past three years. The house is only open from 11 o'clock until four o'clock. And although a great deal of public money has been spent on the building and marvellous contributions have been made by the Victoria and Albert Museum to the collections in the building, it is not as well known and as valued as it should be. My noble friend is right. We need improvements.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: My Lords, I should declare an interest as a former chairman of the trustees of the Victoria and Albert Museum. Will the Minister confirm that, as the Secretary of State made clear to my successor, the fact that he is considering the future management of the Wellington Museum in no way implies or reflects any dissatisfaction whatever on his part with the V&A's stewardship of it?
Further, is the Minister of State aware that, though the Duke of Wellington cares deeply about the wellbeing of the museum, it is perhaps inevitable that the interests of those members of the family who live in the house by virtue of the 1947 Act do not always coincide with the public interest of what has been for 50 years a publicly-funded and national museum? That is why, when I was chairman of the V&A, we set up a Wellington Committee in order to see whether those differences could be reconciled and resolved. The Duke of Wellington was the deputy chairman of that committee.
Is the Minister further aware that the present arrangements give the Wellington Museum unlimited free access to the V&A's curatorial, conservation and warning services? Will the Minister consider whether it is going to be easy for that to be provided under a new trust without additional public expenditure?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, nothing I have said could be nor should be interpreted as a criticism of the management of the Victoria and Albert Museum. But as the noble Lord knows, there has been conflict between the Victoria and Albert Museum and the family, who occupy part of the house. It is in order
1158
to avoid that conflict that we are proposing, by mutual agreement, to set up an independent trust which will neither be dominated by the Wellesley family nor by the Victoria and Albert Museum. Of course, curatorial standards will be part of the consideration in how to set up that trust. The role of the V&A in curatorial standards is not undervalued.

European Beavers
3.17 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath Lord Hardy of Wath asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they expect the European beaver to be introduced into the United Kingdom during the next three years.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Government have no plans to introduce the European beaver into England. To do so without a proper licence obtained from the department would be illegal.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords. I do not know whether or not I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. But will my noble friend make it clear that, should the European beaver be introduced, it will be a reintroduction? It is not an alien species. Will she ensure also that if a firm proposal comes forward, it must ensure that the species is settled in an appropriate and socially acceptable environment that will be secure? While it may promote tourist attractions, one hopes that it will not feed peculiar gourmets with a taste for unusual foods.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, my noble friend has knowledge of gourmet dishes beyond my experience. I am aware of people who have eaten other things, but in my experience people have only worn the fur of the beaver.
My noble friend is wrong. The European beaver is covered by sex—Section 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act.
Noble Lords: Section 28!
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, my briefing does not cover the sexual habits of the beaver! It would be treated as a new introduction because it is not a regular visitor to this country.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, does the Minister recall that many years ago an animal whose name I cannot remember—it is not Alzheimer's—was imported because of its fur (nutria) but became an absolute scourge to farmers on the east side of England, eating all the sugar beet? It was finally eliminated by bounty. I fear that if the beaver was introduced into this country the same could happen, maybe in a different way, but it would be a destructive force for agriculture.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Baroness will be aware that the introduction of

1159
alien species into this country has done great damage. Grey squirrels are one example. The coypu, mentioned by the noble Baroness, created a problem for the banks of the Norfolk Broads as well as a problem for farmers. I believe that great care should be taken over this matter.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that lessons will be learnt from the past, in particular as regards those animals under threat, such as the otter? If beaver are introduced, both species will need to use the same food source; namely, fish. Will the Minister ensure that particular care will be taken to ensure that the position as regards otters is taken into account?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, clearly that would be a consideration.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that beaver skins make lovely fur coats? Furthermore, does she know whether beaver can be farmed? If so, would this not be a wonderful alternative crop for our hard-pressed farmers?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am not aware that any applications have been made in relation to farming beaver. My Lords, this is an extremely serious question!
For those noble Baronesses and noble Ladies who are Members of this House fortunate—or unfortunate—enough to own a fur coat, it should be remembered that the release of mink into the environment has caused enormous damage.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, in view of the fact that all governments over many years have encouraged afforestation, is it not illogical for the Government to finance an organisation in Scotland which yesterday announced that it would import beaver? Those animals will destroy countless trees.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am not aware of any policies or plans in hand in the Scottish Parliament on this. However, it must be a matter for that parliament.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, can the noble Baroness assure the House that if, in the unfortunate circumstance of the beaver being introduced, it will not immediately be appended to the long and irreversible list of endangered species?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I believe that I can give that assurance to the noble Earl. Everyone concerned would wish to behave responsibly as regards this matter. It may interest noble Lords to know that we have not received any applications for possums either. I understand that there is a problem with possums in New Zealand. However, they do have one added benefit in New
1160
Zealand in that they are very attached to marijuana. They seek it out and eat it all. It may be that the drugs tsar would have an interest.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, in the unlikely situation of a proper licence being issued for the importation of the European beaver, would a person who had been issued with such a licence be financially liable for the damage that that animal would cause, if any damage were caused at a later date?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I would need to seek legal advice on that point because it would depend on the circumstances that applied at the time. That would be the wisest course to take.

Utilities: Regulation
3.23 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have with regard to the regulation of utilities.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Utilities Bill was published in another place on 21st January this year. An announcement was made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 2nd March in another place that the Government intended to remove the telecoms and water provisions from the Utilities Bill. What remains in the Utilities Bill is a very substantial programme of reform to the framework of gas and electricity regulation which the Government are wholly committed to getting on to the statute book.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the action by the Government of substantially reducing the scope of the Bill, which is passing through its Committee stage in another place, has created a degree of uncertainty about the Government's intentions concerning regulation of the utilities? In order to reduce that uncertainty to some degree, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord two questions. First, as regards gas and electricity, will he confirm explicitly—he may feel that he has already done this—that it is the intention of the Government to go ahead with the Bill with its present contents in spite of the very substantial number of amendments which I understand the Government have deposited in another place and which may also be set down when eventually the Bill comes to this House?
Secondly, as regards telecoms and water, can we assume that any subsequent proposals that the Government plan to make will be roughly in line with the provisions previously in the Bill that is now before another place, bearing in mind that they have stated that their objective is to ensure that the regulatory systems of the four utilities are consistent with one another?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, while there may be a little uncertainty on this matter, the decision

1161
taken by the Government—which was driven by arguments put to the Government by the industries involved—that they would reduce the amount of regulatory change if these measures are carried forward as a part of separate legislation relating to water and to a separate communications Bill was entirely the right one. As I said in my original reply, I can confirm that gas and electricity will be carried forward essentially in their present form. Amendments will be coming through and we shall take care of them when the Bill comes to this House. As regards telecommunications and water, we will carry forward the principles that apply to them, in particular in relation to securing for all the utilities a more transparent framework, an independent voice for consumers and a stronger focus on protecting the interests of consumers. I repeat, all those principles will be carried forward.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, would it not have been a better idea if the Minister had come to the Dispatch Box to tell us about the changes to this Bill on the same day that a Deferred Question was tabled and answered in another place? Furthermore, will the Minister remind the House when was the last time a government, halfway through the passage of a Bill, simply abandoned a great many of its provisions? Is not the truth of the matter that the same problems with telecoms and water—overregulation, burdens on business and so forth—also apply to electricity and gas? Those industries are not happy about the situation. Do the Minister and his right honourable friend agree that it would far better to withdraw the entire Bill and then to return solely with the provisions of Clause 56, which would reform the entire pool? We could all agree with that and expeditiously pass such a piece of legislation.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord. It is not right to show such an extraordinary thirst for regulatory change and have a series of Bills covering what could otherwise easily be compressed into a single Bill. In the circumstances, it seemed to us to be right to listen to what industry had to say, to take account of those views and to move forward appropriately.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, given that this is the fourth Question on a Thursday and that it is a balloted, topical Question, and given also the fact that the Bill is still immersed in Committee in another place, no matter what changes are being made to it and that we will only receive it in due course, will the Minister discuss with his noble friend the Leader of the House the reasons why this Question was allowed to be put on to the Order Paper today?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is a topical subject and reflects the nature of Question Time in this House.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, has the Minister taken note that one of the reasons given by British Telecom
1162
for its failure to reduce the price of access to the Internet is the regulatory framework? Can the Minister assure the House that, when the Bill comes before noble Lords, adequate provision will be made to enable British Telecom to compete and to make such facilities available to consumers at reasonable prices?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, those are precisely the kind of issues that will be covered when we reach the communications Bill which will bring forward the relevant legislation.
Lord Peston: My Lords, can my noble friend help me on one matter that has left me slightly bewildered? Are the regulatory regimes for all four of the former public utilities we are seeking to amend with these pieces of legislation those regimes that were introduced by the previous government while they were in power? Am I not right in thinking that the whole point of this new legislation is to improve on those regulatory regimes and to make them less burdensome? As I intend to say in my Second Reading speech in due course, I thought that that was what the Bill was meant to address.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the essential thrust of the Utilities Bill is to introduce some new principles, one of which, for example, will be the independent consumer council in each case. These are new principles that we have brought forward. In due course, we shall ensure that they apply to all the Bills that relate to the utilities.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the value of the Bill is already being experienced in view of the fact that the price of electricity in the pool is already coming down in anticipation of the Bill?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, my noble friend is entirely right. It is the prospect of the new system of electricity trading that is already having an impact on the forward market for electricity.

Local Government Bill [H.L.]
3.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Whitty.)
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not intend to delay the House, nor, obviously, shall I oppose the Motion. However, I rise to express some concerns about this afternoon's business, of which I have given the Government Chief Whip some notice.
In response to requests from my noble friend Lord Roberts, the Government have brought forward a very large number of amendments dealing

1163
with the Welsh aspects of the Bill. I gather that there are some 115 new amendments being brought forward at this Third Reading. The amendments were tabled yesterday, the day before or even the day before that; but they were put down very recently. We all know that my noble friend will, with some difficulty, be able to assimilate and grasp the content of such a large number of amendments, but can that be true of all other noble Lords, bearing in mind the complexity of these issues and the timing with which they were tabled? As regards the future, I must say that I hope the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip can offer some guarantee that such a large number of amendments will not be tabled quite so late in the proceedings of a Bill.
That brings me to the second point that I wish to discuss. This afternoon we are debating two government Bills. I have no objection to that; indeed, I think that that is perfectly legitimate because, on certain occasions, the business managers should be able to complete two Bills in one day. Obviously, the first is the Third Reading of the Local Government Bill and the second is the Report stage of the Children (Leaving Care) Bill. The latter is a Bill that had its Committee stage in the Moses Room. I am sure that the House will agree that Bills which start their Committee stage in the Moses Room should have their Report and Third Reading stages at a convenient time of the day for the House and not be hidden away late in the evening, as is likely to happen on this occasion.
Therefore, can I have confirmation from the noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms that if consideration on the Local Government Bill does not finish by 8.30 p.m., we will not proceed with the Children (Leaving Care) Bill and will leave it to be dealt with on another day?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I should like to say a few words on the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. I make no comment on the "Welsh amendments", if I may so describe them. However, on the second issue raised, does the noble Lord recall our conversation when I expressed serious disquiet about a Bill that had been considered in the Moses Room not getting prime time in this House? I believe that must be done if we are to continue to consider Bills in the Moses Room.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, who told me just before Questions commenced that he was going to raise these points. He is correct to say that government amendments were tabled on Monday, and yesterday, on the Local Government Bill. The amendments tabled on Monday have all been brought forward in response to points raised by the parties opposite on Report. It was not possible to have them drafted and tabled any earlier. Although a large number of amendments were tabled yesterday, they all related to a single issue: namely, the application of the new ethical framework in Wales. I am advised that the vast majority of them are consequential and technical.
1164
I understand that my noble friend Lord Whitty sent copies of the amendments to the Front Bench spokesmen of the parties opposite on Monday so as to give them slightly longer to consider the detail. I only became aware of the situation at the end of last week. In the case of the Welsh matters, they seem to require another layer of consultation. Noble Lords will know that, as Chief Whip, I have made a lot of effort to get amendments tabled in reasonable time. Indeed, as Chief Whip, I can say that that applies just as much to government amendments as to those from the Opposition.
As regards the timing of the Children (Leaving Care) Bill this evening, both noble Lords will know that it was agreed between the usual channels that we would take it as the second business of the day. However, if we have not completed the Local Government Bill by 8.30 p.m., we will not be proceeding with the Children (Leaving Care) Bill this evening.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Clause 1 [Meaning of "local authority" in this Part]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1. line 14. at end insert—
("() a parish council.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. However, I feel that I should perhaps find some general verbiage at this point to fill in the first 30 seconds or so of my introduction—
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I wish that noble Lords leaving the Chamber could do so quietly because we cannot hear the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, introducing her amendments.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention, though I was not suggesting that my words were so full of import that they needed silence in order to be heard.
The Bill introduces powers for local authorities that we on these Benches, the Opposition and the whole of the local government world outside this place have very much welcomed; namely, the new powers regarding social, economic and environmental wellbeing. However, the powers will not extend to all local authorities: they will extend only to those in the spheres above parishes in England and their equivalents—community councils—in Wales.
I believe that there are some 10,000 parish councils in England alone which represent nearly 16 million people. Those who have lived in areas that have been served by parish councils, as well as by those in other spheres—I have not had the benefit of this, having spent the whole of my adult life in London where we have no parishes or their equivalents—are very well aware in many cases of the huge benefits that parishes can bring. Of course, not every parish council is as good as the next, but many are energetic and bring together people who wish to contribute to their

1165
communities. Those people do a great deal of work at a very local level and often in a pretty much unsung fashion.
The importance of parish councils has been recognised across the board for many years. The Redcliffe-Maud Report in 1969 acknowledged the vital elements that they contribute to democratic local government. The report said:
"Their key function should be to focus opinion about anything that affects the well being"—
I stress the words "well being"—
"of each community".
Quite rightly, this Government's recent publications, including In Touch with the People, have recognised the essential part of the structure of local democracy in this country to which local authorities contribute. My amendments seek to extend the powers of well-being to that level of local democracy.
I am obliged to the National Association of Local Councils, which represents parish councils, for briefing me on this matter. We on these Benches, in our turn, very much support the work that it accomplishes. The association is concerned that the power to promote economic, environmental and social well-being excludes that sphere of local government. Many parish councils wish to be involved—indeed, many of them are—with partnership arrangements incorporating other parts of local government, and of course with the private, business and voluntary sectors. This is to the benefit of their local communities.
The powers of parish councils are limited. Section 137 of the 1972 Local Government Act will remain on the statute book. That gives parish councils a certain but limited freedom beyond the statutory duties to do the right thing for their communities, as they see it. The power to incur expenditure under Section 137 is limited.
If Section 137 were an adequate provision for local authorities to undertake the wider responsibilities and the broader powers that this Bill will provide in other spheres, it seems to me that the Government would have left it on the statute book, or perhaps raised the financial limits, and would simply have extended Section 137 to the whole of local government. For it to be repealed, save for parish and community councils, is, I think, a sad failure.
I realise that I should also have tabled an amendment to Clause 9 of the Bill which would be consequential on this amendment. We have skirted round the powers of parish councils at previous stages of the Bill. I do not believe that we have addressed the question quite as directly as the amendments I am discussing seek to do. I do not seek to divide the House
1166
on this matter because I note the technical deficiency in what I have tabled. However, I hope that we can be told why the Government have excluded parish councils from the provision. That will provide material for our colleagues in another place to take the matter further as they will also be concerned with the powers of parish councils. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it may be appropriate to refer to the general content of the noble Baroness's remarks in relation to the importance of parish councils. We are not sympathetic to the amendment but we need to make clear that parish councils are an essential part of the structure of local democracy and that they will continue to play a vital part in the life of our towns, villages and rural communities, as they have in the past. I want to repeat again—as there has been a number of rumours to the contrary—that that remains government policy, and will continue to be government policy.
While we expect parish councils to play an important role in the community planning process, we do not expect them to be the leaders in that process. We would expect effective parishes to be one of the strategic partners engaged in community planning with other local government units. The guidance will make that clear. We would expect parishes to have a role in identifying needs, but we would expect the higher tiers of local government to be in the lead in matters of well-being and community planning, even though the parishes will have a role to play in the local partnerships which develop under those provisions.
In support of that role we shall continue to make use of the parish powers under Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 which allow them to support a wide range of activities for the local good. Parishes have developed a number of new approaches to delivering benefits to their communities, for example through funding citizens advice bureaux, sports and leisure facilities and so on.
The noble Baroness referred to the possible inadequacy of the limits under that section. We recognise that some parish councils feel restrained by the annual limit on expenditure, of £3.50 per elector, from playing a full role in local government. The Government have stated previously—I emphasise this again—that we realise that this is a difficulty, albeit for a minority of parish and town councils. We shall review the current limit on Section 137 as part of the wider local government finance review to which I have referred at earlier stages of this Bill.
The Government believe that parishes have an important role to play. But that is not the leading role, either as regards the power of well-being or in the preparation of community strategies. I hope that the noble Baroness will acknowledge that, and that parish councils will recognise that that is their role and that we have a positive attitude to their role. However, the amendment would not further that.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he comment on the Countryside Agency's proposal that it will help villages to prepare appraisals? I accept that district and county councils have the lead role in preparing overall strategy. However, I thought that the Countryside Agency had a well-funded programme to help villages to prepare appraisals which would be most unlikely to fit into an overall strategy to be followed by district or county councils. How will parishes regard these village appraisals in the light of the comments that the Minister has just made? Will that work be worth while, unless the Government view as important within the wider framework such work at a local level?
3.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Countryside Commission's initiative would allow parish councils to engage in a range of initiatives, but to do so within their current powers. Village appraisals would be conducted in such a way that parishes could help play a part in the community planning which is being undertaken by the district or county. The manner of participation may differ from village to village. That is understood and forms part of the whole approach to parish activities which the Countryside Commission is endeavouring to nurture. However, that does not alter the point that the well-being power itself and the community planning strategy are not the responsibility of parish councils but of district or county councils.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the Minister says that he expects parishes to play a full part in partnerships and that the guidance which the Secretary of State will issue will make that clear. I do not think that that quite answers the question, because the guidance will presumably primarily be guidance for levels of local government other than parishes.
I accept that parishes do not always play a primary role in their communities' well-being, but I do not accept that they never play a primary role. It seems to me that the Government have failed to answer the basic underlying question: namely, what harm can there be in extending these powers to parish councils? Simply leaving on the statute book Section 137, which is widely accepted to contain inherent difficulties, seems to go against the assurances that the Government have given about how they value parishes.
I did not make that point in my opening remarks as it did not lie behind the amendment. The amendment was not tabled to have a go at the Government but to support parishes. As we all agree that it is right to do so, I fear that I have not been given an answer to my question as to why the well-being power should not apply equally to that part of our local government and our local history. I hope that another place will be able
1168
to pursue this matter more effectively than clearly I have been able to do. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Limits on power to promote well-being]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 43, at end insert—
("() In its application to Wales, this section has effect as if for any reference to the Secretary of State there were substituted a reference to the National Assembly for Wales.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, first, I wish to place on record my gratitude to the noble Lords, Lord Roberts of Conwy and Lord Thomas of Gresford, for their understanding with regard to the difficulties that we faced in ensuring that the views of the Assembly were taken into account. We understand the strain that was placed on them in dealing with amendments that were tabled late.
These amendments make provision for the role of the National Assembly for Wales in respect of the well-being powers in Wales. Amendment No. 4 would give the National Assembly for Wales the power to make regulations under Clause 3(3) to place restrictions on the use of the well-being power by local authorities in Wales. It also makes it clear that the National Assembly may issue guidance to which Welsh authorities must have regard when using the well-being power.
Amendment No. 6 sets out the particular arrangements which must be followed when the Secretary of State proposes to use the Clause 5 power in a way that will affect Welsh local authorities. First, the Secretary of State must consult the National Assembly before making any provision that would affect Welsh authorities. Secondly, the Secretary of State cannot make any provision that would affect legislation that has been made by the Assembly unless the Assembly has given its consent for him to do so. These provisions will protect the legitimate interests of the National Assembly in matters relating to local government in Wales.
It is of course entirely possible that the Assembly will wish to see specific legislative changes made for the benefit of authorities in Wales. So Amendment No. 6 also provides a formal mechanism for the Assembly to make proposals to the Secretary of State for such changes to be made.
Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9 make consequential changes to the detailed consultation and scrutiny procedures in Clause 8. These procedures will apply to any order that the Secretary of State proposes to make under Clause 5 or Clause 6 and which affects Welsh authorities. Amendment No. 7 requires the Secretary of State to consult the National Assembly on any proposal for legislation that affects Wales. Amendment No. 8 is a simple drafting change to reflect the new provisions of Amendment No. 7. Amendment No. 9 requires that the views of the Welsh

1169
Assembly, like those of other consultees, must be made available to the House alongside any proposed draft order.
Together these provisions will ensure that the Assembly is fully consulted and has ample opportunity to scrutinise any proposed changes to legislation in Wales. They will ensure that the views of the Assembly are available to Parliament when it comes to scrutinise any proposed orders made under Clause 5 or Clause 6. I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, as the noble Baroness indicated, this is the first of a series of Welsh amendments to the Bill. I am grateful to the Government for tabling them—if not by Report, as once promised, then at least by Third Reading.
There was a time not so long ago when Ministers thought that they might not be able to table the bulk of these amendments until the Bill reached another place. They have clearly pulled out all the stops, and we had a deluge of amendments earlier in the week. Had we not received these amendments today, they would have had to be moved in the other place and we would have been able to discuss them only during our consideration of Commons amendments, with all the limitations that that involves.
The Government's difficulty arose because of continuing discussions, internally and with the National Assembly for Wales,
"both about the process which should be used to amend primary legislation affecting local government in Wales and about the procedures for implementing this legislation for Welsh local authorities".
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will recognise that a substantial part of what I have just said is a quotation from a letter which the noble Lord was good enough to send me on the 25th of last month.
I think that we have a right to know of major changes proposed by the Government before Bills pass through this House. I am glad that the Government have seen fit to table the Welsh amendments, albeit at a late stage. I think that that is an acknowledgement of the principle that we should be able to see changes proposed by the Government.
I detect a similar difficulty in connection with the Learning and Skills Bill, which occasioned my comment that the Assembly was out of step with the primary legislative process for which this Westminster Parliament is still responsible. I think that the Government have had a hand in this too; perhaps I was too heavy in my criticism of the Assembly. I shall come to that in a moment.
A similar difficulty seems to be arising in the case of the Care Standards Bill. Only last week, the Secretary of State for Wales, Paul Murphy MP, intimated in the Welsh affairs debate that provision for a children's commissioner for Wales may well be introduced into the Care Standards Bill, which is in an advanced stage of its progress through this House. Of course, in that case there were special circumstances arising from the Waterhouse report. I am sure that this House will be understanding about that, as it always is.
1170
I do not want to labour the point, but it is becoming increasingly clear that if we are to provide Wales with the legislation it needs, the Assembly and the Government must be in step with the legislative process here. I am not sure that this principle is, as yet, fully accepted and understood. I think that the Government understand it, but perhaps the message has not, as yet, got down to Cardiff Bay. I say this in a helpful rather than critical spirit.
I know that the Assembly is not yet a year old and that there are bound to be teething troubles and so on, and that the Government are well aware of the problem. My sole concern—I think it is a legitimate concern and I know that this is the Government's wish too—is to ensure that the primary legislation that this Parliament provides is not defective so far as it concerns Wales; that it is as sound and as comprehensive as we can make it; and that people will benefit from it and not suffer because of inadequacies.
The House will be glad to hear me say that I fully appreciate the purpose of the amendments, as outlined by the noble Baroness, which is, of course, to provide for the inclusion of the National Assembly in Clauses 3, 5 and 8. Clause 5 contains a very substantial power to amend or repeal enactments. In so far as it is right to grant such a power at all, it is appropriate that the Assembly should be consulted in Wales.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House or to oppose these amendments. My noble friend on the Front Bench supports them; who am I to oppose them? But I should like to make one or two observations.
I have never had unbounded admiration for the wisdom of Secretaries of State in giving guidance or in consulting. I think that Secretaries of State are—more than most people—open to error. The amendment seeks to substitute the Assembly for the Secretary of State and I wonder whether—I mean no disrespect to the National Assembly for Wales—perhaps an assembly collectively giving guidance and being consulted would produce an even worse muddle than that produced by a Secretary of State.
I may have completely misunderstood the amendments but I should be obliged to the noble Baroness if she could set at rest my burgeoning anxieties on this subject.
4 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford wanted to be present and said that if we could keep going until 4.30 the debate on the first group of amendments, he would be. I decided that if I were to try to do that, it might not make these Benches entirely popular with the House. I know that my noble friend would like to have recorded his thanks to the Minister for the time he was able to spend with my noble friend discussing the Welsh amendments.
However, we must express our concern about improving the process. The Bill started life in this House not in the form in which the Government were

1171
promoting it. We debated a raft of amendments at the Committee stage to turn it into something more like the Government's preferred version. To treat the position of Wales as something of an add-on, whether to this Bill or to any other Bill, does not give proper acknowledgement to the role of Welsh government. I hope that we will very soon start regarding the involvement of our colleagues in Wales as integral to the initial process and not as something to be considered at a later stage. Wales is not an add-on. For Cardiff and the whole of Wales to have to sit back and wait for Westminster and Whitehall to sort out how they wish to express certain matters in legislation is not the right way to go forward. I am aware that the Government were consulting colleagues in Wales on how to express and deal with certain matters, but on this occasion I do not think that we have served them very well.
Like other noble Lords, I have had time only at a fairly unsocial hour to look at the amendments affecting Wales. Though they seem to be such as we would wish to see, I find it difficult to satisfy myself that they really are. I hope that longer consideration can be given if it is needed, as it may be. From these Benches we express our wish that Wales should be allowed to run its own affairs, as was the thrust of the legislation.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I begin by repeating the offer that I made with the knowledge of the Secretary of State for Wales to arrange a meeting after Easter to look at the procedure and the processes that need to be followed to cover the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. Such a meeting would then be able to look at the processes and procedure that have been used both for the Learning and Skills Bill, to which the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, referred, and the Care Standards Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord. We, too, wish to ensure that in future the procedure that is adopted is one of proper consultation and proper time for full parliamentary scrutiny following that consultation.
Perhaps I may say, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, that the settlement and the devolution arrangements provide under the Government of Wales Act that the Assembly is a corporate body which has delegated executive power to the cabinet. Consultation will be with the cabinet. The appropriate Assembly Secretary will be the one to issue guidance where the issue is one of guidance.
I thank noble Lords who have taken part in the discussion. I remind the House that the Assembly started to work using the powers which transferred only on 1st July. We are having discussions with the Assembly about the future legislative process and the Assembly is clear on the matter. I understand that it has suggested to the Secretary of State for Wales a protocol.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I wonder why the arrangement as
1172
to who will give guidance and who will consult is not made clear on the face of the Bill. It looks so odd. We suddenly find guidance being given by an Assembly. Not even your Lordships' House would always give the most coherent advice. There might be a good deal of disagreement. I wonder at the idea of putting down an Assembly as the source of advice or guidance. If someone else is giving the advice or guidance, why not say so?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I can understand that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, would be concerned were we to be in a process of offering guidance from a gathering as large as your Lordships' House. But the devolution settlement makes it quite clear that it is the Assembly which must be consulted. The Assembly can give to the cabinet that power of consultation to go ahead. That is a matter for the Assembly. But it is the Assembly as a whole which must be consulted before changes are made that are rightly in its power to decide on.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
STRATEGY FOR ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL WELL-BEING IN WALES
(" .—(1) Every local authority in Wales is to have a duty to prepare a strategy for promoting or improving the economic, social and environmental well-being of their area.
(2) In preparing any strategy under this section, a local authority—

(a) may consult or seek the participation of such persons as they consider appropriate; and

(b) must have regard to any guidance for the time being issued by the National Assembly for Wales.

(3) Before issuing any guidance under this section, the National Assembly for Wales must consult the Partnership Council and such other persons (if any) as it considers appropriate.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I introduce this new clause with the support of the Welsh Local Government Association and of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in absentia for the time being. The underlying principle has been previously discussed by your Lordships in an England and Wales context and rejected by the Government, but the new clause applies to Wales only.
As currently drafted, the Bill provides for each local authority in Wales and England to have a power to prepare a community strategy to promote well-being subject to guidance issued by the Secretary of State. The proposed new clause replaces the power with a duty upon local authorities in Wales to be fulfilled with regard to guidance issued by the National Assembly for Wales. In my experience, it is not often that local authorities ask for duties, but here is an exceptional case. The effect of the new clause would be to ensure that every local authority in Wales prepared a community strategy according to a timetable and with scope and procedures defined in guidance by the National Assembly after widespread consultation in Wales.
The Local Government Association wishes to develop an innovative and distinctive approach to the governance of Wales. The community strategy for each local government area is widely regarded within Wales as an essential part of the new governance, as is the partnership that is being constructed between the National Assembly and local government. It is urged that Wales needs a national framework for local community planning which can be achieved only by laying a duty on local authorities. It is envisaged that each local authority will work with local people, voluntary and business organisations and other public organisations to agree, in partnership, shared aims and strategies for the local community which can inform the more detailed planning and actions of each of the partner organisations. The National Assembly is currently developing a strategic plan for Wales through a process of partnership and consultation.
This national strategy proposes key priorities and targets for Wales in the medium and long term. The intention is that local government will collectively consider how its priorities match those of the Assembly, and where, as anticipated, there is congruence, the Assembly and local government will make a policy agreement, where both agree to pursue selected target outcomes. Local agreements will be informed by the national agreement as each local authority considers the circumstances of its community and its potential contribution to the national strategy. It is anticipated that the policy agreements, national and local, will inform the local partnerships that come together to develop a community strategy.
Much work has already been done on this innovative approach to partnership which has been developed in Wales through its unique statutory Partnership Council between the Assembly and local government. During the preparations, one of the key foundations was the Government's commitment in the Welsh Office White Paper, Local Voices, in 1998. They stated in the White Paper:
"There is a need for greater policy cohesion and coherence at local level between the public, business and voluntary sectors. The new duty will include a requirement for authorities to prepare overarching strategies for promoting the well-being of their areas … It is important that all authorities should carry out community planning in a strategic and comprehensive way. The Government considers it essential that there should be a strategy for every area".
So the Government themselves spoke then, in 1998, of a "duty" rather than a power.
In 1999, the Welsh Local Government Association undertook consultation on the purpose and form of community planning. There was a full response from local organisations. All responses were positive on the need for community strategies and all expressed the view that the National Assembly should provide guidance on community plans which balanced the need for local innovation and diversity with the need for some consistency.
The Partnership Council, comprising the National Assembly and local government representatives, has considered the Welsh Local Government Association's consultation and responses. It has
1174
established a working group between itself and partners in the voluntary and business sectors to begin the preparations for national guidance in anticipation of the Bill being amended. We shall see whether they were wise in their anticipation.
I understand that the Welsh Local Government Association persuaded its English colleagues in the LGA of the merits of this amendment. As I said earlier, the House has debated amendments on two occasions which sought to substitute the term "power" with "duty", but on both occasions the Government opposed the amendments. But clearly a special situation has developed in Wales. I hope that the Government are as sympathetic to the proposal as I am. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we on these Benches support all the reasons advanced by the noble Lord as to why Wales should place such a duty on its local authorities. I shall not detain the House by repeating the arguments that I advanced on the first day of the Report stage on 28th February (at col. 363). In reply, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that, on balance, he was not convinced that a duty should be placed on local authorities. Over the years I have learnt to regard "on balance" as sometimes being an optimistic sign.
If, as I hope, the Government are minded for reasons of good argument advanced previously also by the LGA and now by colleagues in Wales to rethink this matter, that will be widely welcomed. I hope that the same provision will apply to local authorities in England—without which they will continue to struggle with the many statutory plans that they must prepare. I believe the noble Baroness said that they number over 40. We should welcome a rationalisation of the position in regard to England as well as Wales.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, has spoken eloquently in favour of the duty of community planning in Wales. We have also heard a strong case put, both inside this House and in discussions outside, by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and her noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford.
As the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, said, the National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Local Government Association have expressed similar views. Where a different approach to local government matters in Wales is justified, we are, of course, prepared to consider that.
So far as concerns a duty, it is fair to say that the views expressed in relation to Wales were no different from the general views which have already been expressed in this House and by organisations such as the LGA and the UK Round Table on Sustainable Development.
I think that there is widespread agreement within the House and beyond as to what could be achieved at local level through effective community planning. We

1175
have always said that community strategies—developed by local strategic partnerships, involving local agencies, the private and voluntary sectors and the community—have the potential to deliver real benefits for local people. They can improve local quality of life and enhance local pride.
We have always considered that effective community planning can help to deliver many of the changes that the Government believe are essential if local quality of life is to be improved. The legislation, therefore, has to be seen in the context of the Government's efforts to ensure coherent delivery of public services and to tackle such issues as social exclusion and neighbourhood renewal. Policy in these areas is developing rapidly. The Social Exclusion Unit is due to report soon on its national strategy for neighbourhood renewal. A crucial part of that strategy will be broadly-based, local strategic partnerships along the lines that we envisage here. It should come as no surprise to noble Lords that against that background we have kept the legislative provisions in the Bill under constant review.
We have always recognised that a duty to prepare community strategies would emphasise the importance that we attach to local action to tackle these issues and deliver sustainable development. Clearly, it would also provide the means to ensure that more reluctant local authorities also take action for the benefit of their communities. But equally, we have always believed that it is not a prerequisite for effective community planning.
Nevertheless, given the way in which the policy is developing and the critical role that we now see being played by local strategic partnerships, we are minded to reconsider the approach currently taken in Clause 4. We shall need to give careful consideration to the way in which a duty might be framed. We shall want to ensure that it does not preclude the sort of local flexibility that is crucial to the success of local partnerships; and the proposals will need to reflect the different structure of local government in England and Wales. We shall bring forward appropriate amendments for both England and Wales when the Bill passes to another place.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Roberts of Conwy and Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for their interest and their explanations and comments within this field. I hope that on that basis the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Baroness on the Liberal Benches for her support. I also thank the Minister for the change of attitude that I detected. Her promise to consider further and bring forward amendments in the other place has been duly noted and welcomed. As I am speaking on behalf of Wales, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness whether, as I presume is the case, the promise to reconsider which covers Clause 4 extends to England as well. Perhaps she will confirm that. I understand the noble Baroness's change of heart in that it was a duty promised in the White Paper
1176
1998. Indeed, the Partnership Council in Wales has gone ahead, as I said, to form a working group with local business and so forth. Therefore, I am glad that the work is clearly not going to be in vain. Perhaps the Minister would like to clear up the point about the impact of what she said on the English situation.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am sorry, but I may not have been as clear as I might. The proposals brought forward will need to reflect the different structures of local government in England and in Wales.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply and explanation. Obviously the Government are going to reconsider the situation as regards Clause 4 and England as well as Wales. With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Power to amend or repeal enactments]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 3, line 23, at end insert—
("() In exercising the power under subsection (1) the Secretary of State—

(a) must not make any provision which has effect in relation to Wales unless he has consulted the National Assembly for Wales, and

(b) must not make any provision in relation to legislation made by the National Assembly for Wales without the consent of the Assembly.

() The National Assembly for Wales may submit proposals to the Secretary of State that the power under subsection (1) should be exercised in relation to Wales in accordance with those proposals.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Procedure for orders under section 5 or 6]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 7 to 9:
Page 4, line 24, at end insert—
("(1A) Where those proposals affect any local authorities in Wales, the Secretary of State must also consult the National Assembly for Wales.").
Page 4, line 25, leave out ("subsection (1)") and insert ("the preceding provisions of this section").
Page 4, line 30, at end insert (", and
() where consultation has taken place under subsection (1A), sets out the views of the National Assembly for Wales").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 10:
Before Clause 9, insert the following new clause—
LOCAL AUTHORITY TO DECIDE WHETHER TO INTRODUCE EXECUTIVE ARRANGEMENTS
(" .—(1) A local authority may make executive arrangements for the discharge of certain of its functions.
(2) Nothing in this Part shall have effect in respect of a local authority not making executive arrangements.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I regard Part II of the Bill as its heart. Therefore, it is right that at previous stages we have devoted considerable time to debating it; and it is right that we should do so again this afternoon.
For me, the prime reason for debating this again with great care and attention is not just because of the content of the Bill but, more importantly, because of what it says about the Government's attitude to local government, democracy, the electorate and regulation. On odd occasions when those on this side of the House have suggested that a small insertion might help the Bill or local government, we have had it thrown in our teeth that, in fact, it would be intrusive regulation which would not help and that therefore the matter should be left to local authorities to decide. This Bill is a huge series of regulations and, my goodness, they are intrusive. In this part of the Bill the intrusion is at its most prominent.
The Government say that this part of the Bill will support, strengthen and stimulate local democracy. I wish that there was some evidence that that might be the case. It is true that there have been pilot schemes, but they have not lasted for a sufficient length of time to show any impact at all on the electorate or the interest that local communities take in what their authorities do.
The Government have quoted national statistics in aid of this part of the Bill. I accept that they show that those surveyed—they are quite narrow surveys—in the majority of cases are in favour of the kinds of proposal that are envisaged. In particular, they say that if there were a local mayor they might be more inclined to vote at local elections. Perhaps that is not surprising.
But the bulk of the population is urban, not to say metropolitan. When one surveys many people on a national base, inevitably one will have a natural slightly urban bias. However, local government is about communities. Many of them are not urban, but they are included in the national figures. They might have been the 40 per cent who said "no" or who have not expressed very great interest. They might be 100 per cent of a rural community. Therefore, the basis of the statistical support for this part of the Bill seems flawed. If we are looking at stimulating local democracy, it seems to me that Ken Livingstone might be doing more about this matter in a real sense than are the Government.
The Government assert that these provisions will reinvigorate the interest of local communities and electorates. The loss of interest that has continued consistently for a very long time in local communities and among local electors about what happens to local government and local councils has been driven by increasing government control and regulation of what local authorities can and may do. This Bill does nothing to tackle that fundamental issue.
Even if the Government are correct and executive arrangements are in fact as virtuous and as good as they hold them to be—I have already said that they have no evidence which demonstrates that that is so; it is an assertion—I must point out that local authorities
1178
and councillors are not insensitive, and still less are they not keen, to see improved performance in their authorities. If these ideas are good, local councillors and local authorities will adopt them without the compulsion that this Bill imposes.
Even if local councillors were reluctant, and there were a better system, given that local electorates are neither ignorant, insensitive nor stupid, they would rapidly demand that the system be changed. Sadly, if one looks at the way the Bill is worded and what is done in other cases, one might suppose that the Government have little confidence in either local councillors or local electors.
Local electors are the same as those who vote in national elections; but that is all right and the vote is valid. But if those electors vote in a local referendum—an issue on which I pressed the Government that there should be a floor in the number of people voting in order to make sure that a sufficient number of electors support a proposal before it is made mandatory—the Government said that they do not need such a floor and that vote is valid. However, all of a sudden, when those same electors vote for a local councillor, that vote is discounted. The Government's attitude is just too inconsistent, and they cannot have it both ways. That is the difference between the Minister and myself. Whatever may have happened in the past—my position has not altered—we are now prepared to trust local communities, but the problem is that, as revealed by the psychology of Part II of the Bill, the Government are not.
That brings me to the amendments. Part II of the Bill as drafted will require local authorities to change their ways and operate under "executive arrangements". They are not given an option; they are required to do it. The Government may slide around the edges and say that there are a number of ways in which that may be done, which is perfectly true. However, the principle is there: it is a requirement. I have already said that sensible, sensitive and efficient local authorities will, if the principles are correct, adopt those arrangements. Amendments Nos. 10 and 12 are designed specifically to remove the compulsion and make it possible for local councils to decide for themselves whether or not to adopt those arrangements.
I do not oppose the suggested arrangements contained in the Bill. My opposition is to a provision that forces local authorities to adopt those arrangements on a time-scale that the Minister can determine, which is wrong. That represents a fundamental division between us. My amendments correct that flaw in the Bill. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, my name is added to the two amendments in this group which have been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. We on these Benches have tabled Amendments Nos. 11 and 13 to which the noble Lord has added his name.
During earlier debate on this matter the Government made much of the great variety of executive arrangements on offer. I still find it difficult

1179
to read into Clause 10 an almost infinite variety of arrangements, especially when the options on offer in future are subject to what regulations "may, in particular, provide for". In this context, I believe that, yet again, "may" means "shall". I find it even harder to appreciate what we are told is the open mind of the Government since local authorities must have executive arrangements. The strong term "must" is used in Clauses 9 and 10. In legislation one is accustomed to seeing the term "shall" or "may", which itself sometimes means "shall", but very rarely does one see "must". Here one sees "must" without allowing for an incremental approach and the experience of pilots in areas with different geography, demography, political history and background.
The noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, spoke powerfully about the differences between almost single-party-dominated authorities, perhaps in inner cities, and those in rural areas which involved members of all parties and of none. What is proposed will take place without waiting to see what may be learnt from the experience of London. I do not suggest that the Greater London Authority and local authorities which adopt executive arrangements are absolutely equivalent. We are, however, in the middle of a mayoral election at the moment from which lessons can be learnt—and not only on such matters as how best to adopt candidates!
It would be understandable if the Government's objection was based on the suspicion that those who are currently councillors simply seek to defend the status quo. It would be understandable if the Government regarded that with some cynicism. I referred at an earlier stage to the work undertaken by Camden council. I believe that that council has acquired beacon status from the Government in two areas: housing benefit and schools. That authority undertook major consultation with local people and rejected the proposals. I quote the resolution passed by that council which rejected the proposals,
"on grounds that they will reduce democracy, lessen effective decision-making and seriously weaken accountability".
Academics and commentators are not united behind the Government's proposals. It is not suggested that local authorities should not be allowed to adopt an executive/scrutiny split; rather, that there should be local choice. We on these Benches are very ready to acknowledge that the Government have moved on important matters, such as area committees and, to an extent, the role of the overview and scrutiny committee. Sadly, we have not yet succeeded in explaining sufficiently clearly to the Government our concern about the likely split into two classes of councillor. We believe that the proposals with which we are now dealing are flawed because of the Government's innate preference for a system that is centred on personality.
A few days ago I spoke at a meeting in London about the forthcoming elections. The view of a number of people who attended that meeting can be summarised as follows: they do not like something that is going on locally and want to be assured that the
1180
mayor will put everything right. It is very dangerous to allow people to get into a mindset about the position of an individual, even with the benefit of an overview and scrutiny committee to look at decisions and actions, who is in control of a large community. The Government's attitude encourages that rather disingenuous approach on the part of those who believe that a new type of government will somehow make all the decisions perfect.
The Government are concerned that councils which fail to modernise (to use their term) will be the ones that opt out of the executive arrangements. I acknowledge that there is something in that. However, this is a matter of local choice. It is to be expected that if an authority is not a good one there will be opposition to the administration at the next election on the basis of modernising that authority, and that will allow for local debate.
Amendment No. 13 deals with the criteria for executive arrangements, if there are to be such, in addition to those which the Government propose. The amendment, which is the same as that tabled at the previous stage, proposes that the executive arrangements,
"may take such form as the local authority considers, after it has taken reasonable steps to consult local government electors and other interested persons in the authority's area, will … enhance decision-making … meet the principles of transparency, accountability and efficiency"—
as we have debated throughout the Bill, those matters should underlie good local government—
"and … be appropriate to local circumstances".
The Minister dismissed the amendment on the basis that a local authority could, should it so wish, devise a form of executive arrangement which approximated very closely to the status quo. He talked about other enactments needing to be modified but it is not clear how that will be achieved. If there is a problem in drafting, let us face that problem and not dismiss the principle because putting it into effect is too difficult.
If the new executive arrangements are close to the status quo but meet the tough criteria, what is the problem? Why could not that model be adopted? The Government's answer at the last stage was that Clause 10(5) allows for other models. I do not regard that as a complete answer. We shall need the Secretary of State's model before a locally devised model can be put in place.
Your Lordships will understand the strength of feeling from these Benches. In the context of the good new powers for local government, we are sad that what is being given with one hand may be taken away by imposition by the other. We support the amendment.
4.15 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I apologise for not having intervened previously on the issue and for my presumption in making even a small speech. I do so because I live in Guildford, and Guildford justifiably prides itself on being one of the best local authorities in England. At present it is a hung council; it is normally Conservative. It treats its Labour members with

1181
immense respect and great honour. It is privileged enough to have a chief executive who would have been undoubtedly in earlier years a star in the Indian Civil Service. He would have been Watts' protector of the poor.
He wrote to me—it was too late for me to take an active role in past debates—of the view held by himself and most of the Guildford borough councillors. They believe that the new arrangements will have the effect of concentrating power more than occurs at present. If matters were to go seriously sour fewer people would need to be bribed. They say, "We are a good authority. Please could we have the right to continue as we are".
I am sorry that I have not intervened previously on the issue. I apologise on behalf of Watts protector of the poor because he, too, missed the opportunity. I wish to put into the public domain that a very good chief executive of a well run borough council is deeply unhappy about the proposed arrangements, as are the independent members of Guildford Borough Council. It is that factor which worries me about the Government's plan. To allow people to keep the status quo if it is good, subject to controls and checks, would not be a bad idea.
The Earl of Carnarvon: My Lords, I speak for myself, having had some experience of local government and having the honour to serve on the Joint Committee of your Lordships' House and another place under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Bowness. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, who is not in her place at present, were members. The point was discussed and an equivalent amendment moved to which the Joint Committee agreed. However, the Government did not agree with the Joint Committee.
I have always believed that there should be more flexibility. A great majority of local authorities have looked carefully into the matter and are applying the suggestions made by the Government as regards executive and scrutiny committees. (I have the Local Government Association report in front of me.) That is good news for the Government. But some local authorities want strongly to achieve the aim in a slightly different way.
That is all that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, are saying. The Government should listen to minorities—in particular independent councils—which feel strongly that they do not quite fit into the Government's three "musts". I support the amendment.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, we have cantered around this race track a number of times. I raise a point which has not been recognised in previous debates.
There is concern—the Government have put it forward—that electors should be more attracted to voting in local government elections. It is perfectly proper that that should be so; we all want to see it happen. However, the other side of the coin is that
1182
people must want to become councillors. If they do not want to become councillors because they are not attracted to the organisation in which they would work, no amount of change, as proposed in the Bill, will have the slightest effect.
People may want to become councillors because, first, they wish to serve their local community, and, secondly because they believe that it is proper that representatives should make decisions on behalf of that community. The proposals disfranchise more than half of any council from making decisions. Only those who are ultimately in the executive will make the decisions on behalf of a council.
No amount of overview, scrutiny, discussion and debate constitutes a decision. They are not binding on any group. A group can agree to decide on all manner of things but until the decision is made by one of the executives it is not a decision. I believe that many councillors will find this a very serious loss. Many individuals will believe it to be a real drawback from coming into local government to represent and make decisions on behalf of their local communities, after consultation. One can talk endlessly but at some stage decisions need to be taken, and taken in the open. We have discussed that previously. The Bill makes allowance for doing so. It must be right to allow people to decide.
There must be a mechanism within the Bill to enable local authorities to say, "We would like our members in total to take the decisions". I have heard all the arguments about it being a mere blind: that decisions are taken in back rooms before any issue is discussed in public. That is not a scenario I recognise. Many local authorities take decisions after discussion in committee. In my local authority we are often swayed by points put forward by the opposition; and decisions are then made.
The great sadness about the proposals is that that option will not be available. We may not wish to contemplate the spin-offs from that but as a result we may be picking up the pieces in the future.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, as a novice, I shall try to resist the temptation to recycle what was said at previous stages, but I want to make one or two points. I remain concerned that in our distractions there is a danger of missing the wood for the trees.
First, the Bill does not seek to enforce elected mayors on all parts of Britain. It is impossible for there to be elected mayors anywhere, even if the councils were in favour of that, unless the public vote for it. Secondly, there is no expectation in anyone who is realistic that a simple, single Bill can restore local democracy. I am confident that if it were that simple, the noble Lord's party would have passed such a Bill some years previously.
We need to recognise that there is a problem: the public have lost interest in local government. They by and large value the services of local government, but they do not believe that its political processes are particularly relevant or meaningful. They say so frequently and act so by choosing not to vote in local government elections.

1183
If we choose, we can say that there is no problem and that the status quo is fine. However, I am convinced that the consequence of failing to modernise local government in a sensible fashion will be the progressive residualisation and marginalisation of its functions. During the past 20 years, we have seen that all central governments are prone to that disease.
Therefore, we must look at the central thrust of Part II of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is right in saying that it is central to the whole debate. The question is whether the existing committee system serves the public well. We have heard the criticisms of it: that the responsibility is opaque; that it undervalues the importance of representation; and that scrutiny is largely non-existent in most local authorities in which that system operates. There are problems which have frequently been affirmed by the Audit Commission. It is not true that the current system is adequate, satisfactory, or universally working well. It often works well because of the efforts of talented members and officers, but that is not because of the system itself.
The impression is being given that there is to be a monolithic imposition of a single system on all authorities across the country. That is untrue. Some of us might wish that there were more of an imposition of the stronger systems of executive governance, but that is not on offer. All that is required is that the local authorities must establish certain principles. First, they must consult their public on their executive arrangements. Secondly, they must make it clearer who is responsible for decision making. Thirdly, they must draw up a constitution which indicates where decision making will take place within the authority and the balance of power that will sit between the executive and the assembly. Finally, there must be a powerful, effective system of scrutiny. Those are the principles which the Bill and guidance set out—no more and no less.
Let us take the example of the non-party shire district council that is frequently talked about. Let us look what it can do. It must consult its public; and it is right and proper that it should do so. We are talking about the public and not about the traditions of officers and members and whether they are comfortable with that requirement. But if after that process of consultation that council decides that it does not want to have a strong executive system, it is perfectly able to establish arrangements in the following fashion. First, it can determine where most policy can be decided and it can put the weight of that determination in the full council, in the assembly itself. It can give only a limited scope for policy determination to the separate executive.
Secondly, it can determine that the executive will be a cross-party or non-party body which will always meet in public and that there will be a strong power of "call-in" to the assembly. In other words, before an issue is implemented, any member can call it in for full debate either in scrutiny committees or into the assembly itself. The executive members would not have individual portfolios, but would have to act in concert. The assembly could meet as frequently as it
1184
wished in order to ensure the tightest possible scrutiny over the actions of the executive. It could establish area committees and encourage the participation of the public in those processes.
In my view, that model would be an improvement on the current system. The public would know that there was a system of scrutiny. They would be clearer about who was responsible, yet the power of the executive would be tightly constrained and trammelled by the assembly. In my view, that is a cause not for fear, but, if anything, for excessively cautious incrementalism. Nevertheless, that is what the Bill offers to an authority, if it so decides.
Therefore, I cannot believe that it is necessary to force the amendment. It is hard to judge the need for it because of the consequences were we to do so. We are not talking about a minimalist escape clause; it goes to the heart of the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, had the courtesy to acknowledge. It would go to the heart of the desire, the necessity, for reform.
Last January, the LGA published research that had been undertaken by Strathclyde and de Montfort universities. It asked councils what were their preferred options. Thirty-nine per cent of councils stated that they wanted neither an elected mayor—fair enough—nor a separate executive. If the amendment were passed, it would undermine the heart and thrust of the Bill. One might say that that is good, but it will not serve the public well if we are serious about trying to move forward local government so that it has more relevance and enjoys more respect.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I agree that we have cantered around the subject a great deal, but I want to support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that the feeling was strong on this side of the House. I believe that the feeling is strong in local government generally. If we were to survey our 20,000-odd councillors, we would find that barely 10 per cent support the executive/non-executive split. It does more to make councillors uneasy and unhappy with the Bill than anything I have known in my years in local government. One cannot underestimate the strength of that feeling.
There are more than 400 local authorities in this country and they vary greatly: from the small district councils to the large authorities such as Birmingham or my own, Essex County Council. They vary in the number of their members from perhaps 30, to 119 in Birmingham. I do not mind mayors if people want them. Judging by comments made in the past few days, it appears that I prefer mayors more than does the Deputy Prime Minister. I do not mind people having Cabinets, if that is what they want. However, the fault of the Bill is in imposing the executive/non-executive split. People see it as a two-tier system. It is an unnecessary part of the Bill.
We all want to see local government modernised and streamlined. When North Yorkshire was reorganised as North York it set itself up with four streamlined

1185
committees and meets very infrequently. That is the model many of us would want to see. However, to say that we have to have 10 people in Essex, say, out of my 79 members on the executive and 69 people on select scrutiny committees is not acceptable to most of my members.
Where experiments have been carried out, people feel that they have been excluded. A while ago I attended a meeting at which, unfortunately, my party was in a minority on the council. It had set up some scrutiny committees and every time my members raised an item, the rest of the committee moved for the next business, and we moved on. I believe that small representations of other parties will feel even more excluded. That is the whole thrust and problem of the executive/non-executive split.
It is all very well to be told that it will work better and will increase participation and voting, but it is not seen to be a democratic process. It is seen to be imposing something on local government that should not be necessary. I cannot imagine many other countries or parliaments imposing such detail on local government. I hope that tonight we shall give local authorities a clear message that although we want to see them modernising and moving into the 21st century, we want them to design their own systems best suited to their areas.
In many ways, voting is different in local government elections. Much of the low turn-out is in areas in which one party is dominant. In Thurrock in my county, where the Labour Party will romp in, there might be a 12 per cent turn-out. However, where three parties fight an election keenly, there will be a 55 or 60 per cent turn-out. That is the difference; that is what it is all about; and that is what we need more of. Therefore, I urge your Lordships to pass this amendment so that we can give local government the opportunity to design its own systems.
5 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: My Lords, I doubt whether it is helpful to say that the longer this debate goes on at the different stages, the more I feel myself being pulled in two directions. I agree very much with what the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, said. Because of local circumstances in a number of authorities—not a large number, but some—I am convinced that one of the proposed executive models would not suit, and that there should be an alternative form. On the other hand (and this is why I am pulled in the other direction), the amendments that we are discussing today, as drafted, seem to provide an escape clause for an authority that should be taking action to reorganise itself. The amendments seem to allow it to escape taking any action.
That is why at earlier stages of the Bill some of us pressed the Government to produce a fourth option. Provided that criteria of efficiency, accountability, transparency and so on were met, due to certain local circumstances that option would allow an authority not necessarily to retain the status quo but to produce a different option not necessarily based on the executive
1186
scrutiny split. I hope that even at this stage the Government will think again about the fourth option. I believe that the alternative of providing an escape clause for any authority which would prefer to continue in the same old way is unsatisfactory. Equally, the opposite is unsatisfactory.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to some of the contributions made in this debate. I realise that it is a tradition of this House that everyone speaks in tones of sweet reason, even though their arguments might not be entirely reasonable in themselves.
However, I have noticed a number of contradictions in what has been said. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, seemed to argue that the arrival of an elected mayor in London would inspire a great deal of excitement and interest among the electorate. He contrasted that with the lack of excitement and interest that at present appears to exist in local government more generally. If that is the case, and if it is the case that a change in the system will inspire interest and excitement in London, that rather suggests that the existing system is not inspiring interest elsewhere within local government. It also suggests that we should look very seriously at the proposals before us.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his contribution. I believe that it highlights the exact problem that we are debating. If it is believed—it is certainly a belief that I share—that by introducing an executive scrutiny split one introduces clarity into local government decision-making, that in itself should produce greater interest and confidence in the processes. People will know who is responsible for what decision. It will not be possible for councillors to hide behind baroque committee systems in terms of where decisions are being taken. Of course, as has happened in so many authorities—I believe that people are being slightly disingenuous if they pretend that it has not happened—it will no longer be necessary for decisions to be taken by small groups and then processed through public committee meetings and public structures.
However, I am concerned that—
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I raise a point that later we shall come to more substantially with our amendment. However, will the noble Lord concede that where the executive is allowed to meet in private and to take decisions, no notice of which has been given to the public, the Bill as drafted will still allow that lack of clarity to continue because the public will discover those decisions only after the event?
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I do not accept that. Who is responsible for the decision will be absolutely fundamentally clear to the electorate. It will be clear where that decision has been made. A whole series of requirements will be set down in the statute regarding how it may be scrutinised and, if need be, called in by the full council. Therefore, I believe that the provision will aid clarity rather than otherwise.

1187
However, at the moment the public do not know which body may or may not be looking at a matter and do not know when that issue is resolved. This provision will at least ensure that there is a proper process, subject to subsequent scrutiny.
The noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, raised the point that some authorities will have very different circumstances and that those will require special consideration. That argument may have some force. Unfortunately, none of the amendments before us in this grouping allows us to examine that point. I do not say that I would have supported it, but if someone had put forward an amendment stating that authorities would be entitled to look at alternative models for district councils of that particular nature or those with no overall control, or councils with a variety of other definitions where that would be a problem, I believe that that would have enabled us to debate what I suspect is the real issue. However, the present wording of the amendments permits authorities which are not particularly keen, for whatever reason, on having a clear executive scrutiny split to get round this legislation. I believe that that is unfortunate.
I suspect that one of the reasons why this House encourages its Members to talk in tones of sweet reason is that it enables them to propose amendments which remove the heart of a piece of legislation in tones of such sweetness and lightness that perhaps it is hoped that the Government will not notice what is being proposed. However, I believe that what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, proposes on this occasion is fairly clear. He is aiming to take the heart out of this particular part of the legislation. I believe that it is unfortunate that we do not have before us an amendment which would test the question which the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and a number of other noble Lords have suggested they are concerned about; that is, the question of certain types of council where an executive scrutiny split is perhaps not appropriate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, asked how we can ensure that people will continue to want to be councillors. I suggest that if we put forward a structure which provides clarity about the role for which people put themselves forward for election, that is likely to induce a much greater degree of job satisfaction than does the existing arrangement. Under the current arrangement, even if people are in the party which wins the election, when they put themselves forward they do not know whether they will be part of a charmed circle which makes decisions or outside that circle. If, as is the case with some of the models which will be permissible under the executive scrutiny split, it is possible for people to put themselves forward to be executive decision-makers or, alternatively, to be local representative councillors involved in overview and scrutiny of policy, I believe that that will produce more clarity and will lead to better "job satisfaction" (if noble Lords will forgive the term) among local councillors.
The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, was right to say that there are strong feelings within local government about this issue. Those strong feelings
1188
often come from those who do not want to proceed to an executive scrutiny split. Yet it is precisely because so many of those people who do not even want to consider the executive scrutiny split will be given comfort by the amendments in this grouping today that I would urge noble Lords to reject the amendments in favour of something which at least allows us to provide clear and explicit roles for executive and scrutiny members.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—I hope being sweetly reasonable, which I regard as a virtue rather than the opposite—does he not accept that my Amendment No. 13, which provides for executive arrangements which are, among other things, appropriate to local circumstances, is, if not perfect, at any rate a reasonable stab at addressing the difficulties of councils with a history of independence or where there is no overall political control? If the noble Lord is himself sweetly reasonable, as I am sure he will be, then rather than dismiss all the amendments in this group, he might seek to build on that approach.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I gave a great deal of thought to the noble Baroness's Amendment No. 13 because I thought that might be the opportunity to address the concerns which had been raised by noble Lords on the Cross Benches. But I do not believe that it achieves that.
I would hope that in every case, people will put forward proposals which will enhance decision-making; which will meet the principles of transparency, accountability and efficiency; and will be appropriate to their local circumstances. Nothing in the Bill precludes that. But I do not believe that a subsection with the words,
"be appropriate to local circumstances",
quite meets the requirements. Those requirements must be to address the particular circumstances of certain types of local authorities with a certain type of population and certain political make-ups. If the amendments had gone on to spell that out in some detail, then we could have had the debate which people claim they want to have today.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has explained why the system will work well. I can see from the point of view of his council, that it may be very helpful indeed. But I want to ask one question.
My noble friend Lord Onslow described the council of Guildford. In such a council, will the officials have the same role as they have now, vis-à-vis individual councillors? Among all the amendments, I cannot see any place where the Bill defines the role of the officials. I may have missed it because it is difficult to absorb them all. It certainly was not in the Bill before. Is there to be any legal requirement on officials to advise all councillors, whichever side of the divide they are on and whichever committee they are on? It is absolutely essential that in local government, every member has access to officials and to information from officials.

1189
I should be interested to know whether that is provided in the Bill or whether the Government are trusting to luck.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I wish to support the views put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, views which I have expressed myself, as to the difficulty of recruiting people to be what you might call second-class councillors.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, attempted to defuse that argument by saying that it would clarify the situation. Yes, it would. But, for example, what would I have done in my early years in the county council? I should have had to go to the electorate of Dorking South and say, "Look, chaps, there is not a cat in hell's chance that I am going to be on the executive because I have only been on the council for a few years. So you will have to elect me in order that once decisions have been taken, I can query why they have been taken and what the costs of them will be".
I can tell your Lordships what happened when I was a councillor. First, quite often, even as a very junior councillor with a large Tory majority at that time, I was able to influence decisions as they were taken; for example, in the education committee, of which I was then a member, and later in the highways and transport committee.
Not only that, but I told people in my part of the world in which decisions I had been involved and what I had done about them. I did that either through the press or through the literature which I circulated. If they did not like what I had been doing, they had a very simple remedy: they could throw me out at the next election.
I agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, when he said that where there are contested elections, the percentage of people who bother to go to the polls increases. As a Liberal and subsequently as a Liberal Democrat, my observation has been that every time we have made a really successful foray into local government elections, the percentage of people going out to vote increases, and the reason is that people have something to vote for or against, depending on their viewpoint.
The suggestion was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, that some of the disadvantages which the Government are suggesting could be overcome if the council was made the main decision-taker. We may all have had experiences of sensible decision-taking in committee, where people listen to the argument, decide and, to some extent, modify proposals in the light of argument. I have succeeded in modifying decisions in precisely that way. But I have seldom seen decisions taken seriously in full council because that is where every member makes either the speech determined by his group prior to the council meeting or—in some cases I have seen it happen—the speech handed down by party headquarters to make on that occasion on that subject. It is by far the most party-political part of the process.
1190
In some councils there is a large majority of one party. They do still exist, despite our best efforts. I can remember some doubts expressed by my noble friend on the Front Bench when her council became not just a Liberal, as it then was, majority but a Liberal monopoly. Serious doubts were then raised as to the democratic nature of the vote, which was determined in the old-fashioned way and not by proportional representation, when the Labour Party and the Conservative Party were entirely excluded from the government of Richmond-upon-Thames. So the matter is as close and as relevant to us as it is to other people.
But where there are large overall majorities, it is extremely difficult to make sure that there is a fully public discussion of policy and that decisions are taken which reflect that debate. It is in relation to those councils which will be subject to all the regulations which this Government are trying to put in this Bill—which I consider to be, on the whole, bad for local government—that the effects will he the worst.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as other noble Lords have said, we have been round this course before. I am not entirely sure that "canter" is the right term, but many points have been made at earlier stages of the Bill. I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has been consistent on this and that he regards this as a central principle of the Bill. He has been consistent, but I am not entirely sure that his party has been consistent as regards the relationship it wants between central and local government. In the long term, once this change has taken place, the noble Lord and I will probably be closer as regards what the appropriate relationship should be.
But at present, we do need change. I recognise also, as the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield and others have said, that there is unease and concern among councillors. But we are at a point where we wish to change the way in which local government operates. Those in your Lordships' House who believe that the status quo is appropriate are few and far between. They are saying that, in practice, most councils will choose to change. Does that not mean that there is a need for change in local government and does it not probably mean—not inevitably, logically—that that minority of councils which do not wish to change are probably the councils which really should change and need to change?
That, therefore, lies behind the whole of the Government's approach. We are seeking a quiet revolution in local government. I am not often allowed to use those terms from these Benches but I do so today. That requires all councils to look at change and decide which form of change they want.
The status quo, based on the committee system, which, at various points, has served local government well but is now creaking at the seams, is not an option and cannot be an option.
The Government believe that we need a whole new form of governance which rests, as we have said, on transparency in relation to who is taking decisions;

1191
what those decisions are; and what is the accountability for those decisions. Contrary to what the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and others have said, we believe that the fact that we can identify with clarity those decisions and those responsible for them will both enhance the appeal of local government for those who might wish to come into it and enhance confidence in local government among the electorate as a whole, as my noble friends Lord Filkin and Lord Harris of Haringey have said.
Therefore, the Government require, as a principle of the Bill, that all councils should change, and change to a system which involves an executive structure. The Bill also requires that those proposals must be put forward in consultation with local people and it gives local people the right to decide explicitly in relation to a directly-elected mayor, if that is the proposition. The key to accountability is a system of governance which people understand and support.
Having said that we wish to achieve a revolution, clearly in the best revolutions, once change is achieved, diversity follows. There is diversity within our proposals. Within the three categories of executive arrangements that the Bill makes available, there is great diversity and substantial choice, as distinct from the old system which specified one structure for committees which was stretched as far as possible by many local authorities, but nevertheless was laid down by countless Local Government Acts over the past century and a bit. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. I believe that most other countries would lay down more precisely the structure of local government in their written constitutions than we are attempting or wishing to do.
The Bill allows us also, by virtue of subsection 10(5), to make available other categories of executive if appropriate. If a council has a proposal for a further form of executive which meets our aims, the Secretary of State can use the power to establish such a form of executive. Our bottom line is that, whatever additional arrangements may be made, there must be a separate executive under our structure. The first three of these amendments, including the one moved by the noble Lord, in fact undermine that central principle of the Bill. There are a number of arguments that the division between executive and scrutiny, in whatever form it takes, will undermine the role of existing councillors and of councils themselves.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said that she did not recognise our view of existing local government; that on occasion decisions have been taken which are unaccounted for and completely lacking in clarity and transparency. I make no judgment on the London Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, but I know of councils represented primarily by my own party where that has been the case. In a neighbouring council to the noble Baroness's own, in which we currently sit, it was not long ago transparently the case that all decisions were taken behind closed doors; in fact, behind one particular closed door, if I recall. That was Westminster City
1192
Council. The rest of the Conservative group did not know what was going on, let alone the rest of the council as a whole.
I therefore believe that there are problems with the old structure and that there are probably more problems in those areas resistant to change. Our proposals will not mean that councillors are disfranchised or downgraded. The whole council will set the broad policy and the budget. Every councillor will be represented. If they are in scrutiny roles, they will be in a more powerful position to scrutinise the decisions of the executive than they were as junior members of the committee.
The Bill is a proposal for change. The role of councillors will be changed. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, asked whether the role of officers would be changed. That is not essentially the case. Officers will, of course, continue to serve the full council. We have explained in our guidance that councils will have to consider carefully the structure of support officers in relation to their own particular form of executive structure, but the principle remains that officers serve the whole council.
I turn now to Amendment No. 13, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred. I believe that she was hoping that it approximated more to the fourth option proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and perhaps also to the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon. I do not believe that the amendment fulfils their purpose. As I understand the point made in the Joint Committee to which the noble Earl referred, it related specifically to councils which had no real tradition of one party control or dominant party control. The Joint Committee put that forward for that particular situation. The noble Baroness's option is of course a far more generalised option, but the members of the Joint Committee recognised that there should be arrangements for a council manager—in other words, an option which is already there and which already has a wide variety of forms.
The Bill explicitly provides executive arrangements for an elected mayor and a council. That will probably be appropriate in relation to the kind of council to which I believe the noble Earl referred. I do not believe that the amendment fulfils the fourth option ambitions of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, because it is too loosely drafted—as perhaps the noble Baroness herself was hinting—not to exclude entirely something which is close to backsliding to a committee-based structure.
We are at a crucial point in the Bill. For the Government, this is a crucial issue in the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord does not pursue his amendment. If he does, he needs to know and understand that he is challenging a central part of the Bill. The Government will resist the amendment and will continue to resist such amendments during the passage of the Bill. I therefore must oppose Amendment No. 10 which he moved. I oppose Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 for the reasons I have outlined. The Government would also oppose Amendment No. 13. I do not believe that

1193
Amendment No. 13, as drafted, achieves what a number of noble Lords were hoping for. I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue his amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may take him up briefly on his last point. I shall not go down the road of speculating whether Lady Porter is a good example of what was close to an elected mayor.
The Minister referred to the question of local authorities with no overall control or where there is a tradition of independence, and commented on my amendment. Will he confirm that the Government have made no attempt themselves to come up with an amendment? I am perfectly happy to accept criticism of my drafting, but I should prefer to have drafting from the Government to which we could respond. I am glad to see support being indicated from the Cross Benches.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government are not in favour of a fourth option. There are a whole range of options under our structure. In so far as we recognise that there may be other options, there are provisions in the Bill. If councils come up with further options which meet our requirements, we are prepared to regulate for them. We are not in favour of a specific fourth option, but in any case I do not believe that the drafting of the amendment confirms to our principles.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, we have had yet another long and interesting debate on this subject. It is right that we should have done so. In my opening remarks I said that we were at the heart of the Bill. The debate on these amendments is at the heart of the principles of the Bill and much more at the heart of the principles of democracy.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, talked about not waiting for London and remarked on the work of Camden Council in that area. Its members came to the completely unanimous conclusion that the arrangements under the Bill would not help them forward much. My noble friend Lord Onslow was quite clear about the reaction of his local authority in Guildford. The noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, came out with the fact that the Joint Committee which considered the draft Bill before it came to the House was also of the view that compulsion was perhaps not the proper way forward.
My noble friend Lady Hanham mentioned the importance of councillors actually wanting to do the work and questioned whether under the new arrangements the job of being a councillor would be as attractive as it has been. The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, gave a good resume of the different systems available in the Bill. I have acknowledged that I have no complaint with any of them. But he did not address the issue of why the Bill has to compel local authorities to make a change. Therefore, I believe that he rather missed the point of the debate.
My noble friend Lord Hanningfield, who is vice-chairman of the Local Government Association and therefore intimately involved in what is going on in
1194
local government at the present time, talked about the lack of support that there is in local government among councillors for the executive scrutiny split. I am sorry for the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, who is torn two ways on this issue. When the matter comes to issue in the next moment or two, he will find he has to vote one way or the other. Of course, I hope that he will find himself able to vote with our side.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, said that I seemed to be arguing that London was inspiring. Let us just deal with London. The inspiration that is coming out of the current interest in London has two causes. They are very simple. The first concerns the Government's machinations to try to produce a result that they thought was desirable, if necessary with complete disregard for the views of the members of the London Labour Party. I think that is arrogance of a high order. The second reason that is stimulating interest is the arrival of Mr Ken Livingstone on the scene as a candidate. Apart from the fact that we had a huge Bill, which brought this situation into being, neither of those two facts actually has any general relevance to local government. I agree that they have stimulated enormous interest, but I suspect that the Minister, who is smiling at me rather nicely, would agree that the interest is all of the wrong sort.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, rightly raised the role of the staff who work for local government. The changes that will come about as a result of this Bill are not, and cannot be, defined within it and local authorities will have to find a solution to that problem themselves. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, rightly questioned how attractive the role of a scrutineer will be to the electors, and I do not know the answer.
So we come to the Minister. He rightly said, as I did at the beginning, that these amendments go to the heart of the Bill. Of course they do: I do not doubt that. Nothing in these amendments does anything to invalidate any of the proposals that the Government are making—nothing—but these amendments do give local councils and local communities the right to make their own determination on the matter. That is a cause in which I believe in passionately, and it is one on which I think we should test the view of this House.
5.33 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 144; Not-Contents, 82.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Beaumont of Whitley L

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Bell, L.

Ampthill, L.

Blackburn, Bp.

Astor of Hever, L.

Blaker, L.

Attlee, E.

Bledisloe, V.

Avebury, L.

Boardman, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Bowness, L.

Barker, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

1195

Bradshaw, L.

Lucas, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Luke, L.

Bridges, L.

Lyell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Burnham, L.

McConnell, L.

Buscombe, B.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Butterworth, L.

Maddock, B.

Byford, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Methuen, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Chadlington, L.

Monson, L.

Chilver, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Montrose, D.

Clement-Jones, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Northbrook, L.

Colwyn, L.

Northesk, E.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Courtown, E.

Onslow, E.

Cowdrey of Tonbridge, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Crathorne, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Patten, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Dholakia, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Powell of Bayswater, L.

Elles, B.

Rawlings, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rees, L.

Elton, L.

Rennard, L

Erroll, E.

Renton, L.

Ezra, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Falkland, V.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Fookes, B.

Rotherwick, L.

Freeman, L.

Russell, E.

Garel-Jones, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Geddes, L.

Seecombe, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Selborne, E.

Goodhart, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Goschen, V.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hamwee, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hanham, B

Stewartby, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Swinfen, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Tebbit, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Tenby, V.

Haslam, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Higgins, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hogg, B.

Tope, L. [Teller]

Hooper, B.

Tordoff, L.

Howe, E.

Tugendhat, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Vivian, L.

Inglewood, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Jacobs, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Weatherill, L.

Kelvedon, L.

Wharton, B.

Kingsland, L.

Wilcox, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Liverpool, E.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alli, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Amos, B.

Brookman, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Burlison, L.

Bach, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Barnett, L.

Christopher, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Blackstone, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Brett, L.

Crawley, B.

1196

David, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Desai, L.

Diamond, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Donoughue, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Evans of Watford, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Paul, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Peston, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Puttnam, L.

Filkin, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gale, B.

Rea, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Richard, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Harrison, L.

Sawyer, L.

Serota, B.

Haskel, L.

Sewel, L.

Hayman, B.

Shepherd, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Simon, V.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hoyle, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Turner of Camden, B.

Uddin, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Warner, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Whitaker, B.

Lipsey, L.

Whitty, L.

Lockwood, B.

Wilkins, B.

Longford, E.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.43 p.m.
Clause 9 [Executive arrangements]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 5, line 12, at end insert ("which determines to adopt executive arrangements").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Local authority executives]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 5, line 20, leave out ("must") and insert ("may").
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I was prepared to accept that Amendment No. 11 can be seen as consequential to the previous decision but, although Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 were grouped for convenience with Amendments Nos. 10 and 11, we would not accept them as consequential.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am now puzzled as to how one should proceed. I certainly had no responsibility for the groupings. If we must vote again, so be it. The groupings for the amendments were put together by officials acting on behalf of the Government. It seems to me that under the conventions of the House a group would normally be taken together, but I am open to correction.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the groupings are agreed for the purposes of debate, but procedurally it is correct to say that the only amendments in a group that

1197
automatically follow a victory or a defeat are those that are directly consequential. Although Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 are in the group for the purpose of debate, they are not actually consequential on the decision on Amendment No. 10.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, in that case I beg to move Amendment No. 12.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 5, line 42, at end insert—
("() It may take such form as the local authority considers, after it has taken reasonable steps to consult local government electors and other interested persons in the authority's area, will—

(a) enhance decision-making.

(b) meet the principles of transparency, accountability and efficiency, and

(c) be appropriate to local circumstances.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, perhaps it is worth repeating, as some noble Lords are not always aware of the position, that these amendments are not directly consequential. Therefore, we have done the correct thing procedurally and in terms of the sense of the House.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Chief Whip. He has also taught me a lesson and it is a useful one to learn.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 14:
Before Clause 12, insert the following new clause—
DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS: REPORT OF IMMEDIATE ACTION
(" . Where a decision by or on behalf of an executive of a local authority requires immediate action by the authority, the decision and action shall be reported to the chairman of the relevant overview and scrutiny committee on the same day.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, both Amendment No. 14 and the Liberal Democrat Amendment No. 16 deal with the issue of urgency of action and how urgent action is to be reported to the local scrutiny committee. In future, overview and scrutiny will become an important function because, despite what happened with the earlier amendment, we can be satisfied that the executive scrutiny split will increasingly be adopted by local councils. That being the case, the work of the scrutineers will become more and more significant.
However, there is always the problem of urgent action. On many occasions an executive working under the new rules may well be required to take a decision that requires immediate implementation. Amendment No. 14 seeks to deal with that situation simply by requiring that the decision and the action be reported to the chairman of the relevant overview and scrutiny committee on the same day as the decision is
1198
taken and the action takes place. I do not believe that that is an unreasonable imposition. It would ensure that transparency was improved. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, Amendment No. 16 is included in this group. Unless there are arrangements for allowing an overview and scrutiny committee to call in—to use the terminology—a decision by the executive, the powers of that committee are somewhat hollow. My amendment, which builds on one that I moved at the previous stage of the Bill, provides that unless a matter is urgent it should not be implemented in fewer than eight days. That would allow for it to be called in and referred to the council or a committee under Clause 19(3). The objection to the amendment in the form in which it was tabled at the previous stage seemed to be that to use a monitoring officer of the local authority to certify whether a matter was urgent was not appropriate and that decisions about obtaining advice, for instance, by the executive should not be delayed.
This new amendment seeks to meet both those points. It provides that,
"Unless the matter is certified by a proper officer of the authority";
and that officer will be the monitoring officer unless the authority designated another officer or officers. So it will be not only a "proper officer" technically, but also the appropriate officer. The amendment provides also that,
"This section shall not apply to decisions solely requiring the preparation of advice or the undertaking of research".
If the system is to be seen not to allow old-style decisions in smoke-filled private rooms, it must allow for call-in by the overview and scrutiny committee. The term "overview" is therefore important. It must allow for call-in on an effective basis.
The Government have been passionate in their advocacy of the good workings of their proposed new system. We will see what the outcome of the recent amendments is. If an overview and scrutiny committee is to do its job properly and take local authorities beyond the days when decisions were taken in private and were not questioned, and were not as transparent and accountable as we would like to see, a provision such as this must be included in the Bill.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, is not in his place. When I was asking him about his view of executives during the last debate, he said that it would be fine if they met in public because they would be subject to subsequent scrutiny. Amendment No. 16 allows for exactly that. The Bill as drafted does not allow for subsequent scrutiny until the moment has passed.
The recent LGA survey—Local Leadership, Local Choice—shows that 60 per cent of councils are running their executives as a majority party executive. Amendment No. 16 would allow that decision to be open not only to local members, who would therefore be re-enfranchised in terms of knowing what the

1199
decision was and being able to take part in discussion on it, but also to opposition members. We have said a great deal about the disadvantages of the one-party state and the opposition not having a voice. It will not be much use if that voice can only be exercised weeks after the event to much less effect. I therefore support Amendment No. 16.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am afraid that I must oppose these amendments. I see some coalition politics opposite as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, regains his normal place.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I hope that is not a criticism of co-operation and an attempt to make the work of the Chamber move smoothly.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, when a degree of cooperation operates between ourselves and the Liberal Democratic Benches, the Benches opposite usually remark on it. I am returning the compliment.
Lord Tope: My Lords, why does the Minister think it was a "co-operative" move?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am afraid that I must oppose both of these amendments. Indeed, I am not entirely sure what Amendment No. 14 would achieve. Any decision would be recorded. It would be made publicly available for scrutiny and the overview and scrutiny committee could therefore decide whether or not to ask the executive to explain its actions. As it stands, the amendment suggests that if the executive asked, for example, for a bit of research to be done or for some further information to be gathered, it would need to inform the chair of the overview and scrutiny committee. That surely cannot be the intention, but it is the implication of the clause.
If the intention is to avoid decisions of the executive being called in, then it does not achieve that either. The overview and scrutiny committee has substantial powers. It could call in members of the executive at any time it wished. It could have them before it every day to explain their decisions and it could invite the press and the public as well. The overview and scrutiny committee does not lack powers in this area and the consequence of Amendment No. 14 therefore is not clear.
Amendment No. 16 would delay implementation by five days. As the noble Baroness said, we discussed a similar amendment on Report. I am relieved that the amendment was altered so that decisions that simply require officers to work up proposals for future action will no longer be delayed. However, the new addition, while sensible, does not remove my fundamental objection to it; namely, that urgent decisions should not be delayed while seeking a proper officer to confirm that the matter is urgent. Indeed, I am not sure that it should be the role of any officer to pass judgment on the urgency of decisions taken by the executive. It will be for the executive to justify the urgency of its decision, if required to do so, by the overview and scrutiny committee.
1200
Noble Lords are anticipating problems which may not arise. We explained in our draft guidance that councils should set out in their arrangements how soon decisions should be recorded and made available and that generally there should be a delay between a decision being taken and being implemented so as to allow the overview and scrutiny committee time to call in decisions. To impose the kind of constraints implied by these amendments would not be appropriate in primary legislation. It is for councils to work out the best way of achieving that. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will not press the amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, responded to my amendment by telling me that the consequences it would bring about are not clear. But the consequences are quite simple. First, there would be absolutely no delay; secondly, the scrutineering side of the authority would have immediate knowledge of what was going on. That is all that was intended.
The Minister said that it will be for the executive to justify the urgency to the overview and scrutiny committee. That may be right, but doing it one or two months later is really a bit late and would not be satisfactory. However, he offered the siren words, "It is for the local authority to decide how it makes the arrangements". That is something with which I am happy to agree. I make the blithe assumption, though it is probably sometimes incorrect, that proceedings in this House are valid and that even local authorities will pay attention to what is said in this Chamber. With that, I am happy to have had the debate and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 [Discharge of functions: s.10(5) executive]:
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 10, line 22, leave out ("includes") and insert ("may include").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, concern has been expressed by members of my party and the Welsh Assembly as to whether the prescriptive nature of Part II would act as a fetter upon the way in which local government is organised in Wales. Perhaps that fear has been overtaken by events and by the votes we had recently where some degree of discretion has been introduced into the English provisions.
Perhaps I may follow that through. The National Assembly for Wales would have power, under Clause 10(5) of the Bill, to prescribe a form in regulations by which executive arrangements are to be made. As I understand it there is cross-party agreement in the National Assembly for Wales that the form of executive arrangements for Wales should mirror the machinery that has been introduced into the Welsh Assembly. It is thought it would be useful if the 22 local unitary authorities in Wales operated in a way similar

1201
to that in which the Assembly itself works. Consequently, when one turns to Clause 15,
"Discharge of functions: x.10(5) executive",
it is my concern that subsection (2) should not make it mandatory that the provisions referred to in that subsection should necessarily mirror the provisions of Clauses 12, 13 or 14.
I do not think that, as drafted, the subsection does that. I believe that it is the intention to put a straitjacket on the provisions to be made under those regulations. However, the purpose of my amendment to delete the word "includes" in line 22 and insert "may include" was to put beyond all question that the nature of those regulations would be within the discretion of the National Assembly for Wales and would not be bound by the terms of the primary legislation now going through the House.
If the Minister can give me an assurance that nothing in this subsection constricts in any way that discretion, I shall be happy not to pursue the matter. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that I can reassure the noble Lord. Clause 15(2) does not require provisions similar to Clauses 12, 13 and 14; it merely enables such provision to be made. The subsection in question states that such provision,
"may be made by regulations",
not that it must be made by regulations. Moreover, Clause 15(3) states that nothing in subsection (2) restricts the general nature of the powers set out in subsection (1). That means that subsection (2), which the noble Lord seeks to amend, does not restrict the scope of the regulation power simply to applying or reproducing the provisions set out in Clauses 12, 13 and 14, with or without modifications. I believe that the objective of the noble Lord's amendment has been met in the Bill as it stands.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. It certainly removes concerns that may have been expressed in Cardiff. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 16:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause—
IMPLEMENTATION OF DECISIONS BY A LOCAL AUTHORITY UNDER EXECUTIVE ARRANGEMENTS
(" .—(1) Unless the matter is certified by a proper officer of the authority to be urgent, no decision by a local authority taken under its executive arrangements shall be implemented within less than five working days after the decision.
(2) The proper officer of an authority for the purposes of subsection (1) shall be its monitoring officer unless the authority has designated another officer or officers.
(3) This section shall not apply to decisions solely requiring the preparation of advice or the undertaking of research.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, when the Minister responded to this amendment in a previous grouping he voiced his concern about delays while awaiting a decision of the proper officer. As is the case at present, nothing will be in place to prevent the executive from agreeing to delegation either to an individual member of the executive or to an officer. The overview and scrutiny committee is likely to agree to any sensible delegation.
I have to tell the Minister that I do not believe that that criticism provides an adequate response to what I believe to be a very important issue. The Minister has been good enough to acknowledge that the rest of my amendment, at least in its spirit and intention if not in the technical sense, meets the points made by the Minister at the previous stage. If the Government, as I do, truly saw that the issue of delay while waiting for the certification of a proper officer is important, they would have brought forward a form of words to tackle that. I do not believe that this point cannot be addressed. In the hope that the Minister will be able to give me further reassurance, I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Baroness has alighted on one of my objections to introducing such an amendment to Clause 16 relating to the designation of an appropriate officer. It may well be that the overview and scrutiny committee or even the council as a whole may be prepared to delegate such responsibility to an officer, but I do not think that it is the role of primary legislation to require those bodies to do so. This is basically a procedural issue.
I simply repeat that different councils will arrange these matters in different ways. It is important that the Bill leaves them the flexibility to ensure that that is the case. If such a provision is prescribed on the face of the Bill, we will inhibit proper co-operation between the overview and scrutiny committee and the executive rather than enhance it.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I fear that I am not convinced by that response. There is already a great deal of prescription in the Bill and I am not convinced when I hear the Minister say that it is not appropriate for primary legislation to prescribe in this area. I do not believe that this is a peripheral matter. It goes to the heart of how authorities operate. For that reason, I should like to test the opinion of the House.
6.4 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 16) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 73; Not-Contents, 76.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Avebury, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Barker, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Bowness, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

1203

Clement-Jones, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B. [Teller]

Courtown, E.

Dholakia, L.

Northbrook, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Northesk, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Elton, L.

Onslow, E.

Ezra, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Falkland, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Flather, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Fookes, B.

Rawlings, B.

Geddes, L.

Rees, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Rennard, L

Renton, L.

Goodhart, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Hamwee, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Hanham, B

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Russell, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Seccombe, B.

Haslam, L.

Sharman, L.

Howe, E.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Kingsland, L.

Swinfen, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Liverpool, E.

Tope, L. [Teller]

Lucas, L.

Tordoff, L.

Luke, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Lyell, L.

Vivian, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Maddock, B.

Wilcox, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Methuen, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alli, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Amos, B.

Ampthill, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Lipsey, L.

Bach, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Blackstone, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Brett, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Brookman, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Burlison, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Milner of Leeds, L.

Christopher, L.

Peston, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Puttnam, L.

Crawley, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

David, B.

Rea, L.

Desai, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Diamond, L.

Richard, L.

Donoughue, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Eatwell, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Sawyer, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Shepherd, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Simon, V.

Filkin, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gale, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Harrison, L.

Uddin, B.

Haskel, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Hayman, B.

Warner, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Howells of St Davids, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Whitaker, B.

Hoyle, L.

Whitty, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Wilkins, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Williams of Elvel, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.15 p.m.
Clause 19 [Overview and scrutiny committees]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 13, line 7, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) An overview and scrutiny committee may discharge any functions imposed or permitted by the authority other than functions which are the responsibility of an executive of the authority under executive arrangements or functions specified by the Secretary of State in regulations.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the functions of the overview and scrutiny committees. Clause 19(4) provides that an overview and scrutiny committee,
"may not discharge any functions other than its functions under this section".
At the last stage, we sought to tip the coin and reverse the matter so that certain functions were those which the committee could not undertake provided that they were designated by the Secretary of State. That would have allowed the committee to undertake other functions not so specified, provided that the local authority—the council—so designated them.
The Minister objected to that earlier version of the amendment because he said that allowing the overview and scrutiny committee to take on other functions would mean that it would take on executive functions, which would not be appropriate. I have sought to deal with that in this version of the amendment, which says:
"An overview and scrutiny committee may discharge any functions imposed or permitted by the authority other than functions which are the responsibility of an executive of the authority under executive arrangements or functions specified by the Secretary of State in regulations".
These matters that the overview and scrutiny committee may not take on have been dealt with as carefully as possible so as to accept the executive/scrutiny split that the Government are promoting, while still allowing the Secretary of State to specify functions—not necessarily executive functions—which he regards as not being appropriate for the committee.
I was concerned on the last occasion, and remain so, that the Government are so sure that everything is hunky-dory. When we debated the previous version of this amendment, the Minister acknowledged that there were still matters that the Government were considering. We talked a little about the client/contractor split and the noble Lord acknowledged that the Government are considering the implications involved and how they may be dealt with by the executive/scrutiny split. He said:
"There may be some edges which need to be made clearer in the final guidance".[Official Report, 28/2/00; col. 430.]
I do not believe that it should be a matter for guidance; indeed, I do not even believe that it can be, given the way that Clause 19(4) is drafted. I said then that I admired the Government's confidence that they had got this Bill absolutely perfect.
I do not want to descend into un-parliamentary language, but I feel that the Government are being perhaps rather narrow in the way that they are approaching the matter. We are not trying by stealth to extend the powers of the overview and scrutiny committee; we are merely attempting by way of this amendment to ensure that, given our own responsibilities for scrutinising legislation, we are not storing up problems for the future when we discover something that an overview and scrutiny committee could usefully do but which no one in this House had thought of. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, if' it has not been obvious, perhaps I may put on record the fact that the Government do not necessarily think that the Bill is absolutely perfect. Indeed, if that were so, we would not have brought forward a number of amendments at various stages in the passage of this Bill. Nevertheless, we think that this attempt by the Liberal Democrats to broaden the role of overview and scrutiny committees—even in the modest way that the noble Baroness suggests in the amendment—is the wrong approach. We need overview and scrutiny committees to deal with just overview and scrutiny. That role needs to be distinct and identifiable. People need to know what that role is and who holds the decision-makers to account.
I appreciate that the noble Baroness has modified her previous approach to this matter, but, nevertheless she seeks to allow overview and scrutiny committees to do what they are not expressly forbidden to do. There are areas of council responsibilities which are not the responsibility of the executive—for example, an exercise in policy review or in moving towards future decisions, or a more regulatory activity of the council—which an overview and scrutiny committee might subsequently wish to review or scrutinise. Had it already been party to that decision or had some responsibility for it, that would blur its role. We should not blur its role on the face of the Bill.
The noble Baroness referred to an earlier discussion on the issue of client contractor relationships for direct services. That is an area that we are considering in the light of the responses we have received to the draft guidance. That issue may need some clarification which I believe is appropriate for guidance. There is flexibility as regards this matter in Clause 11. However, an overview and scrutiny committee would not take responsibility for functions in such arrangements; an ordinary committee of the council appointed by the council would do so, as now.
We believe that to allow overview and scrutiny committees to discharge functions, including those which are not the responsibility of the executive but could be subject to overview and scrutiny, would blur their roles. I therefore do not think that we should open up that possibility in this clause. Flexibility already exists, but the essential role of the overview and scrutiny
1206
committee needs to be preserved. This amendment would put it in doubt; I hope that the noble Baroness does not pursue it.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I shall not pursue the matter but I still have anxieties as to whether we shall get it right. It seems to me that the number of amendments that the Government have had to table and the number of provisions that will be dealt with by regulations makes my case for me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 [Access to information etc.]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 14, line 1, after ("executive,") insert ("or a joint committee or a sub-committee of any such committee,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 18 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 19 to 25 with which it is grouped and which stand in my name. Amendment No. 26, in the name of the Minister, is also grouped with it.
These amendments deal with access to information, the provision of information and the question of transparency, on which we have already touched. On Report the Minister said that my amendment failed to recognise the nature of executive arrangements. I recognise the structure that the Government are putting in place but I take issue with the proposal which sets up executive arrangements and then deals with issues of transparency and accountability as if they were somehow separate or at best semi-detached from the nature of the arrangements themselves. We on these Benches believe that the basic design must ensure transparency and accountability.
Amendment No. 18, refers to,
"a joint committee or a sub-committee of any such committee".
This is a matter on which I seek clarity. The point may have been answered as I believe that the amendment standing in the Minister's name allows for regulations to cover joint committees and their sub-committees. However, the Minister is merely allowing the application of Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972—which deals with access to information—by regulation; and not requiring its application.
Part VA deals fully with admission to meetings, access to agendas and reports, the inspection of minutes and documents after a meeting, the inspection of background documents and additional access for members. Much of this is touched on in Clause 20 of the Bill, but none of the provisions, with the exception of Clause 20(1), will certainly be applied. The other provisions are subject to regulation. Clause 20(1) simply states,
"Meetings of a local authority executive, or a committee of such an executive, are to be open to the public or held in private".
Therein lies our objection; namely, the only thing that is certain is that the meetings may be held in private.
The Department of the Environment, as it used to be called, undertook research in 1995 to evaluate the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985. A

1207
number of its findings appeared to give the Act a pretty clean bill of health, although I shall in a moment mention some of its recommendations for improvement. The summary of the document stated:
"The Act was found to be effective in establishing minimum standards for openness and accountability, with which all local authorities appear to be complying".
The document further stated that,
"the Act facilitated a transition to more open attitudes and working practices".
However, it also stated that,
"More could be done to facilitate access to information".
It further stated that,
"Members of the public and the press use their rights under the Act, although local authorities perceive the take-up to be low".
I accept that, although I emphasise that a low take-up does not mean that a provision has no merit; quite the contrary. The document further stated:
"Steps taken by local authorities to meet the requirements of the Act, and even to exceed them, had generally been achieved without incurring significant additional costs".
As I say, that seems to me to be a pretty good approval rating for the Act.
The document made a number of recommendations. It stated:
"Authorities should review their overall approach to … take account of the different objectives of information provision: public relations, accountability and informing people about services".
The document proposed that,
"Authorities might benefit from a review of the extent to which … they actively make information accessible … Authorities might also consider their approach to public participation, involvement and consultation".
I do not take issue with any of that, but it seeks to improve on what is not too bad a position, although it can, of course, always be improved.
I believe that Clause 20(10) is the most important part of the clause. It defines "prescribed". That term crops up quite often in the clause. Clause 20(10) states that,
"'prescribed' means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State".
Clause 20(6),(7),(8) and (9) refers to regulations. Clause 20(8)(a) gives the game away as it states that,
"The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision",
with regard to access to meetings,
"including provision enabling such meetings to be held in private".
I believe that these matters should be dealt with in primary legislation, not by regulation, as this clause provides. To the uninformed reader it may appear to be rather a long clause; it covers a page and a half. The provisions of the Act are, of necessity, much longer. It seems to me that either the Government have not had enough time to draw up the detail which needs to underpin the provisions of Clause 20 as printed in the Bill—if that is the case, that is not good enough, although there will be an opportunity to rectify the matter in another place—or they are simply not sufficiently enthusiastic as regards the importance of the issue.
Access to information affords protection to the public. It affords protection to the media, who in turn pass information to the public. It is protection for other councillors, who serve the public and are part of the whole process. Access after the event to the decisions of a "strong mayor"—I put the term in inverted commas; we have been using it as jargon—and access after the event to the reasons for the decisions, are a poor substitute. Accountability every four years, or perhaps more frequently, at the ballot box will not rectify a lack of knowledge at the time that that knowledge would count. I beg to move Amendment No. 18.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, the Government have often quoted that the reason for bringing in the Bill is to improve the relationship between the public and local authorities. I should like to dwell for a moment on the fundamental role that residents see their local authority playing. They see their councillors as people who make decisions. Up until now, they have often been seen as not very accountable—here I agree with the Minister—because decisions have been made behind closed doors in smoked-filled rooms. Councillors' postbags are full of letters from residents who write in and say, "When you make a decision, will you please take this matter into account?". They have the agendas of meetings, not only on regulatory issues, which I know will not be subject to this same discipline, but on all manner of issues.
It is noticeable that usually it is one letter per citizen. Residents in a council's area do not write in frequently on all kinds of subjects; they will write in once about something on the council's agenda that particularly concerns them and on which they would like to have some influence. It' the Government include in the Bill a provision for the executives to meet in private, particularly the executives of a majority party—which, as I said, will be some 60 per cent of executives—the public will be no better served in councils which operate such a system. For them it will be a very poor second to hear that the scrutiny committee will consider the views of other members of the council, which will probably include their elected councillor. They will question what they elected that councillor for, and the relationship between local authorities and the public will be further damaged. This process of modernisation has led people to believe that they will have a closer relationship with their local authorities and that they will be included more in meetings.
The more successful local authorities are those which have done their best to go out to meet the public in places to which they have easy access—community halls and so on—and to make their meetings public friendly. It is noticeable that the public will turn out when they feel they will have some influence on the decisions to be made. On the whole, the public are not interested in being part of the ongoing discussions about scrutiny and policy making. Why should they be? They have elected people to do that job. A remark often heard is, "You were elected to make that

1209
decision. I just want to put my point of view to you, as my councillor, and I hope that you will put forward my view to the council".
If an executive is able to meet in private, this cycle of events will not happen and many of the benefits of accountability that the Government believe will come out of the Bill will be lost. The public will see that important decisions are made by executives meeting in private, in those authorities that allow them to do so. The last time this matter was discussed the Minister said that the issue was not whether meetings are held in public or private but accountability. The kind of accountability the public want is where they can see, hear and be part of the process of decision making; they do not want to know who made the decisions and to receive some dry papers only after the event.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I support my colleague's amendments. Grouped with them is a government amendment, and I should like to give the Minister an opportunity to clarify the Government's intentions in a number of respects.
I understand that the proposed regulations could not override subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 20 which allow executives to choose to make all formal decisions in private. Can the Minister say whether the Government intend to require executives to make any categories of decision in public?
There are other elements of the existing legislation which could be used. For instance, do the Government intend to use regulations to require public notice of the time and place of executive meetings to be posted at least three days before the meeting? Do the Government intend regulations to include the requirement that copies of the agenda and any reports for the meetings of the executive are to be available for public inspection at least three clear days in advance; and that copies of these agendas and reports are available to all members of the council at least as soon as they are available to the public? Do the Government intend regulations made on the keeping and publication of records of decisions to incorporate aspects of Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972? Do the Government intend the regulations to define enforcement and penalties as they are defined in that part of the Local Government Act 1972, and so on?
I hope that when the Minister responds he will be able to answer some at least of these questions, and perhaps write to me on others. I hope that he will be clearer about the Government's intentions for these regulations, should their amendment be successful.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it might be helpful if I speak first to Amendment No. 26, which stands in my name. In a sense, that will cover some of the aspects, including some of those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tope.
Regulations made under Clause 20 as a result of my amendment, if adopted, will be able to apply parts of the existing access to information provisions—including those in regard to issues such as penalties, timings and so on—to, for example, meetings of the
1210
executive held in public. We have already set out on the face of the Bill the key provisions we should like to apply to meetings and decisions of the executive. The executive may choose whether to meet in private or public. Where it meets and takes decisions in private, or where decisions are taken by an individual member, such decisions must be recorded and made public, together with the reasons and the relevant background papers. It is made clear in subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 20 that the prescribed decisions must be recorded and must be made publicly available.
My amendment would assist also in the making of broader regulations. It would allow us to specify in regulations that where an executive chooses to meet in public, the existing access to information regime covering public meetings would apply, as it would to other council committees. On Report, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, asked me for explicit confirmation on that point. I am glad to reassure him and to reiterate our intentions. This amendment should satisfy his concerns.
The noble Baroness's amendment, in effect—she would probably not dispute this—seeks to apply the existing Part VA of the Local Government Act regulations to decisions taken under the new structure. The whole point of the executive structure is its flexibility. Reading across those provisions directly would not ensure, for example, that where an individual member of the executive takes a decision, that individual is held to account for that decision or even has to make a record of it. That is one example of where the traditional provisions would not be appropriate and would not meet the enhanced accountability that we are seeking for our decision-takers.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, asked whether agendas would be circulated in advance. Again, to some extent that misses the point of the committee. Certainly one might make regulations in relation to the agenda of the committee, but many of those decisions will be taken by individual members of the executive. We shall be consulting on the regulations for the procedure of the committee—whether it should be private or public—but the point about agendas misses the implications of how the executive would function in many respects.
The whole of the debate, at earlier stages and today, misses the point that the totality of the new executive arrangements will identify both the decisions and the persons responsible for those decisions in a much clearer way than is the case at the moment. The totality of the arrangements brings greater transparency than the present arrangements where accountability and clarity of decision-making are not apparent. Simply applying the traditional access to information regime under the 1972 Act, as the noble Baroness's amendments intend, would fail to recognise the nature of the executive. My amendment would allow us to use some of the existing provisions, so that, for example, meetings were held in public subject to the same provisions, but we would need different kinds of

1211
regulations in relation to the other aspects of decision-making and accountability. I do not think that the noble Baroness's amendment would be appropriate and I ask her not to pursue it.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the Minister has told us that the point of the executive is flexibility. But—and I have probably said this before in the course of the proceedings on the Bill—local authorities are not the same as plcs. There are different standards and different criteria. I do not believe that one should read over into local authorities the imperatives for immediate action that directors of a company might often feel would be overriding criteria.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not know what it was in my remarks that implied that I was reading across into local government the regulations for company directors. I certainly was not.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am glad to hear that. I made the point because it seems that many of these arrangements seek to reflect how life is carried on in different sectors.
The Minister said that I missed the point. I do not think that I missed the point. I disagree with the point. He told us that different regulations are needed under a new regime. As I have said before, the 1985 Act succeeded in spelling out what was required as a matter of primary legislation. I do not believe that it is adequate or appropriate to leave to regulations a matter of such importance, particularly given the framework of a clause which states that meetings can be held in private—there may be provisions under the regulations for meetings to be held in private. That is not appropriate. I do not for a moment suggest that the Minister is attempting to hide anything from the House or that there is any malign motive, but I think that the Government are misguided in their approach to this important matter. We believe that proper access to information and real transparency will go to the benefit of local government. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
6.43 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 18) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 40; Not-Contents, 71.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Falkland, V.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Goodhart, L.

Avebury, L.

Hamwee, B.

Barker, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Bradshaw, L.

Haslam, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Courtown, E.

Lucas, L.

Dholakia, L.

Maddock, B.

1212

Methuen, L.

Russell, E.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B. [Teller]

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Newby, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Northesk, E.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Tope, L. [Teller]

Tordoff, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Vivian, L.

Rennard, L

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alli, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Amos, B.

Ampthill, L.

Jay of Paddington. B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Bach, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Lipsey, L.

Blackstone, B.

Lockwood, B.

Brett, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

McIntosh of Harinaey, L. [Teller]

Brookman, L.

Burlison, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Massey of Darwen, B.

Christopher, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Puttnam, L.

Crawley, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

David, B.

Rea, L.

Desai, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Richard, L.

Eatwell, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Sawyer, L.

Harrington of Ribbleton, B.

Simon, V.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Filkin, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Gale, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Uddin, B.

Harrison, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Haskel, L.

Warner, L.

Hayman, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Whitaker, B.

Howells of St Davids, B.

Whitty, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Wilkins, B.

Hoyle, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 15, line 15, at end insert—
("() The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision which, in relation to meetings of—

(a) local authority executives or committees of such executives, or

(b) joint committees, or sub-committees of such committees, falling within subsection (8)(a),

applies or reproduces (with or without modifications) any provisions of Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 23 [Proposals]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 15. line 39, after ("area,") insert—

1213
("(aa) must consider the extent to which the proposals, if implemented, are likely to assist in securing continuous improvement in the way in which the authority's functions are exercised, having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 which are grouped with it.
We brought forward Amendments Nos. 27, 28 and 29 in response to the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, in Committee and on Report. The noble Lord raised a number of important points in speaking to his amendments during the previous stages. I believe that these amendments will meet the substance of his concerns and will not, therefore, be seen as controversial.
We believe that the new forms of constitution available in Part II of the Bill will lead to more efficient, transparent and accountable local government and that they will reinforce the best value regime in the Local Government Act 1999 for delivering value for money and high-quality services.
At the end of the day, it is outcomes that will be the test of new constitutions. It is right, therefore, that in drawing up proposals for executive arrangements councils should be required to consider how their proposals will affect outcomes.
Amendment No. 27 places exactly such a requirement on the face of the Bill when councils draw up "first time" proposals for executive arrangements. Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 import identical requirements if councils need to draw up detailed fallback proposals in the event of a "no" vote in a referendum.
The amendments draw directly on the wording of the duty of best value in Section 3 of the Local Government Act 1999. They therefore make a direct link between two very important strands of our programme of local government modernisation: best value and new constitutions. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, although I understand what has led to this proposal and, indeed, the need for councils to consider their best value duty, will the Minister confirm that, in drawing up proposals for executive arrangements, local authorities should consider all of their statutory duties and not merely the best value duty?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Yes, my Lords. The reason that we have included this provision is that the noble Lord, Lord Laming, was concerned that we should be explicit on this specific item.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I shall change my name!
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 25 [Referendum in case of proposals involving elected mayor]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 28 and 29:
Page 17, line 23, after ("(3)(a)") insert ("and (aa)")
Page 17, line 26, after ("(3)(a)") insert ("and (aa)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 35 [Elected mayors]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 22, line 5, at end insert—
("(1A) In this Part "elected executive member" means an individual elected as a member of a local authority executive by the local government electors for the authority's area in accordance with the provisions made by or under this Part, but does not include an elected mayor.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 31 to 42 in this group. They are all designed to respond to a request put forward in the form of an amendment at Committee stage by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and in response to those amendments that were designed to extend the Bill's electoral provisions in relation to elected mayors to the election of members of directly elected cabinets, were they to be pursued under Clause 10(5).
In response to those amendments my noble friend Lady Farrington indicated that the Government were sympathetic. The amendments provide for the definition of an "elected executive member" as a person who is elected to a local authority executive by the electors for the whole of the authority's area. These are the directly elected cabinets in the various guises that we have talked about in relation to the possible types of new executive structure that might emerge from local authorities deciding to trigger the provision under Clause 10(5) and the Secretary of State agreeing.
For the avoidance of doubt, I should make it clear that these amendments would not mean that directly elected cabinets would become an option on the face of the Bill. The situation will arise only if Clause 10(5) is triggered. If such regulations were to be made, the amendments to Clauses 35 and 38 will provide that directly elected executive members will have the same electoral franchise and term of office as elected mayors. The amendments to Clauses 36 and 39 will extend the regulation-making powers in those clauses to enable those regulations to deal with the timing and conduct of elections for directly elected cabinets. The amendments would, therefore, cover the contingency of directly elected cabinets emerging under Clause 10(5). I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 22, line 11, after ("mayor") insert ("or elected executive member")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 36 [Time of elections etc.]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 32 to 35:
Page 22, line 14, after ("mayors") insert ("or elected executive members").
Page 22, line 15, at end insert ("or elected executive members").
Page 22, line 16, after ("mayors") insert ("or elected executive members").
Page 22, line 17, at end insert ("or elected executive member").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 38: [Entitlement to vote]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 22, line 35, after ("mayor") insert ("or elected executive member").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 39 [Power to make provision about elections]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 37 to 41:
Page 23, line 3, after ("mayors") insert ("or elected executive members").
Page 23, line 4, after ("mayors") insert ("or elected executive members").
Page 23, line 14, at end insert ("(including elections for the return of elected executive members), and
() for the combination of polls at elections for the return of elected executive members and other elections (including elections for the return of elected mayors).").
Page 23, line 23, after ("mayors") insert ("or elected executive members").
Page 23, line 28, after ("mayor") insert ("or elected executive member").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 43 [Interpretation of Part II]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 24, line 38, at end insert—
(""elected executive member" has the meaning given by section 35(1A),").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 45 [Model code of conduct]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 27, line 17, leave out from ("code") to end of line 19.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 44 to 51, 53 to 91, 93 to 117, 128 to 156, and 158 to 175, which are grouped with it.
The justification for devolution of power to the National Assembly for Wales is to enable the enactment of legislation tailored specifically to Welsh needs and circumstances. The most significant of the government amendments that I propose today reflect the National Assembly's preference for conferring the powers which in England will be exercised by the standards board on the Commission for Local Administration in Wales.
The difference in approach in Wales is driven by the smaller scale of the task there. It is clear that there is unlikely to be a sufficient number of breaches to justify the creation of a separate body. Secondly, following the consultations with local government, the National Assembly concluded that the task of investigating allegations of breaches of the code of conduct would be more efficiently and effectively carried out by the local commissioner and his team of investigating officers and that such a one-stop shop would be more accessible to the public. The amendments are also intended to give the National Assembly the flexibility to make regulations to implement the legislation in a way that reflects Welsh circumstances and requirements.
The inclusion of the specific Welsh provisions and the need to group them also gives rise to a substantial number of consequential and drafting amendments. These have taken the form of distinguishing between the situation in England and Wales and substituting the local commissioner or the Commission for Local Administration in Wales for the Standards Board in England.
I shall now go through the amendments in turn. Amendment No. 43 removes from the face of the Bill the requirement for the Partnership Council to prepare a model code of conduct. This is a superfluous provision as the Government of Wales Act gives the Assembly the power to maintain a Partnership Council. These provisions are sufficient to enable the National Assembly to engage the Partnership Council in the way envisaged to draw up a code of conduct for elected members in local government. The code will be issued by the National Assembly. Amendments Nos. 44, 45 and 46 are consequential drafting amendments to Clause 45.
Amendments Nos. 48 to 58, excluding Amendment No. 52, are consequential amendments resulting from Amendment No. 59 which bring together the provisions relating to standards committees in Wales in a new subsection (13) to Clause 48. This amendments gives the Assembly the power to make regulations governing the operation, size, composition, procedures, chairing etc. of standards committees in Welsh councils.
Amendment No. 60 enables the National Assembly for Wales to issue guidance to standards committees of local authorities in Wales on the exercise of their functions.
Amendment No. 62 allows the standards committees or sub-committees of such committees to discharge functions in relation to community councils and their members which are situated in the area of the county or county borough council concerned. It also requires the principal councils to consult their community councils on whether to use the council's main standards committee or to set up a specific sub-committee to hear allegations against community councils. Amendment No. 61 is a minor consequential drafting change to Clause 50.
Amendments Nos. 47, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69 and 70 through to Amendment No. 85 are minor consequential and drafting amendments resulting from Amendment No. 86. That amendment confers the role of the Standards Board in England on the local commissioner in Wales (local ombudsman). It also provides for the Commission for Local Administration in Wales to issue guidance to local authorities on issues relating to the conduct of elected and co-opted members on councils.
Amendment No. 87 allows the local commissioner in Wales to investigate written allegations of breaches of the code of conduct made against councils' elected members and co-optees. The four possible outcomes of these investigations are the same as those set out in Clause 53(5) for the Standards Board in England.
Amendment No. 88 enables the National Assembly to make orders modifying the restrictions on the disclosure of information in the Local Government Act 1974 to provide the local commissioner with the powers of investigation available to the ethical standards officers in England. This amendment also permits the local commissioner to cease an investigation at any stage before its completion and, where appropriate, to refer the matter to the council's monitoring officer.
Amendment No. 89 applies the existing Clause 58 which applies only to England to Wales as well. It lays out what action the local commissioner should take, including the preparation of reports, depending upon the findings of the investigations.
Amendment No. 90 replicates existing Clause 59, which applies to England. It permits the local commissioner in Wales to issue an interim report if his investigations reveal matters that are sufficiently serious that it is in the public interest to do so. The local commissioner may recommend in such a report a maximum period of suspension of six months on the member concerned. Before any suspension is effective it has to be decided by an interim case tribunal.
Amendment No. 103 provides that when a person who is subject to an interim report appears before an interim case tribunal, the local commissioner will be able to continue with his investigations following a decision of the interim case tribunal.
Amendment No. 91 replicates the existing Clause 60 which applies to England only. It enables the National Assembly for Wales to make regulations in relation to the way in which local authorities' monitoring officers undertake their roles. These regulations could also enable the standards committees of authorities to consider monitoring officers' reports and to take appropriate action, subject to the existence of rights of appeal against their decisions. Amendments Nos. 93 and 94 make minor drafting amendments to Clause 61. Amendments Nos. 95 to 100 are minor drafting amendments to Clause 62.
Amendment No. 101 enables the National Assembly for Wales to fund the secretariat and administrative support for the adjudication panel. This would ensure that it is separate and independent from the local commissioner and the Commission for Local Administration in Wales, whose investigations it will adjudicate upon. Amendments No. 102 and 104 are consequential drafting changes to Clause 64. Amendments Nos. 105 to 110 are consequential drafting amendments.
Amendment No. 112 enables the National Assembly to prescribe in regulations the circumstances in which standards committees may grant dispensations to members to speak and vote at council meetings when they have declared a pecuniary or other interest in the matter being discussed. Amendments Nos. 113 to 115 make minor consequential drafting changes to Clause 69.
Amendment No. 117 provides for the functions of the monitoring officer for community councils in respect of the new ethical framework to be discharged
1218
by the monitoring officer of the county or county borough councils in whose area the community council is located. Amendments Nos. 128 to 175 are minor consequential and drafting amendments to Schedule 3.
As currently drafted, the Bill does not include all the Welsh provisions. We shall bring two further Welsh amendments in the House of Commons to extend the local ombudsman's remit to enable him to hear complaints of maladministration against combined fire authorities and registered social landlords such as housing associations. The proposal to extend the ombudsman's remit to hear complaints from the tenants of registered social landlords in Wales was the subject of consultation and agreement between the National Assembly and the UK Government.
I am very grateful for the courteous, helpful and patient consideration which, in particular, the noble Lords, Lord Roberts of Conwy and Lord Thomas of Gresford, have shown towards me personally. I apologise again. I shall set out a proper procedure for ensuring that this sort of thing does not happen in future. I beg to move.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for taking us through what is, according to my calculation, a total of 115 amendments in this grouping. As the noble Baroness explained, some are more important than others. She will be relieved to know that at least I agree with the main purpose of the amendments and the decision to hand over the functions of the standards board in Wales to the Local Government Commission. The commission already has the ability to deal with complaints from the public about maladministration in local government. The commission has a close and intimate knowledge of the 22 local authorities in Wales. The present commissioner, Mr Moseley, enjoys a high reputation for integrity and fairness, and I believe that the proposed extension of powers to cover the field of standards sits well with his current duties.
I am glad to hear that the duties of the commission are to be extended further by later amendments in the other place. The commissioner is appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Secretary of State and, therefore, has an independent status. By way of reminiscence, there was a time when local authorities did not always accept his judgment in cases of maladministration when he was critical of them. I understand that those days have passed with the advent of legislative changes that require authorities to publish their reasons if they disagree with the commissioner's findings. In short, I believe that to take over the functions of the standards board is to complement the powers of the commissioner by virtue of his present office. I commend the National Assembly for its decision, I believe that it is right in its recommendation.
Currently, if a councillor behaves badly he can be named and shamed by a mention in a commission report. Under this Bill he can be punished under the adjudication panel procedure. If he breaks the code to

1219
be laid down in model form by the National Assembly, after consultation with the local authorities and other bodies as specified in Clause 44(4), the punishment is suspension under an interim report with possibly worse to follow. At the moment, the commissioner has a small staff of about half a dozen researchers and a similar number of secretarial typists. I hope that we shall not see a huge increase in staff as a result of the additional duties imposed on the commission. However, like other Members of your Lordships' House I should like to see the commission well able to carry out its functions.
I have noticed one substantial difference. In Wales we shall not have ethical standards officers but the commission will have the powers which attach to those individuals. I am sure that through his staff the commissioner will be able to carry out equivalent or similar functions. There is a further extension, in that community councils are also brought into the frame. It is quite right that, limited though their powers may be, those councils, which are equivalent to parish councils in England, should be brought into the frame. About 800 community councils in Wales are in receipt of council taxpayers' money which is raised by the county authorities. Therefore, I believe that there should be an arrangement whereby the county standards committee, or a sub-committee, has oversight of the community councils. Community councillors should be subject to the same standards as councillors of other authorities.
In Amendments Nos. 86 to 91 there are some very important new clauses which spell out how investigations are to be conducted. On first reading what emerged was the importance of the local authority monitoring officer and the need for him or her to be a person of unquestionable integrity and independence and to have the trust and backing of the authority's standards committee. Regrettably, in Wales there are certain local authorities where low standards have become the norm. I have in mind one South Wales local authority where half, if not more, of the elected members were subject to police investigations at the same time. I hope that the National Assembly makes regulations, in accordance with Amendment No. 91, to indicate how matters referred to a monitoring officer are to be dealt with. He will require strong backing from outside the authority in certain circumstances. He may also be directed by the Local Government Commissioner as to how matters should be dealt with.
I have studied the amendments as closely as I can in the time available. I acknowledge the help provided to me by the Government at a late hour. It is, nevertheless, welcome for all that. I agree that the amendments improve the Bill in one way; namely, they place the onus for issuing a model code squarely on the National Assembly, following consultation with local authorities, the Audit Commission, the Commission for Local Administration and other appropriate bodies. It would have been wrong, surely, to leave the partnership council with the initiative to produce the model code, because that body includes members of
1220
local authorities as well as members of the National Assembly. It is much better that the National Assembly alone bears a clear responsibility for producing the model code.
We shall study these changes further, as will others in Wales who no doubt will in time give us the benefit of their views. Some of these are key amendments which reflect the procedures to be followed by the standards board in England. We benefit from the extensive debates which have taken place in your Lordships' House on the duties and responsibilities of the board in England. If there are defects in the amendments which have been tabled at a fairly late stage—the bulk of them yesterday—I hope that the Government will bring forward any changes that they feel are necessary. I am sure that any defects will be pointed out to us and Members in the other place by the Welsh electorate when it has had time to study the matter. Meanwhile, we are prepared to give these amendments a fair wind.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for the advance notice of the amendments and the helpful discussions. As the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, mentioned, the path of local authorities in Wales has not been entirely smooth over the past two or three years. I am grateful for the assistance given in Wales by my colleague Michael Farmer QC, in one of the authorities where problems emerged. I welcome the provision of a model code which I hope will ensure that such matters do not arise again.
I am also grateful for the widespread consultation on the provisions with the National Assembly for Wales. It is unfortunate that these matters come forward at a late stage. I hope that through discussion we shall be able to create a machinery which does not give rise to such problems. It is important that this House should have the opportunity for advance notice and full consideration of these matters. I hope that by discussion we shall be able to arrive at an agreed procedure.
I look to the National Assembly for Wales being able to consider in draft form legislation which affects Wales, a situation provided for somewhat more concisely than in the Bill. Providing that the National Assembly for Wales should replace the Secretary of State as expressed in various parts of the Bill is a confusing procedure. I am happy to say that in subsequent Bills the position of Welsh primary legislation is more clearly stated. The more we can proceed along those lines, the better it will be for clarity and the good governance of Wales. As does the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, I welcome the amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords. We must all work together to ensure that the saying, "Better late than never" is replaced by ensuring that we are never late.
All institutions and organisations need to be vigilant against corruption and malpractice. The code of conduct in Wales and its enforcement will be rigorous. The Assembly is committed to the maintenance of the

1221
highest standards of conduct in local government. The code will be produced by the Assembly in consultation with Welsh local government.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, rightly drew attention to the staffing issue. We are confident that the proposals for Wales will ensure that there will be opportunity for additional staff, but not as many would have been needed had the two bodies remained separate. The commissioner for local administration will have all the powers available to ethical standards officers in England. In the smaller organisation in Wales it would be clumsy to set up a separate and distinct role for ethical standards officers.
We accept that the monitoring officer role is crucial, and believe that the Assembly is well aware of the need to monitor what is happening.
I thank noble Lords for their support. If I have not covered any point of detail, I shall write to the noble Lords. I commend the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 44 to 46:
Page 27, line 23, leave out ("or National Assembly for Wales (as the case may be)").
Page 27, line 27, leave out ("or the Partnership Council (as the case may be)").
Page 27, line 30, leave out subsection (7).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 46 [Duty of relevant authorities to adopt codes of conduct]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 28, leave out line 27 and insert ("Commission for Local Administration in Wales.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 48 [Standards committees]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 48 to 51:
Page 30, line 4, after first ("authority") insert ("in England").
Page 30, line 5, leave out ("or (7)(a)").
Page 30, line 6, after ("authority") insert ("in England").
Page 30, line 10, after ("authority") insert ("in England").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 30, line 13, at end insert (", and
(c) may not have less than half its members who are not members of the executive").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when we debated the amendment at Report stage we did so in general terms. The Minister indicated that he did not think that the behaviour prohibited in the amendment was what the Bill intended, but thought that the matter was appropriate to local authorities and that they should decide these matters for themselves. It is a sentiment with which I agree.
I would not have put down the amendment had I not had written communication from a member of one local authority indicating that his authority was planning to act in breach of the prohibition I have tabled. I do not apologise for bringing back the issue. It seems right to give the Minister the opportunity to reconsider the matter and either give a clear assurance that the behaviour prohibited by the amendment would not be acceptable to the Government, or accept the amendment.
It is a narrow point. I agree with the Minister that it is unlikely that most authorities will act in this way. When discussing legislation, we have to consider the individual who may wish to behave in a way that normal people would regard as aberrant. That is the reason for the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is our intention in this part of the Bill to provide maximum flexibility. That maximum flexibility allows conceptually for the outcome against which the noble Lord's amendment is directed. However, that can be achieved only with the full agreement of the council. The executive cannot determine that it will be in the majority. The full council would decide that. Councils need to have flexibility to decide what is best to uphold standards of probity without our laying it down too precisely. There may be strong arguments for the majority of the standards committee to be councillors, even if there is not a strong argument for them to be executive members. Once one starts prescribing, one has to go into other prescriptions.
There is a fall-back power. Although our preferred approach is not to be prescriptive, under Clause 48 the Secretary of State has power to make regulations if he should so wish on the size, composition, proceedings and membership of standards committees. So if this proves to be a serious problem leading to abuse, we have the power to deal with it. I hope that that sufficiently reassures the noble Lord.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's reply. He seems to have satisfied the concerns underlying my tabling the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 53 to 59:
Page 30, line 21, leave out subsection (7).
Page 30, line 33, leave out subsection (9).
Page 30, line 38, after ("authority") insert ("in England").
Page 30, line 41, after ("authority") insert ("in England").
Page 30, line 44, leave out from ("England") to end of line 1 on page 31.
Page 31, line 2, after ("authority") insert ("in England")
Page 31, line 4, at end insert—
("(13) The National Assembly for Wales may by regulations make provision—

(a) as to the size and composition of standards committees of relevant authorities in Wales (including provision with respect to the appointment to any such committee of persons who arc not members of the relevant authority concerned),

(b) as to the persons who may, may not or must chair any such committees,

(c) as to the entitlement to vote of members of any such committee who are not members of the relevant authority concerned,

(d) for or in connection with treating any such standards committees as bodies to which section 15 of the Local Government Act 1989 does not apply,

(e) as to the proceedings and validity of proceedings of such committees.

(f) for or in connection with requiring relevant authorities in Wales to send to the Commission for Local Administration in Wales statements which set out the terms of reference of their standards committees.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 49 [Functions of standards committees]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 31, line 30, leave out ("Standards Board") and insert ("National Assembly").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 50 [Standards committees or sub-committees for parish councils]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 33, line 15, after ('county") insert ("in England").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 62:
After Clause 50, insert the following new clause—
STANDARDS COMMITTEES OR SUB-COMMITTEES FOR COMMUNITY COUNCILS
(".—(1) A standards committee of a county council in Wales is to have the same functions in relation to—

(a) the community councils which are situated in the area of the county council, and

(b) the members of those community councils,

as the standards committee has under section 49(1) and (2) in relation to the county council and the members of the county council.
(2) A standards committee of a county borough council is to have the same functions in relation to—

(a) the community councils which are situated in the area of the county borough council, and

(b) the members of those community councils,

as the standards committee has under section 49(1) and (2) in relation to the county borough council and the members of the county borough council.
(3) A standards committee of a county council or county borough council may appoint a sub-committee for the purpose of discharging all of the functions conferred on the standards committee by this section.
(4) In deciding whether it will be their standards committee, or a sub-committee of their standards committee, which is to discharge the functions conferred by this section, a county council or county borough council must consult the community councils which are situated in their area.
(5) Regulations under section 48(13) may make provision in relation to sub-committees appointed under this section.
(6) Subsections (5) and (7) of section 49 apply in relation to subcommittees of standards committees appointed under this section as they apply in relation to standards committees.
(7) In relation to a community council, any reference in the following provisions of this Part to the standards committee of a relevant authority is a reference—

(a) to the standards committee of the county council or county borough council in whose are the community council is situated, or

(b) where that standards committee has appointed a subcommittee under this section, to that sub-committee.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 51 [Standards Boards]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments No. 63 to 66:
Page 33, line 19, leave out subsection (2).
Page 33, line 23, leave out subsection (4).
Page 33, line 35, leave out subsections (7) and (8).
Page 34, line 1, leave out ("each of the Standards Boards") and insert ("the Standards Board for England").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 52 [Written allegations]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved amendment No. 67:
Page 34, line 10, leave out subsections (3) and (4).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 53 [Functions of ethical standards officers]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 68 to 72:
Page 34, line 18, leave out ("of the Standards Board for England").
Page 34, line 20, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Standards Board for England").
Page 34, line 26, leave out subsection (2).
Page 34, line 34, leave out ("Each of the Standards Boards") and insert ("The Standards Board for England").
Page 35, line 2, leave out ("relevant Adjudication Panel") and insert ("Adjudication Panel for England").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 54 [Conduct of investigations]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 35, line 23, leave out ("by which he is employed") and insert ("for England").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 55 [Procedure in respect of investigations]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 35, line 42, leave out from ("the") to end of line 3 on page 36 and insert ("Secretary of State").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 56 [Investigations: further provisions]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 37, line 10, leave out from second ("the") to end of line 17 and insert ("Secretary of State").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 57 [Restrictions on disclosure of information]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 76 to 80:
Page 37, line 31, leave out ("the Standards Board for Wales,").
Page 37, line 32, leave out ("of either of those Boards") and insert (", a Local Commissioner in Wales").
Page 37, line 46, leave out ("of the Standards Board for England").
Page 38, line 7, leave out subsection (3).
Page 38, line 15, leave out ("or (3)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 58 [Reports etc.]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 81 and 82:
Page 39, line 2, leave out ("relevant Adjudication Panel") and insert ("Adjudication Panel for England").
Page 39, line 5, leave out ("relevant Adjudication Panel") and insert ("Adjudication Panel for England").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 59 [Interim reports]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 83 to 84:
Page 39, line 39, leave out ("relevant Adjudication Panel") and insert ("Adjudication Panel for England").
Page 39, line 45, leave out ("relevant Adjudication Panel") and insert ("Adjudication Panel for England").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 60 [Matters referred to monitoring officers]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 41, line 7, leave out subsection (7).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 86 to 91:
After Clause 60, insert the following new clause—
LOCAL COMMISSIONER AND COMMISSION FOR LOCAL ADMINISTRATION IN WALES
(".—(1) A Local Commissioner in Wales is to have the functions conferred on him by this Part and such other functions as may conferred on him by order made by the National Assembly for Wales under this subsection.
(2) The Commission for Local Administration in Wales—

(a) may issue guidance to relevant authorities in Wales on matters relating to the conduct of members and co-opted members of such authorities, and

(b) may arrange for any such guidance to be made public.

(3) The National Assembly for Wales may by regulations make provision which, for the purpose of any provisions of Part III of
1226
the Local Government Act 1974 specified in the regulations, treats—

(a) functions of a Local Commissioner in Wales under Part III of that Act as including his functions under this Part.

(b) functions of the Commission for Local Administration in Wales under Part III of that Act as including functions of the Commission under this Part, or

(c) expenses of the Commission for Local Administration in Wales under Part III of that Act as including expenses of the Commission, or a Local Commissioner in Wales, under this Part.

(4) The provision which may be made by virtue of subsection (3) includes provision which modifies, or applies or reproduces (with or without modifications), any provisions of Part III of that Act.
(5) In this Part "Local Commissioner in Wales" means a Local Commissioner (within the meaning of Part III of that Act) who is a member of the Commission for Local Administration in Wales.").
After Clause 60, insert the following new clause—
INVESTIGATIONS BY LOCAL COMMISSIONER IN
WALES
(".—(1) A Local Commissioner in Wales may investigate—

(a) cases in which a written allegation is made to him by any person that a member or co-opted member of a relevant authority in Wales has failed, or may have failed, to comply with the authority's code of conduct, and

(b) other cases in which he considers that a member or co-opted member of a relevant authority in Wales has failed, or may have failed, to comply with the authority's code of conduct and which have come to his attention as a result of an investigation under paragraph (a).

(2) The purpose of an investigation under this section is to determine which of the findings mentioned in subsection (3) is appropriate.
(3) Those findings are—

(a) that there is no evidence of any failure to comply with the code of conduct of the relevant authority concerned,

(b) that no action needs to be taken in respect of the matters which are the subject of the investigation,

(c) that the matters which arc the subject of the investigation should be referred to the monitoring officer of the relevant authority concerned, or

(d) that the matters which are the subject of the investigation should be referred to the president of the Adjudication Panel for Wales for adjudication by a tribunal falling within section 62(1).").

After Clause 60, insert the following new clause—
INVESTIGATIONS: FURTHER PROVISIONS
(".—(1) The National Assembly for Wales may by order make provision with respect to investigations under section (Investigations by Local Commissioner for Wales) (including provision with respect to the obtaining or disclosure of documents or information).
(2) The provision which may be made by virtue of subsection (1) includes provision which applies or reproduces (with or without modifications)—

(a) any provisions of sections 54 to 57, or

(b) any provisions of sections 28, 29, 32 or 33 of the Local Government Act 1974.

(3) A Local Commissioner in Wales may cease an investigation under section (Investigations by Local Commissioner in Wales) at any stage before its completion.
(4) Where a Local Commissioner in Wales ceases an investigation under section (Investigations by Local Commissioner in Wales) before its completion, he may refer the matters which are the subject of the investigation to the monitoring officer of the relevant authority concerned.").
After Clause 60, insert the following new clause—
REPORTS
(".—(1) Where a Local Commissioner in Wales determines in relation to any case that a finding under section (Investigations by Local Commissioner in Wales)(3)(a) or (b) is appropriate—

(a) he may produce a report on the outcome of his investigation,

(b) he may provide a summary of any such report to any newspapers circulating in the area of the relevant authority concerned,

(c) he must send to the monitoring officer of the relevant authority concerned a copy of any such report, and

(d) where he does not produce any such report, he must inform the monitoring officer of the relevant authority concerned of the outcome of the investigation.

(2) Where a Local Commissioner in Wales determines in relation to any case that a finding under section (Investigations by Local Commissioner in Wales)(3)(c) is appropriate he must—

(a) produce a report on the outcome of his investigation.

(b) refer the matters which arc the subject of the investigation to the monitoring officer of the relevant authority concerned, and

(c) send a copy of the report to the monitoring officer, and the standards committee, of the relevant authority concerned.

(3) Where a Local Commissioner in Wales determines in relation to any case that a finding under section (Investigations by Local Commissioner in Wales)(3)(d) is appropriate he must—

(a) produce a report on the outcome of his investigation,

(b) refer the matters which are the subject of the investigation to the president of the Adjudication Panel for Wales for adjudication by a tribunal falling within section 62(1), and

(c) send a copy of the report to the monitoring officer of the relevant authority concerned and to the president of the Adjudication Panel for Wales.

(4) A report under this section may cover more than one investigation under section (Investigations by Local Commissioner in Wales) in relation to any members or co-opted members of the same relevant authority.
(5) A Local Commissioner in Wales must—

(a) inform any person who is the subject of an investigation under section (Investigations by Local Commissioner in Wales), and

(b) take reasonable steps to inform any person who made any allegation which gave rise to the investigation,

of the outcome of the investigation.").
After Clause 60, insert the following new clause—
INTERIM REPORTS
(".—(1) Where he considers it necessary in the public interest, a Local Commissioner in Wales may produce an interim report on an investigation conducted by him under section (Investigations by Local Commissioner in Wales).
(2) An interim report under this section may cover more than one investigation under section (Investigations by Local Commissioner in Wales) in relation to any members or co-opted members of the same relevant authority.
(3) Where the prima facie evidence is such that it appears to a Local Commissioner in Wales—

(a) that the person who is the subject of the interim report has failed to comply with the code of conduct of a relevant authority,

(b) that the nature of that failure is such as to be likely to lead to disqualification under section 65(4)(b) or (5)(b), and

(c) that it is in the public interest to suspend that person immediately,

1228
the interim report may include a recommendation that that person should be suspended or partially suspended by the relevant authority concerned from being a member or co-opted member of the authority.
(4) The period of suspension or partial suspension which may be recommended under subsection (3) must not exceed six months or (if shorter) the remainder of the person's term of office.
(5) Where a Local Commissioner in Wales produces an interim report under this section which contains such a recommendation as is mentioned in subsection (3), he must refer the matters which are the subject of the report to the president of the Adjudication Panel for Wales for adjudication by a tribunal falling within section 62(2).
(6) A copy of any report under this section must be given—

(a) to any person who is the subject of the report,

(b) to the monitoring officer of the relevant authority concerned, and

(c) to the president of the Adjudication Panel for Wales.").

After Clause 60. insert the following new clause—
MATTERS REFERRED TO MONITORING OFFICERS
(".—(1) The National Assembly for Wales may by regulations make provision in relation to the way in which any matters referred to the monitoring officer of a relevant authority—

(a) under section (Investigations: further provisions)(4), or

(b) as a result of a finding under section (Investigations by Local Commissioner in Wales)(3)(c),

are to be dealt with.
(2) The provision which may be made by regulations under subsection (1) includes provision for or in connection with—

(a) enabling a monitoring officer of a relevant authority to conduct an investigation in respect of any matters referred to him.

(b) enabling a monitoring officer of a relevant authority to make a report, or recommendations, to the standards committee of the authority in respect of any matters referred to him,

(c) enabling a standards committee of a relevant authority to consider any report or recommendations made to it by a monitoring officer of the authority (including provision with respect to the procedure to be followed by the standards committee),

(d) enabling a standards committee of a relevant authority, following its consideration of any such report or recommendations, to take any action prescribed by the regulations (including action against any member or co-opted member of the authority who is the subject of any such report or recommendation).

(3) The provision which may be made by virtue of subsection (2)(a) includes provision for or in connection with—

(a) conferring powers on a monitoring officer of a relevant authority to enable him to conduct an investigation in respect of any matters referred to him,

(b) conferring rights (including the right to make representations) on any member or co-opted member of a relevant authority who is the subject of any such investigation.

(4) The provision which may be made by virtue of subsection (2)(d) includes provision for or in connection with—

(a) enabling a standards committee of a relevant authority to censure a member or co-opted member -of the authority.

(b) enabling a standards committee of a relevant authority to suspend or partially suspend a person from being a member or co-opted member of the authority for a limited period.

(c) conferring a right of appeal on a member or co-opted member of a relevant authority in respect of any action taken against him.

(5) Nothing in subsection (2), (3) or (4) affects the generality of the power under subsection (1).
(6) Where a Local Commissioner in Wales refers any matters to the monitoring officer of a relevant authority—

(a) under section (Investigations: further provisions)(4), or

(b) as a result of a finding under section (Investigations hr Local Commissioner in Wales)(3)(c),

he may give directions to the monitoring officer as to the way in which those matters are to be dealt with.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 61 [Adjudication Panels]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 41, line 17, leave out ("on such terms and conditions as he may determine").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 157, both of which are technical. It is our policy that a Secretary of State should appoint the members of the adjudication committee and should determine the terms and conditions on which those appointments are made. Members of the adjudication panel will, however, be paid any such remuneration fees or allowances by the standards board because payment is not made directly by the Secretary of State. The amendments help to clarify that so that although it is the Secretary of State who sets the terms and conditions, he is not responsible for payment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 93 to 111:
Page 41, line 22, leave out from ("determine") to end of line 23 and insert—
("() The National Assembly for Wales—

(a) must appoint one of the members of the Adjudication Panel for Wales as president of the Panel, and

(b) may appoint one of those members as deputy president of the Panel.").

Page 41, line 34, after second ("president") insert ("(if any)").
Page 41, line 41, after (" 58(3)") insert ("or (Reports)(3)").
Page 42, line 2, after (" 59(5)") and insert ("or (Interim reports)(5)").
Page 42, line 7, at end insert—
("() Where there is no deputy president of the Adjudication Panel for Wales, the reference in subsection (3) to the deputy president is to be treated as a reference to such member of the Adjudication Panel for Wales as the National Assembly for Wales may specify.").
Page 42, line 10, at end insert ("or (Reports)(3)").
Page 42, line 13, at end insert ("or (Interim reports)(5)").
Page 42, line 25, after (" 53") insert ("or (Investigations by Local Commissioner in Wales)").
Page 42, line 34, at end insert—
("() The National Assembly for Wales may incur expenditure for the purpose of providing administrative support to the Adjudication Panel for Wales.").
Page 43, line 29, after (" 59(3)") insert ("or (Interim reports)").
Page 44, line 7, at end insert—
("() A decision of an interim case tribunal under this section shall not prevent a Local Commissioner in Wales from continuing with the investigation under section (Investigations by Local Commissioner in Wales) which gave rise to the interim report concerned and producing a report under section (Reports), or a further interim report under section (Interim reports), in respect of any matters which are the subject of the investigation.").
Page 44, line 18, after (" 53") insert ("or (Investigations by Local Commissioner in Wales)").
Page 45, line 43, leave out ("Standard Board for Wales") and insert ("Commission for Local Administration in Wales").
Page 46, line 17, leave out ("Standards Board") and insert ("person").
Page 46, line 21, leave out ("Standards Board") and insert ("person").
Page 46, line 27, leave out ("Standards Board") and insert ("person").
Page 46, line 29, leave out ("Board") and insert ("relevant person").
Page 46, line 32, leave out ("Standards Board"") and insert ("person").
Page 46, line 35, leave out ("the Standards Board for") and insert ("a Local Commissioner in").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 43. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 67 [Disclosure of registration of members' interests etc.]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 47, line 28, at end insert—
("() In its application to Wales, subsection (4) has effect as if for the reference to the Secretary of State there were substituted a reference to the National Assembly for Wales.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 69 [Interpretation of Part III]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 113 to 117:
Page 48, line 24, leave out ("or (8)(a)").
Page 48, line 29, at end insert—
(""Local Commissioner in Wales" has the meaning given by section (Local Commissioner and Commission for Local Administration in Wales)(5),"").
Page 48, line 34, leave out ("of the Standards Board for England").
Page 48, line 36, leave out ("an ethical standards officer of the Standards Board for Wales") and insert ("a Local Commissioner in Wales").
Page 49, line 2, at end insert—
("() In relation to a community council, the functions of a monitoring officer under any provisions of this Part arc to be discharged by the monitoring officer of the county council or county borough council in whose area the community council is situated; and any reference in this Part to the monitoring officer of a relevant authority which is a community council is to be construed accordingly.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 118:
After Clause 75, insert the following new clause—
RIGHT TO SEND ELECTION ADDRESS POST FREE
(" .—(1) The Representation of the People Act 1983 shall be amended as follows.
(2) After section 36(2B) there shall be inserted—
"(2C) Section 91 shall apply to elections under the Local Government Act 2000 with such modifications as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State."").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall not spend long on the amendment, but it takes us to the topic of freepost for candidates for elected office and in particular elected mayors. I thought that it might be inflammatory to raise the issue in the context of the Bill while the situation in London is still being negotiated. Nevertheless, I believe that there is an issue to be addressed.
I have tabled an amendment to permit the Secretary of State to make regulations to allow the provisions of the Representation of the People Act 1983 to apply to elections for executive mayors not least because colleagues in another place may want to consider the matter. I hope that the passage of the Bill can be eased if we can hear the Government's view now. At least we shall have done our job to that extent. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am pleased that the noble Baroness has refrained from being inflammatory. The amendment is a nice try, but we are discussing elections in a different context. There is a long tradition of local government rules which do not include free mail shots. The elections of mayors under the Bill will be local government elections. Admittedly they will be of a special and novel kind and we expect that special electoral rules will need to apply. That is why we are preparing a further consultation paper in the regulation of mayoral elections.
As I stand at the Dispatch Box, I am not convinced of the need to prescribe free mail shots within those regulations, but the consultation will proceed. Of course, the House having accepted the provisions within the Representation of the People Bill, which allows for the experiment on free mail shots for local elections that is being conducted in Watford, we have the ability legislatively to provide for that in certain circumstances.
Rather than put anything on the face of the Bill which I must strongly oppose, I believe that we should leave the matter to consultation and to the possibility that at some future date we might move down that road. However, I suspect that were we to do so, the view would not be that we should provide the full parliamentary mail shot. We might have to have a more compromise position of the kind referred to, if not the actual outcome, in our discussions on the provisions of the GLA Act.
I am straying too far into that territory and I hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue the amendment tonight.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the Minister sits down and with the leave of the House,
1232
I understand the position relating to the pilot scheme in Watford, but can he remind the House when the consultation will end and how it is likely to fit in with the timetable for the rest of the Bill's passage?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, at this point I cannot give a closing date for that consultation, but I understand that it would be some time in the summer and therefore beyond the likely passage of the Bill.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I do not wish to be inflammatory and I realise that there is another important piece of business to deal with tonight. Therefore I shall not pursue the matter now, but I note the Minister's reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 80 [Allowances and pensions for certain local authority members]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 56, line 10, at end insert C, and
(b) the insertion of the following new paragraph after paragraph (c)—
"(d) a cycle allowance to be payable at a rate to be determined by the local authority".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 20 standing in the name of the Minister. The fact that my amendment comes first allows me to thank him for taking up the matter of allowances for cycles and other non-motorised forms of transport, referred to in his amendment. We are pleased to have achieved a little during the Bill's passage through this House.
I want to ask the Minister a question about his new clause and the regulation-making provision dealing with allowances. Subsection (4) states:
"The provision which may be made under this section includes provision which amends or repeals any provisions of sections 173 to 178 of the Local Government Act 1972".
While I welcome the provision and understand the pressures on parliamentary counsel, I believe it is a pity that we seem to be drifting into a position in which perhaps because of pressures of time a short-cut is being taken. We have in primary legislation a power for the repeal or modification of other primary legislation by regulation. Ideally, if matters are important they should be in primary legislation so that one can follow them. The Government are ambitious about the amount of legislation they are going to get through Parliament and I deplore what I regard to be a short-cut, although I have no doubt that pressure of time brought it about.
Having made that point, I thank the Minister for taking on board our concerns about cycle allowances. If the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, were here I am sure that he would be making points about payment to members of parish councils. However, for the record I repeat that we remain concerned about the distinction between members of the executive and

1233
members of the overview and scrutiny committee as regards certain parts of the remuneration, in particular pensions, which we see as divisive. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my Amendment No. 120 introduces a new clause enabling the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to make regulations regarding parish councils for only general allowances. The point was raised by my noble friend Lord Graham and others during the Report stage of the Bill. The regulations also relate to all councils as regards travel and subsistence allowances, including cycle allowances, allowances for attending conferences or meetings and the reimbursement of expenses. The reason the provision is not as definitive as the noble Baroness may have liked is that we are currently conducting a review. We have sympathy with the objectives referred to by the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Smith of Leigh.
The outcome of the review is unlikely to be known by the time the Bill has completed its parliamentary stages. Therefore, the new clause allows the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales to make provisions—perhaps regrettably from the noble Baroness's purist point of view of how we change primary legislation. It might mean changing the appropriate clauses of the Local Government Act. This is the only way we can make the change without coming back to yet another piece of local government legislation. I hope that in that context the noble Baroness understands why we have done it that way and that my amendment can be agreed.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am a purist, but not so much as to insist on my amendment or to oppose the Minister's. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 119.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 120:
After Clause 80, insert the following new clause—
POWER TO MAKE PROVISION ABOUT ALLOWANCES
(".—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision with respect to—

(a) allowances payable to members of a parish council.

(b) travelling and subsistence allowances payable to members of such relevant authorities as may be prescribed,

(c) allowances payable to members of such relevant authorities as may be prescribed for attending conferences or meetings,

(d) the reimbursement of expenses incurred by members of such relevant authorities as may be prescribed.

(2) For the purposes of this section a member of a committee or sub-committee of a relevant authority is to be treated as a member of the authority.
(3) The provision which may be made under subsection (1)(b) includes provision with respect to allowances in respect of travel by bicycle or by any other non-motorised form of transport.
(4) The provision which may be made under this section includes provision which amends or repeals any provisions of sections 173 to 178 of the Local Government Act 1972.
(5) Before making any regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult such representatives of local government and such other persons (if any) as he considers appropriate.
(6) In this section—
"prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State,
"relevant authority" means—

(a) a body specified in section 21(1) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989,

(b) a body on which a body falling within paragraph (a) is represented,

(c) a parish council.

(7) In its application to Wales this section has effect as if

(a) for any reference to the Secretary of State there were substituted a reference to the National Assembly for Wales,

(b) for any reference to a parish council there were substituted a reference to a community council.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 121:
After Clause 82, insert the following new clause—
DISCRIMINATION IN THE PROVISION OF FACILITIES OR SERVICES
(".—(1) Subject to provision made by or under any enactment, a local authority shall not cause or permit discrimination as regards the provision of facilities or services, which are not generally available, for the exclusive benefit of any group of persons.
(2) Subject to subsection (4), in any proceedings in connection with the application of this section a court shall draw such inferences as to the intention of the local authority as may reasonably be drawn from the evidence before it.
(3) The Secretary of State may make and, from time to time revise, a code of practice on the discharge by local authorities of the duty under subsection (1).
(4) Any provision of a code of practice under subsection (3) which appears to a court or tribunal to be relevant to any question arising in any proceedings in connection with the application of the duty under subsection (1) shall be taken into account in determining that question.
(5) A code of practice or a revised code of practice under this section shall be contained in a statutory instrument which shall be laid before, and subject to approval by resolution of, each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has been spoken to in principle on more than one occasion. It has been redrafted in the light of debate on Report. It is concerned with the prohibition of expenditure of public funds by local authorities. It is free-standing in the sense that if Clause 82 were to be rejected by another place, which is on the cards, it would be complementary to the provisions of the Learning and Skills Bill and assuredly not in conflict with such provisions. It would also afford substitute prohibition on the local authority in place of Clause 82. That, if not now but looking ahead, is the way forward. It is of crucial consequence, and that is one reason why I move the amendment.
I must say at once that it does not have the support of my noble friend Lady Young or my party, but that is of no great consequence to me. I am convinced that it provides the way forward for a substitute

1235
prohibition if and when Clause 82 comes back. However, prohibition there must be. It is a provision which prohibits positive discrimination, save as afforded under statute, secondary legislation and, in particular, a code of practice having legal efficacy. It is wholly in conformity with the European Convention on Human Rights, which Section 28 as amended by Clause 82 is not. It does not discriminate against any group of persons, whether homosexual, heterosexual or of no particular sexual orientation.
The amendment provides an entirely new approach to an old problem. That problem manifested itself when certain urban local authorities made provision for facilities and services from public expenditure at the behest of the pro-gay and lesbian lobby for the exclusive benefit of such persons. It was a problem which led in part to Section 28 of the 1988 Act which has been effected to contain such conduct and expenditure for some 12 years. Whatever may be provided in any other amendment, surely it is essential that some prohibition should remain and be made in the Local Government Bill, such as perhaps proposed by this amendment.
As matters stand, under Clause 2 of this Bill a local authority may again make the type of discriminatory provision which led to Section 28, unopposed in another place, if it is considered likely to improve the social well-being of the area. What kind of protection or prohibition is that? None. It is a massive delegation of power under Clause 2 which would not be amenable to judicial review, save in wholly exceptional circumstances. All of us recognise that under our domestic law, and having assimilated the European Convention on Human Rights, homosexuals are entitled to respect for their private life and quality of treatment without any form of discrimination against them.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said on Report that this amendment would cut across the whole activity of a local authority so that it would not be able to discriminate in favour of the elderly, the disabled and (he mentioned it) the gay and lesbian lobby. That is not the case. Facilities or services for the elderly are generally available; for the disabled, they are under statute. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said, it is true that provision for the gay and lesbian community would be prohibited—and why not?—as, indeed, would any provision for the exclusive benefit of any other group of persons. I beg to move.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we had a full debate on similar amendments during the Report stage of the Bill. Amendment No. 121 seeks to prevent local authorities from causing or permitting discrimination in the provision of their facilities or services which are not generally available for the exclusive benefit of any group of persons. It is not clear what that means in practice or how it would be interpreted by the courts. Even if I accept that it means what the noble Lord says, which I believe is debatable, the Government would be opposed to it on principle.
1236
As I said on Report, the services that local authorities provide depend on their being able to discriminate legitimately between the different needs of different sections of their community. It is important that they should be able to tailor services to meet the particular needs of different groups and to devise specific interventions to improve the quality of life of different sections of their community, whether that be the young, the elderly, the social excluded or the gay and lesbian community. This amendment would seriously curtail their ability to do that. The Government are opposed to it in principle and I hope that the noble Lord will now be persuaded not to move it.
As I believe I made clear at Report stage, Amendment No. 122 singularly fails to acknowledge the respective legal responsibilities of school governing bodies and LEAs. It seeks to ensure that a local authority does not cause or permit material of a sexually explicit nature to be made freely available in schools, except with the approval of the board of governors. It seeks to prevent local authorities from doing something that, in fact, they cannot do. I repeat what was said on Report. As a result of the Education Reform Act 1988, it is a matter for school governors and schools to decide what material is used.
An authority could produce material with the intention of it being used in schools, as could any other person. However, since the Education Reform Act 1988, it is for teachers and governors to decide whether that material should be available in the school and used as a teaching resource.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the noble Baroness has moved on to the next amendment. I am speaking only to Amendment No. 121. I shall move Amendment No. 122 separately, as is my entitlement according to the list.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I apologise. I understood that the noble Lord had not challenged the grouping and therefore I assumed that he was relying on his earlier references to the matters contained in Amendment No. 122.
With regard to Amendment No. 121, perhaps I should place on record an imminent potential personal interest in this matter. When I reach my birthday later this year, I shall be favourably discriminated in relation to public transport in London.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, this is neither the occasion to reason nor to argue. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for dealing with this issue. But I must say, with the greatest respect, she has not begun to take the essence of the argument on the amendment as revised. She has gone back to Report and Committee stages and rehearsed the same arguments, although those arguments have been met by the amendment.

1237
I make no complaint but I merely place on record that this is not a reasoned refutation of the argument which I have advanced for this amendment. In view of the hour and the attendance of the House, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 122:
After Clause 82, insert the following new clause—
SEXUALLY EXPLICIT MATERIAL IN MAINTAINED SCHOOLS
(".—(1) After section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986 insert—
"Sexually explicit material in maintained schools.
2B.—(1) A local authority shall not cause or permit material. which in the opinion of the Board of Governors of a maintained school is of a sexually explicit nature such as ought not to be made freely available in such schools, to be made so available unless it has consulted and gained the approval of the Board of Governors.
(2) The Board of Governors may delegate their functions under subsection (1) to any member of the Board.
(3) In any proceedings in connection with the application of this section a court shall draw such inferences as to the intention of the local authority as may reasonably be drawn from the evidence before it.
(4) In subsection (1) "maintained school" means a maintained school or maintained nursery school within the meaning of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998."
(2) In section 12(3) of that Act, after "Part II" there is inserted "(other than section 2A)".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to in principle and has been redrafted in the light of the debate on Report. I beg the noble Baroness to take on board that it recognises that it is for the board of governors to decide which material is sexually explicit and whether, if so, it should be made available in the schools. That is for the board of governors.
A duty is imposed upon the local authority not to make such material available in the schools—such as, for example, all the junk that we have seen in that exhibition—without having consulted the board of governors and having obtained their approval. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that the board of governors may delegate that function to any member or members of the board.
Again, this is a new approach. It is complementary to the Bill as accepted by the Table. It is free-standing to Clause 82 and complementary to such amendments as may be made to the education Acts under the Learning and Skills Bill which, in Committee, I have already accepted.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, took the point that this amendment was not appropriate for a local government Bill. That was an entirely bad point and I propose to show why. As my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth said,
"we are discussing initiatives which might be taken by local authorities. I understand that that has happened on many occasions in the past, they have produced material, spent money on producing it and then presented it to the schools".
1238
My noble friend ended by saying:
"It seems to me that this is a local government issue, not an educational issue".—[Official Report, 2/3/2000: col. 738.]
I suggest that my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth is wholly right on this issue, as indeed I maintained in my reply.
Also in this context, for some 12 years the prohibition under Section 28 served its purpose. I do not pretend that it did not cause confusion nor that it was perfectly drafted. But it served a purpose. There is now a case for the continuance of some prohibition. That is the principle which the Government will not accept. Such a prohibition is provided by the amendment. In view of the massive delegation of power afforded under Clause 2, to which I have already referred, I suggest to the House that such a prohibition is absolutely essential. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would deal with the amendment on the basis on which it has been redrafted. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, I genuinely believe that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, is trying to be helpful to the House and, indeed, to the nation. He speaks for many in this concern. But I must say to him—as I say to the many who write to me and to the lady in one of the villages who decided she should give her bishop an "ear-wigging", as she described it today, on the basis of information, I gather, gleaned front the Daily Mail—that there is great misunderstanding in the country about the effect of the 1996 Education Act.
I believe that it undermines the proper authority of the governors of schools to say that we need to adopt a belt-and-braces approach so that there is a prohibition on the local authority. I much prefer this amendment to the previous amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and I am grateful to him for redrafting it. But I believe that it undermines the power that has been given to governors of schools.
Also, I think it is time that somebody said that a good deal of this explicit material does not, in the 1990s, as it did in the 1980s, come from a few local authorities. It comes very largely from health trusts which use it because they are dealing with the sharp end of this problem and want it for training purposes; and it is then circulated.
However, I wish to reiterate that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, speaks for many in this country who are worried about this matter. But we must get the message across that responsibility for it rests with governors. Therefore, it is not appropriate to deal with the issue in this Bill. But I am 100 per cent with the sentiment which the noble Lord is trying to express in this amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, since the Education Reform Act 1988, it is for the teachers and governors to decide whether and which material should be available and which should be used as a teaching resource.

1239
I can only repeat to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, that these matters are now entirely outside the local authority. Whether Section 28 is retained or repealed makes no difference in terms of what may be taught in schools and who has authority as to what is taught in schools. In those circumstances, this amendment is unnecessary.
I completely support the point raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn that it would be extremely helpful for governors up and down the country were everyone to say that the debate about Section 28 is not about what happens in the classroom. That is a matter for governors alone. It is extremely important that that is said.
Finally, I am aware of the material that has been on display in your Lordships' House. I have yet to see any evidence of any individual item of material having been approved by any member of any school governing body at any time.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. I am absolutely foxed as to how to deal with it. The noble Baroness says that it cannot make any difference whether Section 28 is repealed. It makes the whole difference because it is only if Section 28 is repealed that this effectively provides a new approach for a new way forward. The fact that the substratum of the argument has not even been understood leads me to a protest of amicable despair—and it is amicable and always shall be.
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate. At least he understood what I was trying to do and to be understood is everything, even if one is disagreed with. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8 p.m.
Schedule 1 [Executive arrangements: further provision]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 123:
Page 62, line 22, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert—
("(4) In the case of a relevant English authority which maintains one or more Church of England schools, an overview and scrutiny committee or sub-committee to which this paragraph applies must include at least one qualifying person.
(4A) A person is a qualifying person for the purposes of subparagraph (4) if he is nominated by the Diocesan Board of Education for any Church of England diocese which falls wholly or partly in the authority concerned's area.
(4B) In the case of a relevant English authority which maintains one or more Roman Catholic Church schools, an overview and scrutiny committee or sub-committee to which this paragraph applies must include at least one qualifying person.
(4C) A person is a qualifying person for the purposes of subparagraph (4B) if he is nominated by the bishop of any Roman Catholic diocese which falls wholly or partly in the authority concerned's area.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 124 to 127.
These are relatively minor amendments to paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 dealing with Church representation on overview and scrutiny committees which deal with education in English education authorities. On Report, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, while welcoming our policy on that issue, questioned the language we had used in referring to representatives of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church on overview and scrutiny committees. We have reconsidered the wording, and Amendment No. 123 reflects our further consideration.
I hope, therefore, that the right reverend Prelate's concerns are now largely met. The amendment makes it clear, as he requested, that the relevant bishop or bishops for Roman Catholic schools and the relevant diocesan board or boards for Church of England schools will nominate representatives to be appointed to those committees of the local education authority. The remaining amendments are tidying-up amendments. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, I am enormously grateful for the Minister's response. It is simply a question of bringing into what is the contemporary practice of both Churches the manner in which representatives are chosen. I need say no more except to thank the Minister for his consideration.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 124 to 127:
Page 62, line 31, after ("(4)") insert ("or (4B)").
Page 62, line 40, leave out ("such of").
Page 62, line 40, leave out ("in the authority's area") and insert ("maintained by the authority").
Page 62, line 41, leave out ("as may be") and insert ("but which are").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Standards Boards]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 128 to 175:
Page 65, line 4, leave out ("Neither of the Standards Boards is") and insert ("The Standards Board for England (referred to in this Schedule as the Standards Board) is not").
Page 65, line 6, leave out ("each of the Standards Boards") and insert ("the Standards Board").
Page 65, line 7, leave out ("each") and insert ("the").
Page 65, line 10, leave out ("Each of the Standards Boards") and insert ("The Standards Board").
Page 65, line 21, leave out first ("a") and insert ("the").
Page 65, line 32, leave out ("for England").
Page 65, line 33, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
Page 65, line 37, leave out ("either of the Standards Boards") and insert ("the Standards Board").
Page 65, line 39, leave out ("for England").
Page 65, line 42, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
Page 66, line 2, leave out ("for England").
Page 66, line 5, leave out sub-paragraph (5).
Page 66, line 9, leave out ("either of the Standards Boards") and insert ("the Standards Board").
Page 66, line 10, leave out ("that") and insert ("the").
Page 66, line 11, leave out ("or (5)").
Page 66, line 12, leave out ("either of the Standards Boards") and insert ("the Standards Board").
Page 66, line 15, leave out ("Each of the Standards Boards") and insert ("The Standards Board"),
Page 66, line 18, leave out ("Boards for England") and insert ("Board").
Page 66, line 21, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
Page 66, line 24, leave out ("either of the Standards Boards") and insert ("the Standards Board").
Page 66, line 28, leave out ("concerned") and insert ("for England").
Page 66, line 29, leave out ("each of the Standards Boards") and insert ("the Standards Board").
Page 66, line 32, leave out ("for England").
Page 66, line 37, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
Page 66, line 42, leave out ("for England").
Page 67, line 4, leave out sub-paragraph (4).
Page 67, line 13, leave out ("or (4)").
Page 67, line 15, after ("the") insert ("Standards").
Page 67, line 16, leave out ("Standards Board concerned") and insert ("Board").
Page 67, line 17, at end insert—
(" . The Standards Board for England may pay to any member of the Adjudication Panel for England such remuneration, fees or allowances (if any) as the Secretary of State may determine.").
Page 67, line 19, leave out ("Each of the Standards Boards") and insert ("The Standards Board").
Page 67, line 21, leave out ("each of the Standards Boards") and insert ("the Standards Board").
Page 67, line 29, leave out ("either of the Standards Boards") and insert ("the Standards Board").
Page 67, line 41, leave out ("for England"),
Page 67, line 47, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
Page 68, line 7, leave out ("concerned").
Page 68, line 11, leave out ("for England").
Page 68, line 16, leave out ("for England").
Page 68, line 18, leave out ("for England").
Page 68, line 24, leave out sub-paragraphs (5) to (7).
Page 68, line 36, leave out second ("each") and insert ("the").
Page 68, line 38, leave out ("for England").
Page 68, line 41, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
Page 68, line 45, leave out ("each of the Standards Boards") and insert ("the Standards Board").
Page 69, line 3, leave out ("either of the Standards Boards") and insert ("the Standards Board").
Page 69, line 8, leave out ("entries are inserted") and insert ("entry is inserted").
Page 69, leave out line 11.
Page 69, line 12, leave out ("entries are") and insert ("entry is").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Whitty.)
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I cannot let this moment pass without a few brief remarks. It is a remarkable fact that there have been 438 government amendments to the Bill. The Bill, as it came to us, had 51 pages. If one analyses it, there has been one government amendment for every five and a half lines of the Bill as it came to the House. I used to think of this Chamber as the Government's "think again" Chamber. I am desperately afraid that it is becoming the Government's thinking Chamber. The Bill is the better for the amendments, but it might have been better if a little more care had been taken beforehand.
I should like to place on the record my gratitude to the Government Front Bench for the way they have treated us as their opponents across this Dispatch Box. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is invariably courteous. For a man who does not have local government experience, he has a remarkable grasp of detail. He has picked up the subject extraordinarily well. Indeed, he is difficult to catch up. I am grateful to him and to his colleague the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, for the courtesy they have shown us and the attention they have paid to the arguments we have presented. I am happy to support the Motion.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, if I take only 15 seconds to thank all noble Lords involved in the Bill, I am sure that they will not feel that they have gone unthanked, but will probably thank me more for allowing us to proceed.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their courtesies. I believe we are all agreed that the Bill is the better for the provisions agreed in this House—with one rather notable exception this afternoon, if I may introduce a controversial note. Although, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, it is true that I have no local government experience, I did actually spend, along with my friend and noble friend Lord Burlison, 13 years representing a large number of workers who had the misfortune to work for a number of local authorities. I therefore have some knowledge of the subject, although from a different end of the telescope. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Royal Assent
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Simon): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Representation of the People Act,
Transport Salaried Staffs' Association (Amendment of Rules) Act.

Children (Leaving Care) Bill [H.L.]
8.4 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Further duties of local authorities towards children whom they are looking after]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 16, leave out from ("seventeen") to end of line 20.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, we debated at the start of Committee stage one of the most important issues—indeed, one of the pivots of the entire Bill—the definition of "eligible child". Our understanding from the Government is that the prescribed period referred to in new paragraph 19B(2)(b)—the period which will determine whether or not a child leaving care is entitled to the support from local authorities for which the rest of the Bill provides—will be a minimum of 13 weeks after the age of 14. In Committee, I argued that the Government had a duty to justify the 13-week criterion. In particular, I suggested that a hard and fast cut-off point of 13 weeks—or, for that matter, any other period—risks disadvantaging some children, either by separating them from their families when that need not happen or, perhaps more seriously, by denying them the support they badly need or deserve when a return to the family is not possible.
I recognise that the three-month criterion was specifically advanced as a proposal in the Government's consultation paper, but the one consistent message in most of the responses was a wish to see clearly defined eligibility criteria in place. Whether there was widespread agreement about the proposed period of 13 weeks is another issue. My understanding is that opinions varied on that point quite considerably. In plumping for 13 weeks, the Government have sought to do no more than to strike a balance. In so doing, I believe that they must recognise implicitly that a period of 13 weeks, while it carries the merit of pragmatism, will never be a perfect solution for all conceivable situations for children in care.
In his reply, the Minister emphasised that the power to make regulations conferred in new paragraph 19B(2)(b) provides Ministers with one significant advantage above all: flexibility. I recognise that. The Minister indicated that the close way in which the Bill will be monitored when it becomes an Act will enable Ministers to make changes to the eligibility criteria should it become apparent that too many deserving cases are slipping through the net.
I pay due heed to that comment. Obviously, I should like to take it at face value. Therefore, I must ask the Minister how the system will be monitored in practice. How complete a picture will the Department of Health have of the pattern of discharges from care across the country and how quickly will those statistics become available to it? I hope that the Minister will reassure me on that matter. I should like to believe that the Government will be in a position to react and respond quickly to any worrying data which may emerge. If that is the case, we can be confident of local authorities
1244
being left in no doubt that a failure to abide by the spirit of this legislation will, in the end, lead them nowhere. But we need to know from the Minister that close monitoring is feasible and that it will be carried out. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I strongly support the spirit of the noble Earl's Amendment No. 1. Indeed it was grouped with a not dissimilar amendment of my own at Committee stage. The essence of it is the kind of assurance that the Minister can give us. In a sense, there is room for argument, as the noble Earl said, as to whether 13 weeks is the correct point. In the early stages one has to make a decision about the correct point, but it is absolutely vital that, if there is abuse and local authorities are discharging young people too early from care so that they do not become eligible and do not have all the liabilities that attach to young people who have been in care for 13 weeks, we should know that, and we should know it soon. It is essential to have information-gathering mechanisms in place. These mechanisms should not become operative three years after the Bill has been in operation but should be part of regular monitoring operations so that the department has that information to hand and will take steps if abuse is demonstrated. It is those kinds of assurances that are sought tonight, and I very much support the noble Earl.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, may I first thank both speakers for their constructive comments. I well understand the concerns which were raised at Committee stage about the eligibility criteria. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has pointed out, there is a balance to be drawn between, on the one hand, open-ended criteria which would have the effect of embracing children who do not need support and which would risk diverting the energy of local authorities away from children who do need it. On the other hand, we clearly need to avoid criteria being drawn so tightly that they exclude children who ought to receive the support that this Bill envisages.
Also, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has intimated, we want to ensure that we have enough flexibility so that, if in practice the eligibility criteria are found wanting or we find some perverse incentives in the system which at the moment are not envisaged, we can act quickly and effectively. I believe that the Bill allows for this but I also accept that it is right for me to give reassurances as to how we intend to monitor the situation.
First, I want to reassure noble Lords that we do intend to monitor the effects of the criteria very closely. Let me say straightaway that if there is evidence of abuse or of the sort of problems that were referred to at Committee stage we will take the necessary steps to make effective adjustments to the regulations.

1245
The intention is to monitor the working of the legislation through the framework which the Government have set for the overall performance of social services authorities. We will be able to gauge the particular effect of the qualifying period through the Department of Health's statistical collection on children looked after by local authorities. This database can be used to monitor trends in the lengths of time care leavers have been looked after, and to spot changes in those trends after the implementation of the Bill, including, for instance, the length of time that children have been looked after from a particular age. For instance, if 30 weeks was to be the actual figure, it would be necessary to identify whether there were an abnormal number of children who were spending 12 weeks in care. Another example would be that of an abnormal number of children leaving care at the age of 15. I quote those as just two examples where we should be able to pick up those kinds of trend and look into the reasons for them.
If, as we intend, the Bill is implemented in April next year, we would expect to have robust data available towards the end of the year 2002—say, about 18 months from the date when the Bill comes into operation. The data we shall be using will be derived from a one-third sample of all local authorities in England, which, I am assured by those who know about statistics, does give a good overall estimate of trends. Where in addition there are concerns about individual authorities, these will of course have been identified through a wider performance assessment framework, through the inspections by the social services inspectorate of individual local authorities, the joint SSI audit commission reviews and annual reviews of social services by the Department of Health's social care regional offices.
I hope I have reassured noble Lords that we are as anxious as they are to ensure that this Bill delivers what we want it to deliver and that we do have the ability to monitor what is happening. If we come across instances where we see that the eligibility criteria are not coming up to scratch, we have the ability to take fairly quick action.
8.15 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, that is a very helpful and full reply and I am grateful to the Minister for it. I personally have not been in any doubt as to the Minister's commitment to seeing that this particular provision works properly. It has no doubt been a difficult balancing exercise for him and the department to arrive at a sensible conclusion. This is something that clearly we shall all have an interest in, watching over the months ahead following the Bill's enactment. I can only say that the commitment of all of us here to see the entire Bill work should not be doubted. I am grateful to the Minister for the trouble he has taken and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Listowel The Earl of Listowel moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 17, at end insert—
("(2A) In section 20 (provision of accommodation of children: general) after subsection (11) insert—
"(12) A local authority shall continue to provide accommodation to any child who has reached the age of sixteen unless that child can demonstrate that he is ready and willing to cease being looked after by them."").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to place a duty on local authorities to continue looking after children that they may have accommodated and to see that they do not discharge these young people before they are ready to take on independence. This amendment relates to accommodated children only, and refers to those aged 16 and over: thus the concern of the Minister at Committee stage that local authorities might be unwilling to provide short-term care for a young child whose parent, for example, is in hospital would come within the scope of the amendment and would be addressed. This consequence was certainly not intended and obviously should be avoided.
The Minister said that this Bill's new provisions will act as a disincentive to local authorities discharging children prematurely from care, because the same authorities will now take on financial responsibility for these young people when they have left care. We feel the balance is right. However, I believe that this amendment is still very important, for the following reasons. It represents a direct statement of government principle and policy, as opposed to relying solely on a new system which may or may not be adequate. It imposes a legal duty on the local authority not to discharge a young person from accommodation unless that young person is ready and willing to leave. It is the experience of the Children's Consortium that, without the imposition of express duties, local authorities frequently do not provide what is owed, thus thwarting the Government's good intentions.
While the provisions in this Bill are considerably stronger than at present, there are still uncertainties about how the Bill will work in practice. In particular, there are uncertainties about the financial arrangements for young people. So far the Government have given no guarantee that minimum standards of financial support will be incorporated in regulations. This is a matter which causes great anxiety to young people about the changes to be introduced by this Bill.
This amendment is not designed to force young people to remain accommodated against their will. The queries from looked-after children to Voice from the Child in Care, for example, are invariably about how to avoid being prematurely ejected from care rather than about being held in care against their will. The purpose is to ensure that young people are not discharged prematurely. There are stronger protections in law for young people who continue to be looked after, affecting important matters such as decisions with siblings, being kept near home and wishes to be in contact with their families, friends or other significant people. In view of the failures that

1247
there have been in the past in the care of vulnerable young people, I hope the Minister will agree about the necessity for such a precaution. I beg to move.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Earl, Lord Listowel for two reasons. This amendment gives to local authorities a necessary flexibility. Young people of the age of 16 who have been in care face two situations: first, the disruption of moving from accommodation that provides them with a personal support programme; and secondly, leaving school and entering the world of work, which is a huge change in their lives.
In many of our debates on homelessness we have talked about people needing time to adjust and to gather different life skills. Moving one's residence from somewhere that is secure and supportive as well as dealing with the challenge of starting work is extremely difficult for people whose lives have been full of disruption. Therefore, I believe that this amendment should be supported because it will give young people stability for a longer period, and they will not be denied that stability at an arbitrary cut-off point. It also enables those working with them to plan the support accordingly. For those reasons, I believe there is much to commend the amendment as it stands.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for allowing us to debate these important issues again. On minimum financial arrangements, we intend, through statutory guidance, to issue minimum standards, which will include financial standards. I hope that that meets the point raised by the noble Earl.
I certainly understand the point raised by the noble Earl and the noble Baroness. One of the great motivations in all we seek to do in this Bill is to ensure that young people in care do not leave before they are ready to do so. That is the whole purpose of the delicate balance that is placed in the Bill as now before the House. I believe that real risks are involved if this amendment is passed, in that young people would be forced to remain in care against their wishes. It may have the perverse result of giving them an incentive to run away.
I believe that the construction of the Bill as now before the House is the best way to go forward. It provides for the removal of perverse incentives for local authorities to encourage young people to leave, the close involvement of young persons' advisers in decisions about their lives and the future, the pathway plans and the package support from local authorities.
I accept that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has suggested that we need a rather more forceful approach alongside what is contained in the Bill as it now stands, but I believe that such an amendment is unnecessary. First, the neediest young people—those under a care order—will in any case remain in care until they reach the age of 18 unless the order is discharged by a court. For those who are accommodated voluntarily, assessing the optimum time when they should leave care is clearly a very
1248
important matter. It is also a matter which must allow for some choice on the young person's part, recognising that they cannot be forced to remain in care if they are accommodated on a voluntary basis.
I recognise that some young people may well continue to leave the care of local authorities before they are ready to do so, despite the best efforts of all concerned to point out that it will not be in their best interests. However, I feel that it would be wrong to insist that a child who is voluntarily accommodated should remain in care against his or her wishes. As I said earlier, it seems to me that that would do no good and might make a difficult situation worse. Where persuasion and argument are ineffective, coercion is unlikely to improve matters.
I believe that it is preferable for young people to remain in care until they are ready and willing to leave. No one could disagree with that proposition. I believe it is a proposition on which much of the philosophy of this Bill is based. However, I cannot agree that a young person should be forced to stay in care when he or she is determined to move on.
It is also the case that those young people who leave care will no longer be able to step into the streets and disappear. Nor will their local authority be able to forget about them. The responsible authority will be under a duty to support and accommodate young people who leave care wherever they choose to live in the country. Their young person's adviser will be in touch with them and they will still have a pathway plan, regularly reviewed and updated.
As I stated in Committee, at the heart of the Bill is a determination to provide the right kind of support for all young people who have been in care. That includes the recognition that, while each will have different abilities and requirements which must be met in different ways, all of them need the security of having someone responsible for their welfare. The new duties placed on the responsible authority are designed to provide just that. On that basis I invite the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his full reply. Of course I am reassured also by his response to the first amendment, which suggests that careful attention will be paid to make sure that the results of the Bill come through as intended. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, leave out line 33 and insert—
("(c) is between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 3 ensures that local authorities are under a duty to meet the continuing assessed needs of young people up to the age of 21 who have previously been in care. The amendment would provide a safety net for those young people who leave care and get into difficulties later on. It is clear that this matter is of great importance to those on these Benches, as on other

1249
Benches. We had a long discussion on this matter in Committee. It is an important proposed amendment to the Bill.
The background is that Paragraph 19B introduces a new duty on local authorities to assess and meet the needs of eligible young people aged 16 and 17. On 10th February in the debate in grand Committee, the Minister expressed his agreement with the principle of the need to extend the proposed 'new duty to care leavers up to the age of 21: He said that the Government were committed to doing that as soon as possible. However, the problem, as he expressed it, was essentially one of timing. Of course, on these Benches, we understand the timing difficulties faced by the Government and the fact that the Comprehensive Spending Review round two has not yet pronounced. We remain firmly of the view that this amendment, together with a later amendment in relation to education, work and training, should be put on the face of the Bill.
Our view is that if the amendment is not accepted now, we may well be overtaken by new and pressing concerns—that is the nature of the beast—and that young people in care will revert or risk reverting to their former low priority. A powerful moral and practical case for pressing ahead has been made by Sir William Utting in the House of Lords at a meeting in January. He concluded,
"a better time for pressing ahead is unlikely to occur. If it is not done now, can it ever be done?".
I wholeheartedly agree with that.
What is the case for extending the duty to 21? Young people leaving care have to cope with the challenges and responsibilities of major changes in their lives at a far earlier age than other young people. Yet they face additional problems purely as a result of having been in care. Difficulties faced by young people in care in fulfilling their potential were discussed in Grand Committee. In response, the Minister commented that,
"there is no reason why the local authority would refuse an extra year of foster care".—[Official Report, 10/2/00; col. CWH 33.]
Yet there are numerous examples of local authorities which do exactly that.
Let me give the House a case study. John Wells, an experienced foster carer from Kent, spoke to First Key—a well-known voluntary organisation in this field—in relation to David (not his real name). Although David was previously considered to be under-achieving and "lazy", with a settled foster home life and encouragement from his foster carers his standards improved drastically, to the extent that he got nine good grades at GCSE. He is now studying for A-levels and intends to go to university. Yet, with the approach of his 18th birthday in January, he risked losing all of that and the achievement of something he once thought unattainable.
The authority was proposing that, once he was 18, he should leave home and move into his own flat. Only after the intervention of a local councillor, the local MP, the submission of a formal complaint, persistent efforts by his foster carers and the personal interest of
1250
the Head of Social Services, was the matter settled. In the words of his foster carers, it would appear that once young people in care reach the age of 18, the system changes from "care to don't care". The authority has reduced the level of financial support and expects David to move into independent accommodation as soon as his exams are over. As John said,
"We would be interested to know what level of care we should reduce whilst he is still at school and studying for 'A' levels. We never reduced our level of care to our own children between their 18th birthdays and 'A' levels and cannot see any satisfactory reason to reduce David's just because he is in the care system".
John is worried about how David will manage in the future without their intensive support and advocacy on his behalf.
That is a powerful case study. It cannot be right that we expect young people in care to go to such lengths to obtain the opportunities that other young people take for granted. The powers local authorities presently hold must become duties if care leavers are to achieve their full potential.
Let me give another, shorter, case study. Carol—again, not her real name—is another bright young woman who is also sitting A-levels and hopes to go to university. Again, her future is uncertain and she may be forced to move home because she is living in foster care and will be 18 in April. It is unclear what support will be made for Carol once she is 18, which is unsettling in itself. The uncertainty is adding considerably to the stress she is under as she revises for exams.
I shall not go into the costs of the provision from 18 to 21 if this amendment were passed; I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will do that. But let me conclude by saying that it cannot be right that children and young people leaving care have to fight for financial and practical assistance to stay on a course, in a job or a home where they feel secure and happy. The cost of eradicating social exclusion manifested in problems like homelessness and unemployment is enormous. Now is the right time to make the change and extend local authorities' duty of care to 21. This amendment is supported by the Association of Directors of Social Services. That in itself indicates that this is a clearly practical, clearly desirable course of action and I urge the Government to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, when we debated this issue in Committee, the need to cost the provision of additional support was the reason given as to why the changes advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, cannot be made now. We are dependent, so it appears, on the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review before we know whether or not what we want and what Ministers say they want, can be afforded.
I should like to know what estimate the Department of Health has now made of the cost of this change. Yet I wonder whether there is a net cost attached to it at all. There is sound independent research evidence that

1251
spending additional money on proper leaving care support and assistance saves money in the long run. Independent research by Barnardo's into the outcomes of leaving care schemes concludes that the schemes work,
"particularly well in respect of accommodation and life skills and to some extent in furthering social networks, developing relationships and building self-esteem".
In a major survey of 3,308 young people leaving care across 46 leaving-care projects, major improvements were identified in relation to young people's housing options. The same survey identified positive outcomes in relation to the reduction of unemployment levels. One leaving-care team in Lewisham reduced unemployment levels among the 325 young people participating from 46 per cent in 1993 to 26 per cent in 1996. There is additional convincing evidence that focused, leaving-care support may also contribute to reducing potential future offending.
Findings like those reaffirm the importance of taking into account the cost of not extending the duty as proposed, a cost measured in higher benefit bills, increased health expenditure and reduced tax revenues, quite apart from the cost to the life chances and opportunities of young people themselves.
Research shows that placement stability and the provision of supporting foster care placements are closely linked to educational achievements. Where authorities have utilised their powers to assist with access to education—for example, in some of the authorities recently achieving a Beacon Council award in leaving care—the results have been very positive. The National Fostercare Association worked with the London Borough of Brent to pilot the provision of focused foster care support together with guaranteed financial support for the young person's first year at college or university. According to Sue Mathews from the London Borough of Brent,
"Everyone benefits. Carers and workers have been delighted to see such successful outcomes—teaching, fashion design, law and engineering are just some of the courses the young people have completed. Many are now living in their own flats and making the most of life's opportunities".
We must not overlook one important fact about children in care. They are not simply needy children or children who will be all right so long as we give them an adviser. They are often very damaged children; sometimes children with mental health problems who are vulnerable and emotionally scarred. Let us be in no doubt that for the state to support such children is and should be an onerous task. It is as onerous as normal parental responsibility, if not more so.
To remove support for a care leaver at 18 flies in the face of everything that Ministers have said about accepting the state's public parental role. At 18 there is little room for error or failure. The risk of a young person of 18 dropping out of the system is considerable. Once we have to pick up the pieces of social exclusion, homelessness and unemployment, the cost is substantial. By comparison, early preventive support has to be seen as both effective and affordable
1252
as well as socially just. Now is the right time to make the change and extend local authorities' duties to care to 21.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, many of the young people covered by this Bill will be institutionalised; many will be late developers; many will have learning difficulties such as dyslexia. The Minister said that there should be flexibility. This amendment gives just that. I strongly support it.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, it is a fundamental principle of childcare that the earlier an intervention is made, the more likely it is that a positive outcome will be reached. A recurrent theme of those who work with damaged children and young people is that of continuity and of maintaining a special and long-lasting relationship with a significant other adult person.
Perhaps I may report to the House my experience of meeting a young woman in Centrepoint's hostel for the homeless. She had a steel pin pierced through her chin. She talked to her friend of her many sexual encounters and her enjoyment of drugs. Later, she sat very close to a male staff member, a new acquaintance, and rubbed herself against him. If a child has not experienced a continuing significant relationship and has not known the love of a parent, she may well seek solace in promiscuity and drug taking or other kinds of vicious, self-destructive activity.
If a child who has been looked after by his foster parent is obliged to leave that carer before he is ready, he may lose out on life's single most important lesson; namely, how to sustain a loving relationship. It is that experience which teaches young people how to find a partner for themselves and to form a family of their own. Of course, foster family support is necessary for helping young people to find education and sustain their educational courses, but they also need help, not only practical but also emotional assistance, to be able to cope with the stresses of taking on a first job or perhaps resisting the temptation to enter into crime.
For that reason, I am concerned that if this amendment is not put on to the face of the Bill, there will be pressures on foster families—most young people in care are in foster care—to terminate such relationships or for those relationships to be diluted prematurely. That is why, as treasurer to the All-Party Parliamentary Group for the Child, I so strongly support this amendment.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, this is a significant amendment and an important matter for debate. First, I should like to say to noble Lords that I do not disagree at all about the importance of the points that they have put concerning 18 to 21 year-olds. In Grand Committee I believe that I made it clear that the question for the Government is not "if" but "when".
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred to the possibility of what he described as "new and pressing concerns" overtaking the focus that we are

1253
currently placing on children leaving care. Perhaps I may reassure him that this matter will remain a priority for the Government. We want to bring about improvements as soon as possible. However, I reiterate a point that I have already made. We must ensure that proper funding is available, but as yet we not in a position to do so. Nevertheless, noble Lords should be in no doubt of our intention to impose the new duty for 18 to 21 year-olds on local authorities as soon as we can.
Before I turn to the substance of the argument, I should make a comment on the drafting of the amendment. I have doubts as to whether making such young people "relevant children" is the right approach. By extending the definition of "relevant children" up to the age of 21, it would mean that all the provisions of the Bill applying to relevant children would apply to all those affected until they were 21 years old. That would include the new financial arrangements, making people up to the age of 21 ineligible for non-contributory benefits. As the Bill stands, relevant children are taken out of the benefits system in favour of comprehensive support from their responsible authority. While I believe that to be absolutely right—indeed, it is a basic tenet of the Bill for children aged 16 and 17—I am not at all sure that that would be the right approach for young people aged 18 and over. Those young people are of course legally adults and, I believe, should be treated as such. However, I recognise and acknowledge the principle that lies behind the amendment rather than only its precise wording.
I believe that we should recognise that it is not the case that the Bill does nothing for care leavers aged 18 and over. In answer to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, when he told the House about the case histories of David and Carol, the Bill offers significant improvements for care leavers aged 18 and over. Section 23C sets out responsible authorities' continuing responsibilities towards former relevant children. They will receive the services of their young person's adviser until they are at least 21 years old. The responsible authority must continue to keep in touch with them until they are at least 21, which includes making efforts to re-establish contact with a young person who disappears. Young people will still have their pathway plans covering future plans and ambitions, including support which the local authority will provide until they are least 21.
I believe that the pathway planning process up to 21 and the young person's adviser will between them make it far more likely that a young person will have the assistance they need to meet their ambitions and to receive the kind of support that I very much agree is necessary. The prospects for care leavers will be significantly improved by the Bill as it stands. However, I agree with noble Lords that we ought to take the extra step to guarantee assistance and we will do so as soon as we are able.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, has tempted me to talk about estimates and detailed discussions in the spending review. He knows that I am not going to go down that path, but I well understand the point that he
1254
has made. The whole philosophy of this Bill is predicated on making the necessary investment in services to support vulnerable young people. The knock-on effect of that investment will be of benefit to individuals and to society as a whole. No doubt those arguments will be used to good effect in the discussions that will take place in the future.
I should like to reassure noble Lords that we take this matter very seriously. We are committed to imposing the new duty on local authorities to assist these young people as soon as possible. I can give an assurance that we will make the necessary arrangements as soon as we are able to do so.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his considered reply which, like his reply in Grand Committee to a similar amendment, is not unsympathetic. That is much appreciated and phrases such as, "not if, but when", the assurance that the needs of these young people will remain a priority and the further assurance that the Government intend to impose a duty on local authorities are all welcome.
The noble Lord has been helpful in elucidating the position of a young person over the age of 18 even where the new provisions do not come into effect. I accept his points about the amendment. There may well be other forms of words that can be used to introduce a duty to cover those over the age of 18 that do not deprive a young person of benefits in those circumstances.
However, while I appreciate what the Minister has said, the clear fact remains that essentially the only way to guarantee that a young person between the ages of 18 and 21 will be properly supported is to change the definition and to find a form of words to ensure that a young person does not lose his or her entitlement to benefits. For that reason, a change to primary legislation must remain our clear goal. The Minister is clearly relaxed about the cost involved. He has already made his estimates and the department has already submitted them—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord is wrong to assume from what I said that I am "relaxed" about estimates for future expenditure.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I would not want the Minister to blot his copy-book with the Treasury. Therefore, I entirely accept what he says. However, whether or not the Minister is relaxed about them, the estimates have clearly been made and they are in place. One hopes that the department has made a rattling good submission with all the right arguments behind it. I would make exactly the same arguments, but our timing is perhaps rather earlier than that for which the Minister has made the case. This is not the time for night-watchmen to be testing the opinion of the House, so I do not propose to press the amendment at this stage. Nevertheless, the Minister can rest assured that we shall return to the matter at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, leave out lines 5 to 8 and insert—
("(1) It is the duty of the responsible local authority to take reasonable steps to establish or maintain contact with a relevant child or young person at such times as are reasonable with a view to discharging their functions under this section, whether or not that child or young person is within their area.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the regrettable absence of the noble Lord, Lord Laming—he sends his apologies to the House—I shall move this amendment. Noble Lords will remember that we had some discussion on this matter in Grand Committee. The amendment before us is very close to the one that was moved at that stage. A number of noble Lords, including myself and the noble Lord, Lord Laming, raised questions about the meaning of the expression "keep in touch" and about the way in which the intention of the legislation would, perhaps, not be best implemented by such wording.
We are talking about a colloquial expression; indeed, it seemed to us to be a rather flippant one. For example, is sending a postcard adequate to keep in touch? I do not believe that that is a proper way to stay in contact with a young person, but it could be said that keeping in touch by a postcard could qualify under the terms of that section. Under new Section 23B (of the 1989 Act) there are other very concrete duties proposed in terms of both housing and income support. It is wrong that this expression should form part of that section.
When considering the type of continuing relationship that one needs to have with these young people, it is a matter of maintaining proper contact with them. It is not a case of simply keeping in touch, which could be very ambiguously interpreted. I also suggest that the phraseology of "each local authority" in the current subsection is confusing. As new Section 23A(4) refers to a "responsible local authority", it seems to me that that would be the appropriate expression. In Grand Committee, the Minister said that such phraseology appears in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. However, that does not mean that that is the right phraseology for this Bill.
The crucial importance of staying in contact under this Bill is undoubted. It is absolutely vital that that duty should be clearly imposed on a local authority. I do not believe that the use of the expression "keep in touch" contained in another piece of legislation is necessarily a definitive argument for the purposes of this Bill. The wording does not take into account the sensitivities, such as the amount of contact that is appropriate for the young person depending on his or her needs and wishes. The wording in the current amendment would certainly provide the kind of duty and flexibility that is needed in these circumstances. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I should like to reinforce the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. The phrase "keep in touch" is not just colloquial; it is also vague. It really is not clear to me—nor, I suspect, to others reading the Bill—what that expression means. However, "keeping in contact" carries the
1256
implication of a two-way process. It also carries the implication of something rather more substantial than whatever ideas are normally denoted by the phrase "keep in touch". I wonder whether this is a matter that the Minister and his department should reconsider most carefully.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Laming, is not present this evening. I know that he is very exercised about the use of the wording "keep in touch". I offered in Grand Committee to look into the matter, and I have done so. However, despite the best efforts of the noble Lord and the noble Earl, I feel reinforced as regards the use of the expression "keep in touch" in this context.
The key point here is that there is no disagreement between us in one respect. Whether we describe it as "keeping in touch", "keeping in contact", or whatever, it is quite clear that this will be an important responsibility on local authorities. It is not an issue of policy upon which we are disagreeing; it is more a question of language. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Laming, spoke of the importance of using the right language. I agree with him. It is certainly important to get the language right. That is why I have given most careful consideration to the matter. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, described the expression "keep in touch" as being rather "colloquial". As I suggested in Committee, I think that it could actually be regarded as good plain English, which is what many noble Lords are always seeking to insert into the legislation that we discuss in this House.
The term "keep in touch" is used not only in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to which the noble Lord referred; it appears also in the Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991 and the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973, which I am very glad to pray in aid. I accept that one could argue that the phrase could mean different things in different contexts, but I do not see that as a source of weakness; indeed, it is actually a source of strength because we need some flexibility in these arrangements to take account of the needs and wishes of each young person as an individual.
For some young people, keeping in touch will require only a "light touch", but the door should always be open for more intensive support if it becomes apparent that that is needed. However, a much higher level of support will be needed for other young people who are more vulnerable or more at risk. In that sense, the duty to "keep in touch" allows for both those extremes and everything in between.
On the more substantive issue of how this will actually work, perhaps I may make it clear to noble Lords that we shall be issuing guidance to local authorities about what is expected of them by way of the "keep in touch" provision and what reasonable steps they will be expected to take to re-establish contact if they lose touch. This, together with the performance assessment framework, will ensure that keeping in touch is the proactive and rigorous approach that we all want to see. I can assure noble Lords that through the performance monitoring and

1257
assessment procedures we shall be checking to ensure that local authorities adhere to the guidance and carry it out properly and effectively.
I should like to take this opportunity to mention that the duty will fall on the local authority. It will be up to the local authority to decide who is to discharge the duty of keeping in touch on its behalf. We expect that that would normally be carried out by the young person's adviser, but there might be circumstances under which the duty is discharged by someone else; for example, if the young person and his or her adviser had had a falling out. To allow for this and to clear up any doubt, we shall be tabling an amendment at Third Reading to make it clear that regulations may set out the functions of the personal adviser in respect of all the groups of children and young people who may be entitled to one, but that they may also have other functions conferred on them by the local authority. This would allow the local authority to include keeping in touch as part of the adviser's functions but the ultimate responsibility would remain with the authority.
Although I sense that we disagree about the use of language here, there is absolutely no disagreement at all about this being an important function of the local authority in these arrangements. We shall ensure through guidance that local authorities know what is required of them and we shall through our performance assessment mechanisms ensure that they perform those tasks effectively. Where they do not do so, we shall be able forcefully to remind local authorities of their duties.
9 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for a much more persuasive and detailed response than was given in Committee. He has gone into much more detail as regards the "who" and the "how" of the "keep in touch" duty. I very much appreciate that. The use of the relevant words in a 1973 Act shows that some parliamentary draftsman was well ahead of his time in the use of language. Be that as it may, I appreciated the Minister going through with such care all previous legislation containing the relevant words.
I took comfort from the Minister's comments on how the practical duty would be monitored and from his comments on guidance and performance monitoring and assessment. I believe that that is of great importance. I am glad that the Minister announced that an amendment would be introduced at Third Reading with regard to the duties of young persons' advisers. It is tremendously important to clarify the nature of their duties. I thank the Minister for making that provision clear at this stage so that we can be prepared for it.
I shall, no doubt, consult other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Laming, on this matter, but in the mean time I thank the Minister for his reply and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Advice and assistance for certain children and young persons aged 16 or over]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 7, line 13, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, for me, and I suspect other noble Lords also, this amendment represents one of the two principal issues at stake in this stage of our deliberations on the Bill. I refer to the critical importance of giving young people leaving care the financial support that they need to pursue a course of education or training or to find a job. The Bill, as it stands, gives local authorities a power to provide such assistance. Through this amendment I propose that this power should be turned into a duty.
Why do I make this proposal? The reason is that we already know from the implementation of the Children Act that a permissive power is simply not enough. There is in the Children Act an almost identical power for local authorities to provide assistance to care leavers for the purpose of education, training or employment. That power is hardly ever used for the simple reason that most local authorities cannot afford to do so.
I come back to a point that I made earlier this evening. Children leaving care are not just children in need of support; they are damaged children. They are children whose trauma often has led them to a raft of mental health problems. We should never allow ourselves to forget the extent to which children leaving care need all the opportunity they can get for a stable start in life and for acquiring a measure of self-esteem. Some 75 per cent of care leavers leave school with no educational qualifications at all. The mountain that those children have to climb in terms of achieving employability and financial independence is truly enormous.
What care leavers generally want is not nannying; it is hope, and the opportunity to find their own level in life—the opportunity to make a mistake in the direction they may first decide to take, just like any other normal young person, and not to be consigned to the scrapheap if they make such a mistake.
In that context I ask the Minister a question. In the old days, when children in care were typically retained in the care system until the age of 18, it used to be possible, and quite common, for local authorities to foster constructive relationships with local employers, and for those employers to be ready to give young people that essential lift on to the first rung of the employment ladder. Often the loyalty worked in both directions, with the young person determined to make the most of what had been given him.
Nowadays, with children leaving care at 16 or younger, those relationships with employers have largely fallen away. What thought have the Government given to encouraging employers to take on young people who leave the care system? We are right, of course, to place emphasis on education and training, but there is no doubt that getting a job is the single most important lever that a young person can deploy to lift him out of the culture of dependency. It is the route to self-esteem.
I hope that the Minister can go a little further than he did in Committee. If there is already a general power in the Bill to provide assistance for education and training in the terms of new Section 24B, and if, as the Minister has said, the Government want local authorities to use these powers wherever appropriate, the question arises: is funding really a difficulty here? Will not the funding have to be provided anyway? Let us be clear, this is not an amendment that extends the scope of the Bill in the same sense as does Amendment No. 3. The scope to provide assistance is already there. Therefore, I put it to the Minister: what is to be lost by making this provision into a duty; and, is there not much to be gained? I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I support the very important amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Howe.
Underlying both this and the previous amendment is the fear that unless the duty is stated in the primary legislation, local authorities will not deliver the support needed to these young people. The noble Earl was correct when he said that they were "damaged" on occasion. They are people who have had none of the advantages; quite often they have to take their opportunities rather later in life than many who have had a simpler and more straightforward family background.
We were fortunate to have the noble Earl, Lord Russell, contribute to our deliberations during the Grand Committee stage. He said:
"Whether I wear my political or my academic hat, I am committed to the ideal that educational opportunities should be open to all on the grounds of merit only—not of parental income. In the case of care leavers, I do not see how we can possibly say that".
He meant that we cannot possibly say that at the moment we have a situation where care leavers have educational opportunities open to them purely on the basis of merit. He went on to say:
"According to the DETR study on that, a very large number of those simply cannot meet the shortfall by which their rent exceeds their housing benefit. A great many rely on family and friends to get them through".—[Official Report, 10/2/00; col. CWH 4.]
He is talking there about the generality of students. If that is the case for the generality of students, then of course care leavers are in a far worse position. Students quite often can fall back on their families; care leavers have no such benefit. What they have to do—and what they should be able to do—is to fall back on their corporate parents. That is what the amendment is designed to do. It seeks to have that corporate parenthood survive through until the age of 24 in terms of education opportunities.
It is important to ensure that these young people—many of whom start their education rather late in life—have the full benefit of a proper higher and further education. The amendment is extremely important in the context of this Bill.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, as the House will know, many children in care are often moved
1260
about and foster placements often break down. Education is the most important insurance policy to fit them for adult life. It is very important.
When I visited a drug rehabilitation centre yesterday, I was very heartened to discover that it was encouraging young and not so young people—some of them were over 30—to go to colleges, to take courses and to be rehabilitated. I was pleased to hear that the local authorities were going to pay—or at least they hoped they were going to pay.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, these young people lack emotional security. When they are seeking an education, the least one can give them is financial security. With a lack of emotional security it may be difficult for them to concentrate, but at least they can give it a go.
As my noble friend Lord Laming pointed out in Committee, the implementation of the amendment may not involve a great deal of resource. Experience suggests that, sadly, relatively few young people from this group will choose to stay in education until the age of 24.
The figures underline the importance of the amendment. Nearly 4,000 of the 5,000 young people leaving care each year have no educational qualifications whatever. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, made that point very strongly. In the 21st century, young people simply cannot afford to be without an education. I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I recognise that the amendment runs in parallel with Amendment No. 3 and that it is as important. I have a great deal of sympathy with the substance of what all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate have said. We know that education and training is crucial to all young people, but how much more important is it for this particular group of people who have been so let down by both the care and the educational system in the past?
However, for the reasons I discussed in our debate on Amendment No. 3, I am not in a position to support the amendment because of the funding consequences. I shall say a little more about that in a moment. I want to assure the House that this is a case of "when" and not "if'. As soon as they are able, the Government will seek to extend provisions in relation to education and training to young people formerly in care up to the age of 21.
I should also like to inform the House that on Third Reading I shall be bringing forward amendments which will clarify a local authority's duties in respect of education and employment for relevant children aged 16 and 17. They will also cover assistance with employment, education and training.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, referred to the statistics which we discussed at Second Reading and to the quite awful statistic that as many as 75 per cent of children leave care without a single educational qualification as against the national average of 6 per cent. That is such a striking statistic that it has to be

1261
addressed. As noble Lords will know, this has been picked up within the Quality Protects agenda, which has set targets for the educational outcomes of children in care. We certainly intend to build on that initiative and follow it through for young people who leave care.
Perhaps I may turn to a particular aspect of this discussion. As the Bill has gone through the House, we have realised that there is a lack of clarity about local authorities' duties on education and training for relevant children aged 16 and 17. It is important to be clear that this should be a normal part of the support to be provided by the responsible authority. I shall bring forward an amendment at Third Reading to ensure that there is the power to make regulations about assistance with employment, education and training for this group, as well as about advice, assistance and befriending.
With regard to the arguments for providing assistance with education and training, I have already said that we are determined that that should happen, but we run into the same problem as we have for general assistance for young people aged 18 and over. We cannot impose a new duty on local authorities without the funding to back it. I take the point of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who said that the funding would be relatively small because so few young people would get through to that stage of education. But I must enter a note of optimism here. We must build what we do in the future on the hope and expectation that, as a result of the changes both in the Bill and in the Quality Protects programme, more and more of these young people will be able to get access to education. That therefore means that the funding consequences will probably be more than the noble Earl suggested.
Although I cannot accept an amendment which would place a new duty on the face of the Bill, I can tell the House that I will be bringing forward amendments at Third Reading covering assistance with employment, education and training. We shall introduce a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations imposing a duty on local authorities to assist prescribed groups with the costs associated with employment. These regulations will be used to prescribe former relevant children up to the age of 21. We shall introduce a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations imposing a duty on local authorities to assist prescribed groups with education and training. Those regulations will be used to prescribe former relevant children up to the age of 21.
In addition, there will be a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing circumstances in which that assistance should continue beyond the age of 21. Those regulations will be used to ensure that a former relevant child will continue to receive assistance to the end of a programme of education, even if it takes him past the age of 21. That means that if a young person's pathway plan envisages that he might read for a first degree and then follow it up with a postgraduate degree, he would be assisted to the end of that entire programme.
1262
The effect of the amendments that I will bring forward at Third Reading will be to make duties, though of course the crucial question then will be when those would come into operation. I am not able to give a specific date for the very reasons that we discussed both on this amendment and in relation to Amendment No. 3, but the Bill as amended will allow that to take place in the future.
These are significant commitments. I hope that they reassure the House of the seriousness with which we take this issue and our determination to address it.
9.15 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for an encouraging reply and an encouraging statement of intent on the part of the Government. He has provided us with a great deal more reassurance today than he was able to provide in Committee, particularly with regard to what he said about when and not if. I agree with him that at present there is a lack of clarity in the duties of local authorities. The provision of support for the purposes we have been debating should be a normal part of their activities. It seems that there is little between the Minister and myself and other noble Lords on this issue. We therefore look forward to the amendments that he has said he will bring forward at Third Reading and we shall examine them carefully. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Barker Baroness Barker moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 8, line 29, at end insert—
("(3) No local authority shall exercise the powers conferred by this section in respect of a child or young person who is not assisted by an independent advocate, unless having been informed of his right to an independent advocate, he has refused to avail himself of such assistance.".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 8. These proposals relate to the second of the major issues referred to earlier by the noble Earl, Lord Howe; namely, the need to establish in the Bill a legal right of advocacy—and advocacy solely in relation to complaints procedures.
When the Bill was in Grand Committee, there was much discussion about a general right of advocacy. Since that time, the matter has been reconsidered at some length. On this side of the House, we have arrived at the conclusion that, although a general provision of advocacy may be unnecessary, the right of a young child to advocacy during a complaints procedure continues to be necessary.
The Minister is extremely fond of the word "balance". Those of us who meet the Minister in regard to a number of different Bills may perhaps be termed members of the "balance club". Perhaps we should have a self-denying ordinance to use the word "balance" only once. I want to use it now.
I have spoken on other occasions about balance but also about the idea of equation. A number of different factors need to be considered in relation to the word "balance". The more the Minister talks about devolving matters to regulation and guidance, the more some of us will continue to press for a right of advocacy. In that way we shall seek to ensure the correct balance to protect people's rights in all these matters.
Noble Lords may have heard me speak previously about the necessity of advocacy for certain groups of people. I remember once being very touched by a remark made by a middle-aged woman who was a chair user. She said that every major decision in her life had been taken where there was an oak table which smelt of polish. She said that she could not now look at oak table or smell polish without having a rising sense of fear about what was going to be done to her and about whether she would understand what was going to be done to her. That is an evocation of what happens to some people when they are in care.
The right to an advocate during a complaints procedure is an essential ingredient to make sure that the procedure works properly. It should deal not only with serious allegations but should also establish good practice. By the time someone in care has gone to the lengths of using a complaints procedure, that person has summoned up an enormous amount of courage to make the complaint and run the risk of being removed from what is his or her only home. In those circumstances, people have a right to support.
Why is it necessary to have an express right of support on the face of the Bill? Because, without such express provision, it simply will not happen. We have talked already about duties and expectations that will be placed on hard-pressed local authorities. Some of us have expressed doubts as to whether the many priorities that we see in relation to vulnerable people will come anywhere near the top of a local authority list of spending priorities.
I believe that the provision of an advocate in a complaints process is, apart from anything else, one of the key determining factors in good practice—good practice both in relation to people being enabled to express their views and their complaints, but also in providing protection for the staff who are subject to some of those complaints. We must bear in mind that often in residential care complaints are raised which are erroneous and vindictive. We have spoken about that in other circumstances. Having an advocate there has a two-way effect. I believe very strongly that we need to put this matter on the face of the Bill. The Minister has said before that the Government are sympathetic to this issue, but without it being written expressly into the Bill it will not happen. It will be like a Sam Goldwyn verbal contract and not worth the paper it is written on. Therefore, this is one of the key elements of making sure that this Bill works in practice. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I support these amendments. I believe that the noble Baroness has summed up the case very well and I do not intend to repeat the points that she made. As has been said on earlier occasions, there is no doubt whatsoever of the degree of user satisfaction for advocacy services. Their impact and benefit are immense. That was recognised explicitly by Sir William Utting in his review. The trouble at present is that the provision of advocacy services is patchy both in quality and quantity across the country.
Young people who are looked after are generally less emotionally mature and certainly less educationally accomplished than their contemporaries. They need to be able to look to an independent adult to stand alongside them and speak for them when necessary.
As the noble Baroness reminded us, the Minister expressed the Government's support for independent advocacy through their Quality Protects programme but resisted the idea of introducing a legal right. I found what the Minister said only partly reassuring. The problem is that without an express legal duty to do so, local authorities frequently do not provide what is hoped of them, whatever good intentions are there in the first instance.
I can only conclude that a child's right to advocacy when making a complaint should be enshrined in primary legislation. There is the point that the proposed right reflects Article 12(2) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It may also reflect Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Government have made a commitment to the provision of advocacy support for 16 and 17 year-olds who come within the scope of this Bill. They have given no commitment to younger children who come within the remit of the Children Act. If the Government accept that advocacy is important for 16 and 17 year-olds, it is illogical not to extend that protection to all children who may be involved in making a complaint at some point. For all those reasons I support the amendments.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I attended a meeting this week about a commissioner for children. A Minister, Mr Paul Boateng, spoke out very strongly that the voice of the child should be heard. Can the Government say whether there is really joined-up thinking? How is the voice of a child in care to be heard? I would like the Minister to think how it would be heard unless there is an advocate to speak for it. It is very difficult. We have to look back at all the reports that have been made. The Welsh report was the last one. It said that nobody believed the child. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I speak to the point of low self-esteem in these young people. When one has had an unsettled childhood one is likely to have a lower self-esteem and be less assertive. They must be important factors in putting a duty on those who are the state parent, as it were, to provide a mechanism to

1265
ensure that the voice is amplified and that the child is supported in getting what it needs, and not simply fobbed off with what the state or local authority feels it convenient to give.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness and other noble Lords have been very persuasive in dealing with the impact and importance of advocacy services. While I am unable to accept the amendment, I hope that I can go a long way to meet the concerns that all noble Lords have expressed on this matter. I start by repeating what I said in Grand Committee. I am the first to acknowledge that advocacy can play a very important role in ensuring that young people receive the support that they need and deserve. It is very important that the Government and the nation learn the lessons that emerge from the Waterhouse report and the experiences of the young people described in those appalling cases.
In responding to the amendment it is worth rehearsing the various ways in which at present the Government make clear their support for, and encouragement of, the growth of advocacy services. Noble Lords will be aware that the Children Act itself includes provisions to respect the entitlement of looked-after children to be consulted and to have their views and feelings taken into account whenever there is a decision to be made about them. Further, a local authority must consider a complaint made to it by the child itself or others such as the parents or persons with a sufficient interest in the child's welfare. Many complaints are brought forward by people other than the child itself.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said that the voice of the child must be heard. I do not believe that any of us disagrees with that sentiment. Listening to children is a major theme of the safeguards review and the Quality Protects programme. Children's participation is a priority area for the special grant under the Quality Protects programme which is a major initiative to improve services for children. It has at its heart children's participation, listening to children and ensuring that their rights are fully protected. As part of that programme we are researching current provision in relation to advocacy. That will help us to inform future developments as we move towards an advocacy system of greater coherence and high quality.
I am the first to acknowledge the complaints made by noble Lords tonight about the current patchy performance of local authorities. As to those services which are currently provided by local authorities for children who leave care, one can point to excellent services but also very poor ones. Because of that the Government have asked local authorities to pay particular attention to the development of advocacy services.
The Department of Health's guidance to local authorities in October 1999 under the Quality Protects programme included independent advocacy services as one of six priority areas for the children's services
1266
grant. There are also a number of very good national advocacy services which undertake work with a wide range of children. The Department of Health supports that work. The DoH has funded the development of national standards for advocacy services through a grant to the National Youth Advocacy Service. There can be no question at all that the Government are committed to advocacy and will continue to encourage the development and use of a high standard of service. We do not, however, believe that it is necessary to include it on the face of the Bill.
I turn to the two amendments before us this evening. As the noble Baroness who moved the amendment suggested, the proposal raises specific points regarding the use of advocates when pursuing complaints. Amendment No. 6 would make local authorities unable to deal with any representation or complaint by a child or young person in relation to the provisions of the Bill unless he or she was either assisted by an independent advocate or had specifically refused such assistance. Amendment No. 8 makes similar provision with regard to the general complaints procedures about children's services including those for eligible children under the provisions of the Bill.
The first point that I wish to make is that we hope that our new arrangements for young people in and leaving care will reduce the need for complaints by being more sensitive to the needs of the child as an individual. But, of course, there will be cases—few, we hope—where the relationship, for instance, between the young person and his or her adviser breaks down and as a consequence the young person does not receive the support to which he or she is entitled. For those cases a complaints procedure will be required and we shall set this out in regulations. The accompanying guidance will make it clear to local authorities that they should make advocacy services available.
As is already good practice in many local authorities, we know that many, although not all, now entertain complaints brought by advocates on behalf of children. But the guidance we shall provide which will accompany the regulations will ensure that there will be greater consistency in the use of advocacy services.
With regard to the provisions for introducing advocacy services into the complaints procedure for looked after children, noble Lords will be aware that it has become apparent that the existing procedure is imperfect. Many noble Lords referred to the Waterhouse report which provided countless examples of children who attempted to complain about an unhappy situation but whose voices were not heard, as the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said. In relation to that, we are about to consult on how we might improve the situation. We expect to be able shortly to issue a consultation paper which will include the question of advocacy. For that reason, I believe that it would be premature to start now to introduce changes to Section 26 of the Children Act ahead of the consultation.

1267
In conclusion, I hope that I have assured noble Lords that we are committed to advocacy in practice and in principle, but because of the measures being taken forward in this area at present, and the forthcoming consultation on the complaints procedure, we do not think that this is the time to write advocacy into the Bill.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed and helpful answer.
The Minister said that local authorities have been asked to include advocacy as one of six priority areas for children's services. Where will advocacy come in the list of those priorities? Local authorities are struggling hard to meet many different responsibilities being passed to them. When push comes to shove at local level, advocacy may not make it to the top of the list.
I thank the Minister for his comments about consultation as a result of the Waterhouse report, about which many noble Lords are greatly exercised. The Minister did not specify the consultation period. I urge the Government to include provision for any recommendations arising from the consultation before the Bill completes its passage in another place. All those concerned with children in residential care want urgently to ensure that nothing on that scale ever happens again and wish to put in place good practice as quickly as possible. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 9, line 26, at end insert ("and (b) after subsection (6) insert—
"(6A) Every local authority shall provide cash assistance to any relevant child in their area for whom another local authority is responsible under section 23A unless they are satisfied that his welfare does not require it."").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment picks up an issue that was highlighted at Second Reading and in Grand Committee; namely, the financial predicament of young people who have become estranged from their local authority.
In Committee, I put the case for the retention of a safety net in the benefits system for that small minority of care leavers who, for whatever reason, have lost contact with their responsible local authority. I argued that the safety net could take the form of a discretionary right to support via the severe hardship allowance.
In reply, the Minister made a number of powerful points. In particular, he drew attention to the perverse incentive that would be offered to local authorities to push young people on to the benefits system when the better and often more difficult course would be to provide them with direct help and support. The Bill provides a mechanism for young people to claim support from their responsible authority and places a
1268
binding duty on that authority to give such support not simply in monetary form but, most importantly, in the form of the young person's adviser.
I fully recognise the advantages and significance of those provisions. However, the Minister said that he understood the concerns that had been expressed about the plight of disaffected young people. One of his arguments was that Section 17 of the Children Act gives a power to local authorities to provide emergency support to estranged young people. However, as I read that section, it confers on local authorities a discretion to provide assistance and only in exceptional circumstances to give assistance in cash.
In practice, there is a great variation as to the provision of Section 17 monies. What is needed for the group of young people that we are discussing is a duty to provide cash assistance. I believe that without such a duty, young people who for whatever reason become disaffected will be exposed to considerable risk; the risk of homelessness, involvement in crime and, as the noble Earl was right to remind us, involvement in sexual exploitation.
The amendment recognises the merits of placing a duty of support on local authorities rather than on the benefits system. It puts in place what to me is the missing piece of the jigsaw; namely, a guaranteed safety net.
It is probably right for me to admit that since tabling the amendment I believe that I have identified a difficulty with its wording. No doubt that could be improved if, as I suspect, it is likely to lead to unintended consequences. However, I am in no doubt about the central point at issue and I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to it. I beg to move.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I support the noble Earl's intentions. This is where we begin to understand what the failure to keep in touch can mean in practice. Young people leave the authority with which they have been in care for many reasons. It is not unusual for people to run away to major cities and to want not to be pursued. They believe that in their circumstances it is a danger to maintain a link with the authority from which they came. For those reasons, many young people turn to other local authorities for practical and immediate support. The noble Earls, Lord Howe and Lord Listowel, were right to identify the serious and immediate nature of the dangers which they face.
In those circumstances, it is reasonable to expect that the local authority to which they may present is able to make cash and other payments. Organisations such as that which runs the missing persons' national helpline will often tell how people's experiences with the local authority in whose area they grew up make it impossible for them to remain in touch. That is why they disappear. I believe that in those circumstances the local authority to which they move must immediately meet their needs. Therefore, I believe that

1269
we should support what the noble Earl is trying to achieve. Many of the people who leave care end up on the streets of cities with which they are not familiar.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for again raising this important question. Although I understand the issues that have been raised, I am not persuaded that we need to go in the direction suggested. I believe that mechanisms are provided which will enable the appropriate support to be given to young people in the circumstances mentioned. I also say to noble Lords that, as in relation to other matters in our discussions—I refer to our debate on Amendment No. 1 in relation to evaluating the criteria which are used—we shall, of course, keep these matters under review as part of the normal assessment process.
Certainly, I believe that one has to start by recognising that the situation in which young people will find themselves once the Bill has been enacted will be very different from the current arrangements. I believe that it is the current arrangement that leads noble Lords to express their concerns in this area. The whole point of the Bill is to ensure that young people will enjoy continuous support in whatever form is most suited to their needs and circumstances. That is why the concept of a responsible authority has been introduced. Therefore, it is absolutely clear where support is to come from for each young person. That is crucial because of the mobility of the very people whom we are discussing. Experience of the present system has shown that there have been problems and disputes between authorities over who should give support to these young people. The Bill clarifies absolutely which local authority is responsible.
Therefore, young people will be able to move around the country confident of where their support will be. I believe that, together with the benefits brought about by the young persons' advisers and pathway plans, this key change should cut drastically the number of cases where young people cut themselves adrift and turn up without support.
Of course, I recognise that the amendment is not aimed at the vast majority of cases where young people are working well with their responsible authority, but at those cases, which we hope will become fewer and fewer as the Bill's effects improve matters, where young people run away and lose contact. I share entirely the concerns that in those few cases assistance should be available immediately to tide the young people over until proper arrangements can be made to get them back on an even keel. Of course, none of us wants to see anything other than young people having that assistance.
It may be useful if I spend a moment or two explaining how we envisage that that emergency support will be given. Essentially, there will be two avenues open to young people who arrive in another local authority area in need of support. One port of call would be the social services department, which would, given that emergency support is commonly needed out
1270
of hours and at weekends, normally give assistance through the out-of-hours service. The other scenario might be for the young person to find his or her way or be referred, say, by the police to a voluntary organisation, probably in the homelessness sector. Either way, we would expect assistance to be given to the young person through the second authority, but only for as long as it takes that authority to contact the responsible authority, which would then take over the funding.
The basis on which the second authority would assist the young persons in the short term would be, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, suggested, Section 17 of the Children Act. I believe that, in looking at Section 17, we need to look first at Section 17(1), which places a duty on every local authority to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area. The Act then further states that the services provided in the exercise of that duty may include assistance in kind or, in exceptional circumstances, in cash. But the word to which I draw your Lordships' attention is the word "duty" in the first line of that section.
The other important component of the Bill is to turn perverse incentives which presently exist within the system into what I might call proactive incentives. Under the new arrangements, the second authority will have a considerable financial incentive to make contact with the responsible authority as quickly as possible and to agree a proper programme of support. In short, the incentive is there to keep the young person within the social care system.
To make sure that that works properly, we intend to cover the provision of emergency assistance in guidance to local authorities, including the payment, where necessary, of cash.
The intention of the amendment is clearly understood: to remove the discretionary element in Section 17 to ensure that relevant children are not left without financial means if their welfare requires it. But—and perhaps this is the point to which the noble Earl referred—it would have additional consequences, with wider implications both for local authorities and for the effectiveness of this new legislation. For example, it would require a local authority to undertake a needs assessment for every relevant young person for whom another authority was responsible.
The only point I make is that that would be a tremendous bureaucratic burden which is neither needed nor wanted. But I accept that the noble Earl is making the point that he wants to ensure that the kind of matters envisaged would be dealt with adequately in the circumstances which have been mentioned.
I hope that I have said enough to persuade your Lordships that while I appreciate the intention of the amendment, I believe that children's needs can be met in an emergency through the existing provisions of Section 17, backed up by the new arrangements and incentives which this Bill puts in place. On that basis, I invite the noble Earl to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that full reply. I shall read carefully in Hansard what he has said.

1271
Essentially, he has indicated that this amendment is unnecessary in practice. I understand the concept and value of the responsible local authority. That is an extremely important concept. I understand that a local authority other than the responsible authority which provides support to an estranged youngster can claim reimbursement from the responsible local authority. What I term the missing piece of the jigsaw is the absence—at least as I saw it—of a specific duty on the second authority to provide the assistance.
The Minister suggested that there is already a duty in Section 17 of the Children Act. If he is right, it is doubly extraordinary that so many local authorities are not taking any notice of that duty. As I said, I shall study very carefully what the Minister said. I recognise that he has tried to be as helpful as he can. Between now and Third Reading I shall decide whether this is an issue to which we should return. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Clause 8 [Interpretation, commencement, extent, Wales and short title]:
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 10, line 22, after ("Children") insert (and Young Persons").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to add the words "and Young Persons" to the Title of the Bill. I feel that this Bill is so important as we are dealing with the most vulnerable group of young people in our society, people who have been discarded by their families for a variety of reasons. Many of them will have been abused or have seen their mothers abused or unable to cope.
For many years I served on the board of visitors of a young offenders' institution. The young people concerned were between the ages of 15 and 21. About 40 per cent came from care. They were often institutionalised. Many of them had returned after discharge, having found the outside world too difficult to cope with and fallen into crime. Without support and interested people to keep such young people on the right road, that will continue to happen.
Many of the people whom the Bill sets out to help will be late developers. The support for many may continue under the pathway plans until they are 21. A person of 18, 19 or 20 is not a child. Such a person might feel insulted to be covered by a Bill entitled Children (Leaving Care), when the help is ongoing after they are no longer children. Local authorities may find a loophole by saying that the Bill is for children. How would that stand up in court?
Therefore, I suggest that the title of the Bill would be better if it was "Children and Young Persons (Leaving Care)", or perhaps, just "Young People (Leaving Care)". I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I have enormous sympathy with the spirit of the amendment since I have
1272
engaged in correspondence with the Minister on that very subject. I am sure that the Minister will reply even more cogently tonight than he did in his letter to me, in which he said that problems were created specifically by the fact that the Children Act contains particular definitions of "child" and "children" and so on. It would therefore be inconsistent legally with that Act, with which the Bill is almost wholly concerned with amending, to discuss "young persons" within the Bill itself. I understand that and I see the merits of that argument.
The part which I cannot see, however—this is where the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, seems to be entirely with merit—is why we cannot simply change the title of the Bill. In his letter, the Minister wrote,
"As for the short title, the Children (Leaving Care) Bill. I feel that we ought to leave it unamended in order to signal clearly that it belongs with the Children Act (rather than with the 1969 Children and Young Persons Act). Since, legally speaking, it is children who leave care this is also the logical approach".
I must say that I do not find that argument persuasive. I find the language of the Bill's title as it currently stands rather patronising. It does not really reflect the fact that we are not talking mainly about children who are aged 16 or younger, but about young people who have left or are leaving care. I should prefer to give a clear signal that we are effectively treating such people as adults rather than children. The extremely slight risk of confusion with the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 is a price well worth paying to demonstrate that.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister will reconsider the matter. There is to be a "Take a child to work" day fairly soon. Care leavers will be coming to this House. It was originally to be called the "Take a care leaver to work" day, but the cared for children were then asked how they felt about it and they said that they did not really want such a stigma attached to them. The term "care leaver" sadly often carries a stigma with it. This is a similar kind of issue; are we going to infantilise those young people? I hope that the Minister will be able to think again about the issue.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I have thought again. Of course, I understand the substantive points which the noble Lords and the noble Baroness have made in their remarks. I think I would just draw a distinction between the terminology used in the Bill and the Title and the action that has to take place in the field to make sure that we provide the right kind of services. I should like to suggest that, whatever the Title is, the key issue for us is ensuring that young people and children get the kind of services that we want them to get, to ensure that they have a much better start to their lives.
Perhaps I may just go through the reasoning behind the Short Title of the Bill. The Children (Leaving Care) Bill amends the Children Act 1989 and, as your Lordships will know, as we have struggled at times to relate the provisions of this Bill to those of the Act, it

1273
has been framed in a style which has been consistent with that Act. I believe that anyone coming to the Act, as amended, should find the same terminology and definitions used consistently throughout.
I know the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said it might be worth some inconvenience to make the change, but for people outside Parliament who do have to consult legislation, it behoves us to make that legislation as clear as possible. I know those are sentiments which many of your Lordships have expressed when various Bills have been discussed in your Lordships' House. Section 105 of the Children Act gives the definitions of terms used within it. Those are the definitions that we need to use in the Bill. The definition of a child is a person under the age of 18 and the Bill is consistent with that definition. Where the Children Act itself is concerned with powers and duties in respect of those aged 18 and above, as in Section 24, it refers to a "person". We have reproduced that terminology in the Bill's restatement of Section 24.
Outside the legislation, of course, we have much more freedom with the language. The audience for the legislation itself and its Title is likely to be comparatively narrow. However, there will be a much wider and more varied readership for the guidance in other documentation that will shape and accompany implementation. I want to reassure the noble Baroness particularly that, in producing that documentation, we will take particular care with the tone and language that is used.
Turning specifically to the Short Title of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, quoted from a letter that I sent to him. He said he was not persuaded. I must say that I was completely persuaded by the logic of my arguments. The point is that the Short Title of the Bill serves for indexing purposes. We need to signal clearly that the Bill before us belongs with and amends the
1274
Children Act 1989 rather than the 1969 Children and Young Persons Act. That is where people will look to find the provisions of the Bill, and amending the title as proposed would cause unnecessary confusion.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, as a lawyer, can find his way through these things but I know that in my previous life I found working my way through these indexes very difficult. I think we should have a little bit of sympathy with those people in the field who have to find their way through this. For that reason I think it is unreasonable to change the Short Title. However, in saying that, I want to assure the noble Baroness that I have taken account of what she said and I shall want to ensure that the language that accompanies the Bill will be sensitive to the points she has raised.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken, together with the Minister. I thank them very much.
I tried to count in the previous amendment how many times the Minister spoke of "young people". He mentioned "young people" so many times that I lost count. I feel even more strongly that the Bill should have the words "young people" in its title. I do not want to do away with the word "children", but the Minister said "young people" on so many occasions that I believe he is trying to pull in the bad and the slack local authorities which may opt out of dealing with the 18, 19 and 20 year-olds. Therefore, before the next stage I shall get together with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—a small and dedicated group—and carefully read what the Minister has said. We may return to this point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at five minutes past ten o'clock.