Previous Section Index Home Page


Council’s power to undertake review

‘A principal council may undertake a community governance review.’.— [Mr. Watts.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 58


No review being undertaken: duty to respond to petition

‘(1) This section applies if these conditions are met—

(a) a principal council receives a community governance petition which relates to the whole or part of a principal council’s area;

(b) at the time the petition is received, the council is not in the course of undertaking a community governance review.

(2) The principal council must undertake a community governance review that has terms of reference that allow for the petition to be considered.

(3) But the duty in subsection (2) does not apply if—

(a) the principal council has concluded a previous community governance review within the relevant two-year period, and

(b) in the council’s opinion the petition area covers the whole or a significant part of the area to which the previous review related.

For further provision about this case, see section (Power to respond to petition).’.— [Mr. Watts.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.


22 May 2007 : Column 1193

New Clause 59


Review being undertaken: duty to respond to petition

‘(1) This section applies if the following conditions are met—

(a) a principal council receives a community governance petition which relates to the whole or part of a principal council’s area;

(b) at the time the petition is received, the council is in the course of undertaking a community governance review (“the current review”);

(c) the petition area is wholly outside the area under review.

(2) The principal council must follow one of the options in subsection (4), (5) or (6).

(3) But the duty in subsection (2) does not apply if—

(a) the principal council has concluded a previous community governance review within the relevant two-year period, and

(b) in the council’s opinion the petition area covers the whole or a significant part of the area to which the previous review related.

For further provision about this case, see section (Power to respond to petition).

(4) The first option mentioned in subsection (2) is for the principal council to modify the terms of reference of the current review so that they allow for the petition to be considered.

(5) The second option is for the principal council to undertake a community governance review that—

(a) is separate from the current review, and

(b) has terms of reference that allow for the petition to be considered.

(6) The third option is for the principal council to—

(a) modify the terms of reference of the current review,

(b) undertake a community governance review that is separate from the current review (“the new review”), and

(c) secure that (when taken together)—

(i) the terms of reference of the current review (as modified), and

(ii) the terms of reference of the new review,

allow for the petition to be considered.’.— [Mr. Watts.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 60


Power to respond to petition

‘(1) In any of the following cases where a principal council receive a community governance petition, it is for the council to decide what action (if any) to take under section (Council’s power to undertake review) (power to undertake review) or (Terms of reference of review)(4)(b) (power to modify terms of review) in response to that petition.

(2) The first case is where—

(a) section (No review being undertaken: duty to respond to petition) applies (no review being undertaken when petition received), but

(b) the duty in section (No review being undertaken: duty to respond to petition)(2) does not apply because of section (No review being undertaken: duty to respond to petition)(3) (no duty to respond to petition because previous review concluded in relevant two-year period).

(3) The second case is where—

(a) section (Review being undertaken: duty to respond to petition) applies (review being undertaken when petition received: petition area wholly outside area under review), but


22 May 2007 : Column 1194

(b) the duty in section (Review being undertaken: duty to respond to petition)(2) does not apply because of section (Review being undertaken: duty to respond to petition)(3) (no duty to respond to petition because previous review concluded in relevant two-year period).

(4) The third case is where these conditions are met—

(a) a principal council receives a community governance petition which relates to the whole or part of a principal council’s area;

(b) at the time the petition is received, the council is in the course of undertaking a community governance review;

(c) the petition area is wholly or partly inside the area under review.’.— [Mr. Watts.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 62


Electoral Commission and Boundary Committee: reviews and recommendations

‘(1) Section 13 of the Local Government Act 1992 (c. 19) (reviews and recommendations of Electoral Commission and Boundary Committee) is amended as follows.

(2) For subsection (5)(d) substitute—

“(d) in the case of a district council that is subject to a scheme for elections by halves or by thirds, or that has resolved to revert to being subject to such a scheme under Part 2 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, the desirability of securing that an appropriate number of councillors is elected in each ward at each ordinary election of councillors.”

(3) After subsection (5) insert—

“(5A) For the purposes of this section—

(a) a council is “subject to a scheme for elections by halves” if one half (or as nearly as may be) of its councillors are to be elected in each year in which it holds ordinary elections of councillors;

(b) a council is “subject to a scheme for elections by thirds” if one third (or as nearly as may be) of its councillors are to be elected in each year in which it holds ordinary elections of councillors;

(c) the number of councillors elected in a ward at an ordinary election of councillors is “appropriate”—

(i) in the case of a scheme for elections by halves, if it is divisible by 2, and

(ii) in the case of a scheme for elections by thirds, if it is divisible by 3.”’.— [Mr. Watts.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 34


Executive arrangements: move to alternative arrangements

‘(1) The Local Government Act 2000 (c.22) as amended as follows.

(2) For section 33(5) substitute—

“(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for or in connection with enabling a local authority which is operating executive arrangements to operate alternative arrangements in place of the executive arrangements.”.’.— [Alistair Burt.]

Brought up, and read the First time.


22 May 2007 : Column 1195

Alistair Burt: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

No. 133, in clause 40, page 23, line 32, leave out ‘specified in subsections (2) to (5)’.

No. 141, page 24, line 14, leave out subsection (6).

No. 135, in clause 42, page 25, line 31, at end insert—

‘33ZA Changing governance arrangements

(1) Any local authority in England may submit a scheme of internal governance appropriate to its circumstances, which shall stand deferred until the next ordinary day of election and may not take effect until the day after that day.

(2) Where no recognised group has overall control, it shall be competent for the council to implement other arrangements as it may determine.’.

No. 136, page 26, leave out lines 4 to 10 and insert—‘A local authority in England which is operating alternative arrangements may—’.

No. 137, page 26, leave out lines 13 to 18.

No. 138, page 26, leave out lines 23 to 25.

No. 139, page 26, line 28, leave out from ‘arrangements’ to end of line 29.

Government amendment No. 12.

No. 142, page 27, leave out line 44.

No. 140, page 28, line 9, leave out ‘33A’ and insert ‘33ZA’.

Government amendment No. 213.

No. 143, page 29, line 19, leave out ‘or elected executive’.

No. 144, page 29, leave out line 23.

No. 145, page 29, leave out from beginning of line 44 to end of line 2 on page 30.

No. 146, page 30, line 3, leave out ‘or elected’.

No. 147, page 30, line 7, leave out from ‘executive’ to end of line 8.

No. 148, page 30, line 11, leave out from ‘mayor’ to end of line 12.

Government amendments Nos. 214 and 215.

No. 149, page 31, leave out line 19.

Government amendments Nos. 216 and 217.

No. 150, in clause 43, page 32, line 22, leave out ‘an elected executive,’.

Government amendments Nos. 13 and 14.

No. 151, in page 33, line 1, leave out clause 45.

Government amendment No. 15.

No. 152, in clause 46, page 34, line 17, leave out from ‘mayor’ to end of line 18.

No. 153, in clause 47, page 34, leave out line 29.

No. 154, page 34, line 30, leave out ‘other’.

Government amendments Nos. 16 and 17.

No. 155, in clause 49, page 35, line 2, leave out subsection (1).

No. 259, in page 38, line 1, leave out Clause 51.

Government amendments Nos. 18, 218, 222 to 225, 57 and 226.


22 May 2007 : Column 1196

Alistair Burt: I shall do my best to be brief. New clause 34 stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) and a number of other colleagues. The Bill has generally been consensual, but now the rubber will hit the road: we now need to ask the Minister to choose from some of the issues at the heart of the Bill.

Committee members will remember a champagne moment when the Minister, having been chided for being over-centralist, stood back from the Front Bench and said, “I want to be devolutionary; let them choose.” That was a moving moment and, as we have seen in Committee and in the Chamber, he has in limited respects been open to allowing people to choose, but not on executive arrangements. I have three particular concerns to raise, and as I suspect that a couple of other Members want to speak I shall do my best to be brief.

Local freedom is a key issue. At the heart of our debates on the Bill is an issue that we have discussed intermittently during its passage: whether it is truly devolutionary. The Bill provides an acid test. Local decision making is key to local government. The Government are right that local authorities need to have good, clear, effective and efficient leadership, but it must be local. Our principal complaint with the Bill is that the Government are being prescriptive in having a limited number of models for efficient and effective local government. We simply pose this question: why?

Do the Government truly trust local government to deliver? The Minister has made much of the progress of local government over the past 10 years, which he claims is due to the targets exerted by Government, but which local government feels owes much to its ability to respond.

Mr. Woolas: I and my ministerial colleagues always acknowledge the three factors that have led to improvement: the hard work of councillors and officers; the extra resources provided by this successful Government; and the performance regime. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that.

Alistair Burt: I am pleased that the Minister took the chance to respond to that. I am sure that he would agree that a key factor is the ability of local councils to have responded and to have worked hard.

This is where the issue of trust comes in. Our contention—and that of many Committee members—is simply that the Government should not be so prescriptive. Do they truly trust local government? Have lessons been learned from 20 years of central direction to cure various ills in local government, and from local government’s response to that? Now is the time to let local councils choose what model of leadership they want.

There are serious penalties if councils get things wrong. The electorate is increasingly sophisticated. The Minister said recently that it is increasingly hard to discern national swings in local elections. He is right. One of the things that is interesting about local election results nowadays is that councils get thrown out of office for poor performance no matter what political hue they are—and no matter what hue are the Government of the day. Councils know that there are
22 May 2007 : Column 1197
now penalties if they get things wrong. So why cannot we let local authorities choose what executive model they think suits them best?

Mr. Heath: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman and I agree that it is not for the Secretary of State to prescribe matters in such detail. However, I am puzzled that the hon. Gentleman’s new clause 34 gives all the power to the Secretary of State to prescribe, and if he or she chooses not to prescribe, not to do so. That is an internal paradox in the new clause.

Alistair Burt: No, what I am doing is using this new clause as a symbolic way of opening up the possibility of a variety of alternative arrangements being available to local councils. We could move a series of new clauses; I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has had the opportunity to go through all the amendments in this group. We have chosen this one to be a key new clause, and it allows us to raise the possibility of alternative arrangements, and we intend to press it to a Division.

In Committee, we raised the growing risk of separation of the people from local and national Government, and the sense that their vote now counts for rather less than it used to. The Local Government Association supports our amendments and agrees that local councils should have more say in which executive arrangements best suit them. Therefore, my first point was about the need for greater local freedom.

My second point is that the prescriptive models used do not allow the opportunity to go for some form of revised committee system. I ask Members to note that I did not propose that we go back to the old committee system. We seek to give authorities who so desire the opportunity to go to a modernised and revised committee system.

Mr. Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD): The hon. Gentleman will be aware that some authorities, such as North Cornwall district council in my constituency, have never moved from that committee system. What proposals does he have for councils that feel that the arrangements are working well for them?

Alistair Burt: It is a fortunate council, but the vast majority of councils have had to move from that system. We wish to enable those authorities that want to retain such a system to continue with the alternative arrangements for as long as they wish. That is contrary to the determination of Government; they would sooner or later close down that option.

The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby) was particularly forthright in his contributions in Committee. For example, he said:


Next Section Index Home Page