Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

The noble Baroness said: I think that, procedurally, we have probably dealt with this in the most efficient way but it has given rise to a slight oddity in that I now move my amendments after the Minister has spoken to them. However, in the interests of brevity, I shall not move formally the 11 amendments here, nor shall I oppose Clause 64 standing part of the Bill when we come to it because we have had a fairly full explanation from the noble Baroness about how these things will work. However, they have given rise to rather more questions than answers. The noble Baroness responded to some of the questions that I thought I had when I tabled the amendments, but others have now arisen.

I am still not entirely clear why the Government took a view that referendums were necessary in the 2000 Act, whereas they are not now. I still do not feel that I entirely understand that. I am still trying to understand what the Minister just told us about terms of office. I thought that I understood her to say that for once only a mayor’s term of office could be extended by two years. That is a very long time on a four-year term. Even though it applies once only I should be cautious about that. I suspect that some of my colleagues may want to comment on that.

This is not a huge issue but I am slightly concerned about the references in the Bill to local newspapers. I do not really understand why that reference is there at all if there are other places where the need for publicity is more comprehensively covered. It seems to me this is one of those cases where those clauses should either include all forms of publicity, including electronic ones, or should not specify any at all. Difficulties arise when clauses are included which cover part but not all of the matter. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: I confess to having got lost on the bit about London. Can the noble Baroness explain where in the amendments—if that is the case—the London provisions would arise? I might

11 July 2007 : Column 1428

have been distracted by thinking that she was referring to the Mayor of London. The London mayoral election is due in 2012. I thought that she was talking about the difference between 2012 and 2014. My question about where this arises is for a technical but very important reason. I am concerned that if we let this go through in Committee on something which I for one—I am sure other noble Lords are much more on the ball that I am—do not understand and feel that we should come back to, my understanding is that we will have lost the opportunity to do so because we will have agreed to the amendment. That really concerns me.

5.45 pm

Lord Graham of Edmonton: My two pennyworth on this is that until 1975, when we had the referendum on a massive issue, I took it for granted that referendums were not part of the British electoral scene. I remember that in 1975 in my constituency, after the issue was over, I would go round meetings and say that by a majority of two to one my constituents had decided that they were in favour of staying in the Common Market. That was true, because I had three letters, two in favour and one against. That was the extent to which the British people take to a referendum as an instrument. Other issues arise over time, in which people are deeply involved. I remember Section 28 debates when I got over 500 letters, which were overwhelmingly one way. When an issue arouses passion, people are stirred to do something about it. In the recent past in this House, we had the debates on the assisted dying Bill. Again, over 300 letters came out of the blue, with people giving me their point of view.

My take on the complexity of what is before us now is that of course it is right for the Government and for those who oppose the Government’s view to take this opportunity of trying to dot the “i”s and cross the “t”s but, substantially, I say the fewer referendums the better. Not that they are a bad thing; they are useful. I do not like the amendment, which in effect seems to me to be accepting grounds for more referendums than otherwise. The Minister—in a very long speech because she took the care to not only put her point of view but deal with the group of amendments—satisfied me that on balance what the Government are seeking here in rejecting the amendment is right.

Baroness Hanham: I was not going to intervene, but when the noble Lord, Lord Graham, gets to his feet he always rouses me to mine. Actually, it was not that at all.

I am sure that the Minister has explained this absolutely clearly but it has gone straight in one ear and out of the other. I want to be clear about whether, to change the arrangements, the council carries a resolution and says that it is going to change, for example, from a leader elected by the council to an elected leader or an elected mayor. I understand that there is a certain amount of time after a resolution has taken place before the election takes place. What happens with the rest of the council? I do not

11 July 2007 : Column 1429

understand Amendment No. 141. Does the rest of the council stay as it is until the next ordinary election? The election for the leader or the mayor might take place two years in. The council would stay the same but would have the elected leader imposed on it. The councillors would stay as they are for the rest of their term and, if necessary, the proposal would be that the elected mayor would be given an extension of time up to the four-year term. Is my understanding correct?

Baroness Andrews: It is wonderful to have my noble friend behind me. Sometimes I think that I am redundant, as he is able to answer admirably on behalf of the Front Bench.

Three questions were raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. The first was why there would be no referendums. I was also asked why we had moved away from the 2000 model. The reason is that it is essential to give more scope and, by allowing any change now to be sanctioned by approval or petition, we are making the system more flexible. In addition, after a referendum for a mayor, there will have to be a referendum for a change, so this is an attempt to introduce more flexibility. The extension is limited to the first period. I take the point that it is unfortunate that the periods are slightly out of sync and that they have to be managed in that way, but we are trying to extend choice.

There is no specific provision for the London boroughs in this situation, although there is specific provision for the London metropolitan areas and the boroughs in terms of the permitted resolution periods. I took an example from London but I could have taken an example from any borough and the effect would have been the same. Amendment No. 187 would apply in the same way to all local authorities. I put on the record an assurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, that the council does indeed continue as before.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: We are in some difficulty on these Benches for the reasons outlined by my noble friend Lady Hamwee. It appears that, if we agree the government amendments today, we cannot amend them later, but it is difficult to know whether we can agree entirely because we are still waiting for information which will make a complicated situation clear. However, at this stage, there is no question but that we shall withdraw our amendment.

Baroness Hanham: Perhaps I may seek clarification. If the Government amend the Bill today, presumably the Bill will be republished before Report. Will it not then be a new Bill to which we can make amendments, irrespective of which clauses are included and which are taken out? It will be a brand new Bill. Will there be no opportunity to amend amendments that have been put in?

Baroness Andrews: My understanding is that, when the Bill as amended by the Government goes back to the other place, it cannot be amended again—that is, the changes that have been made cannot be amended.

11 July 2007 : Column 1430

Baroness Hanham: But the Bill is not going back to the other place; it is coming back here on Report.

Baroness Andrews: Yes, indeed, and the changes, having been made, cannot be unmade.

Lord Greaves: This is extremely unsatisfactory. The Minister rightly said that this is a very complicated matter. She was not able to explain it in full this afternoon and said that she would write to people about it. That is absolutely right. However, we are being asked to agree to amendments but that agreement depends on us understanding them on the basis of what the noble Baroness says when she writes to us, and we will not be able to amend them subsequently if we do not agree with what she says in writing.

Baroness Andrews: I gave as full and clear an explanation as I could and offered to ensure that noble Lords had that in writing. My speaking note was long and detailed and I could not have added a great deal more. If I were to write, I would simply exemplify what I have described—that is, setting out the timetable, the resolution and the effect. I explained the matter to the Committee in as much detail as I thought was tolerable.

Baroness Hanham: I am sure that this happens all the time and there must be some clarification. It may be that the Minister is correct that when we put a whole tranche of amendments in, that is it. I do not understand why if this comes back as a completely republished Bill—it will—we are then unable to amend some of those clauses and amendments that have been put in. We cannot take them all out again; I understand that, but why is it not like any other clause in the Bill to which we can table amendments? That may need clarification and I am happy to rest for a while, but I should like an answer before the dinner break.

Baroness Hamwee: I, too, would like to be clear about the matter before we move on from these amendments. I raised concerns before today on whether it would be possible to amend the current amendments, which will be part of the Bill when it comes to Report. I was told that because the House would have agreed these government amendments, it would not be possible to amend them on Report. That concerned me very much. The most helpful thing—it is possibly not so helpful to the noble Baroness, but involves the spirit in which we are trying to deal with this Bill—would be for the amendments not to be moved today, to allow us to read the complicated explanation, to which there will be an addition through correspondence. We could perhaps deal with them more sensibly at the next stage.

Lord Roper: I wonder whether there has possibly been some misunderstanding about our procedure. I understand that if the amendments are made today it will not be possible to unmake them on Report—to remove them completely—but that there is nothing to inhibit us tabling amendments to those amendments

11 July 2007 : Column 1431

at the next stage. I understand that this procedure operates in any other Bill. I see that the Minister is nodding; I think she agrees that it applies to this Bill as well.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My noble friend Lady Hamwee and I were left in no doubt as to the position regarding amending the amendments. But if that is not true, and we are in a position to amend at Report, there is not such a problem. The advice that we were given was pretty clear, but it now appears not to have been correct. My noble friend was very helpful.

Baroness Andrews: I confirm my understanding. I have to move the government amendments and the Bill is then amended and becomes a new Bill. But new points can be made at Report on the changes in that Bill, as printed.

I am sure that my explanation, plus the explanatory examples, will discourage noble Lords from wanting to extend this arcane debate. I hope that that will be the case.

Lord Greaves: The point that I was going to make when I spoke before was that it is an interesting situation, but it is unsatisfactory because we are taking the Bill—rightly because of its size and importance—on the Floor of the House. If it were being debated in the Moses Room, we would be able to insist that these amendments were not incorporated at this stage but were brought back at Report, as every decision in the Moses Room has to be unanimous. If we opposed, the amendment would not be made and we would come back to it at Report, as has happened on a number of Bills in which I have been involved. As we are rightly taking this Bill in the wider forum of the Floor of the House, we may be in a difficult position. We shall probably have to rely on the advice given on our Benches by our former Chief Whip who knows about these things. Let us hope that everything comes out all right in the end.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 138A.

Amendment No. 138A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 138, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Amendment No. 138 agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 138B to 138E not moved.]

Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 139:

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 140 not moved.]

Baroness Andrews moved Amendments Nos. 141 to 143:



11 July 2007 : Column 1432

(a) if the local authority is currently operating—(i) a mayor and cabinet executive, or(ii) an elected executive,the “appropriate elections of councillors” are the ordinary elections of councillors of the local authority held on the day on which the next ordinary election of a mayor or elected executive was expected to be held when the resolution to make the change in governance arrangements was passed;(b) if the local authority—(i) is not currently operating a mayor and cabinet executive or elected executive, and(ii) is required to pass the resolution to make the change in governance arrangements during a permitted resolution period,the “appropriate elections of councillors” are the first ordinary elections of councillors of the local authority to be held after the end of the permitted resolution period in which the resolution is passed;(c) if the local authority—(i) is not currently operating a mayor and cabinet executive or elected executive, and(ii) is not required to pass the resolution to make the change in governance arrangements during a permitted resolution period,the “appropriate elections of councillors” are the first ordinary elections of councillors of the local authority to be held after the resolution is passed.”

On Question, amendments agreed to.

6 pm

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Ullswater): I must advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 144 is agreed to I will be unable to call Amendment No. 145.

Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 144:

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 145 not moved.]

Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 146:

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 147:

(a) the change is of the kind set out in section 33A (new form of executive) or section 33C (move to executive arrangements), and(b) the change is subject to approval in a referendum.”

[Amendment No. 147A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 147, not moved.]

On Question, Amendment No. 147 agreed to.



11 July 2007 : Column 1433

Baroness Andrews moved Amendments Nos. 148 and 149:

(a) the change is of the kind set out in section 33A (new form of executive) or section 33C (move to executive arrangements), and(b) the change is not subject to approval in a referendum.(a) the local authority is operating a mayor and cabinet executive or an elected executive, and(b) the proposed new form of executive is a leader and cabinet executive (England).

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 149A not moved.]

Baroness Andrews moved Amendments Nos. 150 and 151:

(a) the local authority is operating a mayor and cabinet executive or an elected executive, and(b) the proposed new form of executive is a form prescribed in section 11(5).(a) at a meeting specially convened for the purpose;(b) by a majority of at least two thirds of members voting on it.”

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 152 to 156 not moved.]

Lord Greaves moved Amendment No. 157:


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page