Clause
28
Contraventions
of
direction
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Syms:
In the debate on the previous clause, the Minister
referred to a number of contracts and to parcelling that, as Members
may know, takes place when a piece of land is sold in three pieces or a
contract is let under four. I have always inclined towards the cock-up,
rather than the conspiracy, theory, and I know that it is terribly
difficult to define—I know the Bill is trying to do
so—what is part of one contract. I can therefore see a situation
in which an authority might inadvertently be caught up in exceeding the
limits and contravening clause 24 for a worthy cause such as a
children’s home, school or project with a general public
benefit.
10
am
Clause 28 is a
hard clause that makes various actions void. What flexibility will the
Government have if there is a contravention of a direction made under
clause 24? Will contracts automatically be made void, resulting in all
sorts of legal action by the companies that have entered into
agreements with a council, or will the Government have the flexibility
not to implement a direction under clause 24? In other words, will they
nod through a contract that contravenes it as the result of a cock-up
or for a worthy cause, rather than leave a difficult legal jungle in
which a private sector company will be left in limbo, not knowing
whether it will be paid or whom it should
sue?
Mr.
Woolas:
The hon. Gentleman reinforces my view that he is a
decent Conservative, because a decent Conservative believes in the
cock-up theory of life. The former Minister for Higher Education, Lord
Brooke, once said to me that the problem with my lot, by which he meant
the Labour party, was that we believed in conspiracy theory, and the
problem with his party was that they believed in the cock-up theory;
but what I should understand was that they conspired and then cocked
up. I have always remembered that, and I suspect that it is the case
here. Experience shows that there are examples of decisions made
deliberately to jeopardise the good running of a new authority and
shadow authority.
The
clause is not as harsh as it looks, but it is tough. It depends on
clause 24 in the first instance and follows from it, and its meaning is
that any disposal made without consent will be void—it will be
treated under law as if it had never happened. Incidentally, the clause
refers to disposals, not contracts.
Subsection (2) provides that
any contract entered into without consent will not be enforceable
against a successor authority, so the contractor will not be able to
sue the successor for payment for work or services. Subsection (4)
provides that a contract entered into without consent will not be
considered a certified contract for the purposes of the Local
Government (Contracts) Act 1997, meaning that the contract cannot
benefit from the protection against legal challenge offered by that
Act. The Secretary of State will ensure that information regarding any
authority that is subject to a direction and the consequences of such a
direction—that is the crucial point—is given wide
publicity, including in the trade press, so that contractors are well
aware that certain authorities will need to gain consent before
entering into
contracts.
I hope that
the Committee will bear with me, as it is important to put this on the
record. Subsections (5) and (6) provide that if an authority applies
reserves to reduce its budget requirement for council tax purposes in
breach of the direction, and only in breach of the direction, the
authority will be treated as though it had not made its council tax
calculations as required by the Local Government Finance Act 1992, and
accordingly will not be able to collect council tax.
The hon. Member for Poole is
right: those are tough measures—but they will be available only
within the powers of the direction that we debated earlier. The
measures are designed to ensure that there are consequences for
authorities that choose to breach the
terms of the direction—in other words, those that enter into
conspiracies, not cock-ups. The intention is to ensure that authorities
that are going to be wound up do not dispose of valuable land, enter
into long-term contracts, or apply financial reserves above a limit
specified by the Secretary of State, to reduce council tax without
consent, all of which might otherwise have a negative effect on a new
authority and, importantly, on the services available to people in that
area. Essentially, the clause sets out the consequences for authorities
if they do not seek consent either for disposals or before entering
into certain contracts. I commend the clause to the
Committee.
Question put and agreed
to.
Clause 28
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
29
Power
to
amend
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Alistair
Burt:
I am interested in the comments that the hon. Member
for Hazel Grove made on the clause. The clause grants substantial
powers, but the Minister indicated that it does not mean what we think
it means. Will he enlighten us on why the clause is
needed—particularly subsection (1)(b), which may not grant the
wide-ranging power that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove believed it to,
but about which Conservative Members are also
concerned?
Mr.
Woolas:
The clause allows the Secretary ofState
to amend the amounts that are identified in clause 24(1)—the
amounts above which consent is required for disposal of land or for
certain contracts. Such amendment might be required if, for example,
property prices or land values were to increase markedly. The clause
also allows the Secretary of State to amend the date of 31 December,
which we have discussed. The clause therefore allows the provisions of
the Bill to be amended so that they are more workable—in the
event, for example, that the decision-making process changed for some
reason, perhaps because of the point that the hon. Gentleman
madeon stage 2 of the consultation. It gives the
Secretaryof State flexibility to make provision for changed
circumstances.
Andrew
Stunell:
Will the Minister assure us that in no
circumstances would the Government make the date earlier than the one
set out in clause
27?
Mr.
Woolas:
Not only will I do that, but I will add that the
Bill would not allow us to make such a change. The date can only be
changed to a later date, not an earlier one. Let me emphasise something
else by way of further reassurance. The date is the date after which
decisions can be taken into account. Neither an authority nor an
official could be held to have acted unlawfully unless the relevant
decision was taken both knowingly and after the date of commencement of
the legislation, following Royal Assent. A change in date might come
about if the Government issued another invitation after a direction
made in the circumstances
that we have already discussed—a slight boundary change or a
consequential direction to propose, as a result of a solution being
needed for an entire county
area.
Alistair
Burt:
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove described the clause
as one that neatly sidesteps the provisions of clause 27, and the dates
set out in that clause. It seems to me that that is exactly what it
does. If the Minister admitted that that is its purpose the point would
be
proved.
Mr.
Woolas:
I like the word “neatly”, but I
amnot sure that I like the implications of the word
“sidesteps”. I would say that the clause
“neatly” facilitates good local governance, and I commend
it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed
to.
Clause 29
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 30
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
31
Eligible
councils
Andrew
Stunell:
I beg to move amendment No. 94, in
clause 31, page 17, line 37, after
‘to’, insert
‘(a)’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: Amendment No. 95, in clause 31, page 17, line 38, at end
insert—
‘(b) a scheme for
whole council
elections’.
Amendment
No. 96, in
clause 31, page 18, line 2, at
end insert—
‘(2A) A council
is subject to a scheme for whole elections if, under the scheme for the
ordinary elections of its councillors, all of the councillors are
elected in each year in which the elections are
held.’.
Amendment
No. 98, in
clause 32, page 18, line 13, at
end insert
‘within eight
years of a resolution being made in accordance with subsection
(1).’.
New
clause 6—Changing scheme for ordinary whole council
elections—
‘(1) This
section applies if an eligible council resolves, during a permitted
resolution period, that the council is to be subject to the scheme for
partial-council elections.
(2)
The council ceases to be subject to the scheme for whole council
elections.
(3) The council
becomes subject to the scheme for partial-council
elections.
(4) The council must
not pass the resolution unless it has taken reasonable steps to consult
on the change to partial-council
elections.
(5) It is for the
council to decide which persons it is appropriate to
consult.
(6) No resolution of
the council may reverse the effect of this section within eight years
of a resolution being made in accordance with subsection
(1).
(7) In this section
“permitted resolution period”, in relation to an eligible
council, means a period specified in the second column of the following
table in relation to that type of council
|
Type
of eligible
council
|
Permitted
resolution
periods
|
|
Metropolitan
district
|
(1)
The period ending 31st December 2007 (2) The period in 2011, or in any
fourth year afterwards,
which—
|
|
(a)
starts with 1st October, and (b) ends with 31st
December.
|
|
Non-metropolitan
district
|
(1)
The period ending with 31st December 2010. (2) The period in 2014, or
in any fourth year afterwards,
which—
|
|
(a)
starts with 1st October, and (b) ends with 31st
December.
|
(8)
The Secretary of State may by order provide that a permitted resolution
period is to end later than the last day of that period specified in
the
table.’.
New
clause 7—Scheme for partial-council
elections—
‘(1) The
scheme for partial-council elections is as
follows.
(2) The term of office
of councillors is four
years.
(3) Elections of the
councillors of the council are to be held in the year after the
resolution is passed and every year after it other than every third
year after it.
(4) One third
(or as nearly as may be) of the councillors are elected in each year in
which the elections are
held.
(5) On the fourth day
after elections are
held—
(a) the
councillors elected in those elections are to come into office,
and
(b) the sitting councillors
are to retire.
(6) In this
section—
“resolution
period” means the permitted resolution period in which the
council passes a resolution for the purposes of section
32;
“sitting
councillors” means the councillors who hold office at the time
ordinary elections are
held.’.
Andrew
Stunell:
It is important that we make progress today, so I
shall try not to detain the Committee for long.
The group comprises a coherent
set of amendments designed to give local councils the opportunity not
only to switch from one-third or one-half elections to all-out
elections, but to switch back the other way. Although that is rather
intricate, because the proposals are wound so much into this part of
the Bill, hopefully our amendments would allow
that.
The Minister has
talked a great deal about how he is freeing local government and giving
it lots of choices, and about devolutionary government and amazing love
and motherhood government. It is wonderful to hear him talk about that,
but we are trying to coax him a little bit further so that he does not
just give local government the freedom to move in the direction that
the Government would prefer as far as elections go, but allows them the
freedom to go in the other direction if they choose—to have a
reversible process, or one that gives them equal freedom to go in each
direction.
The
evidence from the Local Government Association representatives was that
although as individuals they considered that all-out elections were
probably the way ahead, local government as a whole should have the
option to go in the opposite direction. I have been a member of
different authorities that have had both systems of election; we could
rehearsethe advantages and disadvantages at some length.
However, it is not for the Government to decide for local authorities
which of the pros and cons ought to
take precedence in their decision making. We heard
from Unlock Democracy, which made exactly that point, and, although it
might serve to weaken my case, the Conservative leader of the district
councils made the same point,
too.
Alistair
Burt:
A fine
man.
Andrew
Stunell:
Yes, and, at least on that point, I could rely on
his evidence.
All
these matters are of a piece. It would not be profitable to explain in
detail how they all work, but I ask the Government to reconsider the
provision. If the Minister wants to gain a reputation for assisting
local government to deliver effective and representative government, he
ought not to constrain it. In giving authorities the freedom to move to
all-out elections, he ought equally to give them the freedom to move
the other way if they choose to do so. There are things to be said on
both sides; I shall not rehearse all the arguments, but give a few
examples. What some regard as decisive change might be regarded by
others as catastrophic change. Some have commented on the boom and bust
of all-out elections and the remarkable way in which, in the year of
all-out elections, council tax rises tend to be so much lower than in
the other three years. And so the arguments go
on.
Alistair
Burt:
In those circumstances, councils are only taking a
lead and mirroring the example of the Government, which produces a
council tax rebate in a general election year that mysteriously
disappears the year
after.
Andrew
Stunell:
I was tempted to use this place as an analogy,
but I thought that, on the whole, I would steer clear of it. Its
example is neither particularly good nor bad, but the point has been
made. Sometimes, as in 1979 or 1997, there is revolutionary change and
sometimes there is not. In the local government context, where there
are elections by thirds or by halves, the decision takers are always
looking over their shoulder. Ministers sometimes represent that as weak
leadership, but actually it is responsive leadership: representatives
are looking over their shoulder and considering what the public will do
next May. In a representative democracy, what is wrong with that, for
goodness’
sake?
I am not saying
that local government should have election by thirds. I am asking the
Committee and the Minister to consider making the second procedure open
to local government, as well as the first one. Of course, on the whole,
leaders in power prefer all-out elections every four years and
oppositions out of power prefer elections every year. Whether the
democracy that results is better or worse, the Minister will not be
able to produce a scrap of evidence to show one thing or the other. It
seems to us that there is every reason to give that freedom to local
authorities, and I trust that the hon. Gentleman will agree to do
so.
Mr.
Syms:
I have to start off by saying that I have always had
a natural sympathy for all-out elections because of their simplicity.
There is a manifesto, people try to carry it out and others make a
judgment. Having
said that, I am totally opposed to the Government specifying solutions
to local government because local tradition and practice are important.
I have sympathy with the argument made by the hon. Member for Hazel
Grove: why force a lever that forces change purely in one way? Choice
about whether electoral systems should be whole, one third or one half
rather than proportional representation should be down to local
government.
The
Government are again trying to make up the mind for local government,
as they do in relation to committee systems and other matters. I hope
that the Minister listens to the debate and reflects on it. We have
heard much about devolution and bottom-up change and, if that really is
the way to go, the hon. Gentleman’s amendment should be
accepted.
Mr.
Neil Turner (Wigan) (Lab): Hon. Members will see that I
have tabled an amendment similar to that tabled by the hon. Member for
Hazel Grove. To bring some colour back into the cheeks of my hon.
Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford, let me say that I shall
not be supporting the hon. Gentleman’s amendment. However, I
shall be urging my hon. Friend the Minister to take account of what has
been said.
We did not
discuss the matter very much during the evidence session, but the hon.
Member for Hazel Grove asked a question, to which the Minister
replied:
“the Bill allows
the process of change. It is about accountability and transparency for
the electorate and our view is that all-out elections provide that in
the best form.”—[Official Report, Standing Committee
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill, 1 February
2007; c. 92.]
I do not think
that that is at all relevant to the Bill, which is about putting the
decision-making process as far down the track of democracy as possible.
The view of the Minister on election arrangements is not relevant. On
Tuesday, the Minister
said:
“The
Government’s approach is devolutionary. It is for local
authorities to tell us the best solution for their area. The reason for
that, apart from what is apparent, is that the geographies and
economies of local areas are very
different.”—[Official Report, Standing Committee Local
Government and Public involvement in Health Bill, 6 February 2007;
c. 139-140.]
He is saying
exactly what the Bill is all about. Its thrust is to push down the
decision-making process as far as possible. I do not think that the
logic of the clause as drafted stacks up in that
regard.
I am making an
assumption about what the Minister will say in response, but one of the
things that may well be said that the Bill is about the provision of
strong leadership. In other words, a four-yearly election gives a
four-year leadership and a clear decision-making process. However, that
does not stack up, either. There are clear sufficient safeguards in the
Bill that will allow for strong leadership in those authorities that
have elections by thirds or by halves. If that were so important, the
Bill should have a clause stating, “Everybody shall go for
all-out elections.” If that is the logic, the Government should
be saying, “Make it
so.”
Councils
should not be subject to such provisions. I accept that there should
not be a constant ping-pong whereby there is a four-yearly election,
immediately after which, because a different party gets into power that
likes elections by thirds, there is a change. We could make sure that
that does not happen by having a
clause in favour of an arrangement lasting eight years or 12 years. That
seems to me to be correct. The arrangement would have time to bed in;
people would understand the pros and cons, having been able to compare
one type of election against another. I do not think that this is a
major issue: I cannot see The Times thundering about it, The
Guardian railing against it, or The Daily Telegraph
fulminating on it. I cannot see the Daily Mail saying three
votes good, one vote bordering on autism; or the Daily Express
saying that the issue is part of the great jigsaw of the Diana death
syndrome. I cannot even envisage letters in the “Blagdon
Advertiser” about it. Most people are not that bothered one way
or the other. However, the people of a local authority area should be
able to have election by thirds if they think that is correct. Having a
one-way street goes against the whole flow of the Bill. The Minister
should look against at the provision and allow local authorities the
ability to move in both directions, if they so
wish.
Andrew
Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab): I draw hon.
Members’ attention, yet again, to my entry in the Register of
Members’ Interests. I support everything that my hon. Friend the
Member for Wigan said. I believe that it should be up to councils to
decide. I should state that I am biased because both the local
authorities in my constituency elect by thirds: Stockport and Tameside
are metropolitan boroughs and so have no option but to do so, but the
system works well in both. If nothing else, it encourages political
activity to take place all year round—or most of the
time—in all of the wards in both boroughs.
I was elected under the system
of thirds in 1996 and in 2000. Owing to the boundary changes of the
wards in Tameside, the 2004 elections were all-out. That coincided with
the European election and an all postal pilot, so the ballot papers
were like Ordnance Survey maps. I ought to be biased in favour of
all-out elections, because not only did I top the poll in my ward, but
I topped the poll out of the 250 candidates for election to the 59
seats in Tameside—[ Hon. Members:
“Hear, hear!”]. But I am not biased in favour
of all-out elections. I think that thirds is a preferable system,
because it allows for greater activity, for long-term planning, and
gives more certainty to officers and executive
councillors.
Dr.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD): The interesting thing about
those all-out elections was that the results were not significantly
different from when elections were by thirds. Does the hon. Gentleman
agree that the political complexions of authorities did not change by
much?
Andrew
Gwynne:
In Tameside, that seems to be an annual feature.
The hon. Gentleman is entirely right, certainly with regard to the
all-out elections in Greater Manchester.
Patrick
Hall (Bedford) (Lab): We have heard quite a lot about
Tameside, but it is important to get back to the standard established
in the Committee of referring to Bedford and Bedfordshire. Although I
agree with the points that have been made about the encouragement that
year-round campaigning provides, there is an issue about continuity of
leadership. It is possible to achieve a perfect solution, which has of
course been done in Bedford: elections by thirds and a directly elected
mayor.
Andrew
Gwynne:
I am not sure that I am qualified to comment on
Bedford. In Tameside since 1980 we have been under the stable
leadership of Councillor Roy Oldham CBE, who is the longest serving
leader of any council in the country. That is what election by thirds
has brought to Tameside.
Elections by thirds also bring
stability for officers. They are able to plan ahead and see whether a
council is likely to change control.
It being twenty-five minutes
past Ten o’clock,
The Chairman
adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant
to the Standing Order.
Adjourned till Tuesday 20
February at half-pastTen
o’clock.
| 
