I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments No. 56 and 58.

New clause 1 amends part 1 of the Local Government Act 2000, which concerns the promotion of social, economic or environmental well-being. The amendments are needed as a consequence of power being given to the National Assembly for Wales in schedule 14 to the Bill, which will enable the Assembly to make an Assembly Measure in relation to community strategies prepared under the 2000 Act. The amendment to section 5 of the 2000 Act will prevent the Secretary of State from using, without consent, an order-making power to amend, repeal, revoke or disapply certain enactments that relate to Wales if she believes they will obstruct the well-being powers in the 2000 Act.

The Secretary of State will be able to amend an Assembly Measure only with the consent of the National Assembly, and Welsh subordinate legislation only with the consent of Welsh Ministers. Furthermore, the Secretary of State must not use the power under section 5(1) to make provision which has effect in Wales without first consulting Welsh Ministers. That reflects the formal separation of the National Assembly’s legislative and executive functions under the Government of Wales Act 2006.

The amendment to section 6 of the 2000 Act will confine to England the Secretary of State’s power to amend, repeal, revoke or disapply any enactment that requires a local authority to prepare, produce or publish any plan or strategy. In doing so, the equivalent power in respect of Wales will be conferred on Welsh Ministers. The amendment will ensure consistency with the wider devolved responsibility for local government in Wales and with the powers that the Bill will confer on the National Assembly. It will also remove any inadvertent need for the Assembly to seek the consent of the Secretary of State when making legislation that substantively affects only devolved matters.

As a result of the new clause, amendments Nos. 56 and 58 are needed to repeal sections 6(5), 6(6), 7(2) and 7(6) of the 2000 Act and to commence the amendments two months after the Bill is enacted. I commend the new clause and the amendments to the House.

I welcome the Minister and thank her for that brief explanation of the amendments. When we asked her Department last week whether explanatory notes on the new clauses were available, we were told that they would not be available until the Bill reaches the House of Lords. I was therefore a little in the dark, but her clear explanation has helped me to some degree.

The amendments represent a perfectly proper devolutionary measure, which we welcome. That is a slight contrast with other elements of the Bill. As Ministers know—we will discuss this when we reach some of the other clauses—our main hesitation is that we are not sure that it is truly a devolutionary measure, despite the Government’s protestations otherwise. In some areas—we will probably divide on some of them—we wish that there had been greater devolution than is proposed. However, in this instance, as in other parts of the Bill, the Minister is definitely doing the job, which is welcome.

It will be a matter of interest to see how the new relationship between the Government and the National Assembly for Wales works after the little stir of the mix in the Celtic firmament. The cosy relationships between Labour Administrations north of the border and west of Offa’s dyke will create an interesting but necessary tension as localism and devolution are properly explored between the Assembly and Parliament. Another necessary tension to be explored between localism and devolution is that of local authorities and Westminster, particularly as the mix has been well and truly stirred by the results of the last set of local elections. As I read them out last Thursday, I do not intend to do so again, but we all know the score in that respect.

In a desire to move on, without further ado I welcome the amendments and appreciate the Minister’s explanation.

I welcome the opportunity to agree with the Government and celebrate the outbreak of fraternity and sorority in Cardiff, although that was five minutes ago and it may be different now. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that the Government here will work with the Government in Cardiff, whatever their political complexion, in the spirit of openness, trust and progress.

We may have had our first champagne moment, given that we all agree—and my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government says that he is buying.

Perhaps hon. Members misunderstand the new clause’s intention. It has not been introduced in the spirit of party political advantage—it is the right thing to do to devolve power. The complexion of an authority—whether the Welsh Assembly Government or local authorities, which later provisions cover—is not relevant to the spirit of devolution that we are promoting today. I am grateful for the support of hon. Members of different parties.

The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) mentioned explanatory notes. Much of the content of the measure and the amendments that the Government are introducing today are responses to discussions in Committee. As we go through the Bill, hon. Members will note the Government’s enormous effort to respond to our wide-ranging and positive debate. That has inevitably delayed some of the explanatory notes. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the delay is the result of the spirit of co-operation.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 4

Requests for single-member electoral areas

‘In the Local Government Act 1992 (c. 19), after section 14 insert—

“14A Requests for single-member electoral areas

(1) A principal council which falls within subsection (3) may request the Electoral Commission—

(a) to give the Boundary Committee for England a direction under section 13(3) relating to the council’s area, and

(b) to direct that Committee (under section 13(6)) that their recommendations under section 13(3) must contain recommendations as to single-member electoral areas.

(2) In subsection (1) “recommendations as to single-member electoral areas” means a recommendation, as respects each electoral area in the council’s area, as to whether the electoral area should return one councillor.

(3) A principal council falls within this subsection if—

(a) it is not the case that each of the electoral areas in the council’s area returns one councillor, and

(b) the council is subject to a scheme for whole-council elections.

(4) A council is “subject to a scheme for whole-council elections” if, in each year in which ordinary elections of councillors of the council are to be held, all the councillors are to be elected.

(5) If the Electoral Commission grant a request under this section—

(a) they must notify the Boundary Committee for England of the request when they give the directions requested, and

(b) subject to subsection (6), where the Boundary Committee for England make recommendations under section 13(3) in response to those directions they must recommend that each electoral area in the council’s area should return one councillor.

(6) Subsection (5)(b) does not require the Boundary Committee for England to make any recommendation that they consider would be inappropriate having regard to the matters which they are required by section 13(5)(a) to (c) to have regard to.

(7) If the Electoral Commission decide not to grant a request under this section they must notify the council that made the request of—

(a) their decision, and

(b) the reasons for it.

14B Provision supplementary to section 14A

(1) Nothing in section 14A prevents the Electoral Commission—

(a) from making a direction under section 13 where there has been no request under section 14A, or

(b) if they grant a request under section 14A, from making directions under section 13(6) in addition to the one requested.

(2) Nothing in section 14A prevents the Boundary Committee for England, when making a recommendation as to whether electoral areas should return one councillor, from making other recommendations under section 13(3).

(3) In section 14A(2) and (5) references to electoral areas are, in relation to a case where the Boundary Committee for England make recommendations for change to the number or boundaries of electoral areas in the council’s area, to the recommended electoral areas.”’.—[Angela E. Smith.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 5—Duty of local authority to provide Boundary Committee with information.

Government new clause 6—Consequential amendments.

Government amendment No. 89

Amendment No. 163, in clause 37, page 21, line 4, at end insert—

‘(4) Subject to the provisions of subsection (3) the local authority may from time to time make proposals to adjust the number of councillors per ward and must hold a referendum in the ward or wards affected before taking any steps to implement them

(5) The local authority may not pass a resolution which makes the proposed change or changes unless the result of the referendum is to approve the proposals.

(6) If the result of the referendum is not to approve the proposals, the local authority must publish in one or more newspapers circulating in its area a notice which—

(a) summarises the proposals;

(b) states that the referendum did not approve the proposals;

(c) summarises the authority’s existing arrangements; and

(d) states that the authority will be continuing to operate those arrangements.’.

Amendment No. 265, in clause 39, page 22, line 16, at end insert—

‘(1A) An order under subsection (1) must be made at least a year before it is due to take effect.’.

Government amendment No. 119.

Government new schedule 1—‘Elections: consequential amendments’.

New clause 4 would give councils greater flexibility about the arrangements of their wards or divisions. It gives councils the ability to initiate a move to single-member electoral areas by granting them a power to make requests about such provision in their area. It does that in a way that safeguards propriety and avoids any risks of perceived gerrymandering, unlike the amendments that Conservative Members have tabled. The new clause achieves those safeguards through maintaining the involvement of the independent Electoral Commission and the independent boundary committee.

The new clause delivers the White Paper commitment to give local authorities holding whole council elections the freedom to move to single-member electoral areas. By that, we mean district wards or county divisions, although most of the latter are single-member areas. Single-member areas can deliver stronger accountability. They provide a strong link between the councillor and his or her electorate and give clarity of leadership to the locality.

Calls for single-member wards are well established. In 1986, the Widdicombe Committee recommended them, stating that they

“provide a strong link between the member and his or her constituent”.

In 1995, the Local Government Commission for England supported the Widdicombe recommendations for single-member wards. We are giving local authorities the opportunity to act on those recommendations, if they wish to do so. It is a matter for the authorities.

We also recognise that single-member electoral areas are not always the right solution. There may be individual local circumstances, such as the geography of the area, that make multi-member wards more appropriate. Single-member electoral areas are clearly not a sound electoral option when there are elections by thirds, since that would result in not all the council’s electors having a vote in an election. That position should be avoided whenever possible.

There is no question of requiring single-member electoral areas everywhere. We are giving local authorities the choice of requesting them when they consider it right to do that. Councils that do not have whole council elections will not have such a choice. Those that have whole council elections can make the choice as they see fit. Again, it is a devolutionary measure.

Councils that want single-member electoral wards can request the Electoral Commission to direct the boundary committee to undertake a review of their area and make recommendations. If there is a large demand for single-member areas, the Commission would have to establish a work programme and decide on the timing of the reviews. In conducting those reviews, the boundary committee will be required to have regard to statutory criteria used for electoral reviews. Those are: reflecting community identity and interests, ensuring effective and convenient local government, and providing equality of representation. If the boundary committee considers that those statutory criteria cannot be met everywhere for the council under review with single-member electoral areas, it will exceptionally be able to recommend one or more multi-member electoral areas for that council in order to provide a better balance between the statutory criteria.

I have always rather liked single-member electoral areas for reasons that the Minister has suggested. There is a line of accountability with smaller districts, which can make life that little bit easier. We had quite a canter around the subject in Committee, where I raised some concerns because it was not clear at that stage whether varying the number of members per ward was to be upwards or downwards. We received the Minister’s assurances that it would be three, two or one and I recall our discussing the geography of Tameside in great detail.

The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) made a good argument about the position when authorities put together many towns that all have their own proud history. He argued that fitting the electoral arrangements to suit strong local ties sometimes caused difficulty. I know from experience as a parliamentary candidate in Walsall that it was not unusual to find that an electoral area based on a housing estate had had a bit added on from somewhere 3 or 4 miles away in order to meet the electoral arrangements. I can see the overwhelming logic of what the Government are trying to do, but I would like to probe them further on one or two aspects.

Under new clause 4, an authority that has a council election will be able to apply to the Electoral Commission for single-member wards or to review each of the electoral areas within its district. If it had 20 wards, I presume—I would like the Minister to confirm it—that it could recommend that they all be single-member areas or that some should be three or two or one in order to suit the local circumstance. I presume that the boundary committee would look into any such proposal, reflect on it and consult before giving its decision to the local authority.

I presume that the purpose is to stop gerrymandering. Clearly, a ward of three members might have one political outcome, but in a ward of two members or one it would not be beyond the wit of anyone who had knocked on doors and gained some feel for the area to create a different pattern of representation. If an authority were allowed to do that without going to the boundary committee, it might be possible to break up certain wards in a borough for some sort of party political advantage. We all realise that we would not want that, simply because if one party won one borough that way, another party might do it in another borough—so we all want a fair system of representation.

Will the Minister confirm that if an authority puts up a scheme, some consultation would have to take place? I presume that the boundary committee would undertake further consultation in order to decide whether to approve a scheme or, if not, to give its reasons for declining it. I presume that the boundary committee could propose variations on a scheme, as with any of its dealings, because it does not wholly agree with what the authority is proposing.

I am following my hon. Friend’s logic with considerable interest. Does he understand whether the proposal might involve a two-way street? I am not clear about that; perhaps the Minister will clarify the point when she winds up the debate. If the boundary committee decides that a one-member ward is a good idea and that goes ahead, but for one reason or another it does not work as well as expected, will it be possible to make a similar application after five or six years, saying, for example, “Okay, it hasn’t worked. Let’s go back to a two or three-member ward”?

Perhaps the Minister will pick up that point later. It is clear that the Government have moved on the question of whole council elections, and there might be further debate on that issue. My response to my hon. Friend is that all local authorities have their electoral arrangements reviewed periodically, and I presume that if they change their arrangements between one, two or three members in a particular borough, the next time a review took place within the ordinary schedule, those arrangements could be changed again. I do not see any great reason for an immediate change to that process. Also, determining whether something works or does not work can sometimes be quite subjective.

A local authority will produce a scheme and present it to the boundary committee, which will either approve it or give its reasons for not doing so. I would be grateful if the Minister could say whether, if there were a variation on the scheme, the boundary committee could enter into negotiations or propose changes to the scheme. Alternatively, would the boundary committee have to accept or reject the scheme put forward by the local authority with a yes or a no? How much dialogue could take place?

The Minister looks somewhat quizzical. If a local authority put forward a scheme for its area to the boundary committee, and the boundary committee agreed with 90 per cent. of it but had concerns about 10 per cent., would it have to reject it entirely on the ground of that 10 per cent. that it believed the local authority had got wrong, or could there be a degree of discussion whereby both sides could reach agreement, with the scheme being rejected only if there were no common ground? A great deal of time could be wasted if local authorities’ schemes were simply chucked out because of a disagreement on just part of the proposal. I should like to hear a little more detail about how the provision will operate, but the Government are going down the right road in the manner in which they are constructing the various new clauses.

Given our concerns about aspects of the provision, however, we have tabled amendment No. 163, which calls for a referendum in the affected wards. We are unlikely to press that to a vote, because I am not sure how practical the proposal is. It is just the Opposition trying to flesh out the fact that there could be concerns among the electorate, who are used to the way in which their electoral arrangements work and might be worried about any proposed changes.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the concept of one man—or, indeed, one woman—for one ward has a certain simplicity, just as one Member of Parliament for one constituency does? In my constituency, we have Lichfield city council—as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker—and Lichfield district council. In the recent local elections, people were confronted with one ballot paper on which they had to vote for five candidates, and another on which they had to vote for three. They then had to put the buff ballot paper in the yellow ballot box—it was meant to be a yellow ballot paper, but it had been printed on buff paper—and the white ballot paper in the white box. Basically, it all got very confusing. There is a certain elegance to the idea of one person for one ward.

The first-past-the-post system—particularly the single-Member first-past-the-post system—is the simplest, which is why we tend not to get many spoilt ballots. We shall have to wait for the review into what happened north of the border, but it is clear that problems can arise with the more complicated electoral systems, particularly if more than one system is in operation on the same day. Having looked at the ballots in Poole borough, where we have three-member wards elected in the whole council election, I am still surprised that some people do not understand that they have to vote three times. Some people might deliberately vote just once, if, for example, there is only one Labour candidate, but these systems can cause a degree of confusion.

If I have interpreted the amendment correctly, it proposes that if a council holds a referendum on a change in the organisational details and the referendum fails to approve it, a process should take place to inform the public that the status quo will continue. However, it does not propose that should the referendum approve the change a formal notice should appear in the newspapers telling people that their electoral system will change. Is that an oversight, or is there a reason for it?

It is a probing amendment; it is not meant to be perfect legislation. People become used to a particular system, and although most of us think that a single-member system would have its benefits, it might well cause concern in certain areas. It is horses for courses. Let us call this the Tameside question. I think that the proposed system would work well in industrial communities where it might be possible to devise a better arrangement.

Amendment No. 265, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, concerns election dates. I am sure that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) will speak to the amendment, but I will say that in Committee we briefly discussed organising local elections to coincide with the dates of European elections. That would have various benefits and disbenefits, but the amendment suggests that if the Government decided to hold the elections on the same day they should give 12 months’ notice. I do not think that unreasonable, because we know the dates of local and European elections. If there is to be a change, I do not see why the parties and returning officers should not be given the maximum amount of time to deal with it.

I welcome the thrust of the Government’s new clauses and amendments, which I think make the position a little clearer, but I hope that the Minister will be able to give us a few reassurances about the way in which the new system might work.

First, I declare an interest as a member of Tameside metropolitan borough council. I am flattered that the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) referred to “the Tameside question”. I am also pleased that the Government have an answer to the Tameside question, if not to the West Lothian question. However, to be fair to my constituents in Stockport, I think that there is also a Stockport question. My arguments in Committee about Dukinfield and Audenshaw are also relevant to Heaton Chapel and Heaton Norris in my constituency, which, by virtue of being split between the South Reddish and the North and South Heaton wards, is represented in Parliament both by me and by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey).

When we consider local areas of that kind, we understand that home really is where the heart is. The people of Heaton Chapel and Heaton Norris feel that they are part of a single identifiable community, as are those in Dukinfield and in Audenshaw. It is very frustrating for them to be told by petty bureaucrats that they are no longer in the ward to which the majority of their community belongs. They become very passionate about it. I am pleased that the Government’s proposals mean that if communities in those areas wish it, there can be much smaller wards reflecting the make-up of those communities. If the proposals are accepted, the people of Heaton Norris will no longer have to be represented by South Reddish councillors, but can be represented by Heaton Norris councillors. Likewise, those in Dukinfield will not need to be split between the Dukinfield and Dukinfield Stalybridge wards.

I do not think that a referendum is necessary, however. I think that in areas such as those I have mentioned there will be a popular will for the changes, and that as long as the checks and balances provided by the Electoral Commission and the boundary committee are retained, any grievances expressed by political parties can be raised fairly at the public inquiry.

I was on a narrow boat last weekend, and one of my companions was Clive Patrick who stood for the Conservatives in Stalybridge—he lost, although he put up a brave fight. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the Government’s proposal offers a good opportunity for such small towns and villages to have their own individual representatives, rather than a larger amorphous mass?

I agree, although I must add that the hon. Gentleman’s friend probably lost handsomely in Stalybridge and Hyde, which is part of the Labour stronghold of Tameside. That takes us back to the Tameside question. There are not only the nine fiercely independent towns that were cobbled together—to borrow a phrase used by the hon. Member for Poole—in 1974, but within those communities there are smaller identifiable areas. For example, in my town of Denton there is Haughton Green and Dane Bank, which I have the privilege of representing on the council. Such areas have as much right to be recognised as the towns and districts.

The Government amendments are the right way forward: without the need for a referendum they ensure that where there is the will among local people to be recognised in smaller areas, that can be achieved. Certainly in metropolitan districts, that was not possible in the past. That is why I welcome the Government amendments.

Things would be a great deal easier for the Government and the Conservatives if there were proportionality in the voting system. That would be fairer for the voter and simplify the legislation substantially, and some of the issues that have been highlighted would not have arisen. However, given that we have been unsuccessful in persuading Members to add such a provision to the Bill, we do not dissent from the Government’s proposals and think that the direction that they are going in is appropriate.

Nevertheless, I wish to discuss our amendment No. 265. It is simple: it proposes that any order to bring together local elections and European elections should be made at least a year before it is due to take effect. We discussed in Committee the concept of bringing together those two dates, and the Minister explained the Government’s thinking. I have subsequently received a letter from the Electoral Commission—I am unsure whether an identical letter has been sent to the Minister. Its author states:

“I am writing in response to the comments you made during the second reading debate and committee stages...I would like to take this opportunity to outline the Electoral Commission’s concerns”

about the new clause. The letter goes on to say that the new clause allows the Secretary of State

“to combine local elections with a European parliamentary election by statutory order.

We believe that provision should be made on the face of the Bill for the Order moving the date of the election to have to be made at least a year before it is due to take effect.”

The Electoral Commission gives two reasons for that:

“We are concerned that without such provision, present or future Governments may be able to gain political advantage by moving the date of the elections at a later stage.

We are also concerned that late notice of a change of election date would not give electoral administrators sufficient time to be prepared for a combined election.”

Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the Government were right to postpone the 2005 county council elections because of the problems caused by foot and mouth disease? Does he accept that 12 months’ notice could not possibly have been given in that situation, and that his amendment would make those circumstances impossible to address in the same way as they were on that occasion?

The hon. Gentleman, who is a close geographical neighbour of mine, is absolutely wrong, because whether this provision is added to the Bill would make no difference to the procedure used when the foot and mouth epidemic broke out, when provisions had to be brought before the House and discussed. That is the safeguard situation. This provision does not remove the capacity of the Government or Parliament to change dates in an emergency—such as the invasion of Kent by some unforeseen enemy. One can see that changes might have to be made in extremis, but the provision is not about such situations; nor, when Ministers introduced the provision, did they suggest that it had anything to do with such situations.

As well as giving two reasons for concern, the Electoral Commission pointed out that the provision is consistent with existing legislation. I was not aware of the reference it gives, but it says:

“A one year notice period would also be consistent with existing legislation. Section 37(1)(a) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 provides for the ordinary date of local elections to be changed as long as it is done before 1st February the year before (i.e. slightly more than a year) the original date of the election.”

In one sense, this is a probing amendment, but we have been put up to it by the Electoral Commission, which has given good reasons why it should be taken more seriously than just an attempt to squeeze a concession out of the Government. The commission has made a strong case, and all the Opposition parties share the concerns about it. The present Government are full of integrity and good intentions—they never make a mistake or a cheap political judgment—so, obviously, I exonerate them from the wild accusation by the commission that they might be involved in such activity. However, the commission also mentions future Governments, and by the time we reach June 2009, Labour might be in opposition and might face a different, more oppressive Government.

In Committee, the Minister was quizzed on the point of introducing the provision. She replied:

“We seek to give the Secretary of State the power to combine such elections without the need for primary legislation by making an order to combine elections that fall due at around the same time.”––[Official Report, Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Public Bill Committee, 8 March 2007; c. 591-92.]

Ministers would still have that opportunity if the amendment were accepted. It is just that they would have to think of it a bit earlier and not leave it to be informed by some tactical political consideration nearer the date.

We would argue that the concept of making that change and imposing a limit is what the Government originally set out to do. It is sensible to introduce the safeguard that the Electoral Commission believes should be introduced, and the idea of a one-year moratorium on date changes fits existing legislative provision, in the 1983 Act. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response. If they do not feel able to accede to our proposal at this point, I hope that they will give a clear indication that they will engage in discussion with the commission and, if necessary, table an appropriate amendment later. For a second champagne moment, the Minister could say that she has heard the argument, listened to what the commission has had to say and is delighted to accept our amendment.

The champagne moment has passed.

We have had an interesting discussion and I was pleased by the reassurance from the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) that his amendment was a probing amendment. Both he and the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) spoke about having to ensure that the election process was as simple as possible and that any changes provided clarity for electors. The hon. Member for Poole made some specific points on that subject and I shall come to those shortly.

It is fair to say that all the amendments are about giving councils more say in the electoral arrangements for their area and enabling them to take the initiative. The Bill contains safeguards to ensure that the public retain confidence in the fairness and probity of our electoral arrangements. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Poole made it clear that he did not intend to press his amendment No. 163 to a vote, as it would remove probity from the process, leaving it open to manipulation. The Electoral Commission opposed the amendment on the grounds that it risked undermining the established process of electoral reviews and the principle of equality of representation across local authorities.

The hon. Member for Poole said that he was trying to ensure that it would not be possible for local councils, on a whim, to increase the number of electors in a ward where they had a majority, and reduce the number of electors in another ward. In fact, although the Government amendments would not do that, his amendment would. Taking it at face value, amendment No. 163 could mean that electors in a ward could be asked by the council, “Do you want to increase the number of councillors you have?” It would not be beyond the bounds of possibility for the electors to respond that they did want that but, since it does not specify that the offer would have to be made to residents in every ward, the amendment would therefore undermine the principles of equality of representation. All hon. Members are elected, and I appreciate that all of us would like to have some control over our constituency boundaries. Those of us facing boundary commission changes perhaps feel that more strongly than others, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government’s aim is to ensure that there is equality between all the votes cast in an election.

The hon. Gentleman asked various specific questions about the boundary committee’s role in single-member wards. When a local authority approaches the Electoral Commission to seek authority to move to single-member wards, it will be for the commission to decide whether that move is appropriate. The exceptional cases to which the hon. Gentleman referred, where multi-member wards were considered to be more appropriate, would be referred to the boundary committee. Councils would not be able to make the decision in such cases.

The hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) asked whether single-member wards could revert back at a later date. They can, but such decisions would be made following the regular review undertaken by the boundary committee. The Bill does not provide for such decisions, as a two-way street already exists.

The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) referred to a letter that he had received from the Electoral Commission. I wish that I had been able to see it before today’s debate, as that would have enabled me to give a more considered response, but I hope that he will consent to give us sight of that letter as the debate goes on. He explained that his amendment No. 265 would require the Secretary of State to lay before the House any order that combined local government and European elections one year before it was due to take effect.

When Ministers looked at the amendment, our concern was that, given the need for meaningful consultation on decisions about setting election dates, the lead-in time for all the necessary procedures would be something like 18 months. We would like to discuss the proposal further, as we want to ensure that the process is not rushed, but orders such as the one that we are discussing must be approved by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and we consider that to be adequate protection.

The hon. Member for Hazel Grove was worried about party political advantage, although I do not see where that would lie. The Government do not consider his amendment to be necessary but, without having seen the views of the Electoral Commission, it is difficult to make any further comment. I hope that he might be prepared to share the contents of the letter from the Electoral Commission with us.

The communication was dated 9 May and it had not occurred to me that the information was not already in the Government’s hands. I shall of course make sure that copies are available immediately after these proceedings.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter. I certainly do not suggest that he should have shown us a private letter to him, which he is obviously entitled to use, but it is a shame that the Electoral Commission did not share with us its thoughts about legislation that the Government were putting before the House. At this stage we cannot support the amendments, but if we can have a look at the hon. Gentleman’s information, we will consider that particular point further before coming to a final decision.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 5

Duty of local authority to provide Boundary Committee with information

‘(1) The Local Government Act 1992 (c. 19) is amended as follows.

(2) In section 13 (electoral reviews and recommendations), after subsection (7) insert—

“(8) A local authority must, if requested by the Boundary Committee for England to do so, provide that Committee, by such date as that Committee may specify, with any information that that Committee may reasonably require in connection with any of their functions under this section.”’.—[Mr. Woolas.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 6

Consequential amendments

‘Schedule (Elections: consequential amendments) has effect.’.—[Mr. Woolas.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 22

Entities controlled etc by local authorities

‘(1) An order under this section is an order which requires, prohibits or regulates the taking of specified actions by entities connected with a local authority.

(2) The Secretary of State may make an order under this section in relation to—

(a) all English local authorities;

(b) English local authorities of particular descriptions;

(c) particular English local authorities.

(3) The Welsh Ministers may make an order under this section in relation to—

(a) all Welsh local authorities;

(b) Welsh local authorities of particular descriptions;

(c) particular Welsh local authorities.

(4) An order under this section may also include provision which requires, prohibits or regulates—

(a) the taking of specified actions by a local authority in relation to entities connected with the local authority;

(b) the taking of specified actions by members or officers of a local authority who are qualifying persons.

(5) An order under this section may make provision in relation to—

(a) every entity connected with a local authority;

(b) such entities of a particular description.

(6) Where an order under this section makes provision in relation to entities of a particular description, it may provide for any expression used in identifying that description of entity to have the meaning for the time being given by—

(a) any document identified by the order; or

(b) any re-issue of such a document.

(7) For the purposes of this section an entity (“E”) is “connected with” a local authority at any time if—

(a) it is an entity other than the local authority; and

(b) according to proper practices in force at that time, financial information about E must be included in the local authority’s statement of accounts for the financial year in which that time falls.

(8) In this section—

“actions” includes courses of action;

“English local authority” means a local authority in England;

“entity” means any entity, whether or not a legal person;

“financial year” means a period for which accounts of the local authority must be prepared by reason of section 2 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 (c. 18) or section 13 of the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004 (c. 23);

“local authority” means any body which—

(a) is a local authority for the purposes of section 21 of the Local Government Act 2003 (c. 26) (see subsection (6) of that section and section 23 of that Act); and

(b) is required to prepare statements of accounts by regulations made under section 27 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 (c. 18) or section 39 of the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004 (c. 23);

“qualifying person” means a person who—

(a) is authorised to represent the local authority at meetings of an entity that is connected with the local authority; or

(b) is a member or director of such an entity or the holder of any other specified position in relation to such an entity;

“specified” means specified, or of a description specified, by the order;

“Welsh local authority” means a local authority in Wales.’.—[Mr. Woolas.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 23—Trusts.

Government new clause 24—Further provision about orders.

Government new clause 25—Exemptions from orders.

Government new clause 26—Definition of certain terms for purposes of other enactments: England.

Government new clause 27—Definition of certain terms for purposes of other enactments: Wales.

Government new clause 28—Consequential amendments.

Government amendments Nos. 114, 115, 117, 121 and 122.

Government new schedule 3—Consequential amendments relating to entities controlled etc by local authorities.

Government amendment No. 130.

I am grateful for the opportunity to table these amendments. I beg the indulgence of the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) as I try to explain the proposals and to persuade the House that they are wholly desirable. I shall not go into too much detail, because if you thought that some of our previous debates were technical, Madam Deputy Speaker, “you ain’t seen nothing yet”, as they used to say in westerns.

The arrangements for ensuring accountability and propriety in the conduct of local authority companies are set out in part V of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and in an order made under it—the Local Authorities (Companies) Order 1995. The current controls variously placed on the face of legislation and in the provisions of the order address the accountability, auditing and personnel requirements of a local authority company and are known collectively as the propriety controls.

The existing part V arrangements are complex, outdated, and cover only companies, which is the essential point. Local authorities operate through entities that are not embraced by the narrow definition of a company provided in part 5.

Previously, the capital finance regime for local authority companies relied on part V to define the relationship between a local authority and its companies when deciding the borrowing limits for the authority as a whole—not just for the company. Now, under the prudential borrowing regime, introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), who is not in the Chamber, authorities are free to take on as much debt as they can afford to service from their revenue resources. There are no longer any direct constraints on borrowing by the companies or similar entities that they own.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He quite rightly says that local councils are proprietors—if that is the right word—of organisations other than companies, as defined by the companies legislation. Will he go into a little more detail about precisely what he means? Is he talking about partnerships, associations, sole traders or companies that in some way are not controlled by the companies legislation? I was under the impression that a body could not call itself a company or a corporation unless it was either a limited company or a public limited company. Perhaps he could amplify that point.

The hon. Gentleman said that he was grateful for my giving way. I am grateful to him for intervening, because it gives me a chance to draw breath. As I will go on to explain in more detail, in the diverse world of commissioning and in the light of the greater co-operation and the partnerships between local authorities and other public, private and voluntary sector organisations, the issue of the types of organisations that are owned by local authorities is complex. The idea of a council owning a company has been around for many years. Interestingly, the definition is partly based on companies legislation and partly on part V of the 1989 Act. A local authority company is in some ways different from what one might in lay person’s terms describe as a company.

The next part of my speech explains the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question. I am sure that he will support the measures when he has heard the explanation. I am grateful that he has stayed awake to listen to what I am saying. Tens—if not hundreds—of millions of pounds of public money is backed up in these organisations, so it is important that we explain the measures and seek the support of the House.

There are no longer direct constraints on borrowing by companies or similar entities that authorities own, but any transaction by such an entity that increases or reduces the revenue resources of the authority will still need to be taken into account under the prudential regime, since it will affect the amount of borrowing that the authority can afford to service. The borrowing of that organisation is ultimately underwritten by the local authority and, therefore, the taxpayer. There are implications not just for the local authority and the council tax payer, but overall for public sector borrowing requirements and therefore for the central tax payer.

The borrowing regime currently relies on a different set of accounting definitions, which are provided in the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy “Code of Practice on Local Authority Accounting in the United Kingdom: A Statement of Recommended Practice”, which is known in the trade as SORP. I have a copy of the document and I am tempted to say that if the Opposition push their amendments in later groups, I will read it out.

If you go too fast, you may need to.

We have four hours. In the spirit of consensus, I have brought a copy of the document with me for the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire to read, should he wish to take it away with him. It is an important document and we are grateful to CIPFA for producing and monitoring it. The definitions in relation to accounting procedures, companies and entities that are contained in the SORP document capture a more appropriate relationship between an authority and its bodies than the part V definitions that I referred to earlier.

There is only one thing that slightly concerns me. If we are going to broaden the definition of organisations that are owned by councils and, as the Minister said, organisations and councils can borrow, does he fear that the overall public sector borrowing requirement, taking into account council borrowings, might exceed Treasury and Bank of England guidelines?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. My intention and belief is that the measures will have the opposite effect. Including in statute what the CIPFA code does will guarantee that public sector borrowing overall—and specifically borrowing in relation to local authorities—is more accurately defined. That will mean that the books can better reflect the liability that exists. I would not want any suggestion whatsoever that the Chancellor’s golden rules were being broken in any way, especially at the moment. Local authority organisations such as some of the limited liability partnerships—to give an example, as the hon. Gentleman requested in his previous intervention—are covered by what is currently in the code of practice.

The new clauses replace part V of the 1989 Act. They will ensure that an appropriate range of entities are covered by propriety controls. They will also provide a less bureaucratic regime for local government in considering the relationship authorities have with their entities—if I can use that term to capture all the bodies involved—for accounting, capital finance and propriety control purposes. Authorities will need to have regard only to a single definition of entities.

The new clauses confer on the Secretary of State a power to require, regulate or prohibit the taking of specified actions by an entity connected with a local authority. The power is wide enough to ensure that an entity should not undertake an activity that the parent authority could not itself undertake if the need arose to do so. That is an important point for the private sector. Where entities might be in a marketplace with other organisations, we seek to ensure a level playing field for competition. Our intention is to use the power to make an order to apply propriety controls to the wider range of entities covered by the SORP definitions. We intend to consult on the controls that should apply to such entities, recognising that, as with the present arrangements, it may be appropriate for differential controls to apply to entities depending on the precise relationship of the authority to the body.

Consistent with that, the provisions permit an order to differentiate the application of controls to entities of a particular description, enabling the propriety controls to operate on a tiered basis according to the degree of control that the authority has over the entity—in other words, so that the liability recognises the proportion of involvement in it. New clause 22(6) allows the description of that relationship to be provided by a reference in a document. It is our intention to use that power to differentiate according to accounting definitions contained in the CIPFA SORP guidance.

An entity is considered to be connected with a local authority if financial information about the entity must be included in the authority’s statement of accounts for that year. This shows that the authority is able to derive benefits or to be exposed to the risk of potential losses arising from the relationship and it is these entities that we would wish to apply propriety controls to.

Under its obligations as a trustee, a local authority could be exposed to the risk of potential losses and therefore we wish to ensure that trusts can be brought within the provisions of new clause 22 should that be desirable. As a trust is a purely equitable obligation, it does not easily fall within the consideration of an entity, which is why we have made this provision. New clause 23 brings trusts within the scope of an order made under new clause 22.

The existing propriety controls ensure that entities that are significantly connected with a local authority are required to act transparently and in accordance with the standards of the authorities themselves. To ensure that we can replicate these controls, new clause 24 makes further provision about what propriety controls in an order made under new clause 22 might contain.

We recognise that there may be exceptional circumstances in which the application of the propriety controls might not be appropriate to individual or particular descriptions of entities. Therefore, new clause 25 provides that the Secretary of State in England, or Ministers in Wales, can direct that these may be exempted from an order made under new clause 22.

Other legislation relies on the definitions of “control”, “joint control” and “influence” in part V. Following the repeal of part V, new clause 26 will give the Secretary of State the power to define, for the purposes of other enactments, those definitions by order. Although that is a separate order-making power, we intend to use the definitions provided by the CIPFA SORP guidance. New clause 27 makes similar provision to new clause 26, but the power is conferred on Welsh Ministers to define definitions for other enactments that are the responsibility of the Welsh Assembly.

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the new clauses and amendments. I read them carefully when they were tabled and started to wonder about their purpose, which he helpfully clarified. I have some questions about the measures because I have been in touch with the Local Government Association. While it sees them as a replacement for existing clauses, it is worried about the wide-ranging powers that are being taken and wants clarification of several aspects of the powers.

What prompted the tabling of the new clauses? Have a series of problems been associated with the definitions of entities or the different forms of arm’s length bodies that are run by local authorities? Are we considering purely a series of drafting changes, or do the measures reflect concern that has been raised by auditors or others? Does the fact that the measures have been introduced reveal an underlying worry about the way in which the bodies have been working, or does the Minister believe that this is purely a tidying process?

I was interested by the Minister’s little exchange with my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) about the public sector borrowing requirement. The Chancellor’s ability to move things off the balance sheet is legendary. There is no danger of golden rules or anything else being broken while the Chancellor remains in his post, or while he remains Chancellor when he becomes Prime Minister, as he undoubtedly will. His ability to shift things to ensure that he does not break the golden rule will no doubt continue. I am not quite sure whether the powers are needed in such circumstances. We have noted the nifty ability to change golden rules and doubt that that will change much under a future regime.

The new clauses will provide for the original powers, although the provisions have been redrafted. How often have the original powers needed to be used? There are two sorts of power: the power to prohibit or regulate under new clause 22, and the power to apply for consent under new clause 24. Has the Secretary of State used those powers, or have permissions been requested by local authorities? Have the powers been used often, or are they effectively nominal? I am trying to get to the heart of where the measures have come from. Have they arisen due to problems, are they designed to address anticipated problems, or are they purely drafting changes to accommodate the rise of entities in their different forms?

Let me ask a question about the entities themselves. How many are we talking about? Is there a growing trend of such entities in local authorities? To that extent, is the Minister expressing concern that the bodies are moving slightly outside the control of local authorities and the Government? Is there any evidence that the number of entities is growing significantly and that such controls are thus necessary? To what extent does the Minister think that the Government are carrying out an exercise in second-guessing?

Although we are considering a devolutionary Bill, we are discussing measures that give the Secretary of State powers that look significant on paper, even though the Government have the back-up position that the PSBR is relevant and that the Secretary of State must thus remain in control. However, if we are talking about the extent of risk taking among local authorities and the Government, as we will on Third Reading and we did earlier in the debate, how does the Minister see the powers fitting in with that?

I realise that we are running the serious risk of the Minister invoking his threat and reading the whole CIPFA document to us. However, does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a sniff of control freakery in some of the new clauses? We need to understand the precise context in which they have been proposed.

This is not a plea for the Minister to read more of that enlightening document. The hon. Gentleman echoes the concerns that I raised at the start of my speech. As I said, and as the LGA has noted, the powers look very wide ranging on paper. We need to know the reasons behind the measures and whether they represent a change from previous legislation to reflect issues that have been raised with the Department by local authorities, which have led it to want changes.

When local authorities are inspected and audited, are these entities subject to the same audits and performance regulations, or are they subject to something quite separate and different? Finally, will there be any difference between the way in which entities that are trading and those that have become dormant will be dealt with? That last question is a bit technical, so the Minister might want to write to me about it.

The amendments are technical and we will not wish to press them to a Division.

Do not tell the Minister that.

“Don’t tell him, Pike.” I will definitely conceal that we will not be pressing the measures to a Division.

My inquiry has been prompted by the need to know where the measures are coming from, given that they were not considered in Committee. If the Minister will give us that explanation and help out with several of the technical questions that I raised, Conservative Members will be grateful.

The Minister might have inadvertently misled the House at the start of his speech. He indicated that, “You ain’t seen nothing yet,” came from a western, but it was actually said by Al Jolson in “The Jazz Singer”. I would not want the Minister to have to come back to the House to make an abject apology for that, and neither would I want him to reply in syncopation.

Following that brilliant speech, I do not know whether I can do justice to the debate. However, I want to raise several issues, although I was broadly content with what the Minister said. I understand that there are organisations other than just public companies in the sense of plcs and limited companies. Indeed, the Minister even talked about limited partnerships, yet a limited partnership would have been an oxymoron—is that the right word?—a few years ago because partnerships usually have no limits on their liability.

I was reassured when the Minister said that one of the main objects of this group of new clauses was to ensure that the public sector borrowing requirement could be more closely monitored, although I have to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) that the goalposts for the economic cycle frequently move to ensure that the golden rule is never breached. Sadly, there are no explanatory notes to the Bill. I understand why, and I am not condemning the Government for it, but it does not make things any easier. I guess that it is a compliment to the civil servants, in that it shows how helpful explanatory notes are when they do produce them.

Subsection (5) of new clause 22 says that an order under the new clause may make provision in relation to

“every entity connected with a local authority”,

although it does not actually say “owned by” the local authority. Subsection (7) carries on from that because it says, in marvellously unclear English:

“For the purposes of this section an entity (‘E’) is ‘connected with’ a local authority at any time if—

(a) it is an entity other than the local authority; and

(b) according to proper practices in force at that time, financial information about E must be included in the local authority’s statement of accounts for the financial year in which that time falls.”

I guess that “E” must be the name of a particular entity at that time. It is the phrase “connected with” that I do not understand. The Minister’s explanation was perfectly logical, but the new clause does not seem to make any sense. Subsection (8), which contains some definitions, says that

“‘entity’ means any entity, whether or not a legal person”,

but it says nothing about its being owned by the authority.

In Lichfield—I always find myself mentioning Lichfield because it is such a beautiful place—we have a new theatre called the Lichfield Garrick. That would certainly be an entity because it is owned by the authority and, quite rightly and properly, its debt—because all theatres need subsidy and it is a particularly good theatre and it is good that it is subsidised—relates to the debt of the council. However, I wonder whether the wording of new clause 22 would cover other entities, not just those that are owned by local authorities. Why does the new clause refer to every entity as that which is “connected with”? Why are the words “connected with” used?

Will my hon. Friend give way?

My hon. Friend is a lawyer, so perhaps he will tell me whether “connected with” has some legal meaning. Does “connected with” mean “owned by”?

I now regret asking my hon. Friend to give way. Perhaps he could help me or ask the Minister to help me. Is not my hon. Friend’s confusion added to by the fact that “connection” is referred to throughout the Bill, which I agree is separate from ownership as far as any of us can see? It does not necessarily involve shareholding because, as I understand it, it does not have to be a legal person. To make things worse, the heading of new clause 22 refers to “Entities controlled…by local authorities”. It is the juxtaposition in the same context of “controlled”, “connected” and “owned” that is perplexing. I hope that the Minister can clarify that for us.

That is an important point. I am rather alarmed that my hon. Friend, who is a barrister or a solicitor—

I never did this sort of work.

At least not without payment.

It is fascinating that the heading of new clause 22 “Entities controlled…by local authorities” implies ownership, but “connected with” does not, and could mean anything. Does that mean that any sort of association will be audited, and would that also apply to the public sector debt? If it did, the golden rule would be burst overnight.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could ask the Minister whether there is a legal definition of “connected”?

Order. I think that the hon. Member will have the opportunity to ask the Minister directly.

The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck) raises an interesting point, so yes, I will ask the Minister, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) seemed unable to answer me; I was quite shocked. [Interruption.] Fifteen guineas?

Does “connected with” mean, in law, owned by? If it does not mean owned by—and I suspect that it does not—what is the boundary that controls whether an entity falls within the ambit of new clause 22? The Minister was very clear in his explanation. He used the words “owned by”, and we all understand what that means. That would mean having a 51 per cent. share or more in an organisation if shares were issued, or however else ownership is defined. Why, for the sake of clear English, is not the word “ownership” used, and what is the difference between “connected with” and owned by?

I shall be very brief. First, I assure my hon. Friend that if he wants a definition of “fraudulent”, “homicidal” or anything of that sort, I will do my best to oblige him, but “connection” is not an area in which I hold myself out as having any expertise, so I hope that the Minister can help us.

I wonder whether the Minister can also help on another short matter. Clearly, the orders are quite wide ranging and can make provision for a large number of matters, but is it envisaged that this change in the clauses, and what is on the face of it a significant extension of powers, will have any impact on the scrutiny of any of these arm’s length organisations? The definitions refer to the entity’s position in accounting terms, but nothing is said about scrutiny. It may be that it is not intended that there should be any change, to follow up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt). If part of the justification relates to the operation of these organisations in the past, has failure or difficulty of scrutiny been any part of that? Can the Minister assure us that none of the changes would diminish scrutiny of any organisations in which significant sums of public money may be invested, in whatever fashion?

I think that there is unanimity is that the House will remember the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) long after they have forgotten the details of these new clauses.

Does my hon. Friend think it appropriate, given that it was an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner), that “You Ain’t Seen Nothing Yet” was also a song by Bachman-Turner Overdrive in the 1970s?

Order. We have had some levity, but I think that we had better get back to the amendments before the House.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I congratulate the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) on his questions. As ever, he has clearly done his research, and he has given me the opportunity to allay the fears that the Local Government Association expressed to him. He asked whether these powers were too wide ranging and what prompted the change. As you would expect, Madam Deputy Speaker, there is a history to this. The commitment to review part V of the 1989 Act was indeed trailed, as hon. Members know, through the White Paper “Modern local government: in touch with the people” published in July 1998, and in the “Modernising Local Government Finance” Green Paper in September 2000. The Government have, with their partners, a capital programmes working party technical sub-group. In 2003, at that sub-group, the LGA expressed a desire to move local authority companies to be defined according to accounting practices. This Bill provides an opportunity to do that, now that there have been adequate discussions. If I may, I shall explain that.

We intend, of course, to consult on the content of the proposed order. The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire asked whether there had been problems or whether we were tidying up. Essentially, we are tidying up because of the change in the architecture of local government provision of services. For the record, I am informed that the power has been used only twice since 1989, although I am not aware of the details of those two occasions. The hon. Gentleman implied that the Chancellor has moved the golden rules. I reject that charge, which is not backed up by evidence. Local government borrowing is an important part of the PSBR. The answer to his question about inspection and audit is, yes, they are subject to the same provisions. I am grateful for the caveat that he gave with his question about dormant companies or entities because he is absolutely right—the matter is too detailed for me to attempt an answer now.

To answer the question of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) about “control”, “controlling”, “ownership” and “connected with”, the point at issue is what the potential liability is. A local authority could control an entity and, through that control, it could incur a liability that was, or was not, dependent on the local authority. The question of ownership and control relates to that. I made reference to that in the eighth point of my opening speech. I know that the hon. Gentleman followed my remarks closely, so I shall not repeat them, but I congratulate him on his vigilance in probing the point.

I thank the Minister for that. He is talking about cases in which there could be liability. Let me give for my example an organisation that is not controlled or owned by a council, but is, for some reason, underwritten and guaranteed by a council—

A theatre.

Such as a theatre, as my hon. Friend suggests, although the Lichfield Garrick is not that type of organisation. If the council would be liable if anything were to happen to that organisation, would that be covered by the “connected with” definition?

That would depend on the nature of the contract between the local authority and the body. That is an extremely important point and it is why we propose to bring in the CIPFA regulations on accounting practice. Local authority treasurers must abide by accounting practice and they get their guidance from CIPFA. Annex 1 to the regulations—“Definitions in relation to group accounts”—is very specific on the points that the hon. Gentleman raised. I congratulate him on spotting the essence of the argument, which centres on where liability and control lie. The definition in annex 1 is:

“An entity other than a subsidiary or joint venture in which the reporting authority has a participating interest and over whose operating and financial policies the reporting authority is able to exercise significant influence.”

He will be familiar with the fact that the definition of “control”, “ownership” and “connected with” depends on the degree of control, whether it be through ownership, part ownership or control through contract or other such arrangements. The provision is designed to stop local authorities overreaching and thereby to protect the public purse.

The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) asked about scrutiny. The definitions provided by accounting practice will translate into the definitions of scrutiny. He will remember that under the part of the Bill that deals with overview and scrutiny, it can be the contract that is scrutinised rather than the body itself.

The provisions relate to what I have described as proprietary controls. The financial controls are covered not only by this part of the Bill, but by the Local Government Act 2003, which defines the new prudential borrowing arrangements. I hope that the House has not fallen asleep. These are important matters for local authorities.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 23

Trusts

‘(1) In this section a “relevant trust” means a trust connected with a local authority.

(2) An order under section (Entities controlled etc by local authorities) may include provision which requires, prohibits or regulates—

(a) the taking of specified actions by the trustees of a relevant trust;

(b) the taking of specified actions by a local authority in relation to the trustees of trusts connected with that local authority;

(c) the taking of specified actions by a member or officer of a local authority who is a trustee of a trust connected with that local authority.

(3) Provision included in an order by virtue of this section may relate to—

(a) the trustees of every relevant trust;

(b) the trustees of relevant trusts of a particular description.

(4) Where by virtue of this section an order makes provision in relation to the trustees of trusts of a particular description, it may provide for any expression used in identifying that description of trust to have the meaning for the time being given by—

(a) any document identified by the order; or

(b) any re-issue of such a document.

(5) For the purposes of this section a trust (“T”) is “connected with” a local authority at any time if, according to proper practices in force at that time, financial information about T must be included in the local authority’s statement of accounts for the financial year in which that time falls.

(6) In this section the following have the same meaning as in section (Entities controlled etc by local authorities)—

“actions”;

“financial year”;

“local authority”;

“specified”.’.—[Mr. Woolas.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 24

Further provision about orders

‘(1) An order under section (Entities controlled etc by local authorities) may make provision requiring an entity, a local authority or trustees to obtain the consent of the appropriate person before taking any particular actions.

(2) In subsection (1) “the appropriate person” means—

(a) in relation to an order made by the Secretary of State, the Audit Commission;

(b) in relation to an order made by the Welsh Ministers, the Auditor General for Wales.

(3) The provision that may be included in an order by virtue of section (Entities controlled etc by local authorities)(4)(a) includes in particular provision—

(a) requiring a local authority to make arrangements for enabling questions about an entity’s activities to be put to members or officers of the authority who are qualifying persons;

(b) prohibiting a local authority from taking action (including refraining from exercising a right) which would have the result that a person of a specified description becomes a qualifying person;

(c) requiring a local authority to ensure so far as practicable that entities comply with provisions of the order applicable to them.

(4) The provision that may be included in an order by virtue of section (Trusts)(2)(b) includes in particular provision—

(a) requiring a local authority to make arrangements for enabling questions about a trust connected with the authority to be put to members or officers of the authority who are trustees;

(b) prohibiting a local authority from taking action (including refraining from exercising a right) which would have the result that a person of a specified description becomes a trustee of a trust connected with the authority;

(c) requiring a local authority to ensure so far as practicable that trustees comply with provisions of the order applicable to them.

(5) Nothing in subsections (1) to (4) affects the generality of section (Entities controlled etc by local authorities)(1) or (4) or (Trusts)(2).

(6) An order under section (Entities controlled etc by local authorities) may include incidental, consequential, transitional or supplementary provision.

(7) In this section the following have the same meaning as in section (Entities controlled etc by local authorities)—

“actions”;

“entity”;

“entity connected with a local authority”;

“local authority”;

“qualifying person”.

(8) In this section “the Audit Commission” means the Audit Commission for Local Authorities and the National Health Service in England.’.—[Mr. Woolas.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 25

Exemptions from orders

‘(1) The appropriate authority may give a direction exempting—

(a) a particular entity, or entities of a particular description, or

(b) the trustees of a particular trust, or of trusts of a particular description,

from an order under section (Entities controlled etc by local authorities) or specified provisions of such an order.

(2) A direction under this section may provide for an exemption to have effect—

(a) for a specified period; or

(b) subject to specified conditions.

(3) A direction under this section may be varied or revoked by a subsequent direction of the appropriate authority.

(4) In this section “the appropriate authority” means—

(a) in relation to an order made by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State;

(b) in relation to an order made by the Welsh Ministers, the Welsh Ministers.

(5) In this section—

“entity” has the same meaning as in section (Entities controlled etc by local authorities);

“specified” means specified by the direction.’.—[Mr. Woolas.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 26

Definition of certain terms for purposes of other enactments: England

‘(1) The Secretary of State may by order under this section—

(a) define an “entity under the control of a local authority” and an “entity jointly controlled by bodies that include a local authority” for the purposes of section 4(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1916 (c. 64);

(b) define for the purposes of section 80(1)(aa) of the Local Government Act 1972 (c. 70) the reference in that provision to “an entity under the control of” the authority mentioned there;

(c) define, for the purposes of sections 98(8)(d) and 100(1)(a) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (c. 65), the references in each of those provisions to—

(i) “an entity under the control of” the body mentioned there;

(ii) “an entity subject to the influence of” that body; and

(iii) “an entity jointly controlled by” that body and one or more other bodies;

(d) define for the purposes of paragraph 7(2) of Schedule 7 to the Environment Act 1995 (c. 25) the reference in that provision to “an entity under the control of” the authority mentioned there;

(e) define for the purposes of section 18(2)(b) of the Local Government Act 2003 (c. 26) the references in that provision to—

(i) “an entity under the control of” and “a trust under the control of” an authority or Executive mentioned there;

(ii) “an entity subject to the influence of” and “a trust subject to the influence of” such an authority or Executive; and

(iii) “an entity jointly controlled by bodies that include” and “a trust jointly controlled by bodies that include” such an authority or Executive.

(2) Any reference in subsection (1) to the purposes of a provision of—

the Local Government Act 1972 (c. 70),

the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (c. 65),

the Environment Act 1995 (c. 25), or

the Local Government Act 2003 (c. 26),

is a reference to the purposes of that provision as it applies in relation to England.

(3) An order under this section may provide for any expression used by it to have the meaning for the time being given by—

(a) any document identified by the order;

(b) any re-issue of such a document.’.—[Mr. Woolas.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 27

Definition of certain terms for purposes of other enactments: Wales

‘(1) The Welsh Ministers may by order under this section—

(a) define for the purposes of section 80(1)(aa) of the Local Government Act 1972 (c. 70) the reference in that provision to “an entity under the control of” the authority mentioned there;

(b) define, for the purposes of sections 98(8)(d) and 100(1)(a) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (c. 65), the references in each of those provisions to—

(i) “an entity under the control of” the body mentioned there;

(ii) “an entity subject to the influence of” that body; and

(iii) “an entity jointly controlled by” that body and one or more other bodies;

(c) define for the purposes of paragraph 7(2) of Schedule 7 to the Environment Act 1995 (c. 25) the reference in that provision to “an entity under the control of” the authority mentioned there;

(d) define for the purposes of section 18(2)(b) of the Local Government Act 2003 (c. 26) the references in that provision to—

(i) “an entity under the control of” and “a trust under the control of” an authority mentioned there;

(ii) “an entity subject to the influence of” and “a trust subject to the influence of” such an authority; and

(iii) “an entity jointly controlled by bodies that include” and “a trust jointly controlled by bodies that include” such an authority;

(e) define “an entity under the control of a local authority” for the purposes of section 48(3) of the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004 (c. 23).

(2) Any reference in subsection (1) to the purposes of a provision of—

the Local Government Act 1972 (c. 70),

the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (c. 65),

the Environment Act 1995 (c. 25), or

the Local Government Act 2003 (c. 26),

is a reference to the purposes of that provision as it applies in relation to Wales.

(3) An order under this section may provide for any expression used by it to have the meaning for the time being given by—

(a) any document identified by the order;

(b) any re-issue of such a document.’.—[Mr. Woolas.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 28

Consequential amendments

‘(1) Omit Part 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (c. 42).

(2) Schedule (Consequential amendments relating to entities controlled etc by local authorities) (other consequential amendments) has effect.

(3) Subsection (4) applies where by virtue of section 14 of the Interpretation Act 1978 (c. 30) (implied power to amend) any subordinate legislation is amended in consequence of the repeal of Part 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (c. 42).

(4) Any provision inserted or substituted by the amendment may provide for an expression used in such provision to have the meaning for the time being given by—

(a) any document identified by such provision;

(b) any re-issue of such a document.’.—[Mr. Woolas.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 36

Schemes for elections

‘For the purposes of this Part—

(a) a council is “subject to a scheme for whole-council elections” if all of its councillors are to be elected in each year in which it holds ordinary elections of councillors;

(b) a council is “subject to a scheme for elections by halves” if one-half (or as nearly as may be) of its councillors are to be elected in each year in which it holds ordinary elections of councillors;

(c) a council is “subject to a scheme for elections by thirds” if one-third (or as nearly as may be) of its councillors are to be elected in each year in which it holds ordinary elections of councillors.’.—[Mr. Woolas.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 37—Resolution for whole-council elections.

Government new clause 38—Resolution for whole-council elections: requirements.

Government new clause 39—Resolution for elections by halves.

Government new clause 40—Resolution for elections by halves: requirements.

Government new clause 41—Resolution for elections by thirds.

Government new clause 42—Resolution for elections by thirds: requirements.

Government new clause 43—Publicity for resolution.

Government new clause 44—Notice to Electoral Commission.

Government new clause 45—Electoral Commission to consider whether electoral review is necessary.

Government new clause 46—Electoral Commission to make order for new electoral scheme.

Government new clause 47—Order for elections by halves: years in which elections are to be held.

Government new clause 48—Order for elections by halves: councillors to be elected at ordinary elections.

Government new clause 49—Order for elections by thirds: years in which elections are to be held.

Government new clause 50—Order for elections by thirds: councillors to be elected at ordinary elections.

Government new clause 51—Order for elections by halves or elections by thirds: transitional provision.

Government new clause 52—Power of Electoral Commission to make incidental etc provision.

Government new clause 53—Position if Electoral Commission acts under existing powers.

Government new clause 54—Publicity for order by Electoral Commission.

Government new clause 55—Power of council to alter years of ordinary elections of parish councillors.

Government new clause 62—Electoral Commission and Boundary Committee: reviews and recommendations.

Government amendments Nos. 196 to 209, 258, 211, 212, 219 to 221 and 227.

Putting my CIPFA guidance to one side, we come to a highly political matter that was the subject of significant and constructive debate in Committee. It may be helpful to the House if I explain the purpose and effect of the new clauses and amendments and why we have proposed them.

The effect of the new clauses and amendments would be to allow local authorities that have at any time been subject to a scheme for partial council elections—normally referred to as “thirds”, although that is not always the case—but that are subject to a scheme for whole council elections to revert to a scheme for partial council elections. To use the political jargon, if a council has moved from thirds to all outs, can it move back? I know that there are differences in two-tier areas—the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela E. Smith), has explained them to me.

The Government amendments also amend part 2 of the Bill to require local authorities to pass resolutions for changing their schemes for elections by a two-thirds majority. The same figure applies to districts at the moment. In addition, they extend the permitted resolution period during which a metropolitan district council may first resolve to move to a scheme for whole council elections from 31 December 2007 to 31 December 2009. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner), who represents such an area, pressed that point in the Committee.

In Committee, we listened carefully to the concerns expressed by hon. Members from all three parties about the proposal that local authorities that resolve to move to whole council elections should be unable to move back to partial council elections. At the end of an extremely constructive Committee debate, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) withdrew the amendments that would have allowed county councils and London boroughs to move to partial council elections, even though there is no tradition of partial council elections in those areas.

Has the Minister, in his extensive reading or in the research that his Department does on his behalf, noticed any pattern and found that one particular group of councils goes for thirds, while another chooses all-out elections, or is it completely random?

That is an interesting point. The Government’s central intention in introducing the measures is to devolve the decision from the Secretary of State to the council. At the moment, the Secretary of State, or Ministers and officials acting on her behalf, take the decision. In my time in office, I have been asked to take decisions on elections in areas of which, in all honesty, I have no personal knowledge, although of course advice is available. We think that that is wrong and we want to devolve that responsibility. We want the safeguard of the two thirds.

The evidence available is inconclusive. There are many views on why particular decisions are taken. As we debated in Committee, there are those who say that elections by thirds keep the council in touch with the public, keep it on its toes, and make it more responsive. Equally, there are those who say that all-out elections provide for stronger decisions and mean that councils can take better quality decisions in the long run. If we look at the ratings by the Audit Commission and others, we can see that there are cases where there is no relationship between the rating and the electoral cycle. There are also examples of cases in which there is a relationship, and where local and other factors seem to come into play. Indeed, it is partly because there is no decisive evidence, although there is a body of knowledge, that we decided to table the amendments.

Let me briefly explain the principles behind the amendments. The Government’s starting point—the manifesto mentioned this—is the belief that whole council elections create the framework most likely to support and promote the strong and accountable leadership that we need if powers and responsibilities are to be devolved to local councils. There is a relationship between devolution and the responsible holding of power. Whole council elections can strengthen democratic processes by providing clarity to the electorate.

Secondly, we believe that local authorities should make the decision. That is why the Bill will give them the power to make a resolution to change the electoral cycle if they believe that to be in the best interests of their area. Thirdly, as we stated in the White Paper, we recognise that the pattern of local elections can reflect long-held traditions and be part of the culture of local public life. If a council has been subject to partial council elections since the local government reorganisation in 1974, it will be able to move to whole council elections—and, if it sees fit, it can subsequently return to elections by thirds. I reiterate that the option of moving to partial council elections should not, in our view, be extended to areas where there is no such tradition.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan stated in Committee that between electoral cycles

“there should not be a constant ping-pong”.––[Official Report, Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Public Bill Committee, 8 February 2007; c. 211.]

We therefore propose that any resolution to change the cycle or scheme for elections must be made at a specially convened meeting and be passed by a two- thirds majority of those voting. That will ensure that a significant majority of councillors support the change being made. That is the process that currently applies for district councils that have the option of requesting the Secretary of State to make that change.

Fifthly, we need to set out when a change of electoral cycles can realistically first be made under the Bill. We propose that if a metropolitan district council chooses to make a change, having obtained a two-thirds majority in support of that choice, the first year in which it can have a whole council election will be 2010. For shire districts, including unitaries, the first year will be 2011. I have set those dates because it would be wrong if the electorate were not aware of what they were voting for. If the move was made during the current electoral cycle, it could be unfair. The new clauses and amendments in the group that we are discussing follow the five principles that I have just outlined.

The Minister’s argument is interesting. Would he go further and say that although proposed changes are not set out in the Bill, they really should be in a manifesto? Let us suppose that a council argued for a change from election by thirds to all-out elections, or vice versa. The Minister is saying that the safeguard is that the change will happen in the next electoral cycle. The proposal should therefore really be set out in some form of manifesto, so that people know what they are voting for.

Yes, I agree with that. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and that is partly why I chose the dates that I mentioned. If a party stood for election and won a majority, perhaps not unexpectedly, and then told the electorate that it was moving to all-out elections, that would not be fair. I therefore agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point, and a random sample of opinion among Labour Members, taken in the past few moments, shows that there is consensus among Labour Members, too.

I very much agree with the Minister’s last observations and I suspect that there is consensus on the point that he makes. I am interested in the references to halves. Perhaps it comes of having lived a sheltered life in the London boroughs and the home counties, where elections are either all-out or by thirds, but I am interested to hear whether there is any significant demand for elections by halves, how many local authorities come out for halves, and what place that option holds in the argument. I can see the argument for all-out elections, which the Minister has advanced, and I can see the argument for thirds—that, too, has been advanced, and it is well known to all of us—but election by halves seems an odd hybrid animal. Perhaps it is an historical anomaly. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts. Is it a route that the Government seek to encourage; is it merely included as an option, as a result of their desire to maximise devolution; or would it simply preserve the historical practices in one or two parts of the country?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his lengthy intervention because inspiration arrived during the course of it. I am told that there are seven districts that hold elections by halves.

The principle that we are trying to put into the Bill—not just in this part, but across the Bill—is that the route by which a decision is taken is the route by which it can be reversed. In cases where election is by halves, that would apply. Furthermore, given his experience in the Greater London Authority, the hon. Gentleman will be more aware than most that the electoral cycle for councils should take into account upper tier and lower tier authorities. In the Bill we are trying to encourage the creation of parish councils. I am not one of those who want huge ballot papers, so I hope that the House will bear with me on that point.

The new clauses and amendments follow the principles that I have outlined. They also put in place the necessary technical processes to allow the Electoral Commission to review district wards where changes to electoral cycles are being made. In short, the amendments will allow councils to have the flexibility that they need. I commend them to the House.

There is substantial consensus on the matter. As the Minister rightly said, trying to make a judgment about which is the best system can be inconclusive, to say the least. There are examples of extremely good authorities that are elected by thirds, by halves and by all-out elections. I have always had a preference for all-out elections, because that gives the electorate a manifesto, and a day when it decides who is to run the authority, or perhaps who to kick out, if the council has made a hash of it.

From the tone of the debate in Committee, it was clear that the Government, possibly because of a manifesto commitment, wanted to go in a particular direction, whereas we wanted authorities to have the option of going into reverse gear if they so wished. I agree with the Minister’s remarks about the two thirds. Some cross-party co-operation will probably be necessary under the changed electoral arrangements. In some authorities—Wigan might be one of them—that might not make much difference in terms of political party, but for most authorities a two-thirds majority would require some acquiescence by the minority to change the electoral arrangements and to change back. The new clauses seem to be written in a perfectly sensible manner.

The Government set out their belief that whole council elections are generally the best route, so they are not giving such councils the opportunity to revert to election by thirds or halves. I accept that. The Government have moved some way to allay the concerns expressed in Committee. It is sensible that the dates are set some way ahead to allow for change. That would allow a political party that wished to campaign on the changed electoral arrangements to put those to the electorate. Broadly speaking, we are happy with the way that the Government are proceeding.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on responding to the mood of the Committee, especially the mood on the Labour Back Benches during the Committee, where, as a 100 per cent. loyalist, I still felt the urge to be a rebel on these matters. It did not make sense to me that we should be able to move from one form of voting to another, but not the other way round. We are particularly flattered that it has taken no fewer than 40 amendments in the group before us to address our concerns.

One concern was that the situation in two-tier authorities had not been fully taken into account by the original drafting of the Bill. Derbyshire county has large single-member wards, and no one would argue that there should be anything but all-out elections every four years. However, I have been involved with local authorities at district level that have had all-out elections, and also with authorities that had elections by thirds, and there is something to be said for both systems. The all-out system provides consistency for at least four years, and if there is a mayoral system, the four-year system probably matches that and supports it better. On the other hand, a council that goes out by thirds allows a rolling programme, and non-catastrophic evolution. I use the word “catastrophic” advisedly. In High Peak we had all-out elections and lost nine seats on 3 May. Had we had elections by thirds, the outcome would be the equivalent of losing only three seats, which would not have looked quite so catastrophic.

That is a good reason why we should have been able to have elections by thirds—but in my book continuity wins out. I have served on a local authority that was elected by thirds—the same authority on which I sat with my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). Continuity and evolution are better than a possibly catastrophic pendulum swing every four years.

I have one or two questions to ask my hon. Friend the Minister, bearing in mind that very few councils have ever taken the opportunity that the existing law provides to change from one system to the other. My guess is that most councils are set up in a certain way and stay like that. If he is allowing only those that have once been elected by thirds and are now all-out to revert to thirds, how many councils is he giving that power to? It seems that only the local authorities that are currently all-out but once upon a time had election by thirds can go back. I am glad that the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) raised the question of halves. That was new to me, too. Can my hon. Friend say whether the same would apply in the case of halves? Would those authorities need to have had a different system in the past in order to qualify for movement between all-out elections and elections by part?

There is a worry that if councils are given a new right to go in the other direction, but only a handful of them would qualify to be considered, it is not much of a right. I am sorry to put my hon. Friend on the spot, but these questions are important. I hope that the 40 amendments will ensure that some councils have the option to move in the other direction, from all-out to halves or thirds, if that is what they choose, subject to the sensible provisos suggested by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant).

I thank the Minister for responding to the debate in Committee which, as he said, was all-party and saw the need for a process that could work in either direction. I welcome the new clauses and amendments that he has tabled. Like the hon. Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt), I am disappointed that the provisions are restricted in their application. I shall comment on that in a moment.

First, however, I want to ask the Minister whether the difference in wording between the rules for halves and the rules for thirds is deliberate and, if so, why. New clause 39(1) states that a non-metropolitan district council in England can qualify, and new clause 41, which relates to election by thirds, allows a district council in England to qualify. In other words, election by halves is restricted to non-metropolitan districts, and the other case appears to apply to metropolitan districts. I would be interested to know whether that is a difference with a deliberate intention, or whether it will be subject to amendment in another place in due course. I favour the widest possible interpretation, so I prefer new clause 41 to new clause 39 in that respect. I look forward to hearing that that is the intention.

I asked the Library for a note on how many local authorities would be eligible, and it provided me with a list of the councils that had elections by thirds in 1974, which is the qualifying date. According to the Library, there were 114 such shire district councils, but it did not tell me how many of those changed at one time or another away from election by thirds to all-out elections. I hope that the Minister will provide that information—if not now, perhaps separately after the debate.

Although the concession is generous and the amendments to achieve it are lengthy, my concern is that it will apply to only a small number of local authorities. My disappointment is that the Government have not seen fit to make this a concession that any council could have—although in saying “any council”, I accept that, as the Minister said in introducing his amendments, our original wording, which included county councils and other upper-tier bodies, would not have been appropriate. I fully accept that our drafting was deficient in that respect. I want to see the Minister nudge forward a little bit on the possibility of a larger number of district councils being eligible. If he were to tell us in plain terms that there are 100 such councils, maybe I would not feel so concerned, but if, as I suspect, there are only about a dozen, this concession is not as worth while as it seems.

The Library list of 114 councils that had election by thirds in 1974 includes a number of councils that are now unitary authorities. For example, City of York council was a district council in those days, and it is now a unitary council. It was clearly set up as a unitary authority after 1974, and therefore although it appears to qualify under new clause 41(2)(a), it would apparently be disqualified under subsection (2)(b), which states:

“if later, the date on which the council was created.”

I want to hear from the Minister whether, if a geographical area once had election by thirds, it still retains the capacity to go through the reversing act, if it wishes, even if its status as a council has changed. I have no information to the effect that City of York council has any intention of doing that, and I am simply using it to illustrate a case that might arise.

Although we welcome the direction of travel, as we say these days, that the Minister has undertaken, I want him to travel further. If, as I fear, he has hardly opened the front door and got on to the garden path, it will be a major disappointment.

Like my hon. Friends the Members for Wigan (Mr. Turner) and for High Peak (Tom Levitt), I was one of the defenders of elections by thirds in Committee, and I am delighted that the Minister has tabled the amendments that we are discussing today.

I will not rehearse the arguments that I expressed in Committee. There are strong views on both sides. I think that elections by thirds works well in the two local authorities in my constituency, Tameside and Stockport. Tameside has four stars and “improving strongly” status under the strong leadership of Councillor Roy Oldham CBE.

The Minister has delighted me with these amendments. I have always rated him as an effective operator on the political field, and as a result he is a great Minister for Local Government. In Committee, he made great play of his devolutionary desires, which he has actually demonstrated. He has proved to be a listening Minister, too, because there was consensus across the Committee on this issue.

It is absolutely right to introduce the two-thirds majority safeguard to ensure that the powers are not abused by local authorities. In a council such as Tameside, where the controlling group has a two-thirds majority, the safeguard would not make much of a difference, but I realise that it would in most local authorities.

The Minister has been absolutely generous in respect of opportunities to move back. After a full council cycle, if a council resolves at a special meeting by a two-thirds majority to move back, it will be permitted to do so. That is much more generous than the provisions proposed by me, my hon. Friends the Members for Wigan and for High Peak and the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell). We thought that it would be more reasonable to have two cycles to allow the new system to bed down; two cycles would result in a period of eight years and three cycles would result in a period of 12 years. If a local authority sees that approach as a failure, the opportunity to move sooner is welcome.

I was going to raise the precise point mentioned by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove about non-metropolitan districts established under the Local Government Act 1972, which came into force on 1 April 1974, that have subsequently become unitary authorities. When those districts were non-metropolitan shire districts in a two-tier system, many of them were elected according to elections by thirds. On becoming unitary authorities, which gave them a new status and a new creation date, because they technically became new local authorities on the date on which the unitaries were created, many of them moved to all-out elections. If such local authorities wanted to elect by thirds, it would be wrong to prevent them from doing so. Like the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, I look forward to the Minister’s response.

I, too, congratulate the Minister on introducing this excellent group of amendments in response to the constructive cross-party debate in Committee.

We do not need to rehearse the arguments—it is finely balanced whether elections should be all out or whether they should be by thirds—because it is not really for us in this Chamber to make that decision, which should be made by councils and their local communities. What we need to do is to give councils and their local communities that opportunity, and I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the amendments, which will allow local authorities to take that decision.

I agree with the Minister that the two-thirds issue is important. I do not think that it is right that a local authority with a majority of 50 per cent. plus one should take that decision, because the issue would then become party political rather than a decision being made for the whole of the community. The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) has suggested that there is a two-thirds majority on Wigan council, but we are not quite there yet; we had one gain last year and three gains this year, so a couple more gains next year will get us to that position. If we want to make changes, however, as a four-star authority we will put community consultation to the fore.

I join my hon. Friends the Members for High Peak (Tom Levitt) and for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) and the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) in saying that the measure appears to be slightly limited. The exclusion of the London boroughs is not a logical step. If a London borough wants to move from all-out elections to one-third elections, I cannot see why it should not have the opportunity to do so. It seems illogical to allow that in metropolitan districts but not in London boroughs. If we were truly devolutionary, it would be open to all local authorities to take that decision, in line with the wishes of their communities. I hope that the Minister will take that point back to the Department and have further discussions with his colleagues—perhaps he will introduce further amendments in the Lords. Nevertheless, the provision is a move forward, and I congratulate the Minister on it.

I had not intended to speak on this group of amendments, but the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) has stung me into action. I am sorry to disagree with his final point—I had thought that this year our only disagreements would relate to promotion and relegation, and I commiserate with him on the circumstances in which he finds himself in that regard.

rose—

That does not mean that I am going to volunteer, on behalf of West Ham United, to make any change in our current situation.

I shall be careful not to try your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall now move on. I urge the Minister to be cautious about the issue raised in relation to London—

Order. I was merely unclear as to which sport the hon. Gentleman was referring to.

You must have been to Upton Park on one of our bad days, too, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and experienced similar confusion.

It is entirely for the London boroughs to decide on this matter. However, before 1986 the metropolitan counties outside London had elections by thirds to the metropolitan districts, and in the fourth year, which is now the fallow year, elections to the metropolitan county councils such as Greater Manchester council. The London model could fit with election by thirds.

Except for this difference: the metropolitan counties were abolished and have not been reinstated, so there is now a single-tier authority and a year off. That also happens in the case of one or two unitaries that were formerly metropolitan counties. The difference in London is that it is generally regarded as convenient to have the all-out election for the Mayor and the assembly, and then to have an all-out election for the boroughs halfway through the electoral cycle. I hope that the Minister will not consider any change in relation to London without considering the views of those in London local government. London has a unique local government structure and different considerations should therefore apply.

This argument is interesting to me, because I do not come from a local government background. Would my hon. Friend care to speculate on why, given the fallow year that has been mentioned, the option of quarters was not discussed? Perhaps the Minister could explain that when he winds up. If the argument is that it is helpful to have elections every year, why have elections for three years and then in a final, fourth year have no election at all? Given that halves are an option used by seven district councils, why not have the option of quarters too?

I am genuinely grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that interesting point, which had not occurred to me before. I can see an argument for it, although I am not aware that it has ever received much support among electors or the local government community. I hope that he will forgive me if I appear not to do justice to his intervention by saying that I can only leave it at that and return to my point about London, and the desire to have something that works well in the London context. I am not aware that any local authority or significant group of opinion in London would wish for a change in our current electoral arrangements.

If members of the press or the public were ever to doubt that Members of Parliament know what they are talking about, they should read the Hansard record of the debate on these new clauses. I am tempted to say that the reason why we did not consider the option of quarters was to give the poor electorate a year off—[Interruption.] And the canvassers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) says. The real reason is traditional and historical. Areas had two tiers; in our area of Greater Manchester, the fallow year was for the upper tier. To meet the point made by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), we would have to reconsider the number of councillors per ward and move to four, or two or one. We could do that, but I do not think that he would want us to.

As the Minister and I know, on the past three occasions our fallow year in Greater Manchester has been occupied with a general election, so we are never short of an election in our area.

That is a point often made to me by the cross-party leaders of the 10 authorities in Greater Manchester. I suspect that the results would be better for us in both sets of elections were that not the case—but I will not be tempted down that road.

I am grateful to hon. Members for their response to the amendments, and will deal briefly with the points that have been made. The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) mentioned our manifesto commitment. For the record, the manifesto required the Government to look at the Electoral Commission’s proposals on all-out elections. We have done that, so we have fulfilled the commitment. The manifesto did not commit the Government to moving to all-out elections, but gave that as a preference. Our debate has reflected that.

The hon. Member for Poole welcomed the requirement for a two-thirds majority, which provides more of a guarantee that a resolution would not be used in a partisan way, or by a small number of councils for tactical reasons. That principle is already enshrined, because in districts that have the power to request the Secretary of State to move to all-out elections, the resolution requires a two-thirds majority in the council. The hon. Gentleman mentioned whole council decisions. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan put his finger on the main point, which is that this section of the Bill allows local authorities to decide. The research that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) did in the Library and elsewhere teaches us something, although circumstances will change in future, given that councils know that decisions are in their own hands and are not subject to the decision of the Secretary of State, who may or may not agree with the resolution.

Is my hon. Friend saying that under the amendments, a council that has always had all-out elections has the right to choose to go to election by thirds? If not, such a council does not have the right to choose. My impression was that the amendments would give a council the right to move to thirds only if it had had that system at some time in the past.

That is correct; I thank my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to clarify the position. I am on the front path, not out on the street, to use the analogy made by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove.

So why does my hon. Friend make that distinction between the two categories of council?

Because I have not been asked to until now. I am reflecting the debate in Committee. My hon. Friend should look back on the five principles that I mentioned, one of which the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) disagreed with. This might seem surprising coming from the Labour Benches, but tradition is important in this area. It is not desirable to create turbulence in the system, but at the same time we should move in a generally devolutionary direction. My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) is trying to move the debate forward. I have tried to ensure that the Government have not been too restrictive in imposing all-out elections, so as to allow for a change in the direction of travel, but I cannot, as yet, go as far as he is asking. If he gives me a chance to list the figures, he will get some satisfaction.

The hon. Member for Hazel Grove could be described in this instance, if not outside this debate, as a political anorak. I do not mean that in a pejorative sense. I congratulate him on going to the Library to ask the question that he did, and I am interested to hear that he did not get a satisfactory answer. In 2002, six authorities moved to election by halves—Cheltenham, Fareham, Gosport, Hastings, Nuneaton and Bedworth, and Oxford. Several councils have moved from whole council elections to election by thirds. They include Warrington in 1997, Purbeck in 1999, Castle Point in 2003, North-East Lincolnshire in 2003, and Plymouth in 2003. Councils that have moved from election by thirds to whole council elections include Medway in 1997, Broadland in 2007 and Eastbourne in 2007. I know that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove is especially interested in Eastbourne.

Hon. Members asked about the position in York. For the purposes of the Bill, it is a non-metropolitan district. It is, of course, a unitary authority, so the answer to the question about York is yes. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove asked about halves and metropolitan districts. No metropolitan districts elect on the basis of halves; they have no tradition of that. Seven non-metropolitan districts work on the basis of halves, and could move back to a previous system. Indeed, I have just provided a list of them. All metropolitans could go back to a previous system if they first choose to move to whole council elections. If any of the 81 districts or 19 unitaries that currently elect by thirds or the seven district councils that work on the basis of halves moved to whole council elections, they could move back to thirds or halves, as the case may be.

Any of the 150 district councils that currently hold whole council elections but previously elected by thirds could move back. Since 1997, three district councils have moved to whole council elections; they could therefore move back. I hope that that is as clear as possible.

rose—

My hon. Friend is going to push me on that point.

I am about to sound a little ridiculous. Does my hon. Friend genuinely suggest that we have tabled 40 amendments simply to allow three councils to move back to election by thirds?

No. I shall not repeat myself, but a reading of Hansard will show that that is not the case. We are essentially trying to allow councils that have moved to move back, but not necessarily those that moved in the last period. Where there is a tradition, councils can revert to it. I am essentially excluding London and counties. The reason for that is interesting. It is partly because there is no tradition and partly because the consultation did not request the inclusion of London and counties.

Let us be clear. Is the Minister saying that unitary authorities that were formerly metropolitan district authorities can revert to elections by thirds if they held such elections at some point since the 1973-74 reorganisation?

Yes. That is precisely my point.

An inevitable consequence of devolution is different patterns in different areas. As a country and a body politic, we need to get used to that and welcome it.

I appreciate the spirit in which the Minister approaches the matter. He appeared to be surprised by the point that the hon. Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) made about authorities that had always held all-out elections, and the fact that the Bill is not giving them the opportunity to move to thirds. The Minister expressed surprise that he had not been asked about that previously. Let me remind him that the amendment that we tabled in Committee included those councils, too.

The hon. Gentleman is right and I was wrong. I intended to refer to the pre-consultation. He thanked me for my approach. I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), whose pressure and lobbying, along with that of other hon. Friends, led to the amendments. However grateful the hon. Member for Hazel Grove is, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts)—from the Whips Office—is not. I therefore urge hon. Members to support the new clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 37

Resolution for whole-council elections

‘(1) A district council in England that is subject to a scheme for elections by halves or by thirds may resolve that it is to be subject instead to the scheme for whole-council elections under section 33.

(2) A resolution under this section is referred to in this Part as a “resolution for whole-council elections”.’.—[Mr. Woolas.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 38

Resolution for whole-council elections: requirements

‘(1) A council must comply with this section in passing a resolution for whole-council elections.

(2) The council must not pass the resolution unless it has taken reasonable steps to consult such persons as it thinks appropriate on the proposed change.

(3) The resolution must be passed—

(a) at a meeting specially convened for the purpose, and

(b) by a majority of at least two thirds of the members voting on it.

(4) The council must pass the resolution in a permitted resolution period.

(5) In this section “permitted resolution period” means—

(a) in relation to a metropolitan district council—

(i) the period ending with 31 December 2009, or

(ii) the period in 2013, or in any fourth year afterwards, that starts with 1 October and ends with 31 December;

(b) in relation to a non-metropolitan district council—

(i) the period ending with 31 December 2010, or

(ii) the period in 2014, or in any fourth year afterwards, that starts with 1 October and ends with 31 December.

(6) The Secretary of State may by order provide that a permitted resolution period is to end later than the day determined in accordance with subsection (5).’.—[Mr. Woolas.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 39

Resolution for elections by halves

‘(1) A non-metropolitan district council in England that—

(a) was formerly subject to a scheme for elections by halves, but

(b) is for the time being subject to a scheme for whole-council elections, may resolve that it is to revert to being subject to a scheme for elections by halves.

(2) For the purposes of this section, a council that is subject to a scheme for whole-council elections was “formerly subject” to a scheme for elections by halves if it was subject to such a scheme at any time in the period beginning with—

(a) 1 April 1974, or

(b) if later, the date on which the council was created.

(3) A resolution under this section is referred to in this Part as a “resolution for elections by halves”.’.—[Mr. Woolas.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 40

Resolution for elections by halves: requirements

‘(1) A council must comply with this section in passing a resolution for elections by halves.

(2) The council must not pass the resolution unless it has taken reasonable steps to consult such persons as it thinks appropriate on the proposed change.

(3) The resolution must be passed—

(a) at a meeting specially convened for the purpose, and

(b) by a majority of at least two thirds of the members voting on it.

(4) The council must pass the resolution in a permitted resolution period.

(5) In this section “permitted resolution period” means the period in 2008, or in any fourth year afterwards, that starts with 1 October and ends with 31 December.

(6) The Secretary of State may by order provide that a permitted resolution period is to end later than the day determined in accordance with subsection (5).’.—[Mr. Woolas.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 41

Resolution for elections by thirds

‘(1) A district council in England that—

(a) was formerly subject to a scheme for elections by thirds, but

(b) is for the time being subject to a scheme for whole-council elections,

may resolve that it is to revert to being subject to a scheme for elections by thirds.

(2) For the purposes of this section, a council that is subject to a scheme for whole-council elections was “formerly subject” to a scheme for elections by thirds if it was subject to such a scheme at any time in the period beginning with—

(a) 1 April 1974, or

(b) if later, the date on which the council was created.

(3) A resolution under this section is referred to in this Part as a “resolution for elections by thirds”.’.—[Mr. Woolas.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 42

Resolution for elections by thirds: requirements

‘(1) A council must comply with this section in passing a resolution for elections by thirds.

(2) The council must not pass the resolution unless it has taken reasonable steps to consult such persons as it thinks appropriate on the proposed change.

(3) The resolution must be passed—

(a) at a meeting specially convened for the purpose, and

(b) by a majority of at least two thirds of the members voting on it.

(4) The council must pass the resolution in a permitted resolution period.

(5) In this section “permitted resolution period” means—

(a) in relation to a metropolitan district council: the period in 2011, or in any fourth year afterwards, that starts with 1 October and ends with 31 December;

(b) in relation to a non-metropolitan district council: the period in 2008, or in any fourth year afterwards, that starts with 1 October and ends with 31 December.

(6) The Secretary of State may by order provide that a permitted resolution period is to end later than the day determined in accordance with subsection (5).’.—[Mr. Woolas.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 43

Publicity for resolution

‘(1) A council must comply with this section as soon as practicable after passing a resolution for elections by halves or a resolution for elections by thirds.

(2) The council must produce an explanatory document.

(3) The council must make the explanatory document—

(a) available for public inspection at the council’s principal office at all reasonable times, and

(b) available to the public by such other means as the council thinks appropriate.

(4) The council must publicise these matters—

(a) that the council has resolved to become subject to the new electoral scheme;

(b) that the Electoral Commission is to make provision by order about the operation of, and transition to, the new electoral scheme;

(c) how the explanatory document is available in accordance with subsection (3);

(d) the address of the council’s principal office.

(5) It is for the council to decide how these matters are to be publicised.

(6) An explanatory document is a document which sets out details of the new electoral scheme (so far as the details are known at the time the document is prepared).’.—[Mr. Woolas.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 44

Notice to Electoral Commission

‘(1) A council must comply with this section as soon as practicable after passing a resolution for elections by halves or a resolution for elections by thirds.

(2) The council must give the Electoral Commission notice that it has passed the resolution.’.—[Mr. Woolas.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 45

Electoral Commission to consider whether electoral review is necessary

‘(1) This section applies if the Electoral Commission receive notice under section (Notice to Electoral Commission) that a council has passed a resolution for elections by halves or a resolution for elections by thirds.

(2) As soon as practicable after receiving the notice, the Commission must consider whether to exercise their power under section 13(3) of the Local Government Act 1992 (c. 19) to direct the Boundary Committee to conduct a review of the district in question (or any part of it).

(3) As soon as practicable after deciding whether or not to direct the Boundary Committee to conduct an electoral review, the Commission must give the council notice of the decision.’.—[Mr. Woolas.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 46

Electoral Commission to make order for new electoral scheme

‘(1) Where the Electoral Commission receive notice under section (Notice to Electoral Commission) that a council has passed a resolution, they must—

(a) in the case of a resolution for elections by halves, make an order for elections by halves in relation to the council (see sections (Order for elections by halves: years in which elections are to be held) and (Order for elections by halves: councillors to be elected at ordinary elections));

(b) in the case of a resolution for elections by thirds, make an order for elections by thirds in relation to the council (see sections (Order for elections by thirds: years in which elections are to be held) and (Order for elections by thirds: councillors to be elected at ordinary elections)).

(2) But the Commission must not make the order—

(a) before they have decided whether or not to give the Boundary Committee a direction to conduct an electoral review (see section (Electoral Commission to consider whether electoral review is necessary)(2)), or

(b) if they give such a direction, before the Boundary Committee have concluded the review.’.—[Mr. Woolas.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 47

Order for elections by halves: years in which elections are to be held

‘(1) An order for elections by halves in relation to a council must secure that the ordinary elections of councillors of the council are held in years determined in accordance with this section.

(2) Ordinary elections of the councillors of the council are to be held in—

(a) the first relevant year after the year in which the Electoral Commission makes the order, and

(b) each subsequent year for elections by halves.

(3) In this section—

“relevant year” means 2011 and every fourth year afterwards;

“year for elections by halves” means 2012 and every second year afterwards.’.—[Mr. Woolas.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 48

Order for elections by halves: councillors to be elected at ordinary elections

‘(1) An order for elections by halves in relation to a council must make provision for the election and retirement of councillors in accordance with this section.

(2) In the case of the ordinary elections held in the year determined in accordance with section (Order for elections by halves: years in which elections are to be held)(2)(a)—

(a) all of the councillors are to be elected;

(b) on the fourth day after the elections are held—

(i) the councillors elected in those elections are to come into office, and

(ii) all of the sitting councillors are to retire.

(3) In the case of ordinary elections held subsequently—

(a) one half (or as nearly as may be) of the councillors are to be elected;

(b) on the fourth day after the elections are held—

(i) the councillors elected in those elections are to come into office, and

(ii) the specified sitting councillors are to retire.

(4) The order must include provision for identifying which councillors are to retire in each year in which ordinary elections are to be held (other than the first), including provision for identifying—

(a) the wards affected;

(b) the councillors affected within particular wards.

(5) In this section “specified sitting councillors”, in relation to ordinary elections, means the sitting councillors who are to retire in the year of those elections by virtue of the order.’.—[Mr. Woolas.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 49

Order for elections by thirds: years in which elections are to be held

‘(1) An order for elections by thirds in relation to a council must secure that the ordinary elections of councillors of the council are held in years determined in accordance with this section.

(2) Ordinary elections of the councillors of the council are to be held in—

(a) the first relevant year after the year in which the Electoral Commission makes the order, and

(b) each subsequent year, unless it is a fallow year.

(3) In this section—

“fallow year” means 2013 and every fourth year afterwards;

“relevant year” means—

(c) in relation to a metropolitan district council: 2014 and every fourth year afterwards;

(d) in relation to a non-metropolitan district council: 2011 and every fourth year afterwards.’—[Mr. Woolas.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 50

Order for elections by thirds: councillors to be elected at ordinary elections

‘(1) An order for elections by thirds in relation to a council must make provision for the election and retirement of councillors in accordance with this section.

(2) In the case of the ordinary elections held in the year determined in accordance with section (Order for elections by thirds: years in which elections are to be held)(2)(a)—

(a) all of the councillors are to be elected;

(b) on the fourth day after the elections are held—

(i) the councillors elected in those elections are to come into office, and

(ii) all of the sitting councillors are to retire.

(3) In the case of ordinary elections held subsequently—

(a) one third (or as nearly as may be) of the councillors are to be elected;

(b) on the fourth day after the elections are held—

(i) the councillors elected in those elections are to come into office, and

(ii) the specified sitting councillors are to retire.

(4) The order must include provision for identifying which councillors are to retire in each year in which ordinary elections are to be held (other than the first), including provision for identifying—

(a) the wards affected;

(b) the councillors affected within particular wards.

(5) In this section “specified sitting councillors”, in relation to ordinary elections, means the sitting councillors who are to retire in the year of those elections by virtue of the order.’.—[Mr. Woolas.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 51

Order for elections by halves or elections by thirds: transitional provision

‘(1) An order under section (Electoral Commission to make order for new electoral scheme) (order for elections by halves or for elections by thirds) may include provision about the transition to the council’s new electoral scheme.

(2) Provision made by virtue of this section may, in particular, include provision for the retirement of some councillors after their initial election at times different from those otherwise applying, and for identifying which of them are so to retire.’.—[Mr. Woolas.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 52

Power of Electoral Commission to make incidental etc provision

‘The Commission may by order make incidental, consequential, transitional or supplemental provision in connection with provision made by order under section (Electoral Commission to make order for new electoral scheme) (order for elections by halves or for elections by thirds).’.—[Mr. Woolas.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 53

Position if Electoral Commission acts under existing powers

‘In a case in which—

(a) the Commission give the Boundary Committee a direction to conduct an electoral review (see section (Electoral Commission to consider whether electoral review is necessary)(2)), and

(b) in response to that request the Boundary Committee make recommendations to the Commission for electoral changes,

nothing in this Part requires the Commission to make any provision in relation to matters dealt with, or to be dealt with, by the Commission in an order under section 17 of the Local Government Act 1992 (c. 19) giving effect to those recommendations.’.—[Mr. Woolas.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 54

Publicity for order by Electoral Commission

‘(1) A council must comply with this section as soon as practicable after the Electoral Commission have made an order under section (Electoral Commission to make order for new electoral scheme) (order for elections by halves or for elections by thirds) in relation to it.

(2) The council must produce an explanatory document.

(3) The council must make the explanatory document—

(a) available for public inspection at the council’s principal office at all reasonable times, and

(b) available to the public by such other means as the council thinks appropriate.

(4) The council must publicise these matters—

(a) that the council has become subject to the new electoral scheme;

(b) how the explanatory document is available in accordance with subsection (3);

(c) the address of the council’s principal office.

(5) It is for the council to decide how these matters are to be publicised.

(6) An explanatory document is a document which sets out details of the new electoral scheme.’.—[Mr. Woolas.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 55

Power of council to alter years of ordinary elections of parish councillors

‘(1) This section applies if a council passes a resolution under this Part.

(2) The council may by order make provision that changes the years in which the ordinary elections of parish councillors for any parish situated in the council’s area are to be held.

(3) The power may only be exercised so as to secure that those elections are to be held in years in which ordinary elections of district councillors for a ward in which any part of the parish is situated are to be held.

(4) The order may include transitional provision—

(a) for the retirement of existing parish councillors at times different from those otherwise applying;

(b) for the retirement of some parish councillors after their initial election after the order comes into force at times different from those otherwise applying.’.—[Mr. Woolas.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 56

Terms of reference of review

‘(1) The terms of reference of a community governance review are the terms on which the review is to be undertaken.

(2) The terms of reference of a community governance review must specify the area under review.

(3) Sections (No review being undertaken: duty to respond to petition) and (Review being undertaken: duty to respond to petition) make further provision about the terms of reference of community governance reviews.

(4) Subject to subsection (2), and sections (No review being undertaken: duty to respond to petition) and (Review being undertaken: duty to respond to petition), it is for a principal council—

(a) to decide the terms of reference of any community governance review which the council is to undertake; and

(b) to decide what modifications (if any) to make to terms of reference.

(5) As soon as practicable after deciding terms of reference, the principal council must publish the terms.

(6) As soon as practicable after modifying terms of reference, the principal council must publish the modified terms.’.—[Angela E. Smith.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 57—Council’s power to undertake review.

Government new clause 58—No review being undertaken: duty to respond to petition.

Government new clause 59—Review being undertaken: duty to respond to petition.

Government new clause 60—Power to respond to petition.

New clause 63—Parish councils: power to issue guarantees—

‘(1) A parish council may make and issue a guarantee for a sum, incidental to its support for an activity which is within its powers under this or any other Act.

(2) A guarantee under subsection (1) may be made—

(a) in respect of membership of a company incorporated under the Companies Act;

(b) in respect of membership of an association of local authorities; or

(c) to a voluntary organisation operating in its area.

(3) In exercising the power to make a guarantee under subsection (1), the council must have regard for any limit on the maximum sum that may be guaranteed that the Secretary of State may by order prescribe.’.

Government amendment No. 90.

Amendment No. 164, in clause 57 page 43, line 37, leave out ‘an eligible’ and insert ‘a’.

Amendment No. 165, page 44, line 1, leave out subsection (4).

Amendment No. 166, in clause 58 page 44, line 8, leave out ‘an eligible’ and insert ‘a’.

Amendment No. 167, in page 44, line 13, leave out ‘an eligible’ and insert ‘a’.

Amendment No. 168, in page 44, line 14, leave out ‘an eligible’ and insert ‘a’.

Government amendments Nos. 228 to 233.

Government amendment No. 91.

Government amendments Nos. 234 to 245.

Amendment No. 169, in clause 78 page 54, line 6, at end insert ‘or’.

Amendment No. 170, in page 54, line 8, leave out from ‘councils’ to end of line 9.

Government amendments Nos. 246 and 247.

The new clause and the associated amendments provide clarity about handling community governance petitions and reviews generally. In future, the Secretary of State will have no role in decisions about the creation, abolition or modification of parish councils. Those will be truly local decisions, as they should be.

The Bill provides for local people to petition their local authority to conduct a community governance review. When a council receives a valid petition, it must conduct a review except in the following circumstance: when a petition is received within two years of the receipt of an earlier petition that related to the whole or a significant part of the same area as the recent petition. In such a case, the council need not treat the petition as valid. However, even in those circumstances, a council may treat the later petition as valid and conduct a review in relation to it, if it chooses.

In contrast, when the principal council currently initiates a community governance review, it has no power to treat a petition received while it is undertaking the review or following the conclusion that a review is invalid. That inconsistency should be corrected. Accordingly, we want to give the principal council the flexibility to choose whether to conduct a review when a petition is received within two years of the conclusion of a review of the whole or a significant part of the petition area.

The flexibility is necessary because we want to avoid a position whereby a local authority conducts a community governance review, recommends the creation of a parish council but, the following day, receives another petition requiring it to conduct another review of the same area. Providing a two-year discretionary period will allow authorities to be secure in the knowledge that they will not be required to conduct a review of the same area immediately after the completion of the initial review, but that they have the flexibility to do so if they choose.

I hope that I have convinced the House of the merits of ensuring that the community governance review processes are consistent. The new clauses and amendments will deliver that. We have also tabled several technical amendments. I ask the House to accept the new clause to ensure that the devolved community governance review process works effectively.

First, I broadly welcome the thrust of the Government’s actions, which are to devolve power to parish and town councils. I suspect that, when the power is implemented, local authorities will conduct a review of the authorities in their area, especially if they are brave. I remember that, as a county councillor, I had approximately 15 parishes in my county council ward. Some of our areas—I think especially of Wiltshire—have hundreds of parish councils. Many have strong links but, because of the passage of time, many villages have died out since the parishes were instigated. There will, therefore, be a good argument for a review.

I shall outline my only concerns about the regulations. There is a duty on local authorities to respond to a petition within the terms that the Minister set out. It is, effectively, after two years, but I believe that that is not long enough. Two years is not a great length of time for reviewing all the parishes in an area. Some parishes meet only annually and might have had two or three meetings between the time of the review and the time someone brings forward a petition to change the arrangements yet again.

I suspect that petitions are most likely when a town has expanded and a new estate finds itself in a parish but wants to belong to the town to which it is appended. Even over a period of two or three years, one could easily foresee substantial change in house building as strategic planning takes place and planning permissions are granted, so two years is much too quick. My concern is that the local authority will always have to undertake a review or respond to a particularly vociferous group that is regularly raising petitions. In those circumstances, a longer term of more than two years—perhaps five or 10 years—would be more sensible. Nothing changes substantially, except perhaps where a town is growing and a new estate is expanding into a parish adjacent to a new town. The Government are too generous in allowing these petitions, which may well cause a problem for some authorities.

Is a petition time limited? Clause 60(3) stipulates that if the area has

“fewer than 500 local government electors, the petition must be signed by at least 50 per cent. of the electors”.

Various requirements and thresholds are set out for a community governance petition, but I did wonder whether a petition would be time limited. Could a petition last three, four, five or six years, eventually reaching a point that triggers a response from the council? If so, that would be wrong. If someone is to gain a significant amount of support for a change in the parish arrangements, there should be a time frame within which they should have to raise the petition. Otherwise, someone could raise petitions over a much longer period.

If an authority is having to deal with a petition of 2,000 names, the council concerned should at least look into the number of names on it to establish before undertaking a community governance review whether they are fairly current. Presumably, under the clause, they would have to be local government electors, so to qualify, the petition should include an electoral number or an address against the names. Are we talking about the current electoral position? In other words, if someone wants to raise a petition for a community governance review, will they have to use the current year’s electoral register in order that people qualify?

The provisions are still not clear, so the Government should provide some reassurances about how petitions will be raised. If we are placing a duty on a local authority, which may involve a cost to that authority, it is perfectly proper that a petition should be raised quickly in the appropriate manner and responded to accordingly. The petition should be time limited. Two years is far too short a period for the council to respond. It should be rather longer; otherwise, vociferous groups could be rushing around to raise petitions in order to change arrangements, causing all sorts of difficulties for local authorities, which have a duty under the Bill to respond.

I declare an interest immediately as a town councillor of some 20 years’ standing, although I do not intend to talk about all my experiences. I want to put on record my congratulations to the Government on pressing forward with the advancement of parish and town councils. It is a long overdue change and I hope that urban areas in Britain will realise the benefits of truly local councils.

I want to raise one issue that has always concerned me, which I am still a bit unclear about, and I hope that the Minister will put me straight when she responds. Talking about a principal council implies that there is such a thing, but I am still unclear where the authority lies in three-tier arrangements, where there are parish and town councils and a county and a district council. It is not uncommon to have parish and town councils that are popular with another layer of government but unpopular with the third layer of government. In my county of Gloucestershire, the county council has always been reasonably favourable towards parish and town councils, but that sentiment has not always been shared by all district, city or, indeed, borough councils.

It is a nice notion that a petition will gain universal support among the hierarchy of those other councils, but I can envisage one layer encouraging a petition only for it to be shot down by another layer. I therefore hope that the Minister can clarify exactly what is meant when we talk about a principal council. Where there is conflict, the new clauses seem to clarify the situation, but will there be a clear outcome so that rather than seeing a battle within local government, we get what we all want: proper representation at the most appropriate level, which to my mind is the most local level.

I rise to speak to my new clause 63, which deals with the power to issue guarantees in respect of parish councils. I preface my remarks by echoing what the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) said, as it is, indeed, welcome that the Government recognise the value of parish councils. I was lucky enough a little while ago to secure an Adjournment debate on the subject of parish councils and the Minister for Local Government replied to it, making clear his personal support for them. It was perhaps one of our more discursive Adjournment debates, lasting several hours, and it provided a very good opportunity to discuss the powers of parish councils.

My new clause deals with a much narrower issue. I raised the matter on 22 January on Second Reading of what is charmingly abbreviated in Hansard as the “Local Government in Health” Bill. I hope that we are talking about local government in health rather than otherwise. I raised a point that had been brought to my attention by the Somerset Association of Local Councils about the power to issue a guarantee. The Secretary of State, responding to my intervention, said:

“The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point that we are actively considering with local parishes. We are seeking to find a way forward, but I shall certainly correspond with him to see whether we can address the problem.”—[Official Report, 22 January 2007; Vol. 455, c. 1151.]

I was rather pleased with that reply, as it sounded as if there was a possibility of making progress, but I have to say—I am not being over-critical of the Department—that I have not received any such correspondence from the Secretary of State or other Ministers since. According to my interlocutors in local councils, nor are the National Association of Local Councils or the Society of Local Council Clerks aware of having had such discussions since that intervention as we had hoped might take place on this specific issue.

I looked into the matter in more depth subsequently and noticed that a similar issue was discussed—though not in the same terms—in relation to local government legislation in the other place on 16 July 2003. Lord Hanningfield—not in my party, but a man I well know as leader of the Conservative group on the Association of County Councils when I was the leader of the Liberal Democrat group—raised a broadly similar issue in that debate. He was told in due course by the Minister that the matter was under review, and that active discussions would take place to find a solution. I am not waiting with bated breath for a response from the Government.

We discussed the question of parish councils in London in some detail in Committee. Without repeating those arguments, I want to stress that the misgivings expressed by the representative body of the London boroughs, London Councils, still remain. We understand the devolutionary sentiment that, in principle, lies behind the measures, but it remains an issue that there does not appear to be any significant demand in London for parish councils. The proposal runs the risk of offending the tradition and turbulence tests set by the Minister for Local Government. If either of those tests were applied, we would not be going down this route in London.

I have also endeavoured to answer the Pratt’s Bottom question, and made a point of visiting that part of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam). The general consensus there was that the principal concerns about a parish council were whether it would cost any more, and whether Ken Livingstone would have anything to do with it. Such prospects did not elicit an enthusiastic response. I do not think that any evidence has been forthcoming apart from what we heard earlier in regard to a great upsurge in the demand for parish councils.

My colleagues and I were grateful for the Government’s acceptance of the need to ensure that community cohesion was an important consideration in the decision to set up parish councils, especially in the London context, for reasons that we all know and on which I do not need to elaborate. I hope that I can be assured that the petition provisions in the new clauses will not undermine that. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) said about the need for safeguards against abuse of the right to petition—such as people keeping them going for a long time—and the need to ensure that petitions are genuinely up to date and representative.

There are those who might, in London, seek to establish parish councils for reasons that would not advance community cohesion. We think the Government were right to include safeguards for purposes of community cohesion, and some of the safeguards suggested by my hon. Friend in respect of the way in which petitions are conducted may be particularly relevant in that context.

I thank Members for their contributions. The tone of our discussion has reflected our discussions in Committee on this and other issues. I, too, was surprised that the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) did not speak to his own amendments, but I shall be able to respond to what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said about his new clause.

The hon. Member for Poole was worried about the two years that must elapse before a petition can be presented again. He thought that the Government were being too generous, and that the period was not long enough. Much as I would like to take credit for that generosity, I must ascribe it to the hon. Gentleman’s own party. Our proposal reflects a provision in the Local Government and Rating Act 1997, introduced by the last Government, which also allowed a two-year period between petitions. We are applying the provision to community governance reviews in general.

The hon. Gentleman asked about limits in relation to signatures. Clause 60(3) states that

“if the area to which the petition relates has fewer than 500 local government electors, the petition must be signed by at least 50% of the electors”.

The hon. Gentleman asked what would happen if it took six years to collect the signatures. I suspect that during that time it might be necessary to go back and start again, as many electors might have moved on and might no longer be on the electoral roll. The electoral roll will enable councils to ensure that a petition is valid.

Both the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) asked which would be the principal council. The principal council will be the council that currently makes recommendations to the Secretary of State, whether it is a district council, a metropolitan authority or a London borough. There will be no conflict, because county councils have no governance role and no say in the matter.

The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome asked about the power to promote well-being, which was raised in other amendments. I can tell him that we would have to reject the Conservative proposals to extend that power, because its application could be very broad. We do not seek to place constraints on parishes’ expenditure, but we believe that there must be safeguards to ensure that the power is not abused. Parish councils vary enormously in size, shape and general nature. The largest is Weston-super-Mare, which is larger than some of the smaller district councils. There will be a basis for eligibility, which we are discussing with the National Association of Local Councils and other stakeholders, including the Local Government Association. We intend to draw on the guidance provided by the quality parish scheme. If amendments Nos. 164 to 168 are pressed to a vote, we will reject them for those reasons.

In new clause 63, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome has tried to deal with an issue that I know has concerned him for some time. I have some sympathy with what he said and I think that the issue needs clarification, but I would have to advise the House to reject the amendment if it were put to a vote—although the hon. Gentleman said that he was merely testing the water. I believe that there are defects in the drafting of the new clause. I also believe that we need to understand all the implications of the policy that it recommends, and any risks that it would pose to council tax payers in relation to parish precepts.

I think Peter Lacey would probably own up to being a little older than 25, but I am grateful for the tone of the Minister’s response. She proposes, in clause 57, to give the power to some parish councils. I understand why she might not wish to give plenipotentiary powers to all parish councils, but I think that it is worth considering whether a power, limited in whatever way within the budget of an individual council, can be constructed. I should be happy to meet the Minister, but it would be helpful if I could bring representatives of local government with me so that they could raise their concerns and, perhaps, provide answers to some of the concerns that she has expressed.

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman suggests a meeting. It is important for the issues to be clarified, and I appreciate the tone of his comments as well.

I did not realise how much I had missed hearing about Pratt’s Bottom and Badgers Mount in Committee—but let me turn to amendments Nos. 169 and 170. All Members have made clear their views on the contribution parish councils make to the community. Parish councils enhance the democratic life of communities, and do a power of good in helping to make them better places in which to live and work where there is a demand for them. For many years there have been parish councils all over the country, except in London.

In the past, parish councils have always required the Secretary of State’s consent. The district council, or principal council, considers the matter and advises the Secretary of State, but it invariably ends up on my desk. I think it nonsensical for a Minister who has never been to an area—which may be very small—and may not even know where it is until he or she looks at a map, to decide whether the area should have a parish council. The devolutionary aspect of the Bill is that the Secretary of State’s consent is no longer required, but it is difficult to justify not extending those devolved rights to London: we do not think we can deny London the same rights as other areas.

I understand the concerns raised about such issues as community cohesion, and they have been taken on board. We are already holding discussions with London councils, the Local Government Association and others on the guidance that could be issued to local authorities. Community cohesion is important, and the whole reason for establishing parish councils is their ability to contribute to it. It was a meeting that I had with Councillor Cockell that produced the Government amendments on community governance review protection periods. We are listening to what is being said to us, and a working group including London councils, the NALC and a number of other bodies is examining the guidance with us.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 57

Council’s power to undertake review

‘A principal council may undertake a community governance review.’.—[Mr. Watts.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 58

No review being undertaken: duty to respond to petition

‘(1) This section applies if these conditions are met—

(a) a principal council receives a community governance petition which relates to the whole or part of a principal council’s area;

(b) at the time the petition is received, the council is not in the course of undertaking a community governance review.

(2) The principal council must undertake a community governance review that has terms of reference that allow for the petition to be considered.

(3) But the duty in subsection (2) does not apply if—

(a) the principal council has concluded a previous community governance review within the relevant two-year period, and

(b) in the council’s opinion the petition area covers the whole or a significant part of the area to which the previous review related.

For further provision about this case, see section (Power to respond to petition).’.—[Mr. Watts.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 59

Review being undertaken: duty to respond to petition

‘(1) This section applies if the following conditions are met—

(a) a principal council receives a community governance petition which relates to the whole or part of a principal council’s area;

(b) at the time the petition is received, the council is in the course of undertaking a community governance review (“the current review”);

(c) the petition area is wholly outside the area under review.

(2) The principal council must follow one of the options in subsection (4), (5) or (6).

(3) But the duty in subsection (2) does not apply if—

(a) the principal council has concluded a previous community governance review within the relevant two-year period, and

(b) in the council’s opinion the petition area covers the whole or a significant part of the area to which the previous review related.

For further provision about this case, see section (Power to respond to petition).

(4) The first option mentioned in subsection (2) is for the principal council to modify the terms of reference of the current review so that they allow for the petition to be considered.

(5) The second option is for the principal council to undertake a community governance review that—

(a) is separate from the current review, and

(b) has terms of reference that allow for the petition to be considered.

(6) The third option is for the principal council to—

(a) modify the terms of reference of the current review,

(b) undertake a community governance review that is separate from the current review (“the new review”), and

(c) secure that (when taken together)—

(i) the terms of reference of the current review (as modified), and

(ii) the terms of reference of the new review,

allow for the petition to be considered.’.—[Mr. Watts.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 60

Power to respond to petition

‘(1) In any of the following cases where a principal council receive a community governance petition, it is for the council to decide what action (if any) to take under section (Council’s power to undertake review) (power to undertake review) or (Terms of reference of review)(4)(b) (power to modify terms of review) in response to that petition.

(2) The first case is where—

(a) section (No review being undertaken: duty to respond to petition) applies (no review being undertaken when petition received), but

(b) the duty in section (No review being undertaken: duty to respond to petition)(2) does not apply because of section (No review being undertaken: duty to respond to petition)(3) (no duty to respond to petition because previous review concluded in relevant two-year period).

(3) The second case is where—

(a) section (Review being undertaken: duty to respond to petition) applies (review being undertaken when petition received: petition area wholly outside area under review), but

(b) the duty in section (Review being undertaken: duty to respond to petition)(2) does not apply because of section (Review being undertaken: duty to respond to petition)(3) (no duty to respond to petition because previous review concluded in relevant two-year period).

(4) The third case is where these conditions are met—

(a) a principal council receives a community governance petition which relates to the whole or part of a principal council’s area;

(b) at the time the petition is received, the council is in the course of undertaking a community governance review;

(c) the petition area is wholly or partly inside the area under review.’.—[Mr. Watts.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 62

Electoral Commission and Boundary Committee: reviews and recommendations

‘(1) Section 13 of the Local Government Act 1992 (c. 19) (reviews and recommendations of Electoral Commission and Boundary Committee) is amended as follows.

(2) For subsection (5)(d) substitute—

“(d) in the case of a district council that is subject to a scheme for elections by halves or by thirds, or that has resolved to revert to being subject to such a scheme under Part 2 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, the desirability of securing that an appropriate number of councillors is elected in each ward at each ordinary election of councillors.”

(3) After subsection (5) insert—

“(5A) For the purposes of this section—

(a) a council is “subject to a scheme for elections by halves” if one half (or as nearly as may be) of its councillors are to be elected in each year in which it holds ordinary elections of councillors;

(b) a council is “subject to a scheme for elections by thirds” if one third (or as nearly as may be) of its councillors are to be elected in each year in which it holds ordinary elections of councillors;

(c) the number of councillors elected in a ward at an ordinary election of councillors is “appropriate”—

(i) in the case of a scheme for elections by halves, if it is divisible by 2, and

(ii) in the case of a scheme for elections by thirds, if it is divisible by 3.”’.—[Mr. Watts.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 34

Executive arrangements: move to alternative arrangements

‘(1) The Local Government Act 2000 (c.22) as amended as follows.

(2) For section 33(5) substitute—

“(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for or in connection with enabling a local authority which is operating executive arrangements to operate alternative arrangements in place of the executive arrangements.”.’.—[Alistair Burt.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

No. 133, in clause 40, page 23, line 32, leave out ‘specified in subsections (2) to (5)’.

No. 141, page 24, line 14, leave out subsection (6).

No. 135, in clause 42, page 25, line 31, at end insert—

‘33ZA  Changing governance arrangements

(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.’.

No. 136, page 26, leave out lines 4 to 10 and insert—‘A local authority in England which is operating alternative arrangements may—’.

No. 137, page 26, leave out lines 13 to 18.

No. 138, page 26, leave out lines 23 to 25.

No. 139, page 26, line 28, leave out from ‘arrangements’ to end of line 29.

Government amendment No. 12.

No. 142, page 27, leave out line 44.

No. 140, page 28, line 9, leave out ‘33A’ and insert ‘33ZA’.

Government amendment No. 213.

No. 143, page 29, line 19, leave out ‘or elected executive’.

No. 144, page 29, leave out line 23.

No. 145, page 29, leave out from beginning of line 44 to end of line 2 on page 30.

No. 146, page 30, line 3, leave out ‘or elected’.

No. 147, page 30, line 7, leave out from ‘executive’ to end of line 8.

No. 148, page 30, line 11, leave out from ‘mayor’ to end of line 12.

Government amendments Nos. 214 and 215.

No. 149, page 31, leave out line 19.

Government amendments Nos. 216 and 217.

No. 150, in clause 43, page 32, line 22, leave out ‘an elected executive,’.

Government amendments Nos. 13 and 14.

No. 151, in page 33, line 1, leave out clause 45.

Government amendment No. 15.

No. 152, in clause 46, page 34, line 17, leave out from ‘mayor’ to end of line 18.

No. 153, in clause 47, page 34, leave out line 29.

No. 154, page 34, line 30, leave out ‘other’.

Government amendments Nos. 16 and 17.

No. 155, in clause 49, page 35, line 2, leave out subsection (1).

No. 259, in page 38, line 1, leave out Clause 51.

Government amendments Nos. 18, 218, 222 to 225, 57 and 226.

I shall do my best to be brief. New clause 34 stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) and a number of other colleagues. The Bill has generally been consensual, but now the rubber will hit the road: we now need to ask the Minister to choose from some of the issues at the heart of the Bill.

Committee members will remember a champagne moment when the Minister, having been chided for being over-centralist, stood back from the Front Bench and said, “I want to be devolutionary; let them choose.” That was a moving moment and, as we have seen in Committee and in the Chamber, he has in limited respects been open to allowing people to choose, but not on executive arrangements. I have three particular concerns to raise, and as I suspect that a couple of other Members want to speak I shall do my best to be brief.

Local freedom is a key issue. At the heart of our debates on the Bill is an issue that we have discussed intermittently during its passage: whether it is truly devolutionary. The Bill provides an acid test. Local decision making is key to local government. The Government are right that local authorities need to have good, clear, effective and efficient leadership, but it must be local. Our principal complaint with the Bill is that the Government are being prescriptive in having a limited number of models for efficient and effective local government. We simply pose this question: why?

Do the Government truly trust local government to deliver? The Minister has made much of the progress of local government over the past 10 years, which he claims is due to the targets exerted by Government, but which local government feels owes much to its ability to respond.

I and my ministerial colleagues always acknowledge the three factors that have led to improvement: the hard work of councillors and officers; the extra resources provided by this successful Government; and the performance regime. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that.

I am pleased that the Minister took the chance to respond to that. I am sure that he would agree that a key factor is the ability of local councils to have responded and to have worked hard.

This is where the issue of trust comes in. Our contention—and that of many Committee members—is simply that the Government should not be so prescriptive. Do they truly trust local government? Have lessons been learned from 20 years of central direction to cure various ills in local government, and from local government’s response to that? Now is the time to let local councils choose what model of leadership they want.

There are serious penalties if councils get things wrong. The electorate is increasingly sophisticated. The Minister said recently that it is increasingly hard to discern national swings in local elections. He is right. One of the things that is interesting about local election results nowadays is that councils get thrown out of office for poor performance no matter what political hue they are—and no matter what hue are the Government of the day. Councils know that there are now penalties if they get things wrong. So why cannot we let local authorities choose what executive model they think suits them best?

I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman and I agree that it is not for the Secretary of State to prescribe matters in such detail. However, I am puzzled that the hon. Gentleman’s new clause 34 gives all the power to the Secretary of State to prescribe, and if he or she chooses not to prescribe, not to do so. That is an internal paradox in the new clause.

No, what I am doing is using this new clause as a symbolic way of opening up the possibility of a variety of alternative arrangements being available to local councils. We could move a series of new clauses; I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has had the opportunity to go through all the amendments in this group. We have chosen this one to be a key new clause, and it allows us to raise the possibility of alternative arrangements, and we intend to press it to a Division.

In Committee, we raised the growing risk of separation of the people from local and national Government, and the sense that their vote now counts for rather less than it used to. The Local Government Association supports our amendments and agrees that local councils should have more say in which executive arrangements best suit them. Therefore, my first point was about the need for greater local freedom.

My second point is that the prescriptive models used do not allow the opportunity to go for some form of revised committee system. I ask Members to note that I did not propose that we go back to the old committee system. We seek to give authorities who so desire the opportunity to go to a modernised and revised committee system.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that some authorities, such as North Cornwall district council in my constituency, have never moved from that committee system. What proposals does he have for councils that feel that the arrangements are working well for them?

It is a fortunate council, but the vast majority of councils have had to move from that system. We wish to enable those authorities that want to retain such a system to continue with the alternative arrangements for as long as they wish. That is contrary to the determination of Government; they would sooner or later close down that option.

The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby) was particularly forthright in his contributions in Committee. For example, he said:

“I do indeed recall the strengths of that system as well as its weaknesses. I am convinced that those strengths can be used to produce a reformed committee structure and a system that would enable the leadership and accountability that we have all said we would wish local government to deliver.”––[Official Report, Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Public Bill Committee, 20 February 2007; c. 457.]

He is right. Committee members of different parties expressed the same sense. We could not quite understand why the Government were so adamant about closing down the option of a revised committee system.

In the spirit of the debates that we have had, I urge the Minister to think again when this Bill passes to another place, and to listen to councillors who say that the change from the committee system has disfranchised a number of back-bench councillors who want more to their role than just scrutiny. They want to deliver more. Councillor Phyllis Gershon of Bedfordshire county council—I am delighted to have had the chance to mention Bedfordshire, as it has not been included in the place-naming during the course of the evening—has persistently told me that councils need that option. It should not be forced on them, but it should be an option for them. I ask the Minister: why be so prescriptive?

I of course endorse everything that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) said, but I speak in support of amendment No. 259, in my name. It would delete clause 51 and the time limit for holding referendums. Clause 51 states:

“A local authority…in England may not hold more than one referendum in any period of ten years”.

It also says that the clause

“applies to referendums held before, and referendums held after, this section comes into force.”

It seems to me that the clause has been put in specifically to deal with what might be described as the Doncaster problem.

The elected mayor in Doncaster is very unpopular and has become a bit of a laughing stock. The residents of Doncaster have put together a petition, with the necessary signatures, to have a further referendum on whether to scrap the mayoral system in the area, much to the embarrassment, no doubt, of the Labour party in Doncaster and of the Government, who have tried so hard to push the mayoral system in this country. This clause appears to be a cynical attempt to prevent the good people of Doncaster from being able to get rid of their mayor. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm—if he will not accept my amendment—that the people of Doncaster, who have gathered the thousands of names on the petition to get rid of the mayor—that has been endorsed by Doncaster council—will not be prevented from having a referendum to get rid of their unpopular mayor. I hope that the Minister will address that point when he winds up.

rose—

Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was in his place for the beginning of this debate, so I shall call the Minister.

This debate has, not surprisingly, repeated some of the points that were made in Committee. I shall try to answer some of the questions that have been raised. I acknowledge the limits to devolution that the Bill imposes and I shall try to convince the House of the justification for them. The Government believe that those limits are in the best interests of local government and sustainable communities.

I am glad that the main point—that the Bill is devolutionary—is broadly accepted. Last week, I cited the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), a previous Minister with responsibility for local government, that change in local government finance was a marathon, not a sprint. Change in the power relationships between central and local government, and local government and its communities, is, if not a marathon, at least a 10 km run. It should certainly not be done in haste, and it is important to build consensus.

The second principle is that in devolving powers, the Government—and, I suggest, Parliament—have a responsibility to do so to structures and functions that can take responsibility on behalf of the public. The logical consequence of the argument of the devolutionist without any catalyst is that local areas should be free to choose their own form of local government. I think that there are limits and I shall explain what they are.

Our arguments are not just based on opinion; there is substantial research to back up our points. Indeed, I will shortly publish a paper entitled “Does Leadership Matter?”, including research showing that the two main current models of executive arrangements—directly elected mayors and leaders with cabinets—demonstrate benefits in visibility and accountability and the streamlined focus for decision-making that is needed in modern local government. I do not base my arguments only on that report, of course, because the House has yet to see it. It will be published shortly, but there is further evidence that has already been published.

It is true—the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire put the argument in Committee—that the best leaders can be successful in any system. The argument of some who propose elected mayors often relies on the example of New York in recent years, but they fail to point out that New York went bankrupt under a system of elected mayors. It does not logically follow that the structural system for governance of local authorities necessarily provides strong leaders. Neither does the opposite follow—there could be a complete shambles and strong leaders emerge from that—

Tony Blair.

The hon. Gentleman mentions my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and I would agree with him. We were in a bit of a mess and my right hon. Friend did come and sort things out. God bless him for that. There are only four or five weeks left before jokes about public schoolboys can become part of our debates again without any embarrassment on our part. I am looking forward to that because I am told that there are five old Etonians in the shadow Cabinet—[Hon. Members: “Only five!”] That is just Eton—you are frowning at me, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Order. I was merely wondering where this was going, and I suspect that it is further and further away from the new clause.

I am desperately trying to sustain the argument, with little success, that the structure of local government has a relationship to the strength of leadership, but is not a causal effect. My argument is that the arrangements we have suggested are more likely to lead to such circumstances.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I will of course give way to my hon. Friend, as she represents Stoke, which has a unique system.

I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend’s remarks, but Stoke-on-Trent is in a category all of its own, because of the system of a council manager and an elected mayor, and that was mentioned specifically in the White Paper. Can he reassure me that arrangements are in hand to enable us to proceed with the promised commission so that in Stoke-on-Trent we can reach our own decision on how to proceed at the next local elections, which will be relevant to finding a way forward?

My hon. Friend once again takes the opportunity to promote the case for Stoke-on-Trent, and I commend her for that. Only two local authorities in this country present separate cases. Stoke-on-Trent is the only one to have adopted the elected mayor with the city manager model, and that is different from the one in Doncaster to which the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) referred. In addition, the council in Brighton and Hove also has separate arrangements. The commission is going ahead and announcements will be made shortly about Stoke-on-Trent, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her support in that process.

Of course, there are caveats. Just as other councils face restrictions on what they can and cannot do, if the commission proposed to create a kibbutz for governance in Stoke-on-Trent I would not accept it. However, on a more serious note, the answer to the question poised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Joan Walley) is yes, very definitely. Part of my argument is that Stoke-on-Trent needs that model of governance, but it has its limits.

I am not making a cause and effect argument. The evidence is that the most likely improvements are made when strong executive arrangements are in place.

What makes the Minister think that the models that he has chosen this time will have a higher ratio of success than last time? He has already said that the Stoke model had not succeeded, so why does he believe that central direction is essential to the process?

First, in Stoke, Doncaster and elsewhere it is important that we separate the office holder from the office. The hon. Member for Shipley referred to a petition in Doncaster. I am not sure what it has to do with him as Doncaster is not in his bit of the county, but he asked a question and I shall answer it. The petition relates to the position of the mayoralty, but we must separate that post from the person who occupies it. If an electorate want to remove a mayor, they can do so at the ballot box, but separate arrangements govern changing the office, as I shall explain later.

I shall lay out some of the evidence that I hope will convince the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell). It is generally accepted by local authorities that the new arrangements have, on the whole, led to some improvement. For example, a recent survey of councillors and officers showed that 71 per cent. believe that leadership by executive councillors has had a positive impact on the performance improvement in their authorities. More than half of councillors and nearly three quarters of officers believe that the new arrangements have made the executive more effective in articulating the vision for their area.

What is important is that, through the new arrangements, the Government and Parliament are asking local authorities to take on more responsibilities in their work with other public sector agency partners and with the private and voluntary sectors in their areas. Sir Michael Lyons described that role as “place shaping”.

I know that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove accepts that the process of devolution and decentralisation is about more than devolving responsibilities to local government. It is also about devolving those responsibilities from Whitehall to the other public sector partnerships in a local area. That is why the public’s requirement for strong executive leadership goes beyond the council itself and includes services across their area.

Secondly, to complete the jigsaw, this Bill builds on the arrangements for overview and scrutiny put in place by previous legislation. Those arrangements cover the work of the local authority and all public sector and other organisations in the delivery of local government services. Indeed, this Bill brings health and local government closer together.

I agree with every word of the last couple of paragraphs uttered by my hon. Friend the Minister, and that is why I believe that this is such a good Bill. Throughout the debate, we have acknowledged that it extends the range of choices available to local authorities. It does not do so universally—sometimes the range is extended in some directions more than others—and we have argued about that previously. However, does he agree that the provisions under discussion extend the choice available to local authorities in such a way that they are able to find the best direction for governance locally? Ironically, given what we have heard this afternoon, would not new clause 34 reduce the options available to councils?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Ironically—although perhaps it is not so surprising—we are having a topsy turvy debate. The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire claims that his proposals would benefit devolution, even though they do not. To be fair to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, his proposals do promote devolution, although I think that they go too far. However, we should not be surprised at all that: the Conservatives are centralists, while the Liberal Democrats are devolutionists without responsibility. I guess that explains where we have ended up. I must try to rebuild the consensus that I have been crafting so carefully for the past two years and which I may have destroyed in the last 10 seconds. This debate has revealed the divergence of view between the Liberal Democrats and the main Opposition party, whose proposed new clauses would reduce the range of choice that the Government are offering.

Neither I nor the Government claim, as the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire suggested, that councils are “clamouring” after the elected executive model. I readily concede that they are not.

Not yet.

They will be clamouring for it in the future, of course, but the serious point is that the idea for directly elected executives came from local authorities themselves. Given that that model meets the criteria of providing a strong leadership model with clearer visibility and accountability, it would be wrong to rule it out. My problem with the old committee structure, and with most of the enhanced committee structures that I have seen in practice, is that they do not provide clear leadership. I think that the changes in the Bill will get the balance right.

Will the Minister give way?

I will because the hon. Gentleman has been consistent on this point.

I very much appreciate the Minister giving way. He said that directly elected executives had the support of local authorities—that is, in the plural. The LGA told us in evidence that one local authority supported the idea, but I discovered subsequently that that evidence had not been discussed in the council before it was submitted. What other council shares that point of view and thus justifies his assertion that local authorities, in the plural, supported the directly elected executive model?

I did not say that local authorities supported that model, but that the idea had come from them. That is a different matter, but the answer to his question is embodied in the strong executive and Liberal Democrat leader of Cornwall county council. I could also speak about Stockton, Durham and elsewhere, but the serious point is that the idea has support in local authorities that cover very large geographical areas. There, the traditional system of making up the cabinet from divisional ward members requires huge amounts of travel, often for short meetings. In part, the idea of the directly elected executive arose from the geography of those areas—but, hey, let us not worry about that. If the people in those areas want to pick up that option, they can; if they do not, they do not have to.

Does my hon. Friend accept that although strengthening executive powers as he suggests has certain advantages, it may increase the alienation of back-bench councillors? Is he concerned about that?

One important argument about the benefits of the old committee system is that it brought experience to so-called back-bench councillors, or front-line councillors as many people refer to them, but I believe that the overview and scrutiny process that is now embedding provides that experience. The process can increasingly involve not just scrutinising executive decisions but making recommendations and reports, rather as our Select Committees do, and crucially it does so across the public sector, not just in the institution of the council. My second argument, with which I hope my hon. Friend will agree, is that we are kidding ourselves if we think that the old committee system did not involve an executive; it had a hidden executive—the chairs of the senior committees were, ipso facto, the executive of the council. Our model offers a better way forward.

To the first point made by the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire—let them choose—I say, yes but within limits. The hon. Gentleman’s second point—that the revised committee decision-making system should be a matter for local councillors—does not, I fear, meet the new statutory framework that the Bill puts in place. On clamouring for elected executives, the hon. Gentleman has a point, but let him give me a champagne moment: let them have it if they want it and we will not worry about it. Perhaps we could call it the Burt system.

The hon. Member for Shipley made a point about Doncaster. I emphasise the fact that his point related to the office holder, not to the office. Our argument for a 10-year period is a fair one because we want a balance between devolution and stability, and a four-year mayoral office could be bedevilled by the threat of a referendum—I use the word “threat” deliberately—often inspired for mischievous purposes. Of course, the public have the right to reverse the decision and the principle enshrined in the Bill is that the method by which an executive arrangement was chosen is the method by which it can be replaced. The evidence is that the mayoral models are improving the situation in those areas—

indicated dissent.

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I could take him to Torbay where the Conservative mayor is doing a good job. The idea of having a mayor was opposed at first, but it is now embedded. The model might not suit neighbouring councils in that region or elsewhere, but we have made a change that is delivering improvements in local areas.

Under the Bill, the right to petition for a referendum will be taken away and councils will decide about whether to have an elected mayor. In Birmingham, the local authority does not want an elected mayor but, as my hon. Friend knows, a huge campaign for a petition has been mounted by the Birmingham Evening Mail. What will happen in such communities?

My hon. Friend raises an important point. The Bill does not take away the right of the public to raise a petition to bring about a new executive model; it enhances the power of the council to take that decision, should it so wish—not as an alternative to a petition, but in addition to that right.

With those arguments, I ask the House to resist the new clause and to vote for the Government amendments.

I am grateful to the Minister and I have listened carefully to his arguments, but we intend to press the new clause. It is not good enough to reject a model that many Members and many councillors think valuable and to persist in including an option that no one wants. Given the points we have made about local freedom and local desire to choose, it would be best to allow the fullest possible opportunity for councils to make that choice, so I commend the new clause to the House.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 250, in clause 141, page 97, line 10, leave out from ‘include’ to end of line 11 and insert

‘the principle that the conduct of a member or co-opted member in their private capacity is not covered by this Part of this Act except where it has resulted in a criminal conviction which is directly relevant to the performance of the official functions of the member or co-opted member’.

Amendment No. 251, page 97, line 14, leave out from ‘apply’ to end of line 15 and insert

‘to the conduct of a member or co-opted member in their private capacity where that conduct has resulted in a criminal conviction which is directly relevant to the performance of the official functions of the member or co-opted member’.

Amendment No. 134, page 97, line 15, at end insert—

‘(4B) Such provisions shall include a right of a person who is member of a relevant body to speak and vote at any meeting of that body or of any delegated committee or sub-committee to which he has been appointed in respect of the determination of any planning applications within the area which he represents on that body, not withstanding any disclosure he may have made about his predisposition in respect of that application.’.

Amendment No. 252, page 97, line 19, leave out from ‘apply’ to end of line 20 and insert

‘to the conduct of a member or co-opted member in their private capacity where that conduct has resulted in a criminal conviction which is directly relevant to the performance of the official functions of the member or co-opted member’.

Amendment No. 260, page 99, line 2, leave out clauses 143 and 144.

Government amendments Nos. 61 to 67.

Amendment No. 261, page 105, line 1, leave out clauses 148 to 157.

Government amendments Nos. 68 to 72.

Amendment No. 262, in clause 158, page 112, leave out lines 15 and 16.

Amendment No. 263, page 112, line 27, leave out subsections (1) to (3).

Government amendment No. 73.

Amendment No. 264, in schedule 15, page 190, leave out lines 20 to 24 and insert—

Amendments Nos. 260 to 264, which I also tabled, are consequential to new clause 64, which would abolish the Standards Board for England. From the outset I should declare an interest: my wife has recently been elected to the newly formed Baildon parish council in the village in which I live in Shipley.

The Standards Board for England has become a bit of a laughing stock in local government. It is damaging the reputation and standing of local councillors and local government. Indeed, the Committee on Standards in Public Life has said:

“The system has generated a large number of apparently minor, vexatious and politically motivated complaints”—

I could not have put it better myself.

The number of complaints to the Standards Board has been rising year on year, from 2,948 in 2002-03 to 3,861 in 2004-05. And yet according to Government figures, in the last year for which figures are available only 3 per cent. of complaints resulted in a verdict that the code had been breached, and many of the breaches were very minor offences, such as not showing sufficient respect to people—as the Mayor of London can testify. This constant rise in the number of allegations clearly shows that either standards are not improving as a result of the Standards Board, or the process is fuelling unfounded and malicious complaints.

There is very little comeback for complainants when allegations against local councillors are shown to be vexatious and lacking in substance. Worse, the Standards Board proudly states that for data protection reasons it does not publish the names of people who make allegations. That leaves councillors very exposed to politically motivated and unnecessary complaints. Even worse, it takes so long to investigate complaints. Sir Alistair Graham wrote in a report that research by the Committee on Standards in Public Life suggested that

“the time taken to complete investigations”

was

“an average of 8.5 months”,

with

“a backlog of over 400 cases”.

That obviously has a negative impact on people who are facing complaints, with the smell hanging over them for so long, and also sometimes on the people who have made a complaint, who feel that nothing ever seems to get done.

Despite this absolute shambles, the cost to the Government of the Standards Board is forecast to rise to £9.4 million; that is up from £6.2 million in 2003. So not only is it damaging to local government, but it is a very expensive exercise.

One of the consequences of this situation is that there is a reported shortage of candidates coming forward for places on parish councils, because they do not want to get embroiled in all this nonsense. In my local area we have a shortage of people wishing to stand for the parish council, and I do not think it any coincidence that that has happened since the introduction of the Standards Board.

At this point I must pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) and for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), who wrote a tremendous pamphlet on the Standards Board called “A Question of Standards”. Given that we have limited time, I urge all hon. Members to read that pamphlet, which exposed the problems of the Standards Board and highlighted some of the cases that it has dealt with.

In one case, the Standards Board investigated a complaint of misconduct made against a chap who was a long-standing parish councillor and county councillor, and indeed a churchwarden—an upstanding member of the community. Someone in the parish had baked a loaf of bread, and the lady claimed that this upstanding member of the community refused to eat her bread at a Sunday communion, and that that was tantamount to harassment and humiliation. She deemed him unfit for public office, and complained to the Standards Board. While that allegation was minor, the ridiculous investigations that ensue following such complaints are not uncommon. That emphasises the ridiculous situation that we have got ourselves into.

The chairman of a parish council proposed that a grant of £300 be made to a village club for retired people. Two other councillors declared an interest as club members, and they did not speak or vote on the matter; but because they did not leave the room, an anonymous complaint was made to the Standards Board that they and the two other councillors were in breach of the rules. The resulting investigation lasted nine months, culminating in a full hearing involving 15 people, including lawyers, district councillors and a senior enforcement officer. The hearing lasted four hours. All were found guilty and sent on a training course on how to follow the rules. That particular charade cost the taxpayer thousands and thousands of pounds. Such instances are clearly not uncommon, given that only 3 per cent. of complaints lead to people being found in breach—and that was one of the 3 per cent. The whole situation is a shambles.

There is now more scrutiny of parish councillors and local district councillors than there is of Cabinet Ministers. The Deputy Prime Minister was responsible for introducing the relevant legislation. If the Standards Board applied to Ministers, it is likely that by now, under the system that he set up for parish and district councillors, he would have been suspended.

I have some sympathy with the position taken by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), having seen the cases involving Councillor Paul Dimoldenberg of Westminster city council and the London Mayor, which there is no time to go into.

However, I shall focus on amendments Nos. 250 to 252, which, in effect, have been tabled on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I chair, and give effect to the recommendations of our 11th report and our subsequent monitoring report. In our view, there is no doubt that that the Bill’s proposed extension of the scope of the conduct of local authority members that may be covered by code of conduct engages members’ right to respect for their private life under article 8, and their right to freedom of expression under article 10, of the European convention on human rights. We believe that there is a real risk that those two articles will be breached.

In January 2005 the Committee on Standards in Public Life considered the question in its 10th report. It recommended that the model code should make a clear distinction between private and official conduct, and that private conduct wholly unrelated to an individual’s official capacity should fall outside the ethical framework. The most obvious example of that was the case of the Mayor of London, in which the High Court allowed the Mayor’s appeal on the basis that the code of conduct did not apply because the Mayor was not acting in his official capacity and the code did not extend to regulating the Mayor’s private conduct. So far, so good. However, it appears that the Government want to overturn the decision of the High Court through the proposals in the Bill.

In proceedings in the Public Bill Committee, the Minister for Local Government confirmed that the policy objective was to bring within the code instances where members who were acting outside their official duties received a criminal conviction. He said:

“We are trying to say that the code of conduct should not cover a councillor’s private life, with the caveat that if a criminal conviction was involved, that should be taken on board by the standards committee.”

We welcome that clarification, but that is not what the Bill actually says. As it stands, the Bill provides for a power which, on the face of it, is capable of being exercised so as to make the code of conduct apply to any private conduct of a member. In our view, that is highly likely to give rise to breaches of members’ rights to privacy and freedom of expression under articles 8 and 10. There is nothing in the Bill to confine the power along the lines that the Minister suggested.

Indeed, the hon. Gentleman told the Public Bill Committee that hon. Members might

“have the impression…that we are trying to do the opposite of what we are really trying to do”,

and later added that

“the law has to be widened and clarified so that the code can be narrowed.”––[Official Report, Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Public Bill Committee, 1 March 2007; c. 419-21.]

The members of the Joint Committee simply do not understand that rather puzzling explanation, and we see no reason why the Bill should not expressly state the exact extent to which the code should apply to private conduct by members—for example, by providing that the only private conduct to which the code applies is conduct that has resulted in a criminal conviction.

The second problem that remains is that the Government’s intention appears to be that any criminal conviction, however minor, should be capable of counting as conduct that could reasonably be regarded as bringing a member’s office into disrepute. That would mean that speeding tickets or other regulatory offences of a minor nature would be within the scope of the code of conduct. We agree with the Committee on Standards in Public Life that only private conduct resulting in a criminal conviction relevant to the member’s official duties should be within the scope of the code of conduct.

We corresponded with the Minister and we were not satisfied with the outcome of that correspondence. As the Bill neither states the basic principle that private conduct should not be covered by the code, nor defines an exception to that principle, such as cases in which private conduct has resulted in a criminal conviction, we remain of the view that we should press our amendments. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to that point in the time that he has to reply. If he does not, amendments of a similar nature will inevitably be tabled in the other place, and they will almost certainly be made.

We are trying to give effect to the Government’s stated policy, which we think is a reasonable approach. If it were a question of restricting the code to relevant criminal convictions of a sufficiently serious nature to impinge on someone’s ability to serve as a councillor, we would say, “So be it,” but unfortunately the Government amendments simply do not do that. Our Committee wants legislation that says what it should say; it should confine itself to the narrow requirements of policy, which are acceptable, and not go beyond them, as the legislation does, and impinge on articles 8 and 10 of the European convention on human rights.

In Committee, I spoke at length on that very issue. Is it not the point that many of the complaints made to the Standards Board are frivolous or vexatious, and are made either by political opponents or by the disgruntled? Is it not the case that if we are to have a body such as the Standards Board, we need to tighten up on such complaints and deal with the issues that my hon. Friend is talking about?

My hon. Friend is right, and that is why I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Shipley, who moved a new clause that would abolish the Standards Board. I certainly do not think that we should go that far—there must be a minimum degree of standards—but there is the question of whether what is proposed in the Bill is discriminatory and contrary to article 14. For some reason, we have singled out local government councillors for a regime that is much more rigorous than any that applies to anyone else in public life, including ourselves. After last Friday’s debate, we need to be a little more aware of the fact that we should treat people fairly and equally.

I hope that the Minister will take my Committee’s concerns on board. We are dealing with significant issues of human rights, and it could be argued that the Standards Board has itself been brought into disrepute by some of the cases that it has taken up. If we are serious about maintaining standards in public life, and particularly in local government, we have to be realistic about what we do and do not expect from our councillors.

Debates on first principles are usually the best, even when they are very brief. We know why the Standards Board was set up, and most of us have seen how it has operated over a number of years. Most of us probably know councillors who have been affected by it in one way or another. The most important issue is the length of time that it has taken to deal with many investigations, and the way in which it has operated; it does not seem that there is natural justice in the whole process. The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) made a good point, and we have concerns about widening the scope, but we welcome many of the other issues that the Minister discussed, and the measures that will localise many aspects of standards. Progress is being made, and throughout the Committee stage I was pleased with what the Minister said. In our last general election campaign we opposed the Standards Board, and that may well be our position at the next election, too. We believe that we need to keep the Minister on his toes, so we will support my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) when his new clause is pressed to a Division.

I want to draw the House’s attention to amendment No. 134, in my name and that of my hon. Friends, which addresses a completely different issue: the capacity of local councillors to stick up for their constituents when planning issues are being discussed and voted on by councils. It deals with the difficult doctrine of predisposition and bias, which we spent some time on in Committee.

Bearing in mind what was said in Committee, and the sympathetic words that we have heard from the Minister in respect of matters other than planning, I hope that he now feels able to move forward on the planning issue. I particularly draw his attention to what the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government said yesterday about the importance, under the new planning White Paper, of more community engagement and involvement with planning at the local level. I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that we would be preposterously incapable of delivering that if, every time that there was such engagement, all local representatives were excluded from participating.

I now want to give the Minister the opportunity to say something about that, and the other issues. We shall support the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). Some progress has been made, but more needs to be made.

In the brief time available to me, I shall attempt to respond to the points raised by hon. Members. The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) is clearly a Yorkshireman. He stated what he thinks, and he thinks we should get rid of the Standards Board lock, stock and barrel. He is consistent, although I wish he would get off the fence on some of the other issues. We do not agree with that view, although we agree with part of his analysis. On some occasions the processes have unintentionally damaged the reputation of local government, but we think the return to a more locally based system is right.

There are examples of frivolous complaints, which we have tried to address. Frivolous complaints are made against the police, and the hon. Gentleman would not want us to abolish the police force, and similarly the court and the police court. We have a straightforward disagreement. I respect that. We have put in place measures that will enhance the reputation of local government and provide for a sensible code.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) raises a technically more difficult issue. I understand exactly what he and his Committee are trying to do, but my preference is that the stricture should not be written into the Bill. The code that will apply will meet his intention. I should like more time to consider the matter. The explanation that I gave the Committee was that the code refers to criminal convictions. There was a debate about that definition. The code and the practice will make that clear.

We have agreed with the Standards Board that during this year we and the board will monitor and review the introduction and working of the new code, and we intend to review it afterwards. I argued in Committee that we need to clarify the legislation in order to comply with the judge’s ruling, but it is the code that enforces the ethical regime. My hon. Friend’s intention is met by the new code. He shakes his head. We have a disagreement. I undertake to look at the point. He is probably right to say that it will come up in the other place.

As I have failed to satisfy my hon. Friend, let me try to satisfy the hon. Member for Hazel Grove on the point that he consistently makes about planning. The code of conduct does not prevent a member from having a predisposition towards a particular outcome for a planning proposal. However, where, for example, a councillor is strongly identified in favour of or against a particular planning proposal, that might amount to predetermination, were that member to participate in the decision on that application. As I have said, it is planning case law, not the code, that deals with predetermination. Where predetermination occurs, members have made up their minds about a matter and are not prepared to listen to the arguments raised at the council meeting.

It is important for natural justice that people should get a fair hearing when a planning application is made. As I indicated in Committee, we have been considering the issue of predetermination so that concern to guard against predetermination does not fetter a councillor’s capacity to speak up for the local electorate. We have discussed the matter with the Standards Board, and I can tell the House that at its meeting last week, the board agreed to issue, after consultation, a commentary on predetermination to help members and monitoring officers to understand the situation.

In other words, we believe that it is the application of case law in much too restrictive a manner by monitoring officers that has led to a culture in which councillors have been unable to speak out. It is that case law, not the code of conduct, that is fettering elected councillors. Again, I agree with the intention. It is clearly right that local councillors should be able to speak up for their constituents, but it is also right that people before a planning committee should have a fair hearing. I believe that we can square that circle.

I am delighted that the Minister has acknowledged some of the problems and respects our genuine difference of opinion. None the less, I shall press new clause 64 to a vote.

It being Nine o’clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker, put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [17 May].