| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Minister will be aware of the situation that has arisen in Doncaster, where the Doncaster Fair Deal campaigners have drawn up a petition to change from the elected mayor and cabinet system currently in operation. Using the provisions of the Local Government Act 2000, more than 11,000 people signed a petition requesting a referendum on changing the system of governance. It was taken to full council and won.
I understand that the authority subsequently refused to take action on the basis that the current five-year rule will be rendered null and void by the Bill in front of us. This Bill will leave current arrangements in place for 10 years, so Doncaster and any other authority where arrangements appear not to be working and are no longer wanted will be stuck with an unpopular system of governance for a decade. That is far too long where the system has self evidently lost the confidence of the public.
Amendment No. 153 is another attempt to remove the ludicrous requirement that in order for change to happen the existing elected mayor or leader has to assent. If I were visiting another country to look at its system of governance and found that the only way you could get rid of someone was if they themselves agreed to be got rid of, I would report that back as an outrage and a sham of democracy. It is quite extraordinary that it will be part of the Bill.
Baroness Andrews: This group of amendments makes amendments to Clauses 62 and 64 which deal with local authorities changing their governance arrangements by inserting new sections into the Local Government Act 2000. Amendment No. 128B would enable a council to vary its executive arrangements more than once. The effect of Amendment No. 128 would be to deny authorities the ability to change their executive models from one to another. The effect of Amendment No. 153 would be to enable changes between models of executive to occur during the term of office of a mayor or leader of a directly elected executive without their permission. I heard what the noble Baroness said, but the amendments seem to cut down on the scope and the democratic powers of local government.
Clause 64 enables local authorities operating executive arrangements to change their governance arrangements, including the adoption of a directly elected form of executive. It cannot and would not be our intention at all that a council could never change its mind about the model that it had chosen. It is obviously sensible for a council to be able to move from one model to another if it finds, after a period with one model, that it can now see the benefits of another. Surely, by removing Section 33A and preventing a council from changing that model, we would be doing a major disservice to that council. Clearly, we believe that councils should be able to change if they believe that it is appropriate. We want to keep that flexibility.
10 July 2007 : Column 1380
We believe that Amendment No. 128 is unnecessary. The Bill as it stands provides that councils can vary their executive arrangements any number of times that they choose. I hope that that will satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. A council that after the enactment of the Bill adopts the leader and cabinet executive model can, if it so chooses, subsequently decide to adopt the elected executive model. Thereafter, at a later date, it could adopt the mayor and cabinet model or alternately it might revert to the leader and cabinet model. So it can go backwards and forwards between the three models if it so chooses—and there are processes and timetables for doing that which make it consistent with the council’s election. The Bill sets that out.
Amendments Nos. 128 and 153 are where the perversity comes in. If we passed Amendment No. 128, there would be no flexibility to move between models and, if we passed Amendment No. 153, there would be no flexibility to modify the executive arrangements. We believe that flexibility is essential. Obviously, local authorities may be able to identify improvements that make the model that they have chosen more effective in providing strategic leadership, but it is only right that the changes to the governance arrangements of mayors and cabinet executives or elected executives must have the specific consent of the mayor or the elected executive leader, both of whom have a direct mandate from the electorate of the whole council area. To prevent this from happening would actually be undemocratic. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Greaves: I cannot say that I understood all of that at the first go, so I shall read it carefully in Hansard. The technical details of the amendments may be defective, but the basic principles behind what we are saying stand, and we may want to come back to this matter later. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 128A and 128B not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley): I must point out to the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 129A to 133, for reasons of pre-emption.
Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 129:
(a) cease to operate alternative arrangements, and(b) start to operate executive arrangements.”The noble Baroness said: This is a large group of amendments, but they all relate to a specific situation. I shall speak to the opposition amendments at the same time as I speak to the government amendments.
This relates to the situation where a local authority that is currently not operating executive arrangements will cease to be eligible to continue in this way once the Bill is enacted. In other words, it deals with a council
10 July 2007 : Column 1381
Amendments Nos. 129, 135, 136, 144 and 157 remove the provisions in Clause 64 that relate to councils that are no longer eligible for alternative arrangements. The Bill’s provisions on the implementation of executive arrangements are somewhat contradictory and perhaps I should clarify a little.
Amendments Nos. 191 to 193 provide new provisions that make it clear that councils no longer eligible will need to start operating executive arrangements by their annual meeting in 2009. Specifically, Amendment No. 191 inserts a new clause providing that local authorities operating alternative arrangements that have a population of greater than 85,000 on 30 June 1999 will no longer be eligible to operate alternative arrangements. Such councils must operate the new leader and Cabinet model from their annual meeting in 2009. These councils’ proposals must set out their arrangements regarding the discharge of functions between the council and its executive, set out a timetable for the move and give appropriate publicity with regard to the implementation of executive arrangements.
Amendment No. 192 inserts a new clause providing that, if it appears to the Secretary of State that councils no longer eligible for alternative arrangements will fail to operate the new leader and Cabinet model, the Secretary of State may by order require such councils to operate this model from their annual meeting in 2009.
Amendment No. 193 inserts a new clause exempting councils no longer eligible to operate alternative arrangements from the general provisions in Section 33C and Section 33I(l) about changing governance arrangements. It also provides that the first resolution period for such councils is 1 October to 31 December 2010.
10 pm
I recognise that the leadership of Brighton and Hove has recently changed and I understand that the new leadership might prefer not to move to executive arrangements until 2011. That bears on noble Lords’ Amendments Nos. 130, 137 and 145, which would prevent councillors who are no longer eligible to operate alternative arrangements from having to move to executive arrangements by their annual meeting in 2009. The amendments would go further by enabling them permanently to retain alternative arrangements. Interestingly, I notice that noble Lords, for a change, support government Amendments Nos. 135 and 157. Whereas we will replace those sections with a new clause in Amendment No. 191, they are content simply to remove them. However, we cannot
10 July 2007 : Column 1382
I do not intend to repeat our discussions on the committee system, but it is important to make it clear that the Local Government Act 2000 protects populations of less than 85,000 in June 1999. The small councils concerned will be free to operate alternative arrangements and the Bill does not affect them. However, we do not believe that large authorities that are delivering strategic services such as adult care or children’s services should operate alternative arrangements which do not provide for clear leadership. That is the burden of our amendments. I hope that noble Lords will be able to accept them. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: We at least owe it to the Minister to thank her for explaining that, rather than “Changing governance arrangements”, this is the “Brighton and Hove” clause. I was utterly confused by how one could become ineligible when one had the same population or possibly a difference of one person, and one was looking at the same estimate. We will not pursue our amendments on this matter, although that does not detract from our view that, however good, bad, large or small Brighton and Hove is, it like any other authority should be free to choose the so-called alternative arrangements from the many that are available to it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 129A to 135 not moved.]
Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 136:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: As Amendment No. 136 has been agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 137 for reasons of pre-emption.
[Amendment No. 137 not moved.]
Baroness Crawley: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Bournemouth Borough Council Bill [HL]
Manchester City Council Bill [HL]
The Bills were reported from the Select Committee with amendments. A Special Report was made and ordered to be printed (HL Paper 148). The Bills were recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee. Then the Chairman of Committees directed in accordance with Private Business Standing Order 121(1)(b) (Committees on unopposed bills) that the order recommitting the Bills to an Unopposed Bill Committee be discharged.
- House adjourned at 10.03 pm
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |