| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
3 Feb 2009 : Column GC133
Grand Committee
Tuesday, 3 February 2009.
Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]
Bill Main Page
Copy of the Bill
Explanatory Notes
Amendments
1st Report from DPC
Committee (5th Day)
3.30 pm
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Colwyn): Good afternoon. I start with the usual reminder that, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Clause 18: Supplementary scheme provision
Amendments 126 to 128 not moved.
Clause 19: Powers of appropriate national authority
Amendments 129 and 130 not moved.
Baroness Hamwee: I move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Greaves, who, due to unforeseen circumstances, is unable to be with us this afternoon. I will send noble Lords’ good wishes.
Amendments 131 and 132 relate to Clause 19. Amendment 132 would delete subsection (7), which says:
“The powers conferred by this section are subject to the requirements of this Chapter”.
I understand that the noble Lord tabled the amendment because he did not understand what that subsection meant. I think—Hansard cannot reflect my italicisation of that word—I know what it means, but it would be good to have the Minister’s explanation.
Amendment 131 would insert “or may not” after “may”. I assume that, if one may do something, one may also not do it, but I hope that the Minister will confirm that that is implicit.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, tabled the Question whether Clause 19 shall stand part, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, and the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, have attached their names, because he was particularly concerned about subsection (6). A theme which ran right through our debates on petitions is the number of people who will be employed, in this case at national or government office level, to monitor how petition schemes go. In this clause, the Secretary of State or the Welsh Ministers may direct a principal authority to make revisions to a scheme.
3 Feb 2009 : Column GC134
I do not think that I need repeat the concerns on this side of the Committee about the heavy-handedness of some of the provisions. I beg to move.
Lord Hanningfield: I support the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. A theme running throughout this part of the legislation is that there is too much prescription. To a certain extent, that would put people off petitions rather than help. As I said the other day, I hope that the Minister will take this away and think again. The provisions are far too prescriptive—very much teaching grandmother to suck eggs. Please look at this again, for everyone’s benefit. I support the opposition to the Question whether Clause 19 should stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Andrews): I send my good wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I hope that he will dig himself out. I noticed that the road across the Pennines was free today and I must confess that I rejoiced that he would have an easy passage, not realising that he would not be able to get that far. It is very nice to have the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, back with us today.
I shall start where the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, finished. I listened very closely and suspect that, in the course of the next few amendments, we will have an element of the debate about what is prescription and what is enabling and necessary. I shall think seriously about what noble Lords are saying about the degree of detail that we need in the Bill.
I shall just address why Clause 19 is as it is and why it is important. Clause 19(1) provides a power for the appropriate national authority to make orders about what should be in petition schemes and what should not be. This power will be used only for situations in which, despite guidance and directions to individual local authorities, the local authority has signally failed to create a scheme which is accessible in the way we want it to be and effective. Clause 19(3) sets out particular issues that these orders can cover.
I have said before in Committee that the Government intend to exercise the order-making power in Clause 19 to set a maximum threshold for triggering the debate. In order not to be exclusive and not to be impossible to reach, it should not be more than 5 per cent of local residents.
Clause 19(2) provides for guidance to be made to help local authorities to meet the requirements under this chapter, and Clause 19(4) permits the guidance to include a model petition scheme. These clauses describe in general how guidance is designed to support agencies outside this House as a whole, not to be slavishly adhered to but to act as a guide to what, after consultation with local authorities, we believe will work best. If they have a better scheme and a better reason, local authorities can depart from the guidance.
The amendment reflects the noble Lord’s concern, which has run through the Committee, that this provision will be a method to prescribe by the backdoor all the details of how principal local authorities should handle petitions that they receive, but I assure noble Lords that it is not the case. Principal authorities will be free to adapt the model scheme to reflect local circumstances, or not adapt it at all. We will work closely with them,
3 Feb 2009 : Column GC135
Clause 19(5) underlines that point. It is a “may” construction; the clause says that local authorities,
I hope that that will reassure the noble Lord.
On subsection (6), we are clear that we want local authorities to adopt effective petition schemes that give local people more influence in their areas. Should a principal local authority adopt a scheme that creates rather than lowers barriers to local involvement—although I do not expect that to happen—Clause 19(6) is necessary because it provides a power to direct an individual principal authority to amend its petition scheme. The obvious case would be if an authority set a threshold for stimulating a council meeting that was so high that it would be impossible to reach. In that instance, the appropriate authority could make a targeted intervention, requiring the principal authority to set a lower threshold without the need to exercise the order-making power. We see that power of intervention very much as a backstop, to be used in extremis if at all. However, we are committed to ensuring that standards everywhere can be raised to those of the best.
Amendment 132 seeks to remove subsection (7). The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in his own inimitable words, said, “It is there but I do not understand what it means. Why is it there?”. It is there because it clarifies that no changes to the requirements set out in this chapter may be made through the powers in Clause 19 to issue orders, guidance and directions. Essentially, subsection (7) makes it clear that this is not a Henry VIII provision which would entitle the appropriate national authority to change the primary legislation. It is a necessary safeguard.
With that brief explanation, I hope that noble Lords will be content for Clause 19 to stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Hamwee: I cannot resist commenting that if there were less detail in the Bill it would not be necessary to spell out quite so much in this clause. If “guidance”, which should have only its natural meaning, includes a model petition scheme, it ought not to be necessary to say that a local authority may or may not adopt the model because it is only there as part of the guidance. One would not then need to go into powers of intervention.
I understand better the Minister’s point that the Government want to be sure that authorities, in setting up their schemes, which we continue to believe should be of their own design, do not set the threshold at some absurd number—more than 1,000 people or whatever—that would turn it into a petition to which they would need to respond in some way. I continue to feel that the politics of the situation will prompt local authorities, but that is part of the larger debate.
I am grateful for the Minister’s response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
3 Feb 2009 : Column GC136
Clause 20: Handling of petitions by other bodies
Baroness Hamwee: Again, I move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Greaves. It seeks to remove the application of Clause 20 to parish councils in England and community councils in Wales, which, to all intents and purposes, are the same kind of body, identical in their functions but operating in different ways. My noble friend, rightly, is unhappy that, as the clause is constructed, the Secretary of State can apply a scheme appropriate to the other principal bodies and local authorities listed in the subsection to parish councils, which really do not need national rules. It is a simple amendment, although the Minister may say differently. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 133A, which has already been debated.
3.45 pm
Baroness Andrews: The amendment raises an important issue and, again, I want to be as reassuring as possible. Clause 20 lists the categories of authority, besides principal councils, to which some form of petitions duty may be extended. I shall concentrate on parish councils, as the amendment applies to them. The list includes parish councils in England or community councils in Wales, economic prosperity boards established under Clause 84 or a combined authority established under Clause 98, and a range of other types of authority. Clause 21 provides that any extension would be by statutory instrument using the negative resolution procedure.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, wants to remove parish councils in England and community councils in Wales from the list of bodies to which any sort of duty may be extended. As the noble Baroness said, he thinks that national rules are inappropriate, and I suspect that he also thinks that this is a very onerous duty. He and I certainly agree that parish councils are very much at the heart of small communities, and we recognised their role in 2007, when we discussed the Act that permitted the extension of the power of well-being to them.
These are cherished bodies and they deal with the sorts of services that we care about very strongly; for example, allotments, public conveniences and cemeteries. These are the things that make a difference to quality of life, and indeed to death. Therefore, we believe that it is appropriate that these councils should be accountable to local people and that local people should be able to raise any concerns with them and seek improvements. They are nearer the community but they have the same sort of problems that other local authorities face. People are still reluctant to come forward. Very few
3 Feb 2009 : Column GC137
However, I am also fully aware that parish and community councils have very different arrangements and resources from principal local authorities. Therefore, subsection (4) provides that any duty in the Bill which is applied to a body listed in Clause 20 can be modified precisely to take into account the differing natures of those bodies. We know, for example, that many parishes have only a part-time clerk. Any requirements on parish councils will therefore have to take into account their ability to respond, and we are committed to meeting the cost of any new burdens placed on them.
My most important message is that we would not make such an order without first consulting the parish council sector and its representatives. We have already opened discussions to see how parish councils feel. Officials have had discussions with the National Association of Local Councils, which represents parish councils in England and the interests of community and town councils in Wales. I can tell the Committee that it welcomed in principle the prospect of some form of petitions duty being applied to parish councils. However, as I said, it is important that if, with its partnership, we move ahead with such a prospect, we do so only following the fullest possible consultation and agreement about what is being asked and how it might be delivered.
I hope that those assurances address the noble Lord’s concerns and that the Committee will be satisfied.
Baroness Hamwee: I hesitate to commit my noble friend but I am sure that he would stress not just the difference between principal local authorities and parishes and community councils but also the differences within the sector—the term used by the noble Baroness. Parish councils in one place are very different from those in another. She mentioned resources. I would be aware not just of financial resources but of the time available. I refer not only to the time spent processing petitions but also to the time that a parish council might wish to devote to a petition. Living in London, I do not have direct experience of how parishes work.
Lord Tope: That is a disgrace.
Baroness Hamwee: It is not a disgrace that I live in London; it is a great place. However, one has to remember that the proprieties and the way in which parish councillors work in and respond to their communities are very different. Their flexibility must not be reduced. The Minister referred to accountability. One does not challenge the issue of accountability, but I must remind her about the role that elections play in it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
3 Feb 2009 : Column GC138
134: Clause 20, page 13, line 36, at end insert—
“( ) Any order made under subsection (2)(a) is subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament.
( ) Any order made under subsection (2)(b) is subject to the approval of the National Assembly for Wales.”
Baroness Warsi: I tabled Amendment 134 as a response to recommendations in the report produced on the Bill by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Clause 20 allows the petitions scheme to be extended to bodies other than principal local authorities. The first two bodies on the list are parish councils in England and community councils in Wales. As the Delegated Powers Committee pointed out, they are much smaller than the other bodies listed in that clause and therefore have much more limited resources. Their budget may be only a few thousand pounds, and any new duty or provision must be examined very carefully if it is to be made obligatory for such councils. The need to balance the desirability of extending petition schemes with the other competing responsibilities that parish and community councils face should be carefully considered.
This amendment requires any such order to be subject to the affirmative procedure. I would not be surprised if, in the light of our detailed and exhaustive debates earlier in Committee, the Government did not want to see the issue of petitions raised in Parliament for some time to come. However, we would be ignoring our responsibilities in this House if we were to wave this issue away and say that the appropriate national authority would take such matters into account. If we have learnt anything from these debates—I feel I have learnt a great deal—it is that this issue is not as simple as it might at first appear. If we were to allow the appropriate national authority simply to impose the duties and responsibilities on potentially very small and underresourced authorities, we would be passing on all the difficulties and problems that would arise, as we have discussed. Noble Lords have highlighted bodies that may not be able to unpick the problems themselves. I am quite sure that the appropriate national authority may take all such matters into account, but I believe that Parliament should be wary of allowing orders that would have a disproportionate effect on those subject to them to be made without careful and close consideration. I hope that other noble Lords and the Minister will agree.
Baroness Andrews: I appreciate the way the noble Baroness has addressed this issue. She is right to raise the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and to invite me to respond to them. Much of what I shall say will reflect what I said in relation to parish councils and the burdens that we recognise petitions might put on them.
This amendment gives effect to the recommendation made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. It argued that the negative resolution procedure is appropriate for the order-making powers relating to the other bodies listed in Clause 20. In our
3 Feb 2009 : Column GC139
As I said, my officials met the National Association of Local Councils and discussed the prospect of having some form of petition duty, and it has given a positive response so far. If the Secretary of State is minded to draft an order on this issue, the details of any consultation and the responses received would be set out in the Explanatory Memorandum accompanying all statutory instruments. That would give people the confidence of knowing that there had been proper consultation.
Obviously, if the Merits Committee also considered the consultation to be inadequate, or if the memorandum revealed that the responses indicated that the sector did not welcome the imposition of such a duty, and the Government were intent on imposing one, that would be drawn to the attention of the House. However, I expect that any consultation would reveal strong support for the extension of some form of duty by the sector so that it could respond to petitions to parishes or community councils. On the basis that we would proceed with consensus, we think that the affirmative revolution, which is a very serious and heavy power that takes up parliamentary time in this House, would be inappropriate and too heavy. That is why we have replied to the DPRRC’s report in the way that we have. In the scenario that I have outlined, the negative procedure would be sufficient.
Baroness Hamwee: Before the noble Baroness replies, I would like to comment on one aspect of this. I would also like to say how glad I am to see her again and how glad I was on Friday night to hear her sounding as though she was well enough to enjoy herself very considerably. I do not know whether that was the case, but it was certainly how it sounded on the radio.
The clause extends to economic prosperity boards. When we come to the part of the Bill that allows for their creation and that of combined authorities, which, as far as we can understand, are economic prosperity boards plus integrated transport authorities, we will discuss their role and whether this is a slide towards taking functions away from local authorities as we know them now, and putting them into the new boards. I see that as part of a central government agenda to create larger authorities. That would certainly be a threat—I know that that is a heavy word, but I use it nevertheless—to the districts. To have what the Minister described as a heavy and significant procedure would be entirely right because it would be part of considering how these boards will function. The Minister will realise that we have the possibility of praying against an order and I suspect that we will keep an eye on that, notwithstanding her assurances about the consultation that would precede any order.
3 Feb 2009 : Column GC140
Baroness Warsi: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for her kind comments about Friday. I did indeed have fun, not just because of the questions but because my feet were constantly being nuzzled by David Blunkett’s dog throughout the programme, which was an interesting experience.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |