Proceedings after Third Reading resumed.

Clause 56 [Electoral Commission and Boundary Committee: reviews and recommendations]:

5: Clause 56, page 29, line 33, leave out “an appropriate” and insert “a divisible”

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 5 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 6, which is grouped with it and is effectively part of the same amendment. The amendments address a fairly small issue which has not yet been sorted out satisfactorily—a constitutional matter, though one which is perhaps rather less weighty than those which the House has been discussing in the past hour. It is about the arrangements for electing councillors in a relatively small number of, usually, small authorities. The Bill sets out the background to the way in which the Boundary Committee and the Electoral Commission will look at whether councils elected by thirds or by halves can have single-member wards or, if the councils are elected by thirds, two-member wards. However, this is really about single-member wards in rural areas.

We had much discussion of this issue in Committee and the Minister kindly explained the Government’s thinking, which seemed a little confused. She said that the Government felt strongly that when a council elects by thirds, it is best that each ward should vote at each election, allowing electors in all parts of the district to vote at the same time and to have an equal chance of influencing the overall composition of the council. I am talking mainly about non-metropolitan district councils and some unitaries. However, she said that the Government did not wish to make that mandatory and that it would be a matter of looking at the specific circumstances in each council when a boundary revision took place.

We are talking mainly about single-member wards in small village communities in rural areas in relatively small councils. In such areas there are many single-member wards in councils that elect by thirds. I am not sure exactly how many there are, but 80 non-metropolitan districts elect by thirds, of which at least half have single-member wards. The arguments on each side are this. Some years ago, the Electoral Commission produced a report that, in a fairly academic way, said that, ideally, all electors should take part in each election. On the other hand, single-member wards work well in some rural areas because they allow the relationship between the councillor and the rural village to be much stronger. We have single-member wards in such places, simply because during past boundary reviews this was thought by local people to be the best way forward, due to the relationship between these rural areas and councillors. Multi-member wards would be geographically large, and it would be better to have smaller wards with fewer councillors.

The purpose of tabling the amendment at this late stage in the Bill is to try to get the Government to give a clear statement of their thinking and what approach will be taken if there is a Boundary Committee review in certain authorities. My reading of Clause 56 is that there will be a very clear presumption in favour of three-member wards—or two-member wards in areas that elect by halves. I am not clear what the exceptions to that might be. The amendment tries to take out of the equation an assumption either way, and tries to put on to the statute book a situation in which local opinion will count and the local circumstances will count in each case. It tries to take a balanced view.

I am therefore trying to take out the word “appropriate”. Although I understand that the way in which the word is used in the clause can be regarded as just a technical matter—whether it is appropriate to have two or three, according to how the council elects—the word is full of value judgments, and people will read that wording as though it is appropriate to have either a two-member or a three-member ward but not a single-member ward. I am trying to replace the word “appropriate” with the word “divisible”, a totally non-judgmental word that is already in the Bill, to describe the situation in the wards concerned. So in one sense this is a very technical matter, but in another sense it is very important.

This is one of the proposals in the Bill that people on the ground simply do not understand are being made. People will find out too late that single-member wards in rural districts—which they have become used to, which have become accepted as part of the local political scene and which they want to continue—may no longer be possible because what they will see as an obscure clause in the Bill was passed and no one noticed. I am asking the Government to notice and to put the clause on a more even keel. I beg to move.

7: Clause 59, page 32, line 19, leave out paragraph (b)

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 62 [Executive arrangements for England]:

8: Clause 62, page 35, line 28, leave out subsection (8)

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 63 [Discharge of functions]:

9: Clause 63, page 36, line 7, at end insert “or”

10: Clause 63, page 36, line 8, leave out from “(England),” to end of line 9

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 64 [Changing governance arrangements]:

11: Clause 64, page 38, leave out line 30

12: Clause 64, page 38, line 35, leave out from “executive,” to end of line 36

13: Clause 64, page 38, line 44, leave out “or elected executive”

14: Clause 64, page 39, line 10, leave out “or elected executive”

15: Clause 64, page 40, line 38, leave out “or an elected executive”

16: Clause 64, page 41, line 9, leave out “or an elected executive”

17: Clause 64, page 41, line 21, leave out from beginning to end of line 22

18: Clause 64, page 41, line 33, leave out from beginning to end of line 38

19: Clause 64, page 41, line 39, leave out “or elected”

20: Clause 64, page 41, line 43, leave out from “executive” to end of line 44

21: Clause 64, page 42, line 3, leave out from “mayor” to end of line 4

22: Clause 64, page 42, leave out line 15

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 66 [Elected mayors]:

23: Clause 66, page 43, line 37, leave out subsection (2)

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 68 [Power to make incidental, consequential provision etc]:

24: Clause 68, page 47, leave out line 20

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 70 [Interpretation]:

25: Clause 70, page 47, line 40, leave out paragraph (a)

26: Clause 70, page 48, line 3, leave out paragraphs (c) and (d)

27: Clause 70, page 48, leave out line 8

28: Clause 70, page 48, leave out lines 11 and 12

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 74 [Further amendments & transitional provision]:

29: Clause 74, page 50, line 26, leave out “Schedule 5 (new arrangements for executives: transition provision)” and insert “Schedule (New arrangements for executives: transitional provision)”

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 76 [Appointed councillors]:

30: Clause 76, page 55, line 35, after “appoint” insert “not more than the specified number of”

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, on Amendments Nos. 30 to 32, I return to the question of appointed parish councillors. Noble Lords will recall that we on these Benches have considerable concerns about this Bill introducing into local government a new category of councillors: appointed councillors. From the start, we need to emphasise that town councils, including parish councils, are a tier of local government and should not be treated as subordinate or lower quality in any way. We therefore need to take any provisions applying to them very seriously indeed.

The National Association of Local Councils does not support this measure. It has said that, while it will work with the Government to make it work, it does not particularly approve of it. I imagine that the national association recognises that it is important in localities that the local council enjoys the moral support of the community it serves. The problem is that it is often not just important to be completely above board, but to be seen to be so. The problem with the appointment process is that there is always a danger that it will be said in local areas that particular individuals were appointed because of who they know or because they already had friends on the council. It is going to be difficult, both for them as individuals and the for the parish council as an entity, to deal with this new category of appointed councillors.

There have been some inconsistencies in remarks from the government Benches. Like my noble friend Lord Greaves, I have been re-reading Hansard. First, through the debates in Committee and on Report, I am still unable to get any sense of who wanted this provision—who has requested it—and what its genesis is. It does not appear to have come from the National Association of Local Councils. Local councils are currently able to use co-option, which is done fairly frequently in areas where, for example, insufficient people put themselves forward after a set of elections; sometimes members are co-opted to make up the numbers. The principle of co-option is well understood, but it is not clear why this new category has appeared. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, said:

“we should make the difference clearer between those who are elected and those who are not”.—[Official Report, 11/7/07; col. 1480.]

We currently have co-opted and elected. The Bill introduces a third category, and I fail to see how the noble Baroness can claim that introducing one makes it clearer to anyone.

I have repeatedly asked the Government to explain what an appointed councillor will be able to do that a co-opted councillor will not. The answer I have had is that appointment will be for those who are not eligible for co-option; the one example has been for under-18 year-olds, who can be appointed to a council. I am sure that that is very well and good, although it will be interesting to see how many are in fact appointed to parish councils in a year or two’s time. Beyond that, the Government have not been able to give any examples of the sort of people who could come forward for appointment and not co-option. I am concerned about, for example, whether people will still have to be resident in the area or whether they could be drafted in from some distance outside.

There is another inconsistency because, although it is not in the Bill, we have been led to understand that one of the criteria by which a parish council will be judged good enough for quality parish status will be the health of its governance arrangements. Again, it is difficult to get a sense of good governance arrangements and mandate if a number of the councillors are going to be appointed.

We do not know how many people will be allowed to be appointed on to a parish council. In Committee, my noble friend Lord Greaves asked the Minister whether it is going to be a third. The Minister said that the Government imagined something rather less than a third. The point is that we do not know because it is not in the Bill and is left to regulation.

Despite the clearly stated reservations of the delegated powers sub-committee, the negative procedure will be used when the secondary legislation comes through. That means very low level parliamentary scrutiny of the details of the Bill. We on these Benches feel that it would be better to have in the Bill at least the modest provision that the number of appointed councillors will always remain very small. I beg to move.

Clause 76 [Appointed councillors]:

[Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 not moved.]

Clause 87 [Constitution of new parish]:

33: Clause 87, page 61, line 9, leave out from “aggregating” to end of line 10 and insert “one or more unparished areas with one or more parished areas.”

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment to give effect to the policy that my noble friend Baroness Crawley set out in Committee and on Report. At Report, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, tabled Amendment No. 163A, to what is now Clause 94, on recommendations to create parish councils. My noble friend explained to the House that Clause 94(3) does not apply to existing parishes and, therefore, where an existing parish with a parish council has 150 or fewer electors, it would be able to continue to have a parish council.

The noble Lord also asked at Report whether an existing parish, if it were altered, would be treated as a new parish or an existing parish. As the Bill is drafted, an altered parish would in most cases be treated as an existing parish, because the alteration of existing parishes is dealt with under Clause 88. However, a loophole in Clause 87 has been brought to our attention, principally by the noble Lord and his thorough questioning, whereby an existing parish which has an unparished area added to it would have been treated as a new parish. We are therefore amending Clause 87 to close this loophole, so that an existing parish that has an unparished area added to it will be treated as an existing parish under Clause 88.

This is all very technical, and I hope that I am not being boring and confusing, but I can assure the House that the effect is to ensure that where parish councils currently exist in a parish with 150 or fewer electors, the parish council can continue in existence. The amendment ensures that the Bill delivers the policy objective that we set out in earlier discussions. I hope that noble Lords will find the amendment acceptable. I beg to move.

34: Clause 87, page 61, line 13, at end insert—

“but the aggregation of one or more unparished areas with a single parish is not the constitution of a new parish.”

35: Clause 87, page 61, line 14, after “(2)” insert—

““parished area” means an area which—

(a) is a parish, or(b) is part of a parish.”

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 88 [Existing parishes under review]:

36: Clause 88, page 62, line 4, at end insert—

“(b) references to the alteration of an area of a parish are references to any alteration which is not the constitution of a new parish (within the meaning of section 87(2)).”

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 94 [Recommendations to create parish councils]:

37: Clause 94, page 64, line 11, at end insert—

“( ) But subsection (3) does not apply if any part of the parish mentioned in subsection (1) is currently—

(a) a parish which has a council, or(b) part of such a parish.”

38: Clause 94, page 64, line 12, leave out “In any other case” and insert “If neither subsection (2) nor (3) applies”

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 106 [Duty to prepare and submit draft of a local area agreement]:

39: Clause 106, page 71, line 44, at end insert—

“( ) If a responsible local authority so requests, the Secretary of State shall make a direction under subsection (1).”

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I want to emphasise on behalf of my noble friends that we take the Government’s intentions as stated very seriously and at face value. Their words at least are encouraging. We want to be sure that there is recognition of what they are intending for the important future relationship between central and local government. I have attended the House throughout various stages of the Bill and have noted how often the Minister, who is in her place, prayed in aid flexibility. I have not done a check but I suspect that that word has been used on almost every occasion that she has come to the Dispatch Box. Now we turn to the vital question of how flexibly the Government intend to treat the local area agreements. As I am sure noble Lords will recognise, this issue is a crucial part of the Bill at this stage of its parliamentary consideration.

If local area agreements are to be as flexible and effective as we must all hope they will be, they must be dynamic, locally responsive and constantly monitored by the partners themselves—not by the Government or outsiders—to ensure that they are appropriate to changing local needs. That must be true especially for the new unitary authorities. The Minister will recognise that the Bill had its inception and most of its consideration before we were even aware of who might be considered for new unitary status. It is therefore extremely important that this exercise proceed with careful consideration alongside that exercise and that we have in place unitary authorities that are able to take full advantage of good local area agreements.

Although I have in mind specifically my own part of the country, Cornwall, what I have to say may be appropriate also to Durham, Northumberland, Shropshire and Wiltshire, which are all major county councils with considerable responsibilities. As they attain unitary status—which is not yet confirmed, though we hope it will be in a matter of weeks—there will be a very good case for ensuring they are able to take full advantage of the Bill’s provisions on LAAs.

Noble Lords will note in Clause 104, which has been accepted on all sides of the House, the remarkable number of partner authorities. There is a huge range, and rightly so. We want the principal local authorities—the main partners—to be able to work closely with a great many other deliverers of local services. I know that there is general acceptance across the parties, at local and national levels, that this opportunity must not be missed. In the words of the chairman of the Local Government Association, we should all be,

“pushing the boundaries of LAAs for more devolution”.

Surely the Government must have that in mind.

It is already envisaged that there should be strong local partnerships with the police and with health delivery agents. I have always thought it extraordinary that although the public rate the National Health Service and the prevention of crime as the most important local considerations, those are the services which are not subject in any way to local accountability. I used to be a member of a police authority because I was an elected councillor; these days, police authority members are appointed by the Home Secretary. If you want to complain about the National Health Service you will have to go to the Secretary of State, the only democratically elected accountable person. So this is a small step towards greater accountability at a local level and I am sure that we all welcome it. It is also true that the Bill and the Government’s proposals provide for a transfer of accountability for education of 16 to 18 year-olds from the learning and skills councils to top-tier councils. That, too, is a very healthy step.

However, what about transport planning and economic development? It is extremely important that we should see those issues in this context as well. In an interesting Statement, the Minister for Communities and Local Government, Mr John Healey, said:

“The report also reflects the Prime Minister’s vision of a modern democracy, in which power is exercised at the lowest level, and those with power are held more clearly to account”.

He continued:

“We will require regional development agencies to delegate funding to local authorities and sub-regions whenever possible so that they play a more strategic role”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/7/07; col 161-62.]

My colleague in the other place—indeed, my successor as Member of Parliament for North Cornwall—said to the Minister:

“Will he take seriously the aspirations of the people of Cornwall to have a greater say over their affairs, especially given the ambitious proposals for a unified structure of local government in the area? Also, will he look again at the case for a locally accountable Cornish development agency, in light of the important convergence funding from the EU?”.

The Minister, Mr John Healey, responded:

“Cornwall still faces some significant economic challenges. It has been greatly transformed by the objective 1 funding that it has received, and by some of the measures that the South West regional development agency has put in place. I take the hon. Gentleman’s comments as another late representation to be considered as part of my work on local government restructuring.”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/7/07; col. 172.]

My noble friends and I wish to hear a clear statement today in the light of the fact that these changes in the relationship between local and central government are happening outwith this Bill and the recognition that this legislation relates to those changes.

Another important development in recent weeks is that the Treasury—which has never before been seen as particularly keen on devolution—has taken the lead in publishing so-called proposals for a sub-national review. Where in the country can one see a distinct, historic and geographical identity? Areas such as Cornwall and Northumberland are clearly sub-regions in that sense. Unlike the Conservative economic regions, which are so anomalous in relation to these problems and so diverse internally that they do not make much sense in this regard, they are not artificial creations.

Subsidiarity, an ugly word but an important concept, is now accepted on all sides of your Lordships’ House as an extremely important part of this legislation and the Government’s other proposals. Perhaps we should define subsidiarity and—in the context of taking decisions as close as possible to those whom they affect—get a government statement on precisely how the LAAs will be initiated. They should not come down from Whitehall but should come up from the partners on the ground.

I hope that the new local area agreements will be used as the excellent test beds they could be for more local decision-making in the future. Why not ask them to undertake pilot projects in important directions? Why not try out a local income tax to replace the failed Conservative council tax model? A bit more pilot experimentation in this field might save the Government a great deal of trouble.

At the centre of the issue, the amendment and this part of the Bill is our belief that the Government’s talk of empowering local communities and individual citizens, excellent though it sounds, must mean empowering elected councils and councillors. In the very interesting The Governance of Britain, the first Green Paper produced by the new Prime Minister in the summer, the executive summary said:

“The Government will … enable local people to hold service providers to account”.

Paragraph 179 said:

“The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will now work with the Local Government Association to establish a concordat to govern the relations between central and local Government”.

Concordats are not always a terribly successful method of getting agreement. Sometimes they are challenged, even by Members of this House. But at this stage, we have no idea what that concordat will mean. What is its relevance in this context? If the Bill does not even give local elected representatives the prime initiative—the prime lead role—in developing appropriate local area agreements for their area, that spells disaster for any attempt to make the proposed concordat an evenly balanced agreement with subsidiarity at its heart.

I hope that everybody in your Lordships' House now agrees that the man—or, indeed, the woman—in Whitehall does not always know best. I hope that the Minister will not take that as a personal challenge but will reassure us that the Government understand the importance of the issue. I beg to move.

I agree with the noble Lord; he is right to raise those points. He is also right to remind me of the power of the term “flexibility” and its incidence in our discussions. There is nothing more flexible than the local area agreement. It represents degrees of flexibility between partners and between local partners and local government through regional offices in the design of the future. He referred to dynamism and the responsiveness to local need and local vision. That is absolutely right. Considering the partnerships, the nature of places, the diversity and strengths as well as the real needs and challenges gives us an understanding of what the local area agreement is really about.

That takes me to the question in the amendment about the nature of the debate on local area agreements. Who makes the local area agreement and on what terms? This will come up in the next amendment. The essential point about the local area agreement, as we have discussed at every stage, is that it is locally driven. Its most distinctive feature is a negotiation between local partnerships and central government. It will be the only place that central government and local government will meet in the future to discuss the relationship between the overarching needs of the country as a whole, the economic, social and environmental pressures that we face, and the local area.

The idea that there is a built-in conflict or opposition between national and local objectives is contrary to common sense and to practice. That practice has already been tested in the 17 local partnerships which are developing. Whether the needs of the nation include better healthcare or greater success in schools, they will be settled at the local level to reflect the real challenges that that local community faces. I believe that the Bill strikes the right balance between local authorities and partners. We cannot take central government out of the picture; it is where local government and national government now meet to discuss national priorities and how they will be reflected in local action.

We have stripped down the number of indicators from 1,200 to 200 and the performance regime has been lightened. Essentially, an agreement should be genuinely driven by what local people want and say they need, working in partnership to deliver it.

Sheffield wants to tackle health inequalities by setting a target to increase life expectancy. It is doing well against the national average; therefore, it may not be necessary to designate this and make it a national target. But Sheffield wants to continue improving health equalities, so it could decide in the course of negotiations to include a more stretching or demanding local target. National government concerned about obesity or care of the elderly—whatever the 200 top indicators will be—will ask local authorities what really matters in the area and what they need to monitor and designate in terms of national ambitions. They will ask the local area to tell them what it thinks is most important so that they can work it out together. That has been happening all over the country over the past three to six months, as people have begun to work through these processes. It is innovative and challenging, but as a result we will get something that the local community can believe in and deliver, recognising that these things matter to all of us nationally.

Amendment No. 39 would allow a draft local area agreement to be initiated either at the direction of the Secretary of State or at the direction of the Secretary of State if requested by the responsible authority. Clause 106, on the other hand, allows only for a local area agreement to be initiated by the Secretary of State. That is more a technical provision than anything else. It is obviously critical that there is a clear and agreed process and timetable by which LAAs will be negotiated and signed off, and introducing two possible routes for initiating an LAA—one at the discretion of the local authority— would cause genuine confusion in the process.

Clause 106 sets out that this process will formally be at the direction of the Secretary of State but we will elaborate on this in guidance. That guidance, significantly, is being developed collaboratively—for example, with the Local Government Association—and will set out the process and the timetable. That is significant because the partnership with LGA runs through the Bill and the noble Lord, who has spoken passionately about Cornwall, knows that local authorities are keen to do this. They see the local area agreement—and, in time, they will come to see the multi-area agreement—as offering huge possibilities of new ways of working and a much better chance of success, whether that is in reducing the rates of teenage pregnancy or in reducing the stubborn pockets of worklessness that we still have in some affluent areas.

With that in mind, I hope the noble Lord is confident that the debate has addressed the issues that he raised and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

40: Clause 108, page 72, line 40, leave out “107(2)” and insert “112”

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I can be reasonably brief. These are Report stage amendments which were withdrawn by agreement because they were confused with others.

The amendments seek to ensure that the Secretary of State does not meddle with any targets once they have been agreed by local authorities. We have bandied around the numbers of targets set by central government. We were hoping that there would be no more than 35; the Minister will not put them in the Bill but we are all assuming that the number will be limited. Once the Secretary of State has set his or her target, these amendments would prevent the Secretary of State arbitrarily changing any other targets within agreements. He will be able to make changes only to national targets, leaving local targets alone. Local authorities have a plethora of targets imposed from central government. Therefore, once central government have resisted the temptation to produce any more, any changes should be limited only to those targets set by the Secretary of State, leaving the local authorities to deal with their own targets. That is basically the amendment. I beg to move.

49: Clause 121, page 83, line 25, leave out from “matters” to end of line 26 and insert “in relation to which the committee has functions under or by virtue of section 19.””

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, throughout the passage of the Bill it has been clear that, subject to some discussion of details, there has been a broad consensus that Clause 119 is on the right lines. At the moment, the only councillors who can refer matters to an overview and scrutiny committee are the members of that committee itself. That straightforward measure enables any elected councillor to bring an issue of local concern to the overview and scrutiny committee and have it discussed to see whether a way forward can be suggested. That committee has substantial powers to look into such matters, and elsewhere in this Bill we are adding to those powers. That is a big step forward for the local councillor.

So this is an enabling measure. However, as we have explained many times, we decided not to seek to place a duty on local councillors to consider matters that are put to them by local people, nor to require them to respond. Given the very wide range of issues that councillors have before them, we could not see that it would be sensible to do that. Indeed, we felt—and I think this is common ground—that such a duty would be unsupportable in practice and that therefore it was better to rely on councillors’ good judgment and energy to sift through and, where possible, resolve such issues as they become aware of them. That is all part of a councillor’s normal role, as noble Lords pointed out to me several times, with increasing asperity. Additionally, the new power that we provide will make them more effective local champions—that is, the power to demand committee consideration of problems where they feel it would help.

In this context, there has been continuing concern about the related measure passed by Parliament a year ago but which has not yet been brought into force. That is the part of Section 19 of the Police and Justice Act 2006 that deals with the consideration of local crime and disorder matters by councillors. In that context, Parliament has already taken a different view. This provision also empowered the councillor to take a matter to an overview and scrutiny committee—in this case the committee created by the Police and Justice Act, the crime and disorder committee. However, in addition, we also placed a duty on councillors both to consider all local crime and disorder matters put to them by local people, and to respond.

In broad terms, Section 19 gave the committee two roles. First, it gave a strategic role in that it is required to maintain oversight of the work of the crime and disorder reduction partnerships in preparing and executing crime and disorder reduction strategies for the area. Secondly, it gave a tactical role in that, as I have said, it is required to consider local crime and disorder matters referred to it by local councillors. The power given to local people to demand consideration of such an issue by a councillor is reinforced by a right of appeal, given by Section 19(4), to the executive of the council. That comes into play if the councillor declines to refer the matter to the crime and disorder committee himself or herself. The executive of the council is then required, likewise, to consider the matter; and is similarly empowered to refer it to the crime and disorder committee.

Ministers have argued in both Houses for the distinct treatment of local crime and disorder matters on the grounds that, although obviously more burdensome—and we did not deny that—the complications were justified where matters of community safety were concerned. On the other hand, the local government community, noble Lords in this House and Members of the House of Commons have argued that having two models for community call for action would in practice be too confusing for the public and for local councillors and officers. It has also been argued that the burden that the Police and Justice Act places on councillors will put many councillors under unnecessary pressure and will require support from local officials which will take resources away from work that might add more value. It has been argued, too, that the power to launch an appeal to the executive is possibly an expensive luxury that will take up too much time.

We had some very good debates on this matter at earlier stages and have listened very carefully. We have come to the conclusion that, although we think the scope for confusion is modest, we are persuaded that we should accept the strong views held outside and inside this House and adjust the Police and Justice Act to bring it into line with the provisions in this Bill. That is the main thrust of the amendments I am now proposing, with some minor consequential amendments. To be quite clear, what we intend by way of our amendment is that the power given to a councillor to refer a local crime and disorder matter to the crime and disorder committee will remain. However, the duty placed on the councillor to respond to a person who lives or works in the councillor’s electoral area will be dropped and, therefore, so will the related necessity for an appeal to the executive.

We are minded to change our policy for a reason above and beyond the force of the arguments that I have heard in this House. In addition, we have set out, in the Green Paper entitled The Governance of Britain, an agenda for taking forward democratic and constitutional reforms in future. Some of those proposals are aimed at the local level and will seek to take further empowerment of communities to influence public decision-making. One example is the proposed duty on local authorities to respond to some petitions. All these ideas are to be subject to consultation and discussion in some form or other. For the time being, it seems sensible to clear the ground by making the so-called “community call for action” as simple and consistent as possible, by focusing it entirely on the empowerment of elected councillors to act as advocates for their own communities. Indeed, I would argue that the result might more appropriately be called a “councillor call for action”.

I shall take noble Lords through the proposed amendments. Let me acknowledge that they look a good deal more complicated than the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and others at earlier stages of the Bill, but this is more apparent than real. In drafting the amendments, we had to keep in mind the fact that the Police and Justice Act created a new and somewhat separate overview and scrutiny regime for crime and disorder. The fact is reflected elsewhere in the Bill, in Clauses 127, 128 and 129, for example. We need to do as little as possible to disturb that, because the arrangements in the Police and Justice Act were designed to provide oversight of a statutory partnership. But we wish to provide for the alignment on community calls for action, so we concluded that the best way to handle that would be to replicate as far as appropriate the provisions of the new Section 21A of the Local Government Act 2000 in the Police and Justice Act.

We have also taken the opportunity to make some other peripheral changes to the handling of local crime and disorder matters. The first is that we have aligned the definition of a local crime and disorder matter more closely with that of a local government matter, so that it is a matter that affects a member’s electoral area or the people who live or work there. The present definition refers to crime and disorder in the area, and this seems unduly restrictive. Secondly, we have made the revised community call for action procedure for crime and disorder available to county as well as district councillors in a two-tier area. The current Section 19(3) applies it only to districts in such an area.

The reasoning behind this was to avoid a situation in which individual citizens could go from councillor to councillor, looking for one who would take a matter up. The change that we now propose brings the procedure for local crime and disorder matters into line with that for local government matters. We are content to rely on guidance to ensure that authorities in two-tier areas should expect to work together, avoiding a situation in which different crime and disorder committees produce conflicting reports on the same issue. I should add that, elsewhere in this Bill, we are providing for restructuring and the result will be that some counties will become unitary authorities. It would be odd if their councillors could bring local crime and disorder matters to their committee but councillors in counties where there are district councils could not. The change that we are making will remove this anomaly.

We have taken the opportunity to make it clear that the local authorities themselves, as well as the responsible authorities comprising the CDRP, are under a duty to consider, respond to and have regard to a crime and disorder committee’s reports. This is consistent with new Section 21B, which we are introducing via Clause 128. It appears to have been an oversight in the drafting of Section 19 originally.

On the amendments, new subsection (3) brings the arrangements for crime and disorder committees, so far as they concern local crime and disorder matters, into line with the Local Government Act 2000 as we are amending it. Those arrangements must enable any member of the authority to refer a local crime and disorder matter to the committee; Section 19(4) defines what that means. It mirrors exactly the provision in Clause 119 for local government matters.

Similarly, subsection (6) mirrors, with necessary modifications, the proposed new subsection (6) of Section 21A. It enables the committee to have regard to any delegated powers that the councillor might have thought of exercising, and provides that it may have regard to any representations that the member may make. Subsection (7) provides for transparency in the committee’s decision-making, in the same terms as the proposed new Section 21A(7). Subsection (8) applies to all the business of the committee, not just to local crime and disorder matters referred by individual members. It therefore preserves the existing provision of Section 19 covering the provision of copies of the committee’s reports to the responsible authorities, but adds that a copy must go also to the member who referred a local crime and disorder matter.

New subsections (8A) and (8B) cover the behaviour of authorities, bodies or persons to whom the committee has sent a report or recommendations, or a copy of them. It preserves the requirements on those organisations set out in Section 19(8) to consider, respond to and have regard to these reports in exercising their functions. New subsection (3) makes consequential amendments within Section 19. New subsection (4) redefines “local crime and disorder matter” to align it as closely as possible with “local government matter” in new Section 21A of the LGA 2000.

New subsections (5) to (7) make minor and consequential amendments to Section 20 of the Police and Justice Act. We propose to delete the “in particular” references to procedure and time limits for dealing with references by individual members to crime and disorder committees. This will further align it with Section 21A of the 2000 Act where, for “local government matters”, we have been content to assume that the “arrangements” that local authorities are required to put in place will cover such matters locally. There are several consequential amendments to Clauses 121, 122 and 123.

Finally, in relation to Wales, the amendment to Clause 242 will preserve the existing position with regard to Section 19 of the Police and Justice Act, Section 53(6) of which provides that Sections 19 and 20 and Schedule 8 come into force in Wales in accordance with provision made by order by the National Assembly for Wales.

I am conscious that that was a long explanation, but given its importance I thought that noble Lords would appreciate having the detail in Hansard. I beg to move.

50: Clause 122, page 84, line 1, leave out “under subsection (6)” and insert “by virtue of subsection (3)(a)”

51: Clause 122, page 84, line 41, leave out “under subsection (6)” and insert “by virtue of subsection (3)(a)”

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 123 [Joint overview and scrutiny committees: local improvement targets]:

52: Clause 123, page 88, line 19, leave out “under subsection (6)” and insert “by virtue of subsection (3)(a)”

On Question, amendment agreed to.

53: After Clause 125, insert the following new Clause—

“Reference of local crime and disorder matters to crime and disorder committees etc

(1) The Police and Justice Act 2006 (c. 48) is amended as follows.

(2) In section 19 (local authority scrutiny of crime and disorder matters), for subsections (3) to (8) substitute—

“(3) A local authority must—

(a) ensure that its crime and disorder committee has power (whether by virtue of section 21(2) of the Local Government Act 2000 or regulations made under section 32(3) of that Act or otherwise) to make a report or recommendations to the local authority with respect to any matter which is a local crime and disorder matter in relation to a member of the authority, and(b) make arrangements which enable any member of the authority who is not a member of the crime and disorder committee to refer any local crime and disorder matter to the committee. (4) For the purposes of subsection (3)(b), arrangements enable a person to refer a matter to a committee if they enable him to ensure that the matter is included in the agenda for, and discussed at, a meeting of the committee.

(5) Subsections (6) and (7) apply where a local crime and disorder matter is referred to a crime and disorder committee by a member of a local authority in accordance with arrangements made under subsection (3)(b).

(6) In considering whether or not to make a report or recommendations to the local authority in relation to the matter, the committee may have regard to—

(a) any powers which the member may exercise in relation to the matter by virtue of section 233 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (exercise of functions by local councillors in England), and(b) any representations made by the member as to why it would be appropriate for the committee to exercise any power which it has by virtue of subsection (3)(a) in relation to the matter.(7) If the committee decides not to make a report or recommendations to the local authority in relation to the matter, it must notify the member of—

(a) its decision, and(b) the reasons for it.(8) Where a crime and disorder committee of a local authority makes a report or recommendations to the authority by virtue of subsection (3)(a), it must—

(a) provide a copy of the report or recommendations to any member of the authority who referred the local crime and disorder matter in question to the committee in accordance with arrangements made under subsection (3)(b), and(b) provide a copy of the report or recommendations to such of—(i) the responsible authorities, and(ii) the co-operating persons and bodies,as it thinks appropriate.(8A) Subsection (8B) applies where the crime and disorder committee of a local authority—

(a) makes a report or recommendations to the authority by virtue of subsection (3)(a), or(b) provides a copy of a report or recommendations under subsection (2) or (8)(b).(8B) Where this subsection applies—

(a) the crime and disorder committee must notify the authority, body or person to whom it makes the report or recommendations or provides the copy that paragraph (b) applies, and(b) the authority, body or person must—(i) consider the report or recommendations;(ii) respond to the committee indicating what (if any) action it proposes to take;(iii) have regard to the report or recommendations in exercising its functions.”(3) In subsection (9)(b), for “subsection (1)(b) or (6)” substitute “this section”.

(4) In subsection (11)—

(a) after the definition of “crime and disorder functions” insert—“electoral area” has the meaning given by section 203(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983;”, and

(b) for the definition of “local crime and disorder matter” substitute—“local crime and disorder matter”, in relation to a member of a local authority, means a matter concerning—

(a) crime and disorder (including in particular forms of crime and disorder that involve anti-social behaviour or other behaviour adversely affecting the local environment), or(b) the misuse of drugs, alcohol and other substances,which affects all or part of the electoral area for which the member is elected or any person who lives or works in that area.”(5) Section 20 (guidance and regulations regarding crime and disorder matters) is amended as follows.

(6) In subsections (1) and (2), after “under” insert “or by virtue of”.

(7) In subsection (5), omit—

(a) paragraph (f); and(b) sub-paragraphs (i) to (iii) of paragraph (g).”

On Question, amendment agreed to.

54: After Clause 126, insert the following new Clause—

“Local authority scrutiny of crime and disorder matters

In section 19 of the Police and Justice Act 2006 (c. 48) (Local authority scrutiny of crime and disorder matters), after subsection 1 insert—

“(1A) Every crime and disorder committee shall include at least one member nominated by the police authority for the area of the local authority, who shall have the same entitlement to vote as any other member of that committee.””

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I, too, apologise for coming in at this late stage of the Bill. I saw the government amendment only on Friday and I had to think about what I was going to say. I declare an interest as a former chair of a police authority and as a vice-president of the Association of Police Authorities.

This is a very complex area, as the Minister has acknowledged, so it may be helpful to give a little background. The original provisions in the Police and Justice Act about the community call for action and the overview and scrutiny mechanisms that support it were made as a result of the Crime and Disorder Act review, which the Government initiated in November 2004 as part of the White Paper Building Communities, Beating Crime, which preceded the Bill. The aim of the proposals was to improve the working of crime and disorder reduction partnerships—CDRPs—particularly to enable better joining up and greater responsiveness and to make the partnerships more accountable. Those are all entirely laudable aims, which we support entirely.

There is still significant concern about the mechanism chosen to do that, however. Since the ideas were first mooted, there has been an element of mission creep, especially in confusing the original idea of holding the whole partnership more accountable with that of holding individual partners to account. The key partners, called “responsible authorities”, in a CDRP are the local authority, the police authority, the police force, the local primary care trust and the probation board. A number of others, such as the fire authority, have some particular responsibilities and are known as “co-operating bodies”.

The functions of a CDRP are largely operational, tasking actions against particular types of crime and disorder, such as anti-social behaviour. The main exception is the work that it does in consulting communities about very local issues, which in large part accounts for the presence of police authorities on the partnerships, and which helps them to shape policing priorities and assists them in their work in engaging communities about policing issues.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I seem to remember arguing when the Police and Justice Bill was before us that if the one of the aims of the CCfA overview and scrutiny provisions was to make CDRPs more accountable, there was a good argument for putting non-executive representatives of all the five key partners on the crime and disorder committee, which is what the Act calls overview and scrutiny committees looking at crime and disorder issues. Their job would be to improve joined-up accountability for the executive arm of the partnership. This arrangement would replicate the way in which overview and scrutiny committees work in a local government context, with the committee scrutinising the work of its executive. Why should any other partner have a lesser role in holding to account the executive arm of the partnership?

It is not our battle to fight on behalf of other partners, but we pressed this strongly in a policing context, arguing that accountability would be confused and place BCU commanders in a difficult position, without a police authority member present on an OSC to square the circle when it was looking into crime and disorder issues. Any other approach would inevitably raise expectations among the public and councillors—this is an important point—that they could in some measure tell the police what to do. They simply cannot do that.

As to the presence of a police authority member on CDRPs, because such members have no operational role, it is unlikely that they would ever be asked to explain their actions to an OSC. In any event, mechanisms already exist in Section 20 of the Police Act 1996 for councillor members of police authorities to answer council questions about the discharge of police authority functions. However, we accept that there would be a potential conflict of interest if the individual sitting on a CDRP for the police authority was also to represent it on an OSC looking at the activities of that CDRP. The police authority representative on any OSC would, therefore, need to be another member of the authority, who had taken no part in the activities of that CDRP. As I said, this is a complex area.

The Government accepted these arguments when the Police and Justice Bill was going through Parliament, although they did not want to place them in primary legislation and agreed that the presence of a police authority member on OSCs looking at crime and disorder matters would be included in regulations. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, stated on 6 July 2006:

“We are consulting practitioners around the country on exactly how best to exercise that power, and most importantly that will include police authority members”.

He continued:

“It is also important to highlight that the composition of such committees should continue to reflect the current and future structure of community safety delivery. The power in the Bill”—

the Police and Justice Bill—

“will allow that to happen. The power is subject to the affirmative resolution process, and we can fairly argue that Parliament will have an opportunity to both monitor and scrutinise its use and effectiveness”.—[Official Report, 6/7/06; col. 391.]

I am delighted that we will still be able to do that, and I look to the Minister, who is nodding, to give me that assurance.

Since that time, the exact workings of the proposals on CDRPs and related issues in the Police and Justice Act have been under discussion. They have not been finalised, in part because of this Bill. This will impact on how it all works in practice. We have not yet had any regulations. The government amendments that we saw late on Friday will leave as an exempted matter much of the operation of overview and scrutiny in a crime and disorder context. However, they make two key changes to the Police and Justice Act. First, the Act is amended in a way that leaves out the appeal mechanism that would enable a member of a community to take an issue to the council executive if a councillor declined to deal with it. Secondly, there are what appear to be relative minor amendments to Section 20 of the Act, dealing with guidance and regulations. As this section on regulations is amended, I seek reassurance that regulations will continue to specify that a police authority member will sit on crime and disorder committees.

If the Government wanted joined-up thinking between departments—and the Minister has assured us of that and has acknowledged that this Bill is intended to do that—why did they not adopt the model set out in the Police and Justice Act and avoid all this confusion and concern? I beg to move.

55: Clause 182, page 129, line 9, leave out from beginning to the end of line 37 on page 130 and insert—

“(2A) The conduct of members and co-opted members in their private capacities is not covered by this Part of this Act except where it constitutes a criminal offence for which the member or co-opted member has been convicted and which is directly relevant to the performance of their official functions.”

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 55 to 58 return us to the subject that we had much discussion about: the model code and the code of conduct for councillors. It is clearly the Government’s intention that the code of conduct should not apply where something would offend them if it was committed by a councillor in their private life, unless it was a criminal offence for which the councillor was found guilty. The trouble is that subsection (2B) does not say that; it says,

“where that conduct would constitute a criminal offence” .

We had a lot of discussion about the interpretation of that, and it has been my view all along that it will mean that even if a councillor is never found guilty of a criminal offence, “constituting” a criminal offence is sufficient to suggest that they could be still hauled before the standards board for it.

In another effort at this, we have tabled two possible alternative amendments. Amendment No. 55 would achieve the same thing as Amendments Nos. 56 to 58, but in a slightly more straightforward manner that I think would be less palatable to the Government as it would take out a whole chunk of the Bill. Amendment No. 55 would go further than the other amendments in the group as it would ensure that the same standard applied in Wales as well as England, which is not the case at the moment. Perhaps the Minister will tell us at some stage why Wales is not included in this, although it seems to be included in every other aspect of the Bill.

Amendments Nos. 56 to 58 are a shorter means of achieving the same end, which, overall, is to clarify the Bill. The Government clearly intend that the code should apply only when a criminal conviction has been recorded and limit—by statutory instrument, as we understand it—the criminal offences that the code may cover. The amendments deal with both points, bringing in the substance of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Dismore amendment.

The words that still worry us are the ones I have already pointed out: the categoric statement in subsection (2B) that the conduct would “constitute a criminal offence”. We would like to add, after “constitute”,

“a criminal offence for which the member or co-opted member has been convicted”.

That is derived from the 2007 model code of conduct in the Local Authorities (Model Code of Conduct) Order 2007. Paragraph 2(3) of that code applies certain provisions,

“where that conduct constitutes a criminal offence for which you have been convicted”.

That deals with the problem the Minister encountered in the debate on Report: the Bill refers to conduct that would constitute a criminal offence but the intention in the Bill, which is not stated, is that it should be a criminal offence for which they have been found guilty.

The amendments come with the Joint Committee on Human Rights seal of approval. They are common-sense amendments that are descriptive and clear, and they make sense of the Government’s stated intentions. They would clarify the Bill immeasurably. I hope the Minister will able to accept them so we can ensure that there is no problem over this aspect of the Bill, which, as we all know, has come about because of some actions that were found by the Crown Court not to constitute a breach of the code in a member’s private capacity. I beg to move.

It is very important to have on record the fact that we are very careful of the reputation of councillors. We are absolutely sure that no one should be judged guilty before a case is proved—everyone is judged to be innocent. That is a view in the processes that we have chosen, which have been accepted and supported by the local government world. I appreciate why the noble Baroness has tabled these amendments and I thank her for going to the trouble of trying to find a solution. I hope that she can accept that we have arrived at a position where we can safely agree the position.

59: Clause 221, page 161, line 18, leave out “a local authority” and insert—

“(a) a local authority;(b) a National Health Service trust;(c) an NHS foundation trust;(d) a Primary Care Trust; or(e) a Strategic Health Authority.”

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we come back to health in Part 14. Government Amendment No. 59 follows our lively debate on Report about whether it is necessary to exclude specifically NHS bodies from the role of host for a local involvement network. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, tabled an amendment along those lines. Although initially I was sceptical, they defended it admirably, so I undertook to go back and think about it. I said that I did not think it was likely; I certainly did not think it was desirable; and it was never our intention. However, the nature of LINks meant that local authorities should decide for themselves which host is best suited to serve the local area. Noble Lords were clearly not satisfied with that. I can see that it is an issue where absolute certainty is important, so I am very happy to amend the Bill in this respect.

The noble Earl and the noble Baroness have their way. I hope they are pleased that we have been able to agree that NHS bodies should be excluded, not only from being LINks but from being hosts. I sincerely hope they will support the amendment. I beg to move.

60: After Clause 221, insert the following new Clause—

“Arrangements: power to make further provision

(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations which provide that arrangements made under section 220(1) (“local authority arrangements”) must require prescribed provision to be included in local involvement network arrangements.

(2) The regulations may in particular provide that local authority arrangements must require local involvement network arrangements to include—

(a) prescribed provision relating to the way in which certain decisions of a local involvement network are to be taken;(b) prescribed provision relating to the authorisation of individuals as authorised representatives within the meaning of section 223(5);(c) prescribed provision relating to the use by a local involvement network of money derived from the arrangements;(d) prescribed provision relating to the consequences of contravention by a local involvement network of any provision of the arrangements.(3) In this section—

“a local involvement network” means a person who is to carry on activities specified in section 220(2);

“local involvement network arrangements”, in relation to local authority arrangements, means arrangements—

(a) which are made in pursuance of the local authority arrangements; and(b) under which a person is to carry on activities specified in section 220(2);“prescribed provision” means provision prescribed or of a description prescribed by the regulations.”

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, government Amendment No. 60 addresses other concerns that were expressed persuasively by noble Lords that the Bill does not go far enough to ensure the effective governance of local involvement networks. Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have had debates about what constitutes the shape and visibility of a LINk and how one would recognise a LINk when one saw one. In Committee and on Report the noble Earl, Lord Howe, was concerned about those matters and particularly about the effectiveness and accountability of a LINk if it chose not to have any governance arrangements at all, which we thought was unlikely given the activities that it was to undertake. Throughout the passage of the Bill and in getting ready for LINks guidance and elsewhere, we have made it clear that the intention has always been to make provision for governance arrangements.

We have always seen these specific arrangements as reflecting what the local networks themselves see as the best way of achieving their goals. Indeed, as you look at the early adopter projects you see different forms of relationships between hosts, LINks and networks, and the emergence of different governance arrangements. It is clearly a key feature of LINks that they are to be creatures of their own communities rather than central government. This has never meant that we would encourage anarchy to reign, but rather that we respect the different ecologies operating in local areas and that they might adopt different forms of governance to reflect the breadth of the network, the relationship with the host, programmes of work and so on.

However, despite assurances, noble Lords were still concerned. On Report, we therefore discussed an amendment tackling this issue and I undertook to consider the matter and come back to it today. The amendment put to noble Lords therefore provides the certainty that has been sought: that LINks, no matter what form they take, must have arrangements in place which guarantee transparent and vital elements of governance in some key areas. That has been achieved without forcing LINks to comply with a prescribed form of government.

The amendment places a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out the provisions that must be included in LINk arrangements relating to the governance, or means of operating, of any person carrying on LINks activities. The regulations will deal with how decisions are to be taken by a LINk—the arrangements which relate to how certain people involved in a LINk are, for example, to be authorised to enter and view premises of health and social care providers, such as how they conduct their investigations and assemble reports—the use of money by the LINk, and, importantly, what will happen if there is any contravention by a LINk of its arrangements with the local authority.

Those are the key elements one would seek to ensure certainty, a visible shape and form. I hope noble Lords will agree that the amendment secures the certainty of the key elements. It will certainly make clear to the local community, through more transparent and accountable arrangements, how—and, by implication, by whom—decisions will be taken. That could be by a board, a committee, a steering or project group; the conditions may differ, but there will be some form of arrangement to take decisions and agree priorities. It will also look at how the significant power of LINks to look into the direct provision of health and social care will be governed, for example, and how they spend their money.

I hope that noble Lords think that we have the balance right on providing for some proper shape and function while simultaneously enabling the local community to determine for itself what it wants its LINk to look like and how it wants it to work. It is an excellent compromise. I beg to move.

61: After Clause 225, insert the following new Clause—

“Transitional arrangements

(1) When a local authority becomes subject to the duty in section 220(1), it also becomes subject to the following duty.

(2) That duty (“the temporary duty”) is to ensure until the relevant time that there are means by which the activities specified in section 220(2) can be carried on in the local authority’s area.

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations—

(a) define “the relevant time” for the purposes of subsection (2);(b) make provision about the ways in which the temporary duty may or may not be complied with;(c) impose on a services-provider duties as respects—(i) responding to requests for information made by a relevant person;(ii) dealing with reports or recommendations made by a relevant person;(d) make provision for the purpose of imposing on a services-provider a duty to allow individuals authorised by relevant persons to enter and view, and observe the carrying-on of activities on, premises owned or controlled by the services-provider;(e) make provision relating to the referral by a relevant person of matters relating to social care services to an overview and scrutiny committee of a local authority;(f) make provision requiring a relevant person to prepare prescribed reports and to send them to prescribed persons;(g) make provision about the publication of such reports.(4) Regulations under subsection (3)(d) may include—

(a) provision corresponding to any provision that could be included in regulations under section 223(1) by virtue of section 223(2) or (3);(b) provision corresponding to section 223(4).(5) Regulations under subsection (3)(e) may include provision corresponding to—

(a) any provision of section 224(2) to (5);(b) any provision that could be included in regulations under section 224(6).(6) References in subsection (3) to a “relevant person” are to be read as follows—

(a) for the purposes of subsection (3)(c) and (e), a request, report, recommendation or referral is made by a “relevant person” if it is made by a person in carrying on section 220 activities in pursuance of temporary arrangements;(b) for the purposes of subsection (3)(d), an individual is authorised by a “relevant person” if the individual is authorised for the purposes of regulations under subsection (3)(d), in accordance with any applicable provision of those regulations, by a person carrying on section 220 activities in pursuance of temporary arrangements;(c) in subsection (3)(f) “relevant person” means—(i) a person who is or has been carrying on section 220 activities in pursuance of temporary arrangements; or(ii) a local authority which is or has been subject to the temporary duty.(7) In this section—

“overview and scrutiny committee” has the same meaning as in section 224;

“section 220 activities” means activities specified in section 220(2);

“services-provider” means (subject to subsection (8))—

(a) a National Health Service trust;(b) an NHS foundation trust;(c) a Primary Care Trust; or(d) a local authority;“social care services” has the same meaning as in section 224;

“temporary arrangements” means the arrangements made by a local authority to comply with the temporary duty.

(8) In subsection (3)(d) “services-provider” also includes a person prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State under section 223(7)(e).”

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with this amendment, we come to an important part of our debates over the past weeks—indeed, it seems like months. I hope that noble Lords will feel that they have played a critical role in getting us to where we are now on the transitional arrangements.

Government Amendments Nos. 61 to 63 arise from these constructive discussions over the past few months, particularly on Report, about the need to address the possibility that there might be a gap in patient and public involvement activity should there be any delay between the abolition of patients’ forums and the establishment of LINks. The genuinely creative amendment brought forward on Report addressed some difficult issues that would have occurred had we postponed the introduction of LINks, when authorities doing really well and getting ahead of the game would have been held up. On the other hand, we would have found ourselves unable to make money available, that money being an enabler and facilitator for what needed to happen. I undertook to consider the amendment further and to come back today with an amendment to take account of noble Lords’ concerns and ideas.

Before addressing the substance of the amendment, I shall say a few contextual words. This issue clearly exercised patients’ forums as well and we wanted to provide confidence to those dedicated and active members of patients’ forums who we now sincerely hope will take their enthusiasm and expertise on to the next stage in LINks. I shall address a few concerns that have surfaced in letters to me. That is important, because this is my final opportunity to put the record straight on some of the concerns around transition.

First, on LINks not having a fixed membership, there are two issues to clarify, especially as patients’ forums have been exercised about this. The Bill does not specify who should be in a LINk, what kind of person should be involved or particular roles, because we wanted it to be locally owned. It is a radical experiment in some senses, because we are asking local networks to reach out into the furthest corners of their community and capture and amplify voices that are more often than not unheard. Flexibility is a virtue in that case, not an impediment.

My second point picks up on the amendment on governance that we have just discussed. Whatever form LINks take, they should have clear-cut arrangements for matters such as decision-making, who is an authorised representative, how funds are spent and so on. So although we do not specify details of membership, the local LINks themselves will have to have clear arrangements for determining who is an authorised representative for the purpose of reporting or taking part in visits. The balance is right in that regard.

Another major fear—a misconception that has persisted throughout this—is that LINks do not have any powers. In fact, the arrangements by which LINks can require information and responses to their reports, the means by which they can gain access to premises—the sort of thing you find in Clause 222—and the duties placed on commissioners and providers to respond to LINks are all provided for, just as they have been provided for patients’ forums. They effectively have powers in the shape of duties placed on others.

However, there are three important reasons why LINks can achieve even more than patients’ forums. First, in the forum legislation, the Secretary of State has the power to make regulations only in respect of forums and their ability to enter premises. Under Clause 223, the Secretary of State has a duty to make those regulations. Secondly, commissioners and providers would be required to respond to LINks—under Clause 222—and allow entry to both health and social care settings, not just health as in the case of forums in Clause 223. Thirdly, under the forum arrangements, overview and scrutiny committees do not have to respond to referrals made by forums, which they will now be required to do when receiving a referral from LINks—that is in Clause 224. These are important powers. Noble Lords may also know that the regulations that provide for the means by which organisations are obliged to respond to LINks are currently being consulted on by the Department of Health. If there are any ideas as to how the regulations could be clarified or strengthened, we would certainly like to hear them. There were questions as to whether the Bill reduces the ability to have influence over healthcare. This I cannot understand. Our view is that LINks may have far greater clout than the forums, because they have a much wider remit and capacity.

Another concern is that LINks will be poorly funded. That again is not the case. As I understand it, the details of the three-year settlement are to be announced very shortly now that the Comprehensive Spending Review is settled. Making funds available directly to local authorities, which will then procure the hosts of LINks, missing out additional bureaucracy at the centre, means that more money will be available than many people expect.

We addressed conflicts of interest in the previous amendment. It is an important point, but it is dealt with all the time in many aspects of public life. Many organisations wear two hats.

There is a notion that LINks will be excluded from monitoring some health and social care services and all independent sector services. That is not the case. While there are some important restrictions on where a LINk can visit—for example, children’s social care facilities and people’s homes—there is no limit to the health and social care services that a LINk can monitor.

I hope that those answers to contextual questions add up to being able to say to patients’ forums and to people who are working in the field to establish LINks that we have done our best to ensure that what they need to make LINks a success and keep the commitment, energy and expertise available is in place. We have enabled that.

That is why this amendment on transition, which inserts a new clause, is so important and why I am so grateful to noble Lords. It may look a bit complicated, but its purpose is straightforward. The effect is that from 1 April, if a local authority has not established contractual arrangements through which LINk activities can be carried on, it will be under a duty to make sure that the activities are carried out by other means. The amendment sets out certain aspects which the Secretary of State will include in regulations, such as the period for which these transitional arrangements apply and the activities and the reporting of activities which are to be undertaken in this period.

I want to clarify one or two points on this. The question might arise of how we will know if the formal LINk arrangements have been reached and thus when the transitional period ends. We think that three clear stages will have to have been reached: first, when a host has been procured; secondly—here our amendment on governance is particularly relevant—when the LINk governance arrangements are in place; and, thirdly, when the LINk has begun to meet to start carrying on its activities. We shall make arrangements with local authorities to assess at which point each stage has been reached in each local authority area. We were tempted to put the period for the transitional duty in the Bill, but after careful thought we felt that regulations were more appropriate, as they would allow us to extend the period in the unlikely eventuality that that is needed. However, we do not believe that it will be necessary.

One of the main benefits of the transitional LINk arrangements is that local authorities will be able to receive their full allocation of funds from the outset. One of our concerns was that if we had retained the old system in parallel it would have eaten into the funds that we want to give local authorities to get LINks into action and which will be the engine that will drive these changes faster.

I shall say a little more about how we envisage the arrangements being carried on during the transitional phase. We will make further provision in regulations, which we will discuss with other stakeholders, about the ways in which the temporary duty may or may not be complied with—for example, because a local authority could not undertake the activities. We will expand in guidance on possible arrangements. We are clear about allowing people currently involved in patients’ forums to have an opportunity to apply their experiences and local knowledge. We shall make it clear to local authorities that in making their transitional arrangements they should invite members of the local population who have experience of monitoring local health and social services and representing local people’s views to be involved with the transition from patients’ forums to LINks activities. Local authorities will need to ensure not only that those people are available to undertake the LINk activities, but also that the group has the staff support and funding necessary to be effective. Of course, funding covers expenses only.

The regulations will also provide that all the same principles apply in the transitional phase as in the formal phase. For example, during the transitional arrangements, the temporary LINk will be able to make referrals to the overview and scrutiny committee and service providers will have the same duties to whoever is carrying out LINks activities. We are building genuine progression and consistency. That means that LINks, even prior to the formal arrangements, will be able to require information and responses to their reports and, perhaps most importantly, there will be certain obligations on providers of health and social care to allow people involved in the arrangements to have access to their premises.

In that context, I shall digress ever so slightly to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, for the constructive part that she played in considering the relationship between LINks and the regulators. She very helpfully proposed that the regulators should involve authorised members of LINks in every inspection that they carry out. I set out in my letter to all Peers on 3 October 2007 and in debate that regulators are extremely supportive of the notion of involving lay people in their inspection activity; indeed, they already do so in a number of visits. However, lay assessors are not involved in every visit, nor would the regulatory bodies support the default involvement of LINks, as there always remains the possibility that it might not be appropriate. The costs of involving LINks in every case might also be disproportionate. The regulators, which have huge experience, have stood firm on those points.

We believe that the current position achieves the right balance between enabling adequate and appropriate involvement and allowing the regulators to go about their business in an efficient way. As the noble Baroness knows better than most, both the regulators are very supportive of LINks and are keen for the new health and social care regulator to continue to involve patients and the public as appropriate. I am sure that in the vast majority of cases informed, experienced and appropriately trained people participating in LINks can only enhance the process of assessment by the regulators. Our guidance will make it clear that our general expectation is that the regulators will join up with LINks to seek the involvement of lay assessors.

I hope that by clarifying our position on this and emphasising the transitional role for people who are already active we have strengthened the core of the LINks proposals. We are setting out a robust framework, which will mean that, even if a local authority has difficulty or delay in establishing formal LINks arrangements, the activities will still go ahead. This is crucial, because it is about maintaining pace, experience and enthusiasm. It is not just people in this House or in Parliament who think that the transition arrangements are a good idea; we have discussed them with the LGA, which is supportive. I also understand from the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health that local authorities have suggested something along these lines as they prepare for LINks, so we are clearly all moving in the same direction.

It only remains for me to point out that the final two amendments are simply consequential to the insertion of the new clause on transitional arrangements and governance arrangements to make sure that Clause 226, which deals with the interpretation of this part of the Bill and supplementary matters, refers to the correct section numbers.

I am particularly pleased that we have been able to develop this notion. This is the last time that I shall speak on a health amendment, so I shall say how very grateful I am to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, and other noble Lords who have spoken on the health part of the Bill, which was bound to be controversial, because it comes with some history. This House is particularly expert on it. The position that we have arrived at is an improvement and will make a big difference to the success of the new scheme. I am grateful for the help that we have received. I beg to move.

62: Clause 226, page 166, line 15, leave out “225” and insert “(Transitional arrangements)”

63: Clause 226, page 166, line 24, leave out “225” and insert “(Transitional arrangements)”

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 230 [Duty to involve users of health services]:

64: Clause 230, page 169, leave out lines 23 to 27 and insert—

“(a) guidance given by the Secretary of State as to when, or how often, involvement under arrangements under subsection (1B) is to be carried out;(b) guidance given by the Secretary of State as to the form to be taken by such involvement in any case specified by the guidance.”

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 64 and 65 follow on from our debate on Report when concerns were expressed that, with our amendments to Section 242 of the 2006 Act, we might be paving the way for too narrow a concept of involvement. I undertook to look one last time at the form of words being used, and my noble friend has now tabled these amendments to take account of those concerns. Although they are a relatively minor change in language, the amendments offer more clarity that involvement can take various forms in different circumstances. I should like to put on the record that there was never any attempt by us to provide for a narrow definition of involvement or prescribe a particular, unique form of involvement. The two amendments are necessary to reassure noble Lords of our intentions and to avoid any doubt on the matter. I hope that noble Lords will recognise the spirit of this clarification and feel able to support the amendments. I beg to move.

65: Clause 230, page 170, leave out lines 2 to 5 and insert—

“(a) guidance given by the Secretary of State as to when, or how often, involvement under arrangements under the regulations is to be carried out;(b) guidance given by the Secretary of State as to the form to be taken by such involvement in any case specified by the guidance.”

On Question, amendment agreed to.

66: After Clause 234, insert the following new Clause—

“Payments on loss of officePayments on ceasing to hold office as mayor, leader or cabinet member

(1) After section 100 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22) (power to make provision about allowances) insert—

“100A Payments on ceasing to hold office

(1) A local authority may establish and administer such schemes as they may from time to time determine for the making of payments to or in respect of persons on their ceasing, because of their failure to be re-elected as a councillor, to hold office as—

(a) an elected mayor of the authority (within the meaning given by section 39);(b) an executive leader of the authority (within the meaning of Part II); or(c) a councillor of the authority appointed to the executive of the authority.(2) The power conferred by subsection (1) above includes power to make different provision for different cases.

(3) A local authority’s functions under subsection (1) above are not to be exercised by the executive of the local authority.

(4) The standing orders of every local authority must include provision for the publication of every determination under this section.

(5) A determination under this section does not affect benefits in payment under this section before the making of the determination.

(6) In this section, “local authority” has the same meaning as in Part II.”.

(2) In consequence of the amendments made by this section, the italic heading preceding section 99 of the Local Government Act 2000 becomes “Allowances, pensions and other payments”.”

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the whole House will have waited all day for this speech, because this is the last amendment. Goodbye, Freddy. I apologise to the House and to the Minister for having tabled this important amendment very late in the proceedings. I was prompted to do so after discussions with London Councils. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and I are, of course, joint presidents of that association.

One aspect in which the Bill is deficient is in the treatment of full-time local councillors who are not re-elected and who consequently suffer financially. The amendment seeks to rectify this situation by granting local authorities powers to award compensation payments to full-time local authority councillors who are not re-elected to the council. I served as a councillor many years ago when not a breath of payment was made. Progress has been made since. Councillors deserve treatment equal to that of other full-time politicians. MPs receive compensation payments if they are not re-elected to the House of Commons. As a result of powers to be granted under the Greater London Authority Bill, which is shortly to become an Act, the Mayor of London and London Assembly members will also receive compensation on ceasing to hold office. It is inequitable that although MPs, the Mayor of London and London Assembly members receive these payments, full-time local authority councillors are treated differently.

The amendment is not a case of councillors attempting to award themselves more money across the board. It would apply only to a limited number of local authority members in a limited number of situations. It would apply only to directly elected mayors, cabinet members and the leader of the council. It would apply only if they stood for re-election and were not voted back on to the council. It would not apply to other councillors and could be agreed only by the full council. It would be for local authorities to decide whether they wanted to institute these payments. They would not be obliged to do so. With these limitations, the amendment is reasonable and fair, and would allow each authority to decide for itself.

Last year, an independent report entitled The Remuneration of Councillors in London concluded that there is a clear need for the law to be changed in this regard. I beg to move.

67: Clause 237, page 177, line 22, leave out from second “or” to end and insert “paragraph 3, 9(4)(b) or 10(3)(b) of Schedule (New arrangements for executives: transitional provision)”

68: Clause 237, page 179, line 7, leave out “Schedule 5” and insert “Schedule (New arrangements for executives: transitional provision)”

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 242 [Commencement]:

69: Clause 242, page 179, line 20, at end insert—

“( ) The following provisions come into force in relation to Wales on such day as the Welsh Ministers may by order appoint—

section (Reference of local crime and disorder matters to crime and disorder committees etc);the entry in Part 6 of Schedule 18 relating to the Police and Justice Act 2006 (c. 48);section 238 so far as relating to that entry.”

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3 [Supplementary vote system: consequential amendments]:

70: Schedule 3, leave out Schedule 3

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 4 [Executives: further amendments]:

71: Schedule 4, page 186, line 22, leave out from beginning to end of line 30

72: Schedule 4, page 186, line 32, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—

“( ) In subsection (4A) omit “or a mayor and council manager executive”.

73: Schedule 4, page 187, line 10, at end insert—

“(1) Section 79 (qualifications for election and holding office) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1) omit “, or be qualified to be elected and to be an elected mayor,”.

(1) Section 80 (disqualification for election and holding office) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1) in the words before paragraph (a) omit “, and be disqualified for being elected or being an elected mayor,”.

(1) Section 100G (principal councils to publish additional information) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)(a) for the second “and” substitute “together with, in the case of a councillor,”.

(1) Section 100J (application of Part 5A to new authorities, Common Council, etc) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (4)(a)—

(a) for “from “ward” onwards” substitute “after “together with””;(b) before “name” insert “the”.(3) In subsection (4)(aa)—

(a) for “from “ward” onwards” substitute “after “together with””;(b) before “name” insert “the”.(4) In subsection (4)(b) for “from “and the ward” onwards” substitute “after “for the time being””.

(5) In subsection (4)(c)—

(a) before “ward” insert “, in the case of a councillor, the”;(b) before “constituent” insert “the”.(6) In subsection (4A)—

(a) before “the ward” insert “together with, in the case of a councillor,”;(b) before the first “whether” insert “and”.(1) Section 249 (honorary aldermen and freemen) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1) for “councillors” substitute “members”.

(3) In subsection (2) for “councillor” substitute “member”.

(1) Section 270 (general provisions as to interpretation) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1) for the definition of “leader and cabinet executive” substitute—

““leader and cabinet executive means”—

(a) in relation to England: a leader and cabinet executive (England);(b) in relation to Wales: a leader and cabinet executive (Wales);”.(3) In subsection (1) insert the following definitions at the appropriate places—

““leader and cabinet executive (England)” has the same meaning as in Part 2 of the Local Government Act 2000;”;

““leader and cabinet executive (Wales)” has the same meaning as in Part 2 of the Local Government Act 2000;”.

(4) In subsection (4A) omit “or a mayor and council manager executive”.

(1) Schedule 2 (constitution and membership of London borough councils) is amended as follows.

(2) For paragraph 5C substitute—

“5C (1) The council shall consist of an elected mayor, a chairman and councillors.

(2) A reference in this Act to a member of the council is a reference to—

(a) the chairman of the council,(b) a councillor of the council, or(c) the elected mayor of the council.”(1) Schedule 12 (meetings and proceedings of local authorities) is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 5(5) (who presides over meeting of council operating mayoral executive) omit “or a mayor and council manager executive”.”

74: Schedule 4, page 188, line 3, leave out paragraph (a)

75: Schedule 4, page 188, line 13, leave out paragraph 14

76: Schedule 4, page 188, line 30, leave out paragraph 19

77: Schedule 4, page 188, line 34, leave out paragraph (a)

78: Schedule 4, page 189, line 39, leave out paragraphs 24 to 27

On Question, amendments agreed to.

79: After Schedule 4, insert the following new Schedule—

“New arrangements for executives: transitional provisionPart 1Old-style leader and cabinet executiveApplication of Part1 This Part applies to a local authority in England if, at the relevant time, the authority is operating an old-style leader and cabinet executive.

Continued operation of existing executive2 (1) The coming into force of section 62(5) does not prevent the local authority from continuing to operate the old-style leader and cabinet executive until the end of the transitional period.

(2) For as long as the local authority continues to operate the old-style leader and cabinet executive, any enactment amended or repealed by this Part of this Act continues to apply in relation to the local authority, and to the executive and its operation, as if the amendment or repeal had not been made.

Change in form of executive3 (1) The local authority must make a change in governance arrangements of the kind set out in section 33A of the LGA 2000 (new form of executive).

(2) Sections 33E, 33F, 33G, 33I(2) and 33J of the LGA 2000 apply to a change in governance arrangements required by this paragraph as they apply to a change made under section 33A.

(3) In the application of section 33G by virtue of this paragraph, “relevant elections” has the meaning given in paragraph 5.

(4) Any resolution to make the change in governance arrangements must be passed—

(a) at a meeting which is specially convened for the purpose of deciding the resolution with notice of the object, and(b) during the permitted resolution period specified in the second column of the following table in relation to the authority.

Failure to change form of executive: automatic change4 (1) This paragraph applies if the local authority does not make a change in governance arrangements in accordance with paragraph 3.

(2) Before the end of the transitional period, the local authority must draw up and adopt executive arrangements which provide for a leader and cabinet executive (England).

(3) But if it appears to the Secretary of State that the authority will fail to comply with sub-paragraph (2), the Secretary of State may by order specify executive arrangements which provide for a leader and cabinet executive (England).

(4) The leader and cabinet executive (England) which is provided for under sub-paragraph (2) or (3) shall come into operation on the last day of the transitional period.

(5) Arrangements which the Secretary of State specifies under sub-paragraph (3) are to be treated as having been made by the local authority itself.

(6) Arrangements which come into operation in accordance with sub-paragraph (4) are to be treated as being operated after the passing of a resolution of the authority under section 33F of the LGA 2000.

(7) As soon as practicable after executive arrangements are adopted under sub-paragraph (2), or specified under sub-paragraph (3), the local authority must comply with the duties set out in the following provisions of the LGA 2000—

(a) section 29(2)(a);(b) section 29(2)(b)(ii) to (v).Interpretation5 (1) In this Part—

“LGA 2000” means the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22);

“old-style leader and cabinet executive” means a leader and cabinet executive of the form specified in section 11(3) of the LGA 2000;

“relevant elections” means the first ordinary elections of councillors of the local authority which take place after the end of the permitted resolution period (within the meaning of paragraph 3(4)(b));

“relevant time” means the time immediately before section 62(5) comes into force;

“transitional period” means the period that—

(a) starts when section 62(5) comes into force, and(b) ends with the third day after the day of the relevant elections.(2) Expressions used in this Part of this Schedule and in Part 2 of the LGA 2000 have the same meaning in this Part as in that Part.

Part 2Mayor and council manager executiveApplication of Part6 This Part applies to a local authority in England if, at the relevant time, the authority is operating a mayor and council manager executive.

Continued operation of existing executive7 (1) The coming into force of section 62(6) does not prevent the local authority from continuing to operate the mayor and council manager executive.

(2) For as long as the local authority continues to operate the mayor and council manager executive, any enactment amended or repealed by this Part of this Act continues to apply in relation to the local authority, and to the executive and its operation, as if the amendment or repeal had not been made.

Change in form of executive8 (1) The local authority must make a change in governance arrangements of the kind set out in section 33A of the LGA 2000 (new form of executive).

(2) Sections 33E, 33F, 33I(2) and 33J of the LGA 2000 apply to a change in governance arrangements required by this paragraph as they apply to a change made under section 33A.

9 (1) This paragraph applies if the proposals drawn up in accordance with section 33E provide for a change to a mayor and cabinet executive.

(2) The proposals must specify the day on which the authority is to cease operating the mayor and council manager executive and start operating the mayor and cabinet executive.

(3) The day specified in accordance with sub-paragraph (2) must fall before the day which is expected to be the last day of the relevant mayoral term.

(4) Any resolution to make the change in governance arrangements must be passed—

(a) at a meeting which is specially convened for the purpose of deciding the resolution with notice of the object, and(b) on or before 31 December 2008 or such later date as the Secretary of State may by order provide.(5) The following sub-paragraphs apply if the local authority adopt the mayor and cabinet executive.

(6) On the day specified in accordance with sub-paragraph (2), the local authority must—

(a) cease operating the mayor and council manager executive, and(b) start operating the mayor and cabinet executive.(7) The council manager ceases to hold office when the local authority ceases to operate the mayor and council manager executive.

(8) But—

(a) the mayor does not cease to hold office, and(b) his term of office is not affected,by virtue of the local authority ceasing to operate the mayor and council manager executive.(9) Subject to sub-paragraph (6), the local authority must implement the change in governance arrangements in accordance with the timetable in the proposals.

(10) Any arrangements (including any enactment or subordinate legislation) which apply to the election of the mayor of the mayor and council manager executive—

(a) apply to the first election of the mayor of the mayor and cabinet executive as if it were the election of the mayor of the mayor and council manager executive, and(b) subject to any order under Part 3, apply in the same way to subsequent elections of the mayor of the mayor and cabinet executive.10 (1) This paragraph applies if the proposals drawn up in accordance with section 33E provide for a change to a leader and cabinet executive (England).

(2) Section 33K(2), (3), (5) and (6) of the LGA 2000 apply to the change as they would if the change were, by virtue of section 33M of the LGA 2000, subject to approval in a referendum.

(3) Any resolution to make the change in governance arrangements must be passed on or before the earlier of these days—

(a) the last day of the period of 28 days that begins with the day when the referendum is held;(b) 31 December 2008, or such later date as the Secretary of State may by order provide.(4) Section 45(1) of the LGA 2000 does not prevent a referendum from being held in accordance with section 33K of the LGA 2000 as applied by sub-paragraph (2).

(5) The proposals must provide for the local authority to cease operating the mayor and council manager executive and start operating the leader and cabinet executive (England) on the day which is expected to be the last day of the relevant mayoral term.

(6) The following sub-paragraphs apply if the local authority adopt the leader and cabinet executive (England).

(7) On the day specified in accordance with sub-paragraph (5), the local authority must—

(a) cease operating the mayor and council leader executive, and(b) start operating the leader and cabinet executive (England).(8) Subject to sub-paragraph (7), the local authority must implement the change in governance arrangements in accordance with the timetable in the proposals.

(9) If the local authority has held its annual meeting in 2009 before changing to the leader and cabinet executive (England), the authority must hold a meeting within the 21 days following the day on which it changes to that form of executive.

(10) For the purposes of section 44B of the LGA 2000, that meeting is to be treated as a relevant annual meeting.

Failure to change form of executive: automatic change11 (1) This paragraph applies if the local authority does not make a change in its executive arrangements in accordance with paragraph 8.

(2) Before the end of the transitional period, the local authority must draw up and adopt executive arrangements which provide for a mayor and cabinet executive.

(3) But if it appears to the Secretary of State that the authority will fail to comply with sub-paragraph (2), the Secretary of State may by order specify executive arrangements which provide for a mayor and cabinet executive.

(4) The mayor and cabinet executive which is provided for under sub-paragraph (2) or (3) shall come into operation on the last day of the transitional period.

(5) Arrangements which the Secretary of State specifies under sub-paragraph (3) are to be treated as having been made by the local authority itself.

(6) Arrangements which come into operation in accordance with sub-paragraph (4) are to be treated as being operated after the passing of a resolution of the authority under section 33F of the LGA 2000.

(7) As soon as practicable after executive arrangements are adopted under sub-paragraph (2), or specified under sub-paragraph (3), the local authority must comply with the duties set out in the following provisions of the LGA 2000—

(a) section 29(2)(a);(b) section 29(2)(b)(ii) to (v).Interpretation12 (1) In this Part—

“LGA 2000” means the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22);

“relevant election day” means the day in 2009 on which an ordinary election of a mayor would take place if the local authority continued to operate a mayor and council manager executive;

“relevant mayoral term”, in relation to proposals, means the term of office of the person who is mayor when the proposals are drawn up;

“relevant time” means the time immediately before section 62(6) comes into force;

“transitional period” means the period that—

(a) starts when section 62(6) comes into force, and(b) ends with the third day after the relevant election day.(2) Expressions used in this Part of this Schedule and in Part 2 of the LGA 2000 have the same meaning in this Part as in that Part.

Part 3Other transitional provision13 (1) The Secretary of State may by order make transitional, saving or transitory provision for the purposes of—

(a) supplementing or giving full effect to Part 3 of this Act; or(b) making provision consequential on the passing of Part 3 of this Act.(2) An order under sub-paragraph (1) may, in particular, make—

(a) provision as to the dates on which and years in which relevant elections may or must be held;(b) provision as to the intervals between relevant elections;(c) provision as to the term of office of any member of any form of executive;(d) provision as to when sections 33A to 33D of the LGA 2000 are to begin to apply in relation to a local authority; (e) provision as to when section 39(6) and (7) of the LGA 2000 are to begin to apply in relation to a local authority.(3) An order under sub-paragraph (1) may, in particular, make provision to supplement any provision made in Part 1 or 2 of this Schedule.

(4) An order under sub-paragraph (1) may not make provision of the kind that may be made under section 240.

(5) In this paragraph “relevant election” means—

(a) an election for the return of an elected mayor;(b) the election by a local authority of the executive leader of a leader and cabinet executive (England).”

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 18 [Repeals]:

80: Schedule 18, page 243, line 37, column 2, at beginning insert—

81: Schedule 18, page 244, line 14, leave out from beginning to end of line 15

82: Schedule 18, page 244, line 38, at end insert—

On Question, amendments agreed to.