moved Amendment No. 147:

My Lords, we had an interesting debate on this in Committee and went into some detail about notions of eligibility. The amendment has been brought back in a slightly different form, so I think it is worth reminding ourselves why we have attached conditions to this concept and why that is important.

The noble Baroness asked some good questions. Of the four tests, I think I am better prepared on the two that she did not ask about than on the two that she did, but I might get some assistance on the precise notion of the framework.

Essentially, the clause as drafted must be taken with paragraph 7 of Schedule 6, which releases eligible parish councils from the constraints of Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972. That is the point. As noble Lords know, that provision limits parish councils’ discretionary spending to a small amount per local government elector—currently £5.63. The amendment would deprive government of the power to set conditions which parish councils must meet before exercising the well-being power, for which there are very good reasons. The amendment does away with the concept of eligibility in the main clause, but I should advise the noble Baroness that it leaves it in the schedule, which I assume is an oversight.

When we discussed the clause in Committee, noble Lords knew that we were very much against the idea that every parish should automatically be able to exercise the power, together with an unlimited power to incur expenditure. We think it is much better to have in place some simple conditions that will enable parish councils, and their electorates, to be confident that they have a full understanding of the power that they are exercising and a sufficiently strong democratic mandate to justify it. Without being pejorative, we know that parish councils vary hugely in size and ability.

The noble Baroness asked me to define what is sensible. This is a new power and it involves parish councils being able to spend above their current limits. By “sensible”, we intend the ordinary meaning of the word—that is, that councils should undertake things which, on the proper judgment of the council, are appropriate to be done and for which they are competent, that there should be a need for them and that they should not strain or overwhelm the council’s resources. The local area should benefit from those things without disproportionate cost in terms of time and effort and without them overlapping with any of the things that other layers of local government could do. I do not know whether there is a better definition than that; there probably is but that seems to me to be the sort of approach that we are taking. So far as I know, “sensible” is not defined anywhere.

The conditions that we have imposed simply illustrate that, by introducing the clause, we are prepared to give parish councils the same broad powers as those enjoyed by principal authorities. However, the main difference is that principal authorities have professional support and legal advice. They are also subject to capping if their expenditure becomes unacceptably high. We need to think about that as the comparator when we consider the wisdom of the amendments.

I want to mention two of the conditions first. We have not coupled the well-being power with a proposal to take powers to cap parish council expenditure. We did not want to do that because we are content to rely on the sensibleness of parish councils. However, we also want them to be confident in what they are doing. We want them to have the sort of preparation and support equivalent to that which is available professionally to the other councils.

We do not think that the conditions will be onerous. As I said in Committee, it will be for a parish council itself to determine whether it is eligible and to defend that decision later if challenged, so there is nothing bureaucratic about this. The first of the two practical conditions will be that a good proportion of the councillors will have been elected rather than co-opted. We think that that will probably mean about two-thirds of the councillors being elected, but that will have to be confirmed after a wider consultation following Royal Assent. The second condition is that the councils, and especially their clerks, can certify that they have undertaken a modest piece of training or briefing, which we expect the sector to develop.

It is interesting that parish clerks are rapidly increasing in number and taking the CiLCA qualification—the Certificate in Local Council Administration. About 1,000 have done so, and I understand that it takes about 40 hours of distance learning. Therefore, I am minded to ask the organisers of this qualification to include it in a module covering the well-being power. Even if they are not taking the whole package, clerks will be required to study this module and councillors will be expected to be familiar with it.

I turn to the two questions that the noble Baroness asked. In terms of the ethical framework, it is a fairly obvious application. The quality framework—the QPS—ensures that a parish is thoroughly applying the code of conduct to which it would, in any event, be committed. That is the objective standard.

I was asked what is meant by “accountability”. As I said before, we are not slavishly following the QPS, for the reasons that I explained. We are merely taking account of the conditions which establish competence and mandate. That is laid out in the QPS and would be a set of objective indicators as well. If the noble Baroness would like me to do so, I shall certainly send her that part of the QPS so that she can see what sort of elements go into it. I hope that I have answered the three questions sufficiently to reassure her.

In conclusion, it is very gratifying that the sector is very pleased with what we are doing and thinks that we have gone about it in the right way. It thinks the conditions that we have attached are sensible and wearable, and make for a reasonable and comfortable approach in terms of their competence and responsibilities. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

My Lords, I shall certainly ask leave to withdraw the amendment in a moment, but I should say that I remain a bit puzzled by the ethical framework. As the Minister says, they have to have it, so I do not understand how it can be part of a standard or test. That may become clear when I see how it is referred to in the QPS.

On how to ensure a democratic mandate, I wrote down, “How could it not?”, and the answer came back, “Because there might be too many co-opted councillors”. What about appointed councillors? Maybe that will figure in the final form of the scheme. It still sounds a bit subjective, but I think that I have made the point and I am grateful for the further information that this has elicited—not to suggest that it would not have been forthcoming. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 148 to 151 not moved.]

Clause 86 [Community governance petitions]:

moved Amendments Nos. 152 to 154:

moved Amendment No. 155:

moved Amendment No. 156:

moved Amendment No. 157:

moved Amendment No. 158:

moved Amendments Nos. 159 to 161:

moved Amendment No. 162:

moved Amendment No. 163:

moved Amendment No. 163A:

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for the manner in which he has moved his amendment, which would remove Clause 100(3). Amendment No. 163B relates to decisions, as the noble Lord said, to abolish a parish, and requires parish polls to be used in certain circumstances.

We had similar amendments tabled in Committee and I am afraid to say that the Government’s position has not changed; I have “Resist. Resist. Resist.” all over my brief. Clause 100(3) provides that a review must recommend that parishes with 150 or fewer local government electors should not have a parish council. The noble Lord’s Amendment No. 163A would allow a principal council, as part of a community governance review, to recommend that small parishes with electorates of 150 or fewer have a parish council.

As I stated in Committee, Clause 100(3) has been included in the Bill as we recognise that sometimes there is difficulty in small parishes in getting sufficient numbers of people to stand for election to the parish council. We believe that it is more appropriate in these areas that the parish is represented by a parish meeting. As I stated in Committee, this provision does not apply to an existing parish of the same size which already has a parish council. So any existing parish falling within this category can continue to have a parish council.

We do not believe that Amendment No. 163A is required as we consider that the Bill’s provisions will help to resolve existing problems with small parish councils being unable to find sufficient members. We also resist Amendment No. 163B, which inserts a new clause after Clause 100. We have been clear throughout the Bill’s progress that Part 4 is about devolving power from central to local government and communities.

The Bill requires principal councils to consult, to take account of representations, and now to make known the outcome of their decisions for putting in place any community governance arrangements. We believe that provision has been strengthened in the course of the Bill. The Bill contains adequate processes and mechanisms to ensure that the views of local people are taken into account. We have also been clear that we do not expect to see parishes abolished—the noble Lord has referred to that—except in those circumstances where the area of the abolished parish is to be included in a new or revised parish area.

A principal council will only be able to recommend the abolition of a parish where it believes that this will meet the criteria set out in Clause 99(4)—to reflect

“the identities and interests of the community in that area, and is effective and convenient”.

It will not be able to abolish a parish just because it does not like it. The noble Lord gave an example of how he felt that might be in the mind of the principal council. We believe that it would not be possible to abolish a parish just because there has been internal tension. Principal councils will need to consider local opinion, including that of parish councillors and local electors.

The noble Lord’s amendments seek to extend the involvement of local electors through parish meetings having a say in determining the outcome of any review through a motion on recommendations made or through a poll.

We trust local government to act effectively and efficiently when taking decisions on whether a parish should be abolished. As noble Lords are aware, parish polls already exist—the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, explained this—and have done so since the Local Government Act 1972. However, the amendments proposed would fundamentally change the role of parish polls. The result of any parish poll, as the noble Lord will know, is not binding. Therefore the principal council is not under any duty to act on it. The proposed amendment would make the parish poll result, in terms of the abolition of a parish, binding. We do not believe that this fundamental change to the way parish polls operate should be made.

While it is appropriate for local electors to have their say about community governance arrangements, and of course they should be properly consulted on any changes, we consider that it would be wrong to fetter the principal councils’ decisions by making them subject to the outcome of parish meeting polls. The Government believe that by allowing parish meeting polls to determine when a parish should be abolished we will be undermining the newly devolved power from the principal council. Local electors and stakeholders should be consulted properly about community governance arrangements, and their views should be fully taken into account.

In conclusion, ultimately we believe that the principal council should take decisions on these matters. We do not wish to, on the one hand, devolve to principal councils, while, on the other, saying that they do not have the ability to implement the recommendations that they believe are appropriate having conducted a full community governance review. We are also keen to encourage contested elections and believe that parish councils in an area with fewer than 150 electors would face difficulties in having contested elections for the minimum of five parish council seats. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's remarks; some were actually quite helpful in the longer scale of things—

Oh!

Not all of them, my Lords, but some of them. On the question of the size of parish councils, the threshold issue, the Minister has again relied on the argument that it is sometimes difficult to get people to stand. It is sometimes difficult to get people to stand for parish councils that have 3,000 or 4,000 electors. There are also sometimes intensely contested elections between people for much smaller councils. My argument is that the local circumstances should determine matters, not a blanket number.

However, the Minister said that no existing councils can be abolished. Perhaps she could clarify that in writing. What happens if there is a community governance review that results in continued parish government in an area, but on different boundaries? For example, if there is a parish and an expanding small town and it is sensible to include part of the parish in the small town, the existing parish might continue—perhaps there is a village and scattered farms and housing around it—but on different boundaries. Because of the circumstances, it might fall below the threshold of 150—from, say, 200 to 140. Does that count as a new parish or the existing parish continuing?

That is a technical matter. It might never happen, but if you do not think these things out you get into trouble in due course.

My Lords, I do not think that it would count as a new parish, but if I am wrong I will write to the noble Lord on that matter.

My Lords, if there were an active parish council in a place, it would be a shame to close it down just because the boundaries had changed.

My Lords, my note, says, “Wouldn’t be a new parish. Wouldn’t have to abolish”.

My Lords, I am most grateful. That will lead me to withdraw my amendment, but before I do I will just comment on the second amendment. The Minister said that the Government were not about undermining the powers of principal councils. I thought that double devolution was all about undermining the powers of principal councils. Well, “undermining” may be the wrong word; perhaps “assisting them to exercise those powers through community institutions from below”, or something like that, might be more appropriate. I fear that I cannot put it into new Labour words. Even so, if we are serious about double devolution we must accept that often powers must go down.

In relation to the second amendment, the Minister said, “We do not expect to see the death of parishes”. Under my reading of the Bill, I do not see how we can prevent local authorities abolishing parishes, but the fact that the Minister has said it here may help some poor parish in its judicial review if it finds itself in that position, so that was a helpful comment.

What will the Government do if local authorities start abolishing parishes unreasonably? There is no right of appeal. There is no veto by means of polls, as I am suggesting. The only recourse would be judicial review. A small parish may well think that it is better to curl up and die than to impose the council tax increase that the cost of judicial review might involve. If the Minister could write to explain what she meant by saying, “We do not expect to see the death of parishes”, that would be extremely helpful. She said that they would not be able to abolish a parish just because they did not like it. That is great news, but it does not seem to be what the legislation says. Some information about that would be extremely helpful. In the mean time I am fairly happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 163B not moved.]

moved Amendments Nos. 164 to 168:

moved Amendment No. 169:

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. I expect that the noble Baroness will marshal the same arguments that she used in Committee. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, who is not in his place, raised this issue. I am aware of the problem in shire districts where there is dominance by one large town and then a large rural hinterland. Quite often, the large town wishes to have a town council. The district is not so keen because it sees that it would act as an alternative power base. At the moment, the aspirations of the town are not being met and it has nowhere to go. There is a huge sense of frustration that, having been blocked by the district, there simply is no redress. This is a difficult issue.

In Committee, we discussed whether the county council would be the correct body to act as an arbitrator, but the point was made that that would set the county against the district and that possibly having the Secretary of State involved at this stage would put enough distance to depersonalise the issue. There is some merit in that. On the one hand, there is the argument that these are local issues and they should not be decided by the Secretary of State. On the other hand, the Bill is riddled with the interventions of the Secretary of State and our national law is full of controls by the Secretary of State. Asking him in rare circumstances to act as the arbiter of what should happen in a local area is one case where the Secretary of State’s intervention could be justified, so I am pleased to support the amendment.

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton has been a good friend of this Bill. I regret it if my response disappoints him and I know that it will disappoint the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market. The Government cannot accept this amendment.

Oh no!

My Lords, through the Bill we are making it easier to set up parish councils by devolving power from central to local government and communities, enabling principal councils, districts, unitaries and London boroughs to make decisions and put in place appropriate community governance arrangements, taking account of the views of local people. At present, principal councils have to make recommendations to the Secretary of State and to the Electoral Commission on parish reviews, which are subject to central decisions on whether their proposals should be accepted or rejected. We believe that in the future such decisions should be taken locally. Local decision-making would be undermined if the Secretary of State were able to override the decisions of the local authority. We have to trust local authorities to act reasonably and to make decisions that are in the best interests of their area. That is what devolution is all about, and to that extent I am regurgitating the points I made in Committee, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said I would.

I regret that my cough is getting worse. I would be grateful if my noble friend Lady Andrews could take over at this point.

My Lords, I shall carry on where my noble friend left off. The Bill’s provisions require that local people and stakeholders are consulted during a community governance review, and place a duty on principal councils to take into account any representations received. Recommendations must be published so that everyone is aware of the results of the review. We have also brought forward amendments which require the principal council to publish the reasons behind any decisions it makes on whether to implement the recommendations of a community governance review. Part 4 is all about local decision-making and the measures we are taking in the Bill are essentially deregulatory. They devolve powers and decision-making to principal councils. We believe that local authorities are best placed to take these decisions and that central government should not be involved in what is a local matter.

Perhaps I may pick up some of the pertinent questions asked by noble Lords. I hope that there is no question of local people’s views being ignored. That would certainly undermine what we are trying to do. Local people can petition the local authority to conduct a community governance review, and if the petition is valid a review must be conducted unless one has been completed in the preceding two years or a review is being conducted for the same area. My noble friend Lord Graham also asked whether the council could act capriciously and what would be the consequences of that. A council cannot act capriciously because that would be irrational and therefore unlawful. It must decide the review on the basis of the criteria set out in the Bill, and that is the greatest safeguard. It is also worth reminding the House that we have sent copies of the draft guidance, which sets out the form we believe the report should take. I believe that noble Lords already have the guidance, and it is available in the Library. However, if my noble friend or the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, want further information or other issues arise, I shall be happy to provide all I can.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Ministers, both of whom have taken the trouble to answer the case I have made. I hope very much that my noble friend Lady Crawley did not choke on what I was trying to say. It is not an easy decision. I have pleaded all along during this Bill that local people and local councils should have the right to make decisions. However, while I do not say that they would act capriciously, if in their wisdom councils decide that the case has not been made, of course they have the right to come to that decision. I have argued that when they do come to a decision that they are able to justify, there ought to be a mechanism to allow the aggrieved person or persons the opportunity to have something like a public inquiry. However, I appreciate that there are some matters into which central government should not stray.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, alluded to the possibility of jealousy and of people in one area not taking too kindly to people in another area. I shall certainly ask my friends who have written to me on this matter to give me some hard, concrete cases, but I expect there will not be very many because it is all done by interpretation and by committee conclusions of that kind. I am grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 170:

moved Amendment No. 171:

moved Amendment No. 171A:

My Lords, we had a very good debate on this part of the Bill in Committee, where the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, who is not in his place, were eloquent in describing the notion of putting upper limits on the face of the Bill. I am afraid that I cannot say very much that is new.

If we did provide upper limits I do not think that it would reinforce the principle of devolution, which is part of the argument. It does not follow that limiting the function of the Secretary of State in the foreseeable future would devolve power to local partners, and it would certainly destroy the flexibility that both central and local government will need in the future.

One of the pleasing aspects of the process which has been evolving over the summer as local area agreements have been negotiated in addition to the guidance and so on is that the arrangements for agreeing and implementing targets have been welcomed by organisations as diverse as the LGA, Sport England, the Environment Agency and so on. It is worth remembering that the LAA will now be the only place for central government to agree targets with local authorities and their partners to ensure that core national priorities are reflected in planning for local areas.

In Committee and in the other place, through the Minister for Local Government, we have made commitments that there will be an upper limit of 35 designated targets in the next round of LAA negotiations. That has been re-emphasised in the phase 1 operational guidance, which is in the Library. I recommend it because it is very clear and very good.

The real problem is that legislation is drafted to stand the test of time—we always think very carefully about what we put in Bills in this House—and I do not think that it would be advisable to limit government or local areas in the number of targets they may want to designate for years to come. I understand noble Lords’ concerns that the number of designated targets may increase over time if we do not limit the number, but the whole thrust of the Bill and where we are going is to make a real shift towards light-touch steering. It is a real step back by central government from the affairs of local government.

We are therefore going to maintain the devolutionary trajectory of the White Paper in the Bill to ensure that the burden of reporting targets is confined to key national priorities in each area. We do not want to limit the scope for responding to challenges by putting a long-term statutory limit of 35 in the Bill. However, the noble Baroness has our assurance that we do not want the number to be higher, and we have said that it is an upper limit.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I think that the assurance was almost given within what she said—which was that, irrespective of the number of 35, the entire thrust is to push the figure down. Since the figure of 35 has been bandied around for many weeks, we will assume that it will be the upper limit. There is enough on record to suggest that that would be what it is without putting it in the Bill. I thank the Minister for that and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 112 [Duty to prepare and submit draft of a local area agreement]:

had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 172:

moved Amendment No. 172A:

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment No. 172A and will link it to Amendment No. 177A. The group of amendments in which Amendment No. 172A is buried raises many of the same issues and leaves the initiation of the local authority entirely at the discretion of the responsible authority. I alluded to this problem earlier. This is the only place where the Secretary of State, in the form of the government regional officers, can negotiate what are essentially local targets that reflect national priorities. This is the process that we have arrived at. If we were to accept Amendment No. 172A, we could not guarantee, for example, that a local area agreement would be negotiated to a particular timetable. It is important to keep the Secretary of State in the frame in this proportionate but proper way, otherwise local authorities would be left to negotiate their own targets without the national framework, which is very important. We have stripped out many of the national partners. We are now talking about only 200 targets, not 1,200, and looking at a much smaller number of specific indicators, so we need a framework that involves the Secretary of State as one of the negotiating partners. For that reason, I have to resist the amendment.

Would the noble Baroness like me to talk to Amendment No. 177A now, or is she going to move it separately?

My Lords, I think that Amendment No. 177A is near enough to Amendment No. 172A for the Minister to respond.

Indeed, my Lords. Amendment No. 177A inserts “pre-eminent” into the text, and I take it that it is a probing amendment because the noble Baroness is really asking what it means to have regard to a target and how LAA targets will sit within the wider work. It would limit the discretion of the partner authorities in what they could prioritise. They will have to give priority to the LAA targets to which they have signed up.

I see what the noble Baroness is getting at here, but because of the implications we would end up with an unsatisfactory situation. Essentially, to start at the beginning, the amendment concerns the role that partner authorities will play in delivering the LAA targets after the negotiations have concluded. Noble Lords have argued for a stronger definition. They are wrong to do so, because if partners must have regard to their LAA targets over and above the other work they do in exercising their functions, that would remove some of the important flexibility that they need in order to respond to unforeseen circumstances.

I know that as the noble Baroness comes out of local government, she will understand what I mean by that. If, for example, a police force agreed to sign up to a target with other local partners to reduce anti-social behaviour in an area, should it then give greater priority to meeting that target than to dealing with a terrorist attack for which it does not have an LAA target? If the Environment Agency signed up to a target for improving leisure and tourism facilities, should it have to have greater regard to it—in terms of time, effort, resources and so on—than to dealing with a catastrophic flood? It is important to retain flexibility so that judgments can be made. It is important that partners themselves have that flexibility to prioritise at any given time, rather than having their options closed off by the amendments.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response to both amendments. I see the response to Amendment No. 177A as more realistic. We are quite anxious to see the Secretary of State removed from local area agreements as much as we can, and Amendment No. 172A was another attempt to do that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 173 and 174 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 174A:

My Lords, I entirely sympathise with the spirit in which the amendment is moved. The Bill lays a new foundation for partnership working in local areas. Clause 110 lists a number of bodies which should act as partner authorities, with various statutory duties placed on them to co-operate in the negotiation of LAA targets and to have regard to them in the course of their business. We know that those arrangements are suitable for some bodies. In previous debates, we went through the nature of those contractual arrangements with public bodies. However, I know that the noble Baroness agrees with me that they are not suitable for all. We agree also that there must be no closed doors. Those bodies which are not named as partner authorities must have the opportunity to contribute meaningfully.

In moving Amendments Nos. 174A and 187A, noble Lords argued that the existing clauses give insufficient opportunity for non-statutory organisations to be involved in the drafting of LAAs and sustainable community strategies. The amendments would require the responsible local authority to consult such non-statutory partners, of which no definition is given, when they make up their LAA. As I said, I understand the intention behind them.

Clause 112(2)(a)(ii) already provides that the responsible local authority,

“must consult … such other persons as appear to it to be appropriate”

during preparations. I stress that the Bill states “must” rather than “may” consult, because it will allow authorities to exercise discretion. There is a balance to be struck. We want local voluntary organisations to be involved—it is essential that they are—but we do not want them to be placed under an intolerable, compulsory burden; nor do we want local authorities to be placed under such a burden to consult all non-statutory organisations in their area, regardless of their relevance. The amendment would force them to do so. It would be a duty with which they could never comply. It would be impossible to track down each and every non-statutory organisation to consult it, as some of them, as we know, are very small.

It is certainly our intention that consultation must include representatives of local third-sector bodies and of local business if local partnerships are to succeed in delivering on the new deal. We will emphasise that through the statutory guidance that accompanies the Bill. Having a background in the voluntary sector, I am serious about it.

This model reflects arrangements for existing statutory partnerships such as children’s trusts. It has been agreed in consultation with national representatives of third-sector organisations. Local authorities and their partners know that if they are to deliver on the targets that they negotiate, they will certainly need the assistance of business and third-sector organisations. It is in their interests to make sure that those consultation processes are open and serious. I hope that, with that assurance, the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

My Lords, as the Minister spoke, I realised that the amendment was too wide. I am happy to accept that if the Minister ensures that the third sector is included with other non-statutory bodies in statutory guidance. I accept that one cannot consult everybody. My intention was to draw attention to the third sector and ensure that it was included, particularly in view of the role that it now plays in local authorities. I thank the Minister for her reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 175 not moved.]

Clause 113 [Approval of draft local area agreement by Secretary of State]:

[Amendments Nos. 175A and 176 not moved.]

Clause 114 [Duty to have regard to local improvement targets]:

[Amendments Nos. 177 and 177A not moved.]

Clause 115 [Designated targets]:

[Amendments Nos. 177B to 178 not moved.]

Clause 116 [Revision and addition of targets]:

[Amendments Nos. 179 to 181A not moved.]

Clause 117 [Designated targets: revision proposals]:

[Amendments Nos. 181B to 182 not moved.]

Clause 118 [Approval of revision proposal]:

[Amendments Nos. 182A and 183 not moved.]

Clause 119 [Duty to publish information about local area agreement]:

[Amendments Nos. 184 to 187 not moved.]

Clause 120 [Preparation of community strategy]:

[Amendment No. 187A not moved.]

Clause 123 [Interpretation of Chapter]:

[Amendment No. 187B not moved.]

Clause 124 [Transitional provision]:

moved Amendment No. 188:

moved Amendment No. 189:

moved Amendment No. 190:

My Lords, we discussed this in Committee. The noble Baroness raises an important point. I do not have anything very new to say to her. Although we appreciate the intention behind the amendment, it raises issues which are serious enough to warrant not accepting it.

Section 21 of the Local Government Act provides that a scrutiny committee can request information from anyone but the powers to require information are limited to a member of the executive or an officer. We stated in the White Paper—we have carried it into the Bill—that we would strengthen the role of overview and scrutiny committees to support councils in their place-shaping role and extend that power by enabling them to require information from public service providers, subject to the duty to co-operate on local area agreements. That is what the Bill does and it is a very welcome and significant extension.

It was also clear in Committee that we all thought that it was important to get the balance right in the way we strengthen these powers. We want to see scrutiny committees looking at strategic issues, in particular the role of the local authority and local partners in delivering the sustainable communities strategy through local area agreements. Therefore, they will be able to request information from the council and those responsible for public services.

I have no difficulty in agreeing with the noble Baroness that in some circumstances scrutiny committees may have concerns about the detailed way in which services are delivered, including where they have been contracted out. There is a lot of progress towards contracting out these days. Where they contract services it is vital to continue to expect that local authorities and others responsible for public services will as a matter of course specify in those contracts the arrangements enabling them to obtain information as part of the monitoring process in which they are involved. Contracts allow those commissioning the services to stipulate the terms and conditions of the arrangements. It would be very odd if they did not set out reporting requirements as part of that.

The other point to which I return is accountability. Throughout the passage of the Bill we have said consistently that we think it is important that councils and other public bodies remain ultimately responsible for the services they commission. That is the spirit of the Bill. If councils were to request information from those contracted by other public service providers, it would be very confusing—a healthcare provider contracted by the PCT could find itself being scrutinised by the local authority to whom it is not accountable and by the PCT to whom it is accountable. This could be seen as letting the PCT off the hook for the way it has commissioned those services but it would also be confusing and burdensome for the service provider to be pulled in different directions. There is a real point there.

Where councils require those responsible for public services to provide information and request that they appear before the committee, they will be able to ask their contractors along to accompany them. That may serve much of the purpose the noble Baroness seeks. I am sure she will agree that we should seek to minimise regulation on the business and voluntary sectors rather than placing unnecessary requirements on them. We believe that the arrangements in the Bill provide for clear lines of accountability which can be understood by commissioners and providers alike. That is why I cannot accept Amendment No. 190.

My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with much of what the Minister has said about bureaucracy and regulation. The difficulty from my point of view is that I would not be starting from here. I did not create the overview and scrutiny model and the split between the executive and the rest of the council that is responsible for scrutiny. That has been created by this Government.

The Government need to think very carefully about the long-term effects of the structures that they created in the 2000 Act and which go forward in this Bill. Those structures continue to bring into sharp contrast the executive role of some members on the one hand—or, in the case of a mayor, one member—and the scrutiny function of the others. As time goes on, the demarcation between those two groups of people will become clearer and clearer, and councils will become slightly more polarised.

The elected members who are not on the executive or who do not become mayors are to be given the job of scrutiny. My contention is that, if they are to be given that job and if it is to be done effectively, they have to have all the tools at their disposal. I understand how accountability might be built into contracts, but the contracts will be let by the executive arm of the council, not by the other arm, and the executive arm may not have an interest in building robust scrutiny into the contracts. I urge the Government to think very carefully about how this will work in practice. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House adjourned at 9.49 pm.