| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Let us think about what it would mean in practice. For example, Birmingham City Council has 120 members today, so the city’s executive would swell to 30 members under these proposals. I suggest that that is not an executive but a leadership group of a fairly significant size—more of a big committee. It leads me to wonder whether the noble Lord is trying to reintroduce the committee system by the side door, as it were. We have already set out in evidence the benefits of a small leadership group. That is not new: a maximum of 10 for such a group was set out in the 2000 Act. I have not heard evidence as to why that should be changed. On the contrary, The New Council Constitutions onthe outcomes and impact of the Local Government Act 2000, the independent evidence that I quoted earlier, also said that executives of up to 10 members are right for delivering visible and effective leadership. I take the noble Lord’s earlier point that we should perhaps be talking about better leadership rather than stronger leadership. However, this research looked at the functions and attributes of leadership and talked about better leadership, too. I am afraid that the amendments would put the clock back and unpick the 2000 Act, so I reluctantly conclude that I cannot accept them.
Lord Greaves: I am disappointed by that. It is horses for courses. What will work well in one area might be quite different from another area. It is okay to say that it would be ridiculous in Birmingham. I accept that there should perhaps be a maximum size; perhaps it should be “a quarter but not more than 15”, or something like that. That would be quite reasonable.
There are councils whose executives are very small, operating with a tightly knit group of people with enormous, inordinate and unnecessary power. Those
10 July 2007 : Column 1373
All sorts of models exist; the Government need to realise that local government is very diverse. Every council is different, with a different culture. Even councils that from the outside appear to be operating the same models are different. I sit on an executive of 10 and ask myself what the difference is between that and a committee. I do not know; it operates as a committee. You can have an executive of six to 10 people that meets to discuss agenda items—it does not rubber-stamp them—where the public and councillors who are not on the executive can take part, making points on behalf of their ward, town or other interests. Is that a committee? Is it an executive? Is it a bird? Who knows?
The Government are making unnecessary, tight, rigid distinctions which do not exist in the real world. There are people at the extremes, perhaps operating very well, and everybody else in the middle with their own way of coping with the system. I am disappointed by the Minister’s response but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 119 to 121 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 121A not moved.]
Clause 63 [Discharge of functions]:
[Amendments Nos. 122 and 123 not moved.]
9.30 pm
Lord Greaves moved Amendment No. 123A:
“(1A) Nothing in subsection (1) shall prevent the allocation of functions at any time to an area committee constituted under the provisions of section 18.”
The noble Lord said: This is an important probing amendment, and I hope I shall get some very satisfactory answers to my questions. I understand that Section 18 of the Local Government Act 2000 was inserted during the progress of the Bill through Parliament in order to preserve the status of area committees in councils that had taken advantage of the ability to devolve decision-making powers and lots of other activities to them.
I do not know how many authorities have set up effective decision-making area committees over the past 10 or 15 years, but it seems to be a growing number. I am talking not about area consultative committees or discussion forums but about systems of government within alternative arrangements or executive arrangements in which decision-making is
10 July 2007 : Column 1374
“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for or in connection with enabling an executive of a local authority, or a committee or specified member of such an executive, to arrange for the discharge of any functions which, under executive arrangements, are the responsibility of the executive by an area committee of that authority”.
Where area committees work well, they work extremely well. They are a way of devolving decision-making to a town, a neighbourhood or an area of the authority that ties in extremely well with the Government’s present neighbourhood agenda. It is one way to do it. They are not just committees of councillors but may have co-opted members from parish councils or from local organisations such as the chamber of trade, a town centre action group or whatever it happens to be. I speak as a member of an exciting body called the Colne and District Area Committee, which is far and away the most interesting and useful meeting I go to every month. Such bodies involve large numbers of local members of the public who come to meetings not just to listen but to take part and put their views forward, which is absolutely in line with the Government’s agenda.
The purpose of the amendment is to probe the Government on whether such area committees will continue to have a right to exist—I assume that the answer is yes—and, if they do, whether they are there as the creatures of the leader of the council only and depend on him devolving powers to them or whether the council as a whole or the executive of the council can incorporate such measures within the constitution of the council so that a leader who does not like what an area is doing cannot over-ride it. It is crucial that area committees have autonomy within their terms of reference. If they do not have that autonomy, their raison d’être disappears because they can be over-ruled from on high. That is a very important question. I beg to move.
Baroness Andrews: I can give the noble Lord a positive answer on Amendment No. 123A, which aims to ensure that the amendments made by Clause 63 in respect of the discharge of the function do not prevent executive functions being delegated to an area committee established under Section 18 of the Local Government Act 2000. Amendment No. 123B relates to arrangements for the discharge of an executive’s functions by an area committee, by the executive of another local authority, or by another local authority. It also relates to the joint exercise of an executive’s functions with another authority or executive. The amendment would require such joint arrangements to be approved by the full council.
I reassure the noble Lord that Amendment No. 123A is unnecessary because Clause 63 does not interfere with Section 18. The changes being introduced by the Bill do not prevent the sort of arrangements he
10 July 2007 : Column 1375
I am afraid I cannot agree so wholeheartedly with the noble Lord’s second point in Amendment No. 123B. That essentially would provide that decisions about discharging functions under arrangements made under Section 18 should in effect be subject to approval by the full council. That obviously contradicts what we are trying to do in concentrating executive arrangements and focusing executive functions. That must lie—this includes the methods by which they are discharged—with the executive. In our new arrangements, as we will probably discuss, all the executive functions are to be vested in the leader of the executive. To provide that, if the leader or the executive wished to discharge certain of their functions in a particular way, they must have the support of the full council is obviously contradictory to the concept of executive functions.
It is worth reminding noble Lords about the limits to executive functions. Under the 2000 Act there are specific areas that are not executive functions, and those are the major strategic decisions: the budget; the council’s sustainable community strategy; and quasi-judicial matters such as planning and licensing. It is absolutely right for the council to take those strategic decisions, particularly in relation to quasi-judicial decisions. They should not be in the hands of a small executive. All the other functions of an authority rightly lie with the executive and in future, in the first instance, with the leader. That includes decisions about how the executive functions are to be discharged.
I hope that the noble Lord will welcome the reassurance on Amendment No. 123A and forgive me for not being able to accept Amendment No. 123B.
Lord Greaves: I am not sure whether it is one cheer or two, but it is not three. Any cheers are welcome at this time of night on these matters, so “Thank you” to the Minister for that reassurance on the first part. The second part probably does not make any difference in practice if the council is adopting a normal leader and cabinet arrangement, even under the new proposed arrangements, as they will be part of the negotiations about how the council will be run when that leader and cabinet is set up. It causes me some alarm in the case of some of the other arrangements like elected executives, but perhaps they are castles in the sky anyhow.
I will read carefully what the Minister said and hope to continue reporting to the House about the exciting times that I have on area committees for a long time to come. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 123B to 125 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 126 not moved.]
Clause 64 [Changing governance arrangements]:
10 July 2007 : Column 1376
Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 127:
(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.”The noble Baroness said: My amendment is similar to Amendment No. 128A, but, as mine got there first, I shall speak first and wait to be supported on it. Amendment No. 127 would enable any local authority in England to submit a scheme of internal governance that is appropriate to its circumstances. This carries on the debates that we have been having and would enforce the local choice. In the incredibly useful committee evidence hearings, two out of three representatives from the Local Government Association were in favour of local authorities having choice over their governance arrangements. They were in favour of non-binding legislation.
Amendment No. 127 was debated at great length in another place, but the Minister’s arguments against giving local authorities an empowering, decentralised power to choose was not completely convincing. The Minister in the other place said that due to the large amounts of money managed by councils it was right that the Government should dictate how they managed their leadership, and his argument focused on the need to ensure accountability. The last time we checked, councils were accountable to their electorate.
The Minister’s remarks were very telling. He said that councils should not decide how to run their own affairs because,
- “that is not in their interests”.—[Official Report, Commons, Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill Committee, 20/2/07; col. 278.]
I support fully the role of cabinet members where a local authority chooses to have them. However, the Government’s approach in debate in another place was antipathetic to the autonomy of councils and the trust that should be invested in them by central government. In the light of that and in the absence of any evidence to suggest that councils wish to sign over their internal governance arrangements to central government restriction, I beg to move the amendment.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Amendment No. 128A would do exactly the same as the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. We have had a long debate on this issue today, and I do not need to say too much, save to once again urge the Government to reconsider their adherence to the principle that we must have what they describe as strong models, which should be limited to three. At the moment, local authorities will have only three models available, and one of those is fairly unworkable, as we have discovered, and will be taken up by very few authorities.
Given the different political situations, the different cultures, the different histories that obtain in local authorities in this country—from small rural district
10 July 2007 : Column 1377
Lord Greaves: I have three amendments in this group, but I am happy not to pursue them and to support the proposals of my noble friend Lady Scott and the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham.
The executive arrangements that the Government want are designed for councils in which one group has a clear overall majority. They are not designed for councils with no overall control and, particularly, they are not designed for small district and rural councils that may consist of several groups and a number of independents. Such arrangements in those councils simply do not work properly. They are designed for a situation where there is a party that can get a grip on it. They may work in more political urban councils or big county councils where perhaps two parties can work together well; they do not work well in smaller councils where there is a larger variety. They have to be made to work and people make them work, but they are not designed for them. We urgently need more flexibility for such councils to design arrangements that suit their own circumstances.
Baroness Andrews: There is a temptation, which I shall certainly resist, of having the debate we had when we opened the Committee stage today. This is very much a discussion about the way in which we see leadership operating and the way we want to enable it.
Amendments Nos. 127, 128A and 132 to 134 have all the effect of enabling any council, regardless of size or type, to operate any form of governance arrangements they see fit. I am slightly puzzled by the suggestion that somehow we are imposing uniform options on councils. There are three models but within the leader and cabinet models, for example, there are different ways of making this work. Many councils adopt leader and cabinet models now and they have not sacrificed their individuality or their local characteristics. While I understand what noble Lords are saying—clearly it is one of this country’s great strengths that it is so diverse—we must be careful not to exaggerate that or to exaggerate the impact this measure will have.
9.45 pm
For the many reasons I have explained at length today, I cannot succumb to thinking that every local authority should have whatever internal governance arrangements that it considers appropriate. The time has come for a strategy to support and enable better leadership, and that is what the White Paper did and what the Bill does. That is supported by evidence.
It is worth reflecting that what we are doing is not new. We are building on the 2000 Act, which was the first attempt to separate the executive role—the visible councillor in the executive position—from the back-bench councillor. It is working; fewer people want to go back to the committee system. The enhanced committee system seems to operate in smaller local authorities, usually by the addition of an overview and scrutiny committee that enhances its
10 July 2007 : Column 1378
Although there is resistance to change, and there are arguments for proceeding slowly, this is the right way to go forward at this point in the evolution of local government. It is supported by all the work Michael Lyons did over the past 18 months. As discussed on the previous amendment, we have allowed for additional executive models under Section 11(5) and (6) of the 2000 Act.
I understand the arguments that are being made by the Opposition, but I am afraid I cannot accept the amendment.
Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for that not totally unexpected reply. This group of amendments brings us almost to the conclusion of this discussion, although maybe not quite. There is a terrible irony that here we are in July 2007 discussing the modes of governance of local councils, when we were discussing that in 2000. Seven years later, the thing still has not settled down. There are still concerns about the way the governance is being regulated and directed. Perhaps we need a bit more flexibility than we have now. Still, I have heard the Minister’s response and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Greaves moved Amendment No. 128:
The noble Lord said: This group of amendments—Amendments Nos. 128, 128B and 153—deals with two issues. The first is to flag up what has been alluded to previously in passing: the ability of councils to change their means of executive arrangements. That sounds innocuous. It means that councils will be able to decide—without referendum, without reference to the people—that they want to move either to an elected mayor or to an elected executive. If it goes through in that form and a referendum is not required, it will lead to a degree of public scandal in some places.
Amendment No. 153 is about the role of the leader of the council or the elected mayor. If there is a proposal to move in the opposite direction from an elected mayor to a leader and cabinet system, in effect it is to remove what the Government are doing, which is to give an elected mayor a veto over such a move so that no move can take place unless the elected mayor or the leader of the council agrees to it. That is quite wrong. If there is a move locally to change the system of executive arrangements, that should be done in a democratic way, rather than giving one person, who has a personal vested interest, a veto over it. As we know, there are a number of places where elected mayors and elected mayoral systems have got into bother, while others are working quite well. If it is the view of the Government that changes should be possible, those changes should not be subject to such a veto. I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Amendments Nos. 128B and 153 would achieve the same ends as those tabled by my noble friend Lord Greaves. Amendment No. 128B is another amendment designed to increase the flexibility of the model. It would allow
10 July 2007 : Column 1379
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |