The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairmen: † Mr. Eric Illsley, Mr. David Amess

† Cooper, Rosie (West Lancashire) (Lab)

† Curry, Mr. David (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)

† Dunne, Mr. Philip (Ludlow) (Con)

† Efford, Clive (Eltham) (Lab)

Gardiner, Barry (Brent, North) (Lab)

† Goldsworthy, Julia (Falmouth and Camborne) (LD)

† Goodman, Mr. Paul (Wycombe) (Con)

† Heppell, Mr. John (Nottingham, East) (Lab)

† Jackson, Mr. Stewart (Peterborough) (Con)

† Lilley, Mr. Peter (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)

† McCarthy-Fry, Sarah (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government)

† Raynsford, Mr. Nick (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)

Rogerson, Dan (North Cornwall) (LD)

† Stewart, Ian (Eccles) (Lab)

† Watts, Mr. Dave (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)

† Winterton, Ms Rosie (Minister for Regional Economic Development and Co-ordination)

Mick Hillyard, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Column number: 97

Public Bill Committee

Thursday 11 June 2009

[Mr. Eric Illsley in the Chair]

(Afternoon)

Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [Lords]

1 pm

Sitting Suspended.

1.11 pm

On resuming—

Clause 25

Establishment and assistance of bodies representing tenants etc

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 4.

Division No. 24]

AYES

Cooper, Rosie

Efford, Clive

Goldsworthy, Julia

Heppell, Mr. John

McCarthy-Fry, Sarah

Raynsford, rh Mr. Nick

Stewart, Ian

Watts, Mr. Dave

Winterton, rh Ms Rosie

NOES

Curry, rh Mr. David

Dunne, Mr. Philip

Goodman, Mr. Paul

Jackson, Mr. Stewart

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26

Consultation of bodies representing tenants etc

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 4.

Division No. 25]

AYES

Cooper, Rosie

Efford, Clive

Goldsworthy, Julia

Heppell, Mr. John

McCarthy-Fry, Sarah

Raynsford, rh Mr. Nick

Stewart, Ian

Watts, Mr. Dave

Winterton, rh Ms Rosie

NOES

Curry, rh Mr. David

Dunne, Mr. Philip

Goodman, Mr. Paul

Jackson, Mr. Stewart

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Column number: 98

Clause 27

Local freedoms

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Paul Goodman (Wycombe) (Con): The Committee will have noted that, in relation to all the clauses bar one, the official Opposition have adopted what might be called a scorched-earth policy towards the Bill. At first glance, we were inclined to take the same view of the next two clauses. However, I have to confess that we have looked at them again. They were introduced by Lord Graham in the upper House and the Department allowed them a lot of leeway. Clause 27, in particular, was welcomed by our noble Friend Lord Hanningfield. We have no objection to the clauses.

Mr. David Curry (Skipton and Ripon) (Con): I shall make one important point. We are now dealing with references to freewomen and freemen. Should the term not simply be “a freeperson”, given the prevailing wisdom that now we have a chair, not a chairman, and we talk about persons, not men and women? Should the term not be “a freeperson”, or perhaps just “a free”?

1.15 pm

Julia Goldsworthy (Falmouth and Camborne) (LD): It is a pleasure to serve under your leadership—chairmanship, not leadership, Mr. Illsley, unless something more bizarre is going on. Bearing in mind what has already happened in Committee today, I would not be at all surprised if you had plans for world domination.

I shall make some general comments about freedoms of cities and towns. It is fantastic to recognise the hard work of citizens in such a way. It is a valuable honour to bestow. But once again, why is it necessary to set it down in primary legislation? I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify that matter. I understand the problem—some charters laying down how freemen and freewomen of a city or town are elected have become out of date and make it difficult to appoint women—but I am not entirely sure why that needs to be taken in hand in primary legislation.

I understand that such laws need to be more easily amendable, but why not free up the organisations on the ground to allow them to use their discretion? Some of the provisions are eminently sensible. The recognition of civil partners and spouses and the admission of women are welcome, but I am not entirely sure why the Bill needs to deal with whether we call them freemen or women.

As my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall pointed out to me, some of the qualifying resolutions require a majority of the existing freemen or women to elect the people whose names will be added. I wonder, as those people are often getting a little bit old, whether they might run out of numbers. I am slightly worried that, if the requirement is for freemen to nominate someone else to be given the freedom, there might not be enough of them around to make that decision. I wonder whether that issue needs to be addressed. It is an example of where we need to give more flexibility on the ground, rather than specifying things rigidly in primary legislation. However, everyone welcomes the principle that the clause is trying to achieve.

Column number: 99

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Sarah McCarthy-Fry): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr. Illsley. I am glad that there is a broad welcome from both Opposition parties to the principles behind the clause. As the hon. Member for Wycombe pointed out, it was fully welcomed in the other place.

On the question of primary legislation, it is true that at least one guild has been able to amend the rights of admission to include women, but much depends on how the rights of admission were established—if in a charter, on what the charter says. Although some guilds have found sufficient flexibility in their rules to enable them to admit women or make other amendments to their admissions practices, others have not been able to do so because the charters or other sources of law from which their rules derive have no simple process for amendment. The clause will make that easier and provide a framework to make changes in the future. That is why it should appear in primary legislation.

Julia Goldsworthy: I understand that point, but looking back to the broader thrust of the Bill, which the Government claim is trying to engage people in democracy, could we not have much broader terms that would allow some kind of public ballot or petition to prompt the granting of the freedom of a city to individuals, rather than a narrowly defined group of people? Would this not be an opportunity to throw open the whole issue to more public engagement, rather than just introducing some narrow changes that, while making improvements to make it easier for women to be admitted, for example, do not address the bigger issue?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: This is enabling legislation, not compulsory legislation. We are making it easier for guilds to broaden their scope, and I want guilds to do that, so that we enable more people to take part. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29

Politically restricted posts

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con): It has been a long day. This clause was the subject of some debate in another place, particularly by Liberal Democrat peers. Those of us who were local borough and district councillors or were involved in local government in the 1980s and 1990s understand the background. The Widdecombe report of 1986 correctly led to the decision to exclude certain officers based on salary from serving in a representative capacity on other local authorities under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

The Opposition believe that the clause is incongruous. It is clear from the debate in another place that there was no rationale for watering down the Widdecombe proposals. The Minister may refer to the Councillors Commission’s decisions on political restrictions, but the clause begins the process of undermining what eventually had a political consensus when it was established. That

Column number: 100

legislation defended the integrity and professionalism of officers and reassured elected councillors that the advice that they received from paid officers was both impartial and not the result of their political allegiance. The clause, however, begins to undermine that by seeking to disregard the responsibility and duty of the local authority to keep a register of those affected by the 1989 Act.

On that basis, perhaps the Minister will explain the rationale for including the clause in this part of the Bill. It seems to be a case of micro-managing the affairs of local authorities who are perfectly capable of interpreting correctly the prevailing legislation. Can the Minister reassure us that this is not the beginning of the end of ensuring that political partiality does not creep back into the system?

Julia Goldsworthy: Conservative Members think that the clause will water down the Widdecombe rules, and I share some of their concerns that it does appear to be a partial process: it will remove the salary restrictions but will not seek to put anything else in its place. Simply imposing an arbitrary wage level may not make sense, because some posts with lower wages may be politically sensitive and other posts that are above the threshold may not need to be politically restrictive. I would like greater freedom for local authorities to determine such things and to ensure that declarations of interest can be registered for all employees using a clear system.

Speaking as someone who was employed by a local council, I think that just because someone is unable to be politically active does not necessarily mean that their decisions are therefore impartial. Someone may not be able to declare their views publicly, but that does not mean that their private views might not cause similar difficulties. In this case, the Government have a much bigger story to tell. They are nibbling away at one aspect of it without necessarily giving people confidence that there is a process further down the line that will keep partiality out of key areas of government, as it rightly needs to be.

---

Prepared 12 June 2009