asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, there is strong competition from other countries for internationally mobile projects. Projects which do not come to the United Kingdom still generate competition for UK companies. It is sensible to secure the benefits of such projects for the UK where we can. Benefits include supply chain opportunities for existing companies, the creation of new jobs and the introduction of new products and new processes.

My Lords, I must declare an interest. This is a question about Saltaire. Is the Minister aware that both Pace Micro and Filtronic, companies that have their headquarters in Saltaire, have strongly emphasised their efforts to train electronic engineers and technicians in West Yorkshire? Is he also aware of the attempts of the regional development agency to attract in competing foreign investment without making any comparable plans to provide additional training and thus to alleviate the sharp shortage of qualified staff? Is the Minister aware that the shortage of qualified staff in West Yorkshire is due to the happy growth of those companies? Is he also conscious that encouraging Korean, Taiwanese and other companies into the area may lead to inflation and damage British companies?

My Lords, it is open to any region that does not want to receive prospective investors (because it believes that they will pinch skilled labour) to inform the Invest in Britain Bureau so that that region is not included in any visits from foreign investors. However, I believe that that would be an extraordinarily short-sighted view to take. I agree that it is better to focus on, and to take action to rectify, the identified skill shortages in the region. The regional development agency is in a good position to do that. A further weapon will be the learning and skills councils when they are setup. I believe that the problem should be faced on the skills level and not by trying to keep high technology jobs out of the region.

My Lords, is it not a fact that as inward investors in receipt of grants from the Government have to source a high proportion of their materials in the United Kingdom, the growth of inward investment is therefore a great advantage to UK companies?

My Lords, I took that as read. Clearly, we want to attract companies to this country. If such companies do not come here, they will go to other countries and compete against businesses here, which will be of no advantage to them, and competition will be increased. If companies come to this country, all sorts of advantages ensue, not only in terms of bringing in high-skilled jobs, but, as the noble Lord rightly pointed out, in terms of the supply chain.

My Lords, does the Minister believe that there is possibly something wrong with the management of a company that is incapable of planning its labour resources and of attracting labour if it experiences any competition?

My Lords, I can understand the position of a company that has taken a lot of trouble to build up a skilled staff; but there will always be competition and if that does not come from foreign companies, it is likely to come from expanding companies within the region. One has to assume that the way to deal with that is through building up skills rather than trying to keep out competition.

My Lords, can my noble friend make it clear whether he is in favour of inward investment? I do not believe noble Lords on either side of the House are opposed to the single market, it having been introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. Do the Government agree that inward investment is not something that we should oppose?

My Lords, a major task of the DTI is to attract investment into this country. That is done on the basis that it is good for the economy. I assumed that that was understood in the House and that it was not in dispute.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is particularly surprising to see such a Question on the Order Paper in view of the enormous benefit that this country derives, in terms of employment and prosperity, from inward investment, and that it is particularly surprising coming from a party which, given half a chance, would sell us out to a federal united states of Europe and a single currency?

My Lords, one should never be surprised by Questions on the Order Paper. I thought it was in the same category as the third Question on the Order Paper, on beavers!

My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness speaking from the Opposition Front Bench has missed a trick. What is really surprising is the fact that the Liberals used to believe in free trade. One wonders when they abandoned that position. Does the Minister believe that inward investment is the most positive and heartening sign of the world's faith in the success of the British economy? Is not that why we should be in favour of it rather than against it?

My Lords, of course, inward investment has huge benefits. Equally absurd would be a policy that actually tried to encourage companies to come to this country that were low skilled and did not require highly skilled labour. That is exactly the sort of policy of the past from which we are trying to get away.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that this is not a new issue? It is a very old question with which the Liberals have now caught up. Nissan came to this country when I was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. There was some criticism then (for all sorts of xenophobic reasons that Liberals put forward), but that company has contributed not only to the motor industry, but also to the improvement of management skills of all kinds, which have been transferred into the economy at large.

My Lords, I am absolutely amazed that I agree with the noble Lord on an issue on industrial policy.

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that inward investment is good, particularly for those of us who believe in free trade? Can he also confirm that this country and its firms invest far more abroad than people from abroad invest here?

My Lords, we have high ratios in terms of both attracting inward investment and our companies investing abroad. Therefore, we are particularly dependent on free trade and the free movement of capital in such areas, which is greatly to be encouraged.

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that Pace Micro and Filtronic have invested a great deal in training staff, including a new MSc course at Leeds University, subsidies for maths teachers at nine schools in Bradford, and subsidies for people to take further maths and physics at A-level? That has all been carried out at their own expense and has not yet been fully supported by regional authorities. Did I understand the Minister to say that in future RDAs will co-ordinate with regional training requirements when considering inward investment to ensure that those skills are provided and that our home-grown companies are not left to train their staff without any assistance from the Government?

My Lords, the RDAs should look carefully at the skill requirements which follow from inward investment and seek within their powers to take account of that. I confirm that Filtronic received a grant of £5 million to create 500 high quality jobs at the old Fujitsu plant at Newton Aycliffe, County Durham. I have no doubt that that also had an effect on the local supply of labour.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, a review of the management arrangements for Apsley House and the Wellington Museum is under way and we are considering the establishment of an independent charitable trust. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will be asking an outside expert to confirm the viability of such a trust. Key criteria will be safeguards for the public interest with regard to both the collection and the building; enhancing the visitor experience and achieving value for money. This Answer has been cleared with the Wellesley family and the Victoria and Albert Museum.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I have a letter which appeared in the Daily Telegraph this morning, signed by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, which says almost exactly the same thing as the Minister said in answering my Question. Is it in accordance with our conventions that the first statement of government policy should be made in correspondence with the press and not in Parliament? It seems to me rather odd.

I make no criticism of his Grace, the Duke of Wellington, or his family, but the public have a deep interest in this matter. Has not a great deal of public money been spent since 1947, when the 7th Duke gave Apsley House to the nation, on the house and the collection? Would it not be in accordance with the Government's policy of open government to replace press speculation by publishing details of the independent trust to which the Minister referred and the details of any other proposals put forward—for example, by the V&A and English Heritage—so that there could be public debate on this important matter?

My Lords, the noble Lord's two questions are in conflict with each other. First, he chides me that the Secretary of State responded to ill-informed press speculation with a letter in the Daily Telegraph this morning. I am relieved that he recognises that what the Secretary of State is saying is the same as what I am saying; I do not know whether that counts as "joined-up government". But then he goes on to say that it is right that that ill-informed press speculation should be counteracted by the Government.

We are being as transparent as we can. We are considering setting up an independent trust. We want to be sure that it will work in terms of its charitable status; in terms of protecting the building and the collection; improving value for money; and increasing access to Apsley House. We are bringing in somebody from outside, whom we will name as soon as it is agreed, to investigate whether or not that is possible. When we know that, we will make all the details public in relation to the charitable trust. There is no concealment other than on matters which have yet to be decided.

My Lords, while I welcome the setting up of this trust, which seems to be the best way out of the current impasse and difficulties, will my noble friend confirm that access to the house and its magnificent collection, so generously given to the nation by the late 7th Duke, will not be restricted in any way as it has from time to time in the recent past?

My Lords, existing access is not particularly marvellous. There have only been between 40,000 and 50,000 visitors a year over each of the past three years. The house is only open from 11 o'clock until four o'clock. And although a great deal of public money has been spent on the building and marvellous contributions have been made by the Victoria and Albert Museum to the collections in the building, it is not as well known and as valued as it should be. My noble friend is right. We need improvements.

My Lords, I should declare an interest as a former chairman of the trustees of the Victoria and Albert Museum. Will the Minister confirm that, as the Secretary of State made clear to my successor, the fact that he is considering the future management of the Wellington Museum in no way implies or reflects any dissatisfaction whatever on his part with the V&A's stewardship of it?

Further, is the Minister of State aware that, though the Duke of Wellington cares deeply about the wellbeing of the museum, it is perhaps inevitable that the interests of those members of the family who live in the house by virtue of the 1947 Act do not always coincide with the public interest of what has been for 50 years a publicly-funded and national museum? That is why, when I was chairman of the V&A, we set up a Wellington Committee in order to see whether those differences could be reconciled and resolved. The Duke of Wellington was the deputy chairman of that committee.

Is the Minister further aware that the present arrangements give the Wellington Museum unlimited free access to the V&A's curatorial, conservation and warning services? Will the Minister consider whether it is going to be easy for that to be provided under a new trust without additional public expenditure?

My Lords, nothing I have said could be nor should be interpreted as a criticism of the management of the Victoria and Albert Museum. But as the noble Lord knows, there has been conflict between the Victoria and Albert Museum and the family, who occupy part of the house. It is in order to avoid that conflict that we are proposing, by mutual agreement, to set up an independent trust which will neither be dominated by the Wellesley family nor by the Victoria and Albert Museum. Of course, curatorial standards will be part of the consideration in how to set up that trust. The role of the V&A in curatorial standards is not undervalued.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the Government have no plans to introduce the European beaver into England. To do so without a proper licence obtained from the department would be illegal.

My Lords. I do not know whether or not I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. But will my noble friend make it clear that, should the European beaver be introduced, it will be a reintroduction? It is not an alien species. Will she ensure also that if a firm proposal comes forward, it must ensure that the species is settled in an appropriate and socially acceptable environment that will be secure? While it may promote tourist attractions, one hopes that it will not feed peculiar gourmets with a taste for unusual foods.

My Lords, my noble friend has knowledge of gourmet dishes beyond my experience. I am aware of people who have eaten other things, but in my experience people have only worn the fur of the beaver.

My noble friend is wrong. The European beaver is covered by sex—Section 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act.

Section 28!

My Lords, my briefing does not cover the sexual habits of the beaver! It would be treated as a new introduction because it is not a regular visitor to this country.

My Lords, does the Minister recall that many years ago an animal whose name I cannot remember—it is not Alzheimer's—was imported because of its fur (nutria) but became an absolute scourge to farmers on the east side of England, eating all the sugar beet? It was finally eliminated by bounty. I fear that if the beaver was introduced into this country the same could happen, maybe in a different way, but it would be a destructive force for agriculture.

My Lords, the noble Baroness will be aware that the introduction of alien species into this country has done great damage. Grey squirrels are one example. The coypu, mentioned by the noble Baroness, created a problem for the banks of the Norfolk Broads as well as a problem for farmers. I believe that great care should be taken over this matter.

My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that lessons will be learnt from the past, in particular as regards those animals under threat, such as the otter? If beaver are introduced, both species will need to use the same food source; namely, fish. Will the Minister ensure that particular care will be taken to ensure that the position as regards otters is taken into account?

My Lords, clearly that would be a consideration.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that beaver skins make lovely fur coats? Furthermore, does she know whether beaver can be farmed? If so, would this not be a wonderful alternative crop for our hard-pressed farmers?

My Lords, I am not aware that any applications have been made in relation to farming beaver. My Lords, this is an extremely serious question!

For those noble Baronesses and noble Ladies who are Members of this House fortunate—or unfortunate—enough to own a fur coat, it should be remembered that the release of mink into the environment has caused enormous damage.

My Lords, in view of the fact that all governments over many years have encouraged afforestation, is it not illogical for the Government to finance an organisation in Scotland which yesterday announced that it would import beaver? Those animals will destroy countless trees.

My Lords, I am not aware of any policies or plans in hand in the Scottish Parliament on this. However, it must be a matter for that parliament.

My Lords, can the noble Baroness assure the House that if, in the unfortunate circumstance of the beaver being introduced, it will not immediately be appended to the long and irreversible list of endangered species?

My Lords, I believe that I can give that assurance to the noble Earl. Everyone concerned would wish to behave responsibly as regards this matter. It may interest noble Lords to know that we have not received any applications for possums either. I understand that there is a problem with possums in New Zealand. However, they do have one added benefit in New Zealand in that they are very attached to marijuana. They seek it out and eat it all. It may be that the drugs tsar would have an interest.

My Lords, in the unlikely situation of a proper licence being issued for the importation of the European beaver, would a person who had been issued with such a licence be financially liable for the damage that that animal would cause, if any damage were caused at a later date?

My Lords, I would need to seek legal advice on that point because it would depend on the circumstances that applied at the time. That would be the wisest course to take.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the Utilities Bill was published in another place on 21st January this year. An announcement was made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 2nd March in another place that the Government intended to remove the telecoms and water provisions from the Utilities Bill. What remains in the Utilities Bill is a very substantial programme of reform to the framework of gas and electricity regulation which the Government are wholly committed to getting on to the statute book.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the action by the Government of substantially reducing the scope of the Bill, which is passing through its Committee stage in another place, has created a degree of uncertainty about the Government's intentions concerning regulation of the utilities? In order to reduce that uncertainty to some degree, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord two questions. First, as regards gas and electricity, will he confirm explicitly—he may feel that he has already done this—that it is the intention of the Government to go ahead with the Bill with its present contents in spite of the very substantial number of amendments which I understand the Government have deposited in another place and which may also be set down when eventually the Bill comes to this House?

Secondly, as regards telecoms and water, can we assume that any subsequent proposals that the Government plan to make will be roughly in line with the provisions previously in the Bill that is now before another place, bearing in mind that they have stated that their objective is to ensure that the regulatory systems of the four utilities are consistent with one another?

My Lords, while there may be a little uncertainty on this matter, the decision taken by the Government—which was driven by arguments put to the Government by the industries involved—that they would reduce the amount of regulatory change if these measures are carried forward as a part of separate legislation relating to water and to a separate communications Bill was entirely the right one. As I said in my original reply, I can confirm that gas and electricity will be carried forward essentially in their present form. Amendments will be coming through and we shall take care of them when the Bill comes to this House. As regards telecommunications and water, we will carry forward the principles that apply to them, in particular in relation to securing for all the utilities a more transparent framework, an independent voice for consumers and a stronger focus on protecting the interests of consumers. I repeat, all those principles will be carried forward.

My Lords, would it not have been a better idea if the Minister had come to the Dispatch Box to tell us about the changes to this Bill on the same day that a Deferred Question was tabled and answered in another place? Furthermore, will the Minister remind the House when was the last time a government, halfway through the passage of a Bill, simply abandoned a great many of its provisions? Is not the truth of the matter that the same problems with telecoms and water—overregulation, burdens on business and so forth—also apply to electricity and gas? Those industries are not happy about the situation. Do the Minister and his right honourable friend agree that it would far better to withdraw the entire Bill and then to return solely with the provisions of Clause 56, which would reform the entire pool? We could all agree with that and expeditiously pass such a piece of legislation.

My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord. It is not right to show such an extraordinary thirst for regulatory change and have a series of Bills covering what could otherwise easily be compressed into a single Bill. In the circumstances, it seemed to us to be right to listen to what industry had to say, to take account of those views and to move forward appropriately.

My Lords, given that this is the fourth Question on a Thursday and that it is a balloted, topical Question, and given also the fact that the Bill is still immersed in Committee in another place, no matter what changes are being made to it and that we will only receive it in due course, will the Minister discuss with his noble friend the Leader of the House the reasons why this Question was allowed to be put on to the Order Paper today?

My Lords, it is a topical subject and reflects the nature of Question Time in this House.

My Lords, has the Minister taken note that one of the reasons given by British Telecom for its failure to reduce the price of access to the Internet is the regulatory framework? Can the Minister assure the House that, when the Bill comes before noble Lords, adequate provision will be made to enable British Telecom to compete and to make such facilities available to consumers at reasonable prices?

My Lords, those are precisely the kind of issues that will be covered when we reach the communications Bill which will bring forward the relevant legislation.

My Lords, can my noble friend help me on one matter that has left me slightly bewildered? Are the regulatory regimes for all four of the former public utilities we are seeking to amend with these pieces of legislation those regimes that were introduced by the previous government while they were in power? Am I not right in thinking that the whole point of this new legislation is to improve on those regulatory regimes and to make them less burdensome? As I intend to say in my Second Reading speech in due course, I thought that that was what the Bill was meant to address.

My Lords, the essential thrust of the Utilities Bill is to introduce some new principles, one of which, for example, will be the independent consumer council in each case. These are new principles that we have brought forward. In due course, we shall ensure that they apply to all the Bills that relate to the utilities.

My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the value of the Bill is already being experienced in view of the fact that the price of electricity in the pool is already coming down in anticipation of the Bill?

My Lords, my noble friend is entirely right. It is the prospect of the new system of electricity trading that is already having an impact on the forward market for electricity.

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.

My Lords, I do not intend to delay the House, nor, obviously, shall I oppose the Motion. However, I rise to express some concerns about this afternoon's business, of which I have given the Government Chief Whip some notice.

In response to requests from my noble friend Lord Roberts, the Government have brought forward a very large number of amendments dealing with the Welsh aspects of the Bill. I gather that there are some 115 new amendments being brought forward at this Third Reading. The amendments were tabled yesterday, the day before or even the day before that; but they were put down very recently. We all know that my noble friend will, with some difficulty, be able to assimilate and grasp the content of such a large number of amendments, but can that be true of all other noble Lords, bearing in mind the complexity of these issues and the timing with which they were tabled? As regards the future, I must say that I hope the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip can offer some guarantee that such a large number of amendments will not be tabled quite so late in the proceedings of a Bill.

That brings me to the second point that I wish to discuss. This afternoon we are debating two government Bills. I have no objection to that; indeed, I think that that is perfectly legitimate because, on certain occasions, the business managers should be able to complete two Bills in one day. Obviously, the first is the Third Reading of the Local Government Bill and the second is the Report stage of the Children (Leaving Care) Bill. The latter is a Bill that had its Committee stage in the Moses Room. I am sure that the House will agree that Bills which start their Committee stage in the Moses Room should have their Report and Third Reading stages at a convenient time of the day for the House and not be hidden away late in the evening, as is likely to happen on this occasion.

Therefore, can I have confirmation from the noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms that if consideration on the Local Government Bill does not finish by 8.30 p.m., we will not proceed with the Children (Leaving Care) Bill and will leave it to be dealt with on another day?

My Lords, I should like to say a few words on the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. I make no comment on the "Welsh amendments", if I may so describe them. However, on the second issue raised, does the noble Lord recall our conversation when I expressed serious disquiet about a Bill that had been considered in the Moses Room not getting prime time in this House? I believe that must be done if we are to continue to consider Bills in the Moses Room.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, who told me just before Questions commenced that he was going to raise these points. He is correct to say that government amendments were tabled on Monday, and yesterday, on the Local Government Bill. The amendments tabled on Monday have all been brought forward in response to points raised by the parties opposite on Report. It was not possible to have them drafted and tabled any earlier. Although a large number of amendments were tabled yesterday, they all related to a single issue: namely, the application of the new ethical framework in Wales. I am advised that the vast majority of them are consequential and technical.

I understand that my noble friend Lord Whitty sent copies of the amendments to the Front Bench spokesmen of the parties opposite on Monday so as to give them slightly longer to consider the detail. I only became aware of the situation at the end of last week. In the case of the Welsh matters, they seem to require another layer of consultation. Noble Lords will know that, as Chief Whip, I have made a lot of effort to get amendments tabled in reasonable time. Indeed, as Chief Whip, I can say that that applies just as much to government amendments as to those from the Opposition.

As regards the timing of the Children (Leaving Care) Bill this evening, both noble Lords will know that it was agreed between the usual channels that we would take it as the second business of the day. However, if we have not completed the Local Government Bill by 8.30 p.m., we will not be proceeding with the Children (Leaving Care) Bill this evening.

moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 1. line 14. at end insert—

("() a parish council.").

My Lords, I wish that noble Lords leaving the Chamber could do so quietly because we cannot hear the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, introducing her amendments.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention, though I was not suggesting that my words were so full of import that they needed silence in order to be heard.

The Bill introduces powers for local authorities that we on these Benches, the Opposition and the whole of the local government world outside this place have very much welcomed; namely, the new powers regarding social, economic and environmental wellbeing. However, the powers will not extend to all local authorities: they will extend only to those in the spheres above parishes in England and their equivalents—community councils—in Wales.

I believe that there are some 10,000 parish councils in England alone which represent nearly 16 million people. Those who have lived in areas that have been served by parish councils, as well as by those in other spheres—I have not had the benefit of this, having spent the whole of my adult life in London where we have no parishes or their equivalents—are very well aware in many cases of the huge benefits that parishes can bring. Of course, not every parish council is as good as the next, but many are energetic and bring together people who wish to contribute to their communities. Those people do a great deal of work at a very local level and often in a pretty much unsung fashion.

The importance of parish councils has been recognised across the board for many years. The Redcliffe-Maud Report in 1969 acknowledged the vital elements that they contribute to democratic local government. The report said:

"Their key function should be to focus opinion about anything that affects the well being"—

I stress the words "well being"—

"of each community".

Quite rightly, this Government's recent publications, including In Touch with the People, have recognised the essential part of the structure of local democracy in this country to which local authorities contribute. My amendments seek to extend the powers of well-being to that level of local democracy.

I am obliged to the National Association of Local Councils, which represents parish councils, for briefing me on this matter. We on these Benches, in our turn, very much support the work that it accomplishes. The association is concerned that the power to promote economic, environmental and social well-being excludes that sphere of local government. Many parish councils wish to be involved—indeed, many of them are—with partnership arrangements incorporating other parts of local government, and of course with the private, business and voluntary sectors. This is to the benefit of their local communities.

The powers of parish councils are limited. Section 137 of the 1972 Local Government Act will remain on the statute book. That gives parish councils a certain but limited freedom beyond the statutory duties to do the right thing for their communities, as they see it. The power to incur expenditure under Section 137 is limited.

If Section 137 were an adequate provision for local authorities to undertake the wider responsibilities and the broader powers that this Bill will provide in other spheres, it seems to me that the Government would have left it on the statute book, or perhaps raised the financial limits, and would simply have extended Section 137 to the whole of local government. For it to be repealed, save for parish and community councils, is, I think, a sad failure.

I realise that I should also have tabled an amendment to Clause 9 of the Bill which would be consequential on this amendment. We have skirted round the powers of parish councils at previous stages of the Bill. I do not believe that we have addressed the question quite as directly as the amendments I am discussing seek to do. I do not seek to divide the House on this matter because I note the technical deficiency in what I have tabled. However, I hope that we can be told why the Government have excluded parish councils from the provision. That will provide material for our colleagues in another place to take the matter further as they will also be concerned with the powers of parish councils. I beg to move.

My Lords, it may be appropriate to refer to the general content of the noble Baroness's remarks in relation to the importance of parish councils. We are not sympathetic to the amendment but we need to make clear that parish councils are an essential part of the structure of local democracy and that they will continue to play a vital part in the life of our towns, villages and rural communities, as they have in the past. I want to repeat again—as there has been a number of rumours to the contrary—that that remains government policy, and will continue to be government policy.

While we expect parish councils to play an important role in the community planning process, we do not expect them to be the leaders in that process. We would expect effective parishes to be one of the strategic partners engaged in community planning with other local government units. The guidance will make that clear. We would expect parishes to have a role in identifying needs, but we would expect the higher tiers of local government to be in the lead in matters of well-being and community planning, even though the parishes will have a role to play in the local partnerships which develop under those provisions.

In support of that role we shall continue to make use of the parish powers under Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 which allow them to support a wide range of activities for the local good. Parishes have developed a number of new approaches to delivering benefits to their communities, for example through funding citizens advice bureaux, sports and leisure facilities and so on.

The noble Baroness referred to the possible inadequacy of the limits under that section. We recognise that some parish councils feel restrained by the annual limit on expenditure, of £3.50 per elector, from playing a full role in local government. The Government have stated previously—I emphasise this again—that we realise that this is a difficulty, albeit for a minority of parish and town councils. We shall review the current limit on Section 137 as part of the wider local government finance review to which I have referred at earlier stages of this Bill.

The Government believe that parishes have an important role to play. But that is not the leading role, either as regards the power of well-being or in the preparation of community strategies. I hope that the noble Baroness will acknowledge that, and that parish councils will recognise that that is their role and that we have a positive attitude to their role. However, the amendment would not further that.

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he comment on the Countryside Agency's proposal that it will help villages to prepare appraisals? I accept that district and county councils have the lead role in preparing overall strategy. However, I thought that the Countryside Agency had a well-funded programme to help villages to prepare appraisals which would be most unlikely to fit into an overall strategy to be followed by district or county councils. How will parishes regard these village appraisals in the light of the comments that the Minister has just made? Will that work be worth while, unless the Government view as important within the wider framework such work at a local level?

My Lords, the Countryside Commission's initiative would allow parish councils to engage in a range of initiatives, but to do so within their current powers. Village appraisals would be conducted in such a way that parishes could help play a part in the community planning which is being undertaken by the district or county. The manner of participation may differ from village to village. That is understood and forms part of the whole approach to parish activities which the Countryside Commission is endeavouring to nurture. However, that does not alter the point that the well-being power itself and the community planning strategy are not the responsibility of parish councils but of district or county councils.

My Lords, the Minister says that he expects parishes to play a full part in partnerships and that the guidance which the Secretary of State will issue will make that clear. I do not think that that quite answers the question, because the guidance will presumably primarily be guidance for levels of local government other than parishes.

I accept that parishes do not always play a primary role in their communities' well-being, but I do not accept that they never play a primary role. It seems to me that the Government have failed to answer the basic underlying question: namely, what harm can there be in extending these powers to parish councils? Simply leaving on the statute book Section 137, which is widely accepted to contain inherent difficulties, seems to go against the assurances that the Government have given about how they value parishes.

I did not make that point in my opening remarks as it did not lie behind the amendment. The amendment was not tabled to have a go at the Government but to support parishes. As we all agree that it is right to do so, I fear that I have not been given an answer to my question as to why the well-being power should not apply equally to that part of our local government and our local history. I hope that another place will be able to pursue this matter more effectively than clearly I have been able to do. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 4:

My Lords, as the noble Baroness indicated, this is the first of a series of Welsh amendments to the Bill. I am grateful to the Government for tabling them—if not by Report, as once promised, then at least by Third Reading.

There was a time not so long ago when Ministers thought that they might not be able to table the bulk of these amendments until the Bill reached another place. They have clearly pulled out all the stops, and we had a deluge of amendments earlier in the week. Had we not received these amendments today, they would have had to be moved in the other place and we would have been able to discuss them only during our consideration of Commons amendments, with all the limitations that that involves.

The Government's difficulty arose because of continuing discussions, internally and with the National Assembly for Wales,

"both about the process which should be used to amend primary legislation affecting local government in Wales and about the procedures for implementing this legislation for Welsh local authorities".

The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will recognise that a substantial part of what I have just said is a quotation from a letter which the noble Lord was good enough to send me on the 25th of last month.

I think that we have a right to know of major changes proposed by the Government before Bills pass through this House. I am glad that the Government have seen fit to table the Welsh amendments, albeit at a late stage. I think that that is an acknowledgement of the principle that we should be able to see changes proposed by the Government.

I detect a similar difficulty in connection with the Learning and Skills Bill, which occasioned my comment that the Assembly was out of step with the primary legislative process for which this Westminster Parliament is still responsible. I think that the Government have had a hand in this too; perhaps I was too heavy in my criticism of the Assembly. I shall come to that in a moment.

A similar difficulty seems to be arising in the case of the Care Standards Bill. Only last week, the Secretary of State for Wales, Paul Murphy MP, intimated in the Welsh affairs debate that provision for a children's commissioner for Wales may well be introduced into the Care Standards Bill, which is in an advanced stage of its progress through this House. Of course, in that case there were special circumstances arising from the Waterhouse report. I am sure that this House will be understanding about that, as it always is.

I do not want to labour the point, but it is becoming increasingly clear that if we are to provide Wales with the legislation it needs, the Assembly and the Government must be in step with the legislative process here. I am not sure that this principle is, as yet, fully accepted and understood. I think that the Government understand it, but perhaps the message has not, as yet, got down to Cardiff Bay. I say this in a helpful rather than critical spirit.

I know that the Assembly is not yet a year old and that there are bound to be teething troubles and so on, and that the Government are well aware of the problem. My sole concern—I think it is a legitimate concern and I know that this is the Government's wish too—is to ensure that the primary legislation that this Parliament provides is not defective so far as it concerns Wales; that it is as sound and as comprehensive as we can make it; and that people will benefit from it and not suffer because of inadequacies.

The House will be glad to hear me say that I fully appreciate the purpose of the amendments, as outlined by the noble Baroness, which is, of course, to provide for the inclusion of the National Assembly in Clauses 3, 5 and 8. Clause 5 contains a very substantial power to amend or repeal enactments. In so far as it is right to grant such a power at all, it is appropriate that the Assembly should be consulted in Wales.

My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House or to oppose these amendments. My noble friend on the Front Bench supports them; who am I to oppose them? But I should like to make one or two observations.

I have never had unbounded admiration for the wisdom of Secretaries of State in giving guidance or in consulting. I think that Secretaries of State are—more than most people—open to error. The amendment seeks to substitute the Assembly for the Secretary of State and I wonder whether—I mean no disrespect to the National Assembly for Wales—perhaps an assembly collectively giving guidance and being consulted would produce an even worse muddle than that produced by a Secretary of State.

I may have completely misunderstood the amendments but I should be obliged to the noble Baroness if she could set at rest my burgeoning anxieties on this subject.

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford wanted to be present and said that if we could keep going until 4.30 the debate on the first group of amendments, he would be. I decided that if I were to try to do that, it might not make these Benches entirely popular with the House. I know that my noble friend would like to have recorded his thanks to the Minister for the time he was able to spend with my noble friend discussing the Welsh amendments.

However, we must express our concern about improving the process. The Bill started life in this House not in the form in which the Government were promoting it. We debated a raft of amendments at the Committee stage to turn it into something more like the Government's preferred version. To treat the position of Wales as something of an add-on, whether to this Bill or to any other Bill, does not give proper acknowledgement to the role of Welsh government. I hope that we will very soon start regarding the involvement of our colleagues in Wales as integral to the initial process and not as something to be considered at a later stage. Wales is not an add-on. For Cardiff and the whole of Wales to have to sit back and wait for Westminster and Whitehall to sort out how they wish to express certain matters in legislation is not the right way to go forward. I am aware that the Government were consulting colleagues in Wales on how to express and deal with certain matters, but on this occasion I do not think that we have served them very well.

Like other noble Lords, I have had time only at a fairly unsocial hour to look at the amendments affecting Wales. Though they seem to be such as we would wish to see, I find it difficult to satisfy myself that they really are. I hope that longer consideration can be given if it is needed, as it may be. From these Benches we express our wish that Wales should be allowed to run its own affairs, as was the thrust of the legislation.

My Lords, I begin by repeating the offer that I made with the knowledge of the Secretary of State for Wales to arrange a meeting after Easter to look at the procedure and the processes that need to be followed to cover the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. Such a meeting would then be able to look at the processes and procedure that have been used both for the Learning and Skills Bill, to which the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, referred, and the Care Standards Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord. We, too, wish to ensure that in future the procedure that is adopted is one of proper consultation and proper time for full parliamentary scrutiny following that consultation.

Perhaps I may say, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, that the settlement and the devolution arrangements provide under the Government of Wales Act that the Assembly is a corporate body which has delegated executive power to the cabinet. Consultation will be with the cabinet. The appropriate Assembly Secretary will be the one to issue guidance where the issue is one of guidance.

I thank noble Lords who have taken part in the discussion. I remind the House that the Assembly started to work using the powers which transferred only on 1st July. We are having discussions with the Assembly about the future legislative process and the Assembly is clear on the matter. I understand that it has suggested to the Secretary of State for Wales a protocol.

My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I wonder why the arrangement as to who will give guidance and who will consult is not made clear on the face of the Bill. It looks so odd. We suddenly find guidance being given by an Assembly. Not even your Lordships' House would always give the most coherent advice. There might be a good deal of disagreement. I wonder at the idea of putting down an Assembly as the source of advice or guidance. If someone else is giving the advice or guidance, why not say so?

My Lords, I can understand that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, would be concerned were we to be in a process of offering guidance from a gathering as large as your Lordships' House. But the devolution settlement makes it quite clear that it is the Assembly which must be consulted. The Assembly can give to the cabinet that power of consultation to go ahead. That is a matter for the Assembly. But it is the Assembly as a whole which must be consulted before changes are made that are rightly in its power to decide on.

moved Amendment No. 5:

After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—

My Lords, we on these Benches support all the reasons advanced by the noble Lord as to why Wales should place such a duty on its local authorities. I shall not detain the House by repeating the arguments that I advanced on the first day of the Report stage on 28th February (at col. 363). In reply, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that, on balance, he was not convinced that a duty should be placed on local authorities. Over the years I have learnt to regard "on balance" as sometimes being an optimistic sign.

If, as I hope, the Government are minded for reasons of good argument advanced previously also by the LGA and now by colleagues in Wales to rethink this matter, that will be widely welcomed. I hope that the same provision will apply to local authorities in England—without which they will continue to struggle with the many statutory plans that they must prepare. I believe the noble Baroness said that they number over 40. We should welcome a rationalisation of the position in regard to England as well as Wales.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, has spoken eloquently in favour of the duty of community planning in Wales. We have also heard a strong case put, both inside this House and in discussions outside, by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and her noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford.

As the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, said, the National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Local Government Association have expressed similar views. Where a different approach to local government matters in Wales is justified, we are, of course, prepared to consider that.

So far as concerns a duty, it is fair to say that the views expressed in relation to Wales were no different from the general views which have already been expressed in this House and by organisations such as the LGA and the UK Round Table on Sustainable Development.

I think that there is widespread agreement within the House and beyond as to what could be achieved at local level through effective community planning. We have always said that community strategies—developed by local strategic partnerships, involving local agencies, the private and voluntary sectors and the community—have the potential to deliver real benefits for local people. They can improve local quality of life and enhance local pride.

We have always considered that effective community planning can help to deliver many of the changes that the Government believe are essential if local quality of life is to be improved. The legislation, therefore, has to be seen in the context of the Government's efforts to ensure coherent delivery of public services and to tackle such issues as social exclusion and neighbourhood renewal. Policy in these areas is developing rapidly. The Social Exclusion Unit is due to report soon on its national strategy for neighbourhood renewal. A crucial part of that strategy will be broadly-based, local strategic partnerships along the lines that we envisage here. It should come as no surprise to noble Lords that against that background we have kept the legislative provisions in the Bill under constant review.

We have always recognised that a duty to prepare community strategies would emphasise the importance that we attach to local action to tackle these issues and deliver sustainable development. Clearly, it would also provide the means to ensure that more reluctant local authorities also take action for the benefit of their communities. But equally, we have always believed that it is not a prerequisite for effective community planning.

Nevertheless, given the way in which the policy is developing and the critical role that we now see being played by local strategic partnerships, we are minded to reconsider the approach currently taken in Clause 4. We shall need to give careful consideration to the way in which a duty might be framed. We shall want to ensure that it does not preclude the sort of local flexibility that is crucial to the success of local partnerships; and the proposals will need to reflect the different structure of local government in England and Wales. We shall bring forward appropriate amendments for both England and Wales when the Bill passes to another place.

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Roberts of Conwy and Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for their interest and their explanations and comments within this field. I hope that on that basis the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Baroness on the Liberal Benches for her support. I also thank the Minister for the change of attitude that I detected. Her promise to consider further and bring forward amendments in the other place has been duly noted and welcomed. As I am speaking on behalf of Wales, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness whether, as I presume is the case, the promise to reconsider which covers Clause 4 extends to England as well. Perhaps she will confirm that. I understand the noble Baroness's change of heart in that it was a duty promised in the White Paper 1998. Indeed, the Partnership Council in Wales has gone ahead, as I said, to form a working group with local business and so forth. Therefore, I am glad that the work is clearly not going to be in vain. Perhaps the Minister would like to clear up the point about the impact of what she said on the English situation.

My Lords, I am sorry, but I may not have been as clear as I might. The proposals brought forward will need to reflect the different structures of local government in England and in Wales.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply and explanation. Obviously the Government are going to reconsider the situation as regards Clause 4 and England as well as Wales. With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 6:

moved Amendments Nos. 7 to 9:

moved Amendment No. 10:

Before Clause 9, insert the following new clause—

My Lords, my name is added to the two amendments in this group which have been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. We on these Benches have tabled Amendments Nos. 11 and 13 to which the noble Lord has added his name.

During earlier debate on this matter the Government made much of the great variety of executive arrangements on offer. I still find it difficult to read into Clause 10 an almost infinite variety of arrangements, especially when the options on offer in future are subject to what regulations "may, in particular, provide for". In this context, I believe that, yet again, "may" means "shall". I find it even harder to appreciate what we are told is the open mind of the Government since local authorities must have executive arrangements. The strong term "must" is used in Clauses 9 and 10. In legislation one is accustomed to seeing the term "shall" or "may", which itself sometimes means "shall", but very rarely does one see "must". Here one sees "must" without allowing for an incremental approach and the experience of pilots in areas with different geography, demography, political history and background.

The noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, spoke powerfully about the differences between almost single-party-dominated authorities, perhaps in inner cities, and those in rural areas which involved members of all parties and of none. What is proposed will take place without waiting to see what may be learnt from the experience of London. I do not suggest that the Greater London Authority and local authorities which adopt executive arrangements are absolutely equivalent. We are, however, in the middle of a mayoral election at the moment from which lessons can be learnt—and not only on such matters as how best to adopt candidates!

It would be understandable if the Government's objection was based on the suspicion that those who are currently councillors simply seek to defend the status quo. It would be understandable if the Government regarded that with some cynicism. I referred at an earlier stage to the work undertaken by Camden council. I believe that that council has acquired beacon status from the Government in two areas: housing benefit and schools. That authority undertook major consultation with local people and rejected the proposals. I quote the resolution passed by that council which rejected the proposals,

"on grounds that they will reduce democracy, lessen effective decision-making and seriously weaken accountability".

Academics and commentators are not united behind the Government's proposals. It is not suggested that local authorities should not be allowed to adopt an executive/scrutiny split; rather, that there should be local choice. We on these Benches are very ready to acknowledge that the Government have moved on important matters, such as area committees and, to an extent, the role of the overview and scrutiny committee. Sadly, we have not yet succeeded in explaining sufficiently clearly to the Government our concern about the likely split into two classes of councillor. We believe that the proposals with which we are now dealing are flawed because of the Government's innate preference for a system that is centred on personality.

A few days ago I spoke at a meeting in London about the forthcoming elections. The view of a number of people who attended that meeting can be summarised as follows: they do not like something that is going on locally and want to be assured that the mayor will put everything right. It is very dangerous to allow people to get into a mindset about the position of an individual, even with the benefit of an overview and scrutiny committee to look at decisions and actions, who is in control of a large community. The Government's attitude encourages that rather disingenuous approach on the part of those who believe that a new type of government will somehow make all the decisions perfect.

The Government are concerned that councils which fail to modernise (to use their term) will be the ones that opt out of the executive arrangements. I acknowledge that there is something in that. However, this is a matter of local choice. It is to be expected that if an authority is not a good one there will be opposition to the administration at the next election on the basis of modernising that authority, and that will allow for local debate.

Amendment No. 13 deals with the criteria for executive arrangements, if there are to be such, in addition to those which the Government propose. The amendment, which is the same as that tabled at the previous stage, proposes that the executive arrangements,

"may take such form as the local authority considers, after it has taken reasonable steps to consult local government electors and other interested persons in the authority's area, will … enhance decision-making … meet the principles of transparency, accountability and efficiency"—

as we have debated throughout the Bill, those matters should underlie good local government—

"and … be appropriate to local circumstances".

The Minister dismissed the amendment on the basis that a local authority could, should it so wish, devise a form of executive arrangement which approximated very closely to the status quo. He talked about other enactments needing to be modified but it is not clear how that will be achieved. If there is a problem in drafting, let us face that problem and not dismiss the principle because putting it into effect is too difficult.

If the new executive arrangements are close to the status quo but meet the tough criteria, what is the problem? Why could not that model be adopted? The Government's answer at the last stage was that Clause 10(5) allows for other models. I do not regard that as a complete answer. We shall need the Secretary of State's model before a locally devised model can be put in place.

Your Lordships will understand the strength of feeling from these Benches. In the context of the good new powers for local government, we are sad that what is being given with one hand may be taken away by imposition by the other. We support the amendment.

My Lords, I apologise for not having intervened previously on the issue and for my presumption in making even a small speech. I do so because I live in Guildford, and Guildford justifiably prides itself on being one of the best local authorities in England. At present it is a hung council; it is normally Conservative. It treats its Labour members with immense respect and great honour. It is privileged enough to have a chief executive who would have been undoubtedly in earlier years a star in the Indian Civil Service. He would have been Watts' protector of the poor.

He wrote to me—it was too late for me to take an active role in past debates—of the view held by himself and most of the Guildford borough councillors. They believe that the new arrangements will have the effect of concentrating power more than occurs at present. If matters were to go seriously sour fewer people would need to be bribed. They say, "We are a good authority. Please could we have the right to continue as we are".

I am sorry that I have not intervened previously on the issue. I apologise on behalf of Watts protector of the poor because he, too, missed the opportunity. I wish to put into the public domain that a very good chief executive of a well run borough council is deeply unhappy about the proposed arrangements, as are the independent members of Guildford Borough Council. It is that factor which worries me about the Government's plan. To allow people to keep the status quo if it is good, subject to controls and checks, would not be a bad idea.

My Lords, I speak for myself, having had some experience of local government and having the honour to serve on the Joint Committee of your Lordships' House and another place under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Bowness. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, who is not in her place at present, were members. The point was discussed and an equivalent amendment moved to which the Joint Committee agreed. However, the Government did not agree with the Joint Committee.

I have always believed that there should be more flexibility. A great majority of local authorities have looked carefully into the matter and are applying the suggestions made by the Government as regards executive and scrutiny committees. (I have the Local Government Association report in front of me.) That is good news for the Government. But some local authorities want strongly to achieve the aim in a slightly different way.

That is all that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, are saying. The Government should listen to minorities—in particular independent councils—which feel strongly that they do not quite fit into the Government's three "musts". I support the amendment.

My Lords, we have cantered around this race track a number of times. I raise a point which has not been recognised in previous debates.

There is concern—the Government have put it forward—that electors should be more attracted to voting in local government elections. It is perfectly proper that that should be so; we all want to see it happen. However, the other side of the coin is that people must want to become councillors. If they do not want to become councillors because they are not attracted to the organisation in which they would work, no amount of change, as proposed in the Bill, will have the slightest effect.

People may want to become councillors because, first, they wish to serve their local community, and, secondly because they believe that it is proper that representatives should make decisions on behalf of that community. The proposals disfranchise more than half of any council from making decisions. Only those who are ultimately in the executive will make the decisions on behalf of a council.

No amount of overview, scrutiny, discussion and debate constitutes a decision. They are not binding on any group. A group can agree to decide on all manner of things but until the decision is made by one of the executives it is not a decision. I believe that many councillors will find this a very serious loss. Many individuals will believe it to be a real drawback from coming into local government to represent and make decisions on behalf of their local communities, after consultation. One can talk endlessly but at some stage decisions need to be taken, and taken in the open. We have discussed that previously. The Bill makes allowance for doing so. It must be right to allow people to decide.

There must be a mechanism within the Bill to enable local authorities to say, "We would like our members in total to take the decisions". I have heard all the arguments about it being a mere blind: that decisions are taken in back rooms before any issue is discussed in public. That is not a scenario I recognise. Many local authorities take decisions after discussion in committee. In my local authority we are often swayed by points put forward by the opposition; and decisions are then made.

The great sadness about the proposals is that that option will not be available. We may not wish to contemplate the spin-offs from that but as a result we may be picking up the pieces in the future.

My Lords, as a novice, I shall try to resist the temptation to recycle what was said at previous stages, but I want to make one or two points. I remain concerned that in our distractions there is a danger of missing the wood for the trees.

First, the Bill does not seek to enforce elected mayors on all parts of Britain. It is impossible for there to be elected mayors anywhere, even if the councils were in favour of that, unless the public vote for it. Secondly, there is no expectation in anyone who is realistic that a simple, single Bill can restore local democracy. I am confident that if it were that simple, the noble Lord's party would have passed such a Bill some years previously.

We need to recognise that there is a problem: the public have lost interest in local government. They by and large value the services of local government, but they do not believe that its political processes are particularly relevant or meaningful. They say so frequently and act so by choosing not to vote in local government elections.

If we choose, we can say that there is no problem and that the status quo is fine. However, I am convinced that the consequence of failing to modernise local government in a sensible fashion will be the progressive residualisation and marginalisation of its functions. During the past 20 years, we have seen that all central governments are prone to that disease.

Therefore, we must look at the central thrust of Part II of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is right in saying that it is central to the whole debate. The question is whether the existing committee system serves the public well. We have heard the criticisms of it: that the responsibility is opaque; that it undervalues the importance of representation; and that scrutiny is largely non-existent in most local authorities in which that system operates. There are problems which have frequently been affirmed by the Audit Commission. It is not true that the current system is adequate, satisfactory, or universally working well. It often works well because of the efforts of talented members and officers, but that is not because of the system itself.

The impression is being given that there is to be a monolithic imposition of a single system on all authorities across the country. That is untrue. Some of us might wish that there were more of an imposition of the stronger systems of executive governance, but that is not on offer. All that is required is that the local authorities must establish certain principles. First, they must consult their public on their executive arrangements. Secondly, they must make it clearer who is responsible for decision making. Thirdly, they must draw up a constitution which indicates where decision making will take place within the authority and the balance of power that will sit between the executive and the assembly. Finally, there must be a powerful, effective system of scrutiny. Those are the principles which the Bill and guidance set out—no more and no less.

Let us take the example of the non-party shire district council that is frequently talked about. Let us look what it can do. It must consult its public; and it is right and proper that it should do so. We are talking about the public and not about the traditions of officers and members and whether they are comfortable with that requirement. But if after that process of consultation that council decides that it does not want to have a strong executive system, it is perfectly able to establish arrangements in the following fashion. First, it can determine where most policy can be decided and it can put the weight of that determination in the full council, in the assembly itself. It can give only a limited scope for policy determination to the separate executive.

Secondly, it can determine that the executive will be a cross-party or non-party body which will always meet in public and that there will be a strong power of "call-in" to the assembly. In other words, before an issue is implemented, any member can call it in for full debate either in scrutiny committees or into the assembly itself. The executive members would not have individual portfolios, but would have to act in concert. The assembly could meet as frequently as it wished in order to ensure the tightest possible scrutiny over the actions of the executive. It could establish area committees and encourage the participation of the public in those processes.

In my view, that model would be an improvement on the current system. The public would know that there was a system of scrutiny. They would be clearer about who was responsible, yet the power of the executive would be tightly constrained and trammelled by the assembly. In my view, that is a cause not for fear, but, if anything, for excessively cautious incrementalism. Nevertheless, that is what the Bill offers to an authority, if it so decides.

Therefore, I cannot believe that it is necessary to force the amendment. It is hard to judge the need for it because of the consequences were we to do so. We are not talking about a minimalist escape clause; it goes to the heart of the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, had the courtesy to acknowledge. It would go to the heart of the desire, the necessity, for reform.

Last January, the LGA published research that had been undertaken by Strathclyde and de Montfort universities. It asked councils what were their preferred options. Thirty-nine per cent of councils stated that they wanted neither an elected mayor—fair enough—nor a separate executive. If the amendment were passed, it would undermine the heart and thrust of the Bill. One might say that that is good, but it will not serve the public well if we are serious about trying to move forward local government so that it has more relevance and enjoys more respect.

My Lords, I agree that we have cantered around the subject a great deal, but I want to support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that the feeling was strong on this side of the House. I believe that the feeling is strong in local government generally. If we were to survey our 20,000-odd councillors, we would find that barely 10 per cent support the executive/non-executive split. It does more to make councillors uneasy and unhappy with the Bill than anything I have known in my years in local government. One cannot underestimate the strength of that feeling.

There are more than 400 local authorities in this country and they vary greatly: from the small district councils to the large authorities such as Birmingham or my own, Essex County Council. They vary in the number of their members from perhaps 30, to 119 in Birmingham. I do not mind mayors if people want them. Judging by comments made in the past few days, it appears that I prefer mayors more than does the Deputy Prime Minister. I do not mind people having Cabinets, if that is what they want. However, the fault of the Bill is in imposing the executive/non-executive split. People see it as a two-tier system. It is an unnecessary part of the Bill.

We all want to see local government modernised and streamlined. When North Yorkshire was reorganised as North York it set itself up with four streamlined committees and meets very infrequently. That is the model many of us would want to see. However, to say that we have to have 10 people in Essex, say, out of my 79 members on the executive and 69 people on select scrutiny committees is not acceptable to most of my members.

Where experiments have been carried out, people feel that they have been excluded. A while ago I attended a meeting at which, unfortunately, my party was in a minority on the council. It had set up some scrutiny committees and every time my members raised an item, the rest of the committee moved for the next business, and we moved on. I believe that small representations of other parties will feel even more excluded. That is the whole thrust and problem of the executive/non-executive split.

It is all very well to be told that it will work better and will increase participation and voting, but it is not seen to be a democratic process. It is seen to be imposing something on local government that should not be necessary. I cannot imagine many other countries or parliaments imposing such detail on local government. I hope that tonight we shall give local authorities a clear message that although we want to see them modernising and moving into the 21st century, we want them to design their own systems best suited to their areas.

In many ways, voting is different in local government elections. Much of the low turn-out is in areas in which one party is dominant. In Thurrock in my county, where the Labour Party will romp in, there might be a 12 per cent turn-out. However, where three parties fight an election keenly, there will be a 55 or 60 per cent turn-out. That is the difference; that is what it is all about; and that is what we need more of. Therefore, I urge your Lordships to pass this amendment so that we can give local government the opportunity to design its own systems.

My Lords, I doubt whether it is helpful to say that the longer this debate goes on at the different stages, the more I feel myself being pulled in two directions. I agree very much with what the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, said. Because of local circumstances in a number of authorities—not a large number, but some—I am convinced that one of the proposed executive models would not suit, and that there should be an alternative form. On the other hand (and this is why I am pulled in the other direction), the amendments that we are discussing today, as drafted, seem to provide an escape clause for an authority that should be taking action to reorganise itself. The amendments seem to allow it to escape taking any action.

That is why at earlier stages of the Bill some of us pressed the Government to produce a fourth option. Provided that criteria of efficiency, accountability, transparency and so on were met, due to certain local circumstances that option would allow an authority not necessarily to retain the status quo but to produce a different option not necessarily based on the executive scrutiny split. I hope that even at this stage the Government will think again about the fourth option. I believe that the alternative of providing an escape clause for any authority which would prefer to continue in the same old way is unsatisfactory. Equally, the opposite is unsatisfactory.

My Lords, I have listened with great interest to some of the contributions made in this debate. I realise that it is a tradition of this House that everyone speaks in tones of sweet reason, even though their arguments might not be entirely reasonable in themselves.

However, I have noticed a number of contradictions in what has been said. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, seemed to argue that the arrival of an elected mayor in London would inspire a great deal of excitement and interest among the electorate. He contrasted that with the lack of excitement and interest that at present appears to exist in local government more generally. If that is the case, and if it is the case that a change in the system will inspire interest and excitement in London, that rather suggests that the existing system is not inspiring interest elsewhere within local government. It also suggests that we should look very seriously at the proposals before us.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his contribution. I believe that it highlights the exact problem that we are debating. If it is believed—it is certainly a belief that I share—that by introducing an executive scrutiny split one introduces clarity into local government decision-making, that in itself should produce greater interest and confidence in the processes. People will know who is responsible for what decision. It will not be possible for councillors to hide behind baroque committee systems in terms of where decisions are being taken. Of course, as has happened in so many authorities—I believe that people are being slightly disingenuous if they pretend that it has not happened—it will no longer be necessary for decisions to be taken by small groups and then processed through public committee meetings and public structures.

However, I am concerned that—

My Lords, I raise a point that later we shall come to more substantially with our amendment. However, will the noble Lord concede that where the executive is allowed to meet in private and to take decisions, no notice of which has been given to the public, the Bill as drafted will still allow that lack of clarity to continue because the public will discover those decisions only after the event?

My Lords, I do not accept that. Who is responsible for the decision will be absolutely fundamentally clear to the electorate. It will be clear where that decision has been made. A whole series of requirements will be set down in the statute regarding how it may be scrutinised and, if need be, called in by the full council. Therefore, I believe that the provision will aid clarity rather than otherwise. However, at the moment the public do not know which body may or may not be looking at a matter and do not know when that issue is resolved. This provision will at least ensure that there is a proper process, subject to subsequent scrutiny.

The noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, raised the point that some authorities will have very different circumstances and that those will require special consideration. That argument may have some force. Unfortunately, none of the amendments before us in this grouping allows us to examine that point. I do not say that I would have supported it, but if someone had put forward an amendment stating that authorities would be entitled to look at alternative models for district councils of that particular nature or those with no overall control, or councils with a variety of other definitions where that would be a problem, I believe that that would have enabled us to debate what I suspect is the real issue. However, the present wording of the amendments permits authorities which are not particularly keen, for whatever reason, on having a clear executive scrutiny split to get round this legislation. I believe that that is unfortunate.

I suspect that one of the reasons why this House encourages its Members to talk in tones of sweet reason is that it enables them to propose amendments which remove the heart of a piece of legislation in tones of such sweetness and lightness that perhaps it is hoped that the Government will not notice what is being proposed. However, I believe that what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, proposes on this occasion is fairly clear. He is aiming to take the heart out of this particular part of the legislation. I believe that it is unfortunate that we do not have before us an amendment which would test the question which the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and a number of other noble Lords have suggested they are concerned about; that is, the question of certain types of council where an executive scrutiny split is perhaps not appropriate.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, asked how we can ensure that people will continue to want to be councillors. I suggest that if we put forward a structure which provides clarity about the role for which people put themselves forward for election, that is likely to induce a much greater degree of job satisfaction than does the existing arrangement. Under the current arrangement, even if people are in the party which wins the election, when they put themselves forward they do not know whether they will be part of a charmed circle which makes decisions or outside that circle. If, as is the case with some of the models which will be permissible under the executive scrutiny split, it is possible for people to put themselves forward to be executive decision-makers or, alternatively, to be local representative councillors involved in overview and scrutiny of policy, I believe that that will produce more clarity and will lead to better "job satisfaction" (if noble Lords will forgive the term) among local councillors.

The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, was right to say that there are strong feelings within local government about this issue. Those strong feelings often come from those who do not want to proceed to an executive scrutiny split. Yet it is precisely because so many of those people who do not even want to consider the executive scrutiny split will be given comfort by the amendments in this grouping today that I would urge noble Lords to reject the amendments in favour of something which at least allows us to provide clear and explicit roles for executive and scrutiny members.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—I hope being sweetly reasonable, which I regard as a virtue rather than the opposite—does he not accept that my Amendment No. 13, which provides for executive arrangements which are, among other things, appropriate to local circumstances, is, if not perfect, at any rate a reasonable stab at addressing the difficulties of councils with a history of independence or where there is no overall political control? If the noble Lord is himself sweetly reasonable, as I am sure he will be, then rather than dismiss all the amendments in this group, he might seek to build on that approach.

My Lords, I gave a great deal of thought to the noble Baroness's Amendment No. 13 because I thought that might be the opportunity to address the concerns which had been raised by noble Lords on the Cross Benches. But I do not believe that it achieves that.

I would hope that in every case, people will put forward proposals which will enhance decision-making; which will meet the principles of transparency, accountability and efficiency; and will be appropriate to their local circumstances. Nothing in the Bill precludes that. But I do not believe that a subsection with the words,

"be appropriate to local circumstances",

quite meets the requirements. Those requirements must be to address the particular circumstances of certain types of local authorities with a certain type of population and certain political make-ups. If the amendments had gone on to spell that out in some detail, then we could have had the debate which people claim they want to have today.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has explained why the system will work well. I can see from the point of view of his council, that it may be very helpful indeed. But I want to ask one question.

My noble friend Lord Onslow described the council of Guildford. In such a council, will the officials have the same role as they have now, vis-à-vis individual councillors? Among all the amendments, I cannot see any place where the Bill defines the role of the officials. I may have missed it because it is difficult to absorb them all. It certainly was not in the Bill before. Is there to be any legal requirement on officials to advise all councillors, whichever side of the divide they are on and whichever committee they are on? It is absolutely essential that in local government, every member has access to officials and to information from officials. I should be interested to know whether that is provided in the Bill or whether the Government are trusting to luck.

My Lords, I wish to support the views put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, views which I have expressed myself, as to the difficulty of recruiting people to be what you might call second-class councillors.

The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, attempted to defuse that argument by saying that it would clarify the situation. Yes, it would. But, for example, what would I have done in my early years in the county council? I should have had to go to the electorate of Dorking South and say, "Look, chaps, there is not a cat in hell's chance that I am going to be on the executive because I have only been on the council for a few years. So you will have to elect me in order that once decisions have been taken, I can query why they have been taken and what the costs of them will be".

I can tell your Lordships what happened when I was a councillor. First, quite often, even as a very junior councillor with a large Tory majority at that time, I was able to influence decisions as they were taken; for example, in the education committee, of which I was then a member, and later in the highways and transport committee.

Not only that, but I told people in my part of the world in which decisions I had been involved and what I had done about them. I did that either through the press or through the literature which I circulated. If they did not like what I had been doing, they had a very simple remedy: they could throw me out at the next election.

I agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, when he said that where there are contested elections, the percentage of people who bother to go to the polls increases. As a Liberal and subsequently as a Liberal Democrat, my observation has been that every time we have made a really successful foray into local government elections, the percentage of people going out to vote increases, and the reason is that people have something to vote for or against, depending on their viewpoint.

The suggestion was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, that some of the disadvantages which the Government are suggesting could be overcome if the council was made the main decision-taker. We may all have had experiences of sensible decision-taking in committee, where people listen to the argument, decide and, to some extent, modify proposals in the light of argument. I have succeeded in modifying decisions in precisely that way. But I have seldom seen decisions taken seriously in full council because that is where every member makes either the speech determined by his group prior to the council meeting or—in some cases I have seen it happen—the speech handed down by party headquarters to make on that occasion on that subject. It is by far the most party-political part of the process.

In some councils there is a large majority of one party. They do still exist, despite our best efforts. I can remember some doubts expressed by my noble friend on the Front Bench when her council became not just a Liberal, as it then was, majority but a Liberal monopoly. Serious doubts were then raised as to the democratic nature of the vote, which was determined in the old-fashioned way and not by proportional representation, when the Labour Party and the Conservative Party were entirely excluded from the government of Richmond-upon-Thames. So the matter is as close and as relevant to us as it is to other people.

But where there are large overall majorities, it is extremely difficult to make sure that there is a fully public discussion of policy and that decisions are taken which reflect that debate. It is in relation to those councils which will be subject to all the regulations which this Government are trying to put in this Bill—which I consider to be, on the whole, bad for local government—that the effects will he the worst.

My Lords, as other noble Lords have said, we have been round this course before. I am not entirely sure that "canter" is the right term, but many points have been made at earlier stages of the Bill. I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has been consistent on this and that he regards this as a central principle of the Bill. He has been consistent, but I am not entirely sure that his party has been consistent as regards the relationship it wants between central and local government. In the long term, once this change has taken place, the noble Lord and I will probably be closer as regards what the appropriate relationship should be.

But at present, we do need change. I recognise also, as the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield and others have said, that there is unease and concern among councillors. But we are at a point where we wish to change the way in which local government operates. Those in your Lordships' House who believe that the status quo is appropriate are few and far between. They are saying that, in practice, most councils will choose to change. Does that not mean that there is a need for change in local government and does it not probably mean—not inevitably, logically—that that minority of councils which do not wish to change are probably the councils which really should change and need to change?

That, therefore, lies behind the whole of the Government's approach. We are seeking a quiet revolution in local government. I am not often allowed to use those terms from these Benches but I do so today. That requires all councils to look at change and decide which form of change they want.

The status quo, based on the committee system, which, at various points, has served local government well but is now creaking at the seams, is not an option and cannot be an option.

The Government believe that we need a whole new form of governance which rests, as we have said, on transparency in relation to who is taking decisions; what those decisions are; and what is the accountability for those decisions. Contrary to what the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and others have said, we believe that the fact that we can identify with clarity those decisions and those responsible for them will both enhance the appeal of local government for those who might wish to come into it and enhance confidence in local government among the electorate as a whole, as my noble friends Lord Filkin and Lord Harris of Haringey have said.

Therefore, the Government require, as a principle of the Bill, that all councils should change, and change to a system which involves an executive structure. The Bill also requires that those proposals must be put forward in consultation with local people and it gives local people the right to decide explicitly in relation to a directly-elected mayor, if that is the proposition. The key to accountability is a system of governance which people understand and support.

Having said that we wish to achieve a revolution, clearly in the best revolutions, once change is achieved, diversity follows. There is diversity within our proposals. Within the three categories of executive arrangements that the Bill makes available, there is great diversity and substantial choice, as distinct from the old system which specified one structure for committees which was stretched as far as possible by many local authorities, but nevertheless was laid down by countless Local Government Acts over the past century and a bit. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. I believe that most other countries would lay down more precisely the structure of local government in their written constitutions than we are attempting or wishing to do.

The Bill allows us also, by virtue of subsection 10(5), to make available other categories of executive if appropriate. If a council has a proposal for a further form of executive which meets our aims, the Secretary of State can use the power to establish such a form of executive. Our bottom line is that, whatever additional arrangements may be made, there must be a separate executive under our structure. The first three of these amendments, including the one moved by the noble Lord, in fact undermine that central principle of the Bill. There are a number of arguments that the division between executive and scrutiny, in whatever form it takes, will undermine the role of existing councillors and of councils themselves.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said that she did not recognise our view of existing local government; that on occasion decisions have been taken which are unaccounted for and completely lacking in clarity and transparency. I make no judgment on the London Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, but I know of councils represented primarily by my own party where that has been the case. In a neighbouring council to the noble Baroness's own, in which we currently sit, it was not long ago transparently the case that all decisions were taken behind closed doors; in fact, behind one particular closed door, if I recall. That was Westminster City Council. The rest of the Conservative group did not know what was going on, let alone the rest of the council as a whole.

I therefore believe that there are problems with the old structure and that there are probably more problems in those areas resistant to change. Our proposals will not mean that councillors are disfranchised or downgraded. The whole council will set the broad policy and the budget. Every councillor will be represented. If they are in scrutiny roles, they will be in a more powerful position to scrutinise the decisions of the executive than they were as junior members of the committee.

The Bill is a proposal for change. The role of councillors will be changed. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, asked whether the role of officers would be changed. That is not essentially the case. Officers will, of course, continue to serve the full council. We have explained in our guidance that councils will have to consider carefully the structure of support officers in relation to their own particular form of executive structure, but the principle remains that officers serve the whole council.

I turn now to Amendment No. 13, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred. I believe that she was hoping that it approximated more to the fourth option proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and perhaps also to the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon. I do not believe that the amendment fulfils their purpose. As I understand the point made in the Joint Committee to which the noble Earl referred, it related specifically to councils which had no real tradition of one party control or dominant party control. The Joint Committee put that forward for that particular situation. The noble Baroness's option is of course a far more generalised option, but the members of the Joint Committee recognised that there should be arrangements for a council manager—in other words, an option which is already there and which already has a wide variety of forms.

The Bill explicitly provides executive arrangements for an elected mayor and a council. That will probably be appropriate in relation to the kind of council to which I believe the noble Earl referred. I do not believe that the amendment fulfils the fourth option ambitions of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, because it is too loosely drafted—as perhaps the noble Baroness herself was hinting—not to exclude entirely something which is close to backsliding to a committee-based structure.

We are at a crucial point in the Bill. For the Government, this is a crucial issue in the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord does not pursue his amendment. If he does, he needs to know and understand that he is challenging a central part of the Bill. The Government will resist the amendment and will continue to resist such amendments during the passage of the Bill. I therefore must oppose Amendment No. 10 which he moved. I oppose Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 for the reasons I have outlined. The Government would also oppose Amendment No. 13. I do not believe that Amendment No. 13, as drafted, achieves what a number of noble Lords were hoping for. I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue his amendment.

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may take him up briefly on his last point. I shall not go down the road of speculating whether Lady Porter is a good example of what was close to an elected mayor.

The Minister referred to the question of local authorities with no overall control or where there is a tradition of independence, and commented on my amendment. Will he confirm that the Government have made no attempt themselves to come up with an amendment? I am perfectly happy to accept criticism of my drafting, but I should prefer to have drafting from the Government to which we could respond. I am glad to see support being indicated from the Cross Benches.

My Lords, the Government are not in favour of a fourth option. There are a whole range of options under our structure. In so far as we recognise that there may be other options, there are provisions in the Bill. If councils come up with further options which meet our requirements, we are prepared to regulate for them. We are not in favour of a specific fourth option, but in any case I do not believe that the drafting of the amendment confirms to our principles.

My Lords, we have had yet another long and interesting debate on this subject. It is right that we should have done so. In my opening remarks I said that we were at the heart of the Bill. The debate on these amendments is at the heart of the principles of the Bill and much more at the heart of the principles of democracy.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, talked about not waiting for London and remarked on the work of Camden Council in that area. Its members came to the completely unanimous conclusion that the arrangements under the Bill would not help them forward much. My noble friend Lord Onslow was quite clear about the reaction of his local authority in Guildford. The noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, came out with the fact that the Joint Committee which considered the draft Bill before it came to the House was also of the view that compulsion was perhaps not the proper way forward.

My noble friend Lady Hanham mentioned the importance of councillors actually wanting to do the work and questioned whether under the new arrangements the job of being a councillor would be as attractive as it has been. The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, gave a good resume of the different systems available in the Bill. I have acknowledged that I have no complaint with any of them. But he did not address the issue of why the Bill has to compel local authorities to make a change. Therefore, I believe that he rather missed the point of the debate.

My noble friend Lord Hanningfield, who is vice-chairman of the Local Government Association and therefore intimately involved in what is going on in local government at the present time, talked about the lack of support that there is in local government among councillors for the executive scrutiny split. I am sorry for the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, who is torn two ways on this issue. When the matter comes to issue in the next moment or two, he will find he has to vote one way or the other. Of course, I hope that he will find himself able to vote with our side.

The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, said that I seemed to be arguing that London was inspiring. Let us just deal with London. The inspiration that is coming out of the current interest in London has two causes. They are very simple. The first concerns the Government's machinations to try to produce a result that they thought was desirable, if necessary with complete disregard for the views of the members of the London Labour Party. I think that is arrogance of a high order. The second reason that is stimulating interest is the arrival of Mr Ken Livingstone on the scene as a candidate. Apart from the fact that we had a huge Bill, which brought this situation into being, neither of those two facts actually has any general relevance to local government. I agree that they have stimulated enormous interest, but I suspect that the Minister, who is smiling at me rather nicely, would agree that the interest is all of the wrong sort.

The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, rightly raised the role of the staff who work for local government. The changes that will come about as a result of this Bill are not, and cannot be, defined within it and local authorities will have to find a solution to that problem themselves. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, rightly questioned how attractive the role of a scrutineer will be to the electors, and I do not know the answer.

So we come to the Minister. He rightly said, as I did at the beginning, that these amendments go to the heart of the Bill. Of course they do: I do not doubt that. Nothing in these amendments does anything to invalidate any of the proposals that the Government are making—nothing—but these amendments do give local councils and local communities the right to make their own determination on the matter. That is a cause in which I believe in passionately, and it is one on which I think we should test the view of this House.

moved Amendment No. 11:

Page 5, line 12, at end insert ("which determines to adopt executive arrangements").

moved Amendment No. 12:

Page 5, line 20, leave out ("must") and insert ("may").

My Lords, I was prepared to accept that Amendment No. 11 can be seen as consequential to the previous decision but, although Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 were grouped for convenience with Amendments Nos. 10 and 11, we would not accept them as consequential.

My Lords, I am now puzzled as to how one should proceed. I certainly had no responsibility for the groupings. If we must vote again, so be it. The groupings for the amendments were put together by officials acting on behalf of the Government. It seems to me that under the conventions of the House a group would normally be taken together, but I am open to correction.

My Lords, the groupings are agreed for the purposes of debate, but procedurally it is correct to say that the only amendments in a group that automatically follow a victory or a defeat are those that are directly consequential. Although Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 are in the group for the purpose of debate, they are not actually consequential on the decision on Amendment No. 10.

My Lords, in that case I beg to move Amendment No. 12.

moved Amendment No. 13:

My Lords, perhaps it is worth repeating, as some noble Lords are not always aware of the position, that these amendments are not directly consequential. Therefore, we have done the correct thing procedurally and in terms of the sense of the House.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Chief Whip. He has also taught me a lesson and it is a useful one to learn.

moved Amendment No. 14:

Before Clause 12, insert the following new clause—

My Lords, Amendment No. 16 is included in this group. Unless there are arrangements for allowing an overview and scrutiny committee to call in—to use the terminology—a decision by the executive, the powers of that committee are somewhat hollow. My amendment, which builds on one that I moved at the previous stage of the Bill, provides that unless a matter is urgent it should not be implemented in fewer than eight days. That would allow for it to be called in and referred to the council or a committee under Clause 19(3). The objection to the amendment in the form in which it was tabled at the previous stage seemed to be that to use a monitoring officer of the local authority to certify whether a matter was urgent was not appropriate and that decisions about obtaining advice, for instance, by the executive should not be delayed.

This new amendment seeks to meet both those points. It provides that,

"Unless the matter is certified by a proper officer of the authority";

and that officer will be the monitoring officer unless the authority designated another officer or officers. So it will be not only a "proper officer" technically, but also the appropriate officer. The amendment provides also that,

"This section shall not apply to decisions solely requiring the preparation of advice or the undertaking of research".

If the system is to be seen not to allow old-style decisions in smoke-filled private rooms, it must allow for call-in by the overview and scrutiny committee. The term "overview" is therefore important. It must allow for call-in on an effective basis.

The Government have been passionate in their advocacy of the good workings of their proposed new system. We will see what the outcome of the recent amendments is. If an overview and scrutiny committee is to do its job properly and take local authorities beyond the days when decisions were taken in private and were not questioned, and were not as transparent and accountable as we would like to see, a provision such as this must be included in the Bill.

My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, is not in his place. When I was asking him about his view of executives during the last debate, he said that it would be fine if they met in public because they would be subject to subsequent scrutiny. Amendment No. 16 allows for exactly that. The Bill as drafted does not allow for subsequent scrutiny until the moment has passed.

The recent LGA survey—Local Leadership, Local Choice—shows that 60 per cent of councils are running their executives as a majority party executive. Amendment No. 16 would allow that decision to be open not only to local members, who would therefore be re-enfranchised in terms of knowing what the decision was and being able to take part in discussion on it, but also to opposition members. We have said a great deal about the disadvantages of the one-party state and the opposition not having a voice. It will not be much use if that voice can only be exercised weeks after the event to much less effect. I therefore support Amendment No. 16.

My Lords, I am afraid that I must oppose these amendments. I see some coalition politics opposite as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, regains his normal place.

My Lords, I hope that is not a criticism of co-operation and an attempt to make the work of the Chamber move smoothly.

My Lords, when a degree of cooperation operates between ourselves and the Liberal Democratic Benches, the Benches opposite usually remark on it. I am returning the compliment.

My Lords, why does the Minister think it was a "co-operative" move?

My Lords, I am afraid that I must oppose both of these amendments. Indeed, I am not entirely sure what Amendment No. 14 would achieve. Any decision would be recorded. It would be made publicly available for scrutiny and the overview and scrutiny committee could therefore decide whether or not to ask the executive to explain its actions. As it stands, the amendment suggests that if the executive asked, for example, for a bit of research to be done or for some further information to be gathered, it would need to inform the chair of the overview and scrutiny committee. That surely cannot be the intention, but it is the implication of the clause.

If the intention is to avoid decisions of the executive being called in, then it does not achieve that either. The overview and scrutiny committee has substantial powers. It could call in members of the executive at any time it wished. It could have them before it every day to explain their decisions and it could invite the press and the public as well. The overview and scrutiny committee does not lack powers in this area and the consequence of Amendment No. 14 therefore is not clear.

Amendment No. 16 would delay implementation by five days. As the noble Baroness said, we discussed a similar amendment on Report. I am relieved that the amendment was altered so that decisions that simply require officers to work up proposals for future action will no longer be delayed. However, the new addition, while sensible, does not remove my fundamental objection to it; namely, that urgent decisions should not be delayed while seeking a proper officer to confirm that the matter is urgent. Indeed, I am not sure that it should be the role of any officer to pass judgment on the urgency of decisions taken by the executive. It will be for the executive to justify the urgency of its decision, if required to do so, by the overview and scrutiny committee.

Noble Lords are anticipating problems which may not arise. We explained in our draft guidance that councils should set out in their arrangements how soon decisions should be recorded and made available and that generally there should be a delay between a decision being taken and being implemented so as to allow the overview and scrutiny committee time to call in decisions. To impose the kind of constraints implied by these amendments would not be appropriate in primary legislation. It is for councils to work out the best way of achieving that. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will not press the amendment.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, responded to my amendment by telling me that the consequences it would bring about are not clear. But the consequences are quite simple. First, there would be absolutely no delay; secondly, the scrutineering side of the authority would have immediate knowledge of what was going on. That is all that was intended.

The Minister said that it will be for the executive to justify the urgency to the overview and scrutiny committee. That may be right, but doing it one or two months later is really a bit late and would not be satisfactory. However, he offered the siren words, "It is for the local authority to decide how it makes the arrangements". That is something with which I am happy to agree. I make the blithe assumption, though it is probably sometimes incorrect, that proceedings in this House are valid and that even local authorities will pay attention to what is said in this Chamber. With that, I am happy to have had the debate and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 15:

Page 10, line 22, leave out ("includes") and insert ("may include").

My Lords, I believe that I can reassure the noble Lord. Clause 15(2) does not require provisions similar to Clauses 12, 13 and 14; it merely enables such provision to be made. The subsection in question states that such provision,

"may be made by regulations",

not that it must be made by regulations. Moreover, Clause 15(3) states that nothing in subsection (2) restricts the general nature of the powers set out in subsection (1). That means that subsection (2), which the noble Lord seeks to amend, does not restrict the scope of the regulation power simply to applying or reproducing the provisions set out in Clauses 12, 13 and 14, with or without modifications. I believe that the objective of the noble Lord's amendment has been met in the Bill as it stands.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. It certainly removes concerns that may have been expressed in Cardiff. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 16:

After Clause 18, insert the following new clause—

My Lords, the noble Baroness has alighted on one of my objections to introducing such an amendment to Clause 16 relating to the designation of an appropriate officer. It may well be that the overview and scrutiny committee or even the council as a whole may be prepared to delegate such responsibility to an officer, but I do not think that it is the role of primary legislation to require those bodies to do so. This is basically a procedural issue.

I simply repeat that different councils will arrange these matters in different ways. It is important that the Bill leaves them the flexibility to ensure that that is the case. If such a provision is prescribed on the face of the Bill, we will inhibit proper co-operation between the overview and scrutiny committee and the executive rather than enhance it.

My Lords, I fear that I am not convinced by that response. There is already a great deal of prescription in the Bill and I am not convinced when I hear the Minister say that it is not appropriate for primary legislation to prescribe in this area. I do not believe that this is a peripheral matter. It goes to the heart of how authorities operate. For that reason, I should like to test the opinion of the House.

moved Amendment No. 17:

My Lords, if' it has not been obvious, perhaps I may put on record the fact that the Government do not necessarily think that the Bill is absolutely perfect. Indeed, if that were so, we would not have brought forward a number of amendments at various stages in the passage of this Bill. Nevertheless, we think that this attempt by the Liberal Democrats to broaden the role of overview and scrutiny committees—even in the modest way that the noble Baroness suggests in the amendment—is the wrong approach. We need overview and scrutiny committees to deal with just overview and scrutiny. That role needs to be distinct and identifiable. People need to know what that role is and who holds the decision-makers to account.

I appreciate that the noble Baroness has modified her previous approach to this matter, but, nevertheless she seeks to allow overview and scrutiny committees to do what they are not expressly forbidden to do. There are areas of council responsibilities which are not the responsibility of the executive—for example, an exercise in policy review or in moving towards future decisions, or a more regulatory activity of the council—which an overview and scrutiny committee might subsequently wish to review or scrutinise. Had it already been party to that decision or had some responsibility for it, that would blur its role. We should not blur its role on the face of the Bill.

The noble Baroness referred to an earlier discussion on the issue of client contractor relationships for direct services. That is an area that we are considering in the light of the responses we have received to the draft guidance. That issue may need some clarification which I believe is appropriate for guidance. There is flexibility as regards this matter in Clause 11. However, an overview and scrutiny committee would not take responsibility for functions in such arrangements; an ordinary committee of the council appointed by the council would do so, as now.

We believe that to allow overview and scrutiny committees to discharge functions, including those which are not the responsibility of the executive but could be subject to overview and scrutiny, would blur their roles. I therefore do not think that we should open up that possibility in this clause. Flexibility already exists, but the essential role of the overview and scrutiny committee needs to be preserved. This amendment would put it in doubt; I hope that the noble Baroness does not pursue it.

My Lords, I shall not pursue the matter but I still have anxieties as to whether we shall get it right. It seems to me that the number of amendments that the Government have had to table and the number of provisions that will be dealt with by regulations makes my case for me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 18:

Page 14, line 1, after ("executive,") insert ("or a joint committee or a sub-committee of any such committee,").

My Lords, the Government have often quoted that the reason for bringing in the Bill is to improve the relationship between the public and local authorities. I should like to dwell for a moment on the fundamental role that residents see their local authority playing. They see their councillors as people who make decisions. Up until now, they have often been seen as not very accountable—here I agree with the Minister—because decisions have been made behind closed doors in smoked-filled rooms. Councillors' postbags are full of letters from residents who write in and say, "When you make a decision, will you please take this matter into account?". They have the agendas of meetings, not only on regulatory issues, which I know will not be subject to this same discipline, but on all manner of issues.

It is noticeable that usually it is one letter per citizen. Residents in a council's area do not write in frequently on all kinds of subjects; they will write in once about something on the council's agenda that particularly concerns them and on which they would like to have some influence. It' the Government include in the Bill a provision for the executives to meet in private, particularly the executives of a majority party—which, as I said, will be some 60 per cent of executives—the public will be no better served in councils which operate such a system. For them it will be a very poor second to hear that the scrutiny committee will consider the views of other members of the council, which will probably include their elected councillor. They will question what they elected that councillor for, and the relationship between local authorities and the public will be further damaged. This process of modernisation has led people to believe that they will have a closer relationship with their local authorities and that they will be included more in meetings.

The more successful local authorities are those which have done their best to go out to meet the public in places to which they have easy access—community halls and so on—and to make their meetings public friendly. It is noticeable that the public will turn out when they feel they will have some influence on the decisions to be made. On the whole, the public are not interested in being part of the ongoing discussions about scrutiny and policy making. Why should they be? They have elected people to do that job. A remark often heard is, "You were elected to make that decision. I just want to put my point of view to you, as my councillor, and I hope that you will put forward my view to the council".

If an executive is able to meet in private, this cycle of events will not happen and many of the benefits of accountability that the Government believe will come out of the Bill will be lost. The public will see that important decisions are made by executives meeting in private, in those authorities that allow them to do so. The last time this matter was discussed the Minister said that the issue was not whether meetings are held in public or private but accountability. The kind of accountability the public want is where they can see, hear and be part of the process of decision making; they do not want to know who made the decisions and to receive some dry papers only after the event.

My Lords, I support my colleague's amendments. Grouped with them is a government amendment, and I should like to give the Minister an opportunity to clarify the Government's intentions in a number of respects.

I understand that the proposed regulations could not override subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 20 which allow executives to choose to make all formal decisions in private. Can the Minister say whether the Government intend to require executives to make any categories of decision in public?

There are other elements of the existing legislation which could be used. For instance, do the Government intend to use regulations to require public notice of the time and place of executive meetings to be posted at least three days before the meeting? Do the Government intend regulations to include the requirement that copies of the agenda and any reports for the meetings of the executive are to be available for public inspection at least three clear days in advance; and that copies of these agendas and reports are available to all members of the council at least as soon as they are available to the public? Do the Government intend regulations made on the keeping and publication of records of decisions to incorporate aspects of Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972? Do the Government intend the regulations to define enforcement and penalties as they are defined in that part of the Local Government Act 1972, and so on?

I hope that when the Minister responds he will be able to answer some at least of these questions, and perhaps write to me on others. I hope that he will be clearer about the Government's intentions for these regulations, should their amendment be successful.

My Lords, it might be helpful if I speak first to Amendment No. 26, which stands in my name. In a sense, that will cover some of the aspects, including some of those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tope.

Regulations made under Clause 20 as a result of my amendment, if adopted, will be able to apply parts of the existing access to information provisions—including those in regard to issues such as penalties, timings and so on—to, for example, meetings of the executive held in public. We have already set out on the face of the Bill the key provisions we should like to apply to meetings and decisions of the executive. The executive may choose whether to meet in private or public. Where it meets and takes decisions in private, or where decisions are taken by an individual member, such decisions must be recorded and made public, together with the reasons and the relevant background papers. It is made clear in subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 20 that the prescribed decisions must be recorded and must be made publicly available.

My amendment would assist also in the making of broader regulations. It would allow us to specify in regulations that where an executive chooses to meet in public, the existing access to information regime covering public meetings would apply, as it would to other council committees. On Report, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, asked me for explicit confirmation on that point. I am glad to reassure him and to reiterate our intentions. This amendment should satisfy his concerns.

The noble Baroness's amendment, in effect—she would probably not dispute this—seeks to apply the existing Part VA of the Local Government Act regulations to decisions taken under the new structure. The whole point of the executive structure is its flexibility. Reading across those provisions directly would not ensure, for example, that where an individual member of the executive takes a decision, that individual is held to account for that decision or even has to make a record of it. That is one example of where the traditional provisions would not be appropriate and would not meet the enhanced accountability that we are seeking for our decision-takers.

The noble Lord, Lord Tope, asked whether agendas would be circulated in advance. Again, to some extent that misses the point of the committee. Certainly one might make regulations in relation to the agenda of the committee, but many of those decisions will be taken by individual members of the executive. We shall be consulting on the regulations for the procedure of the committee—whether it should be private or public—but the point about agendas misses the implications of how the executive would function in many respects.

The whole of the debate, at earlier stages and today, misses the point that the totality of the new executive arrangements will identify both the decisions and the persons responsible for those decisions in a much clearer way than is the case at the moment. The totality of the arrangements brings greater transparency than the present arrangements where accountability and clarity of decision-making are not apparent. Simply applying the traditional access to information regime under the 1972 Act, as the noble Baroness's amendments intend, would fail to recognise the nature of the executive. My amendment would allow us to use some of the existing provisions, so that, for example, meetings were held in public subject to the same provisions, but we would need different kinds of regulations in relation to the other aspects of decision-making and accountability. I do not think that the noble Baroness's amendment would be appropriate and I ask her not to pursue it.

My Lords, the Minister has told us that the point of the executive is flexibility. But—and I have probably said this before in the course of the proceedings on the Bill—local authorities are not the same as plcs. There are different standards and different criteria. I do not believe that one should read over into local authorities the imperatives for immediate action that directors of a company might often feel would be overriding criteria.

My Lords, I do not know what it was in my remarks that implied that I was reading across into local government the regulations for company directors. I certainly was not.