Orders of the Day — Local Government Bill [Lords]

House of Commons, 4 July 2000.

POWER TO MODIFY ENACTMENTS CONCERNING PLANS ETC: WALES

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

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

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 6—Exercise of power under section 5— —(1) A local authority may submit a proposal to the Secretary of State that the power under section 5 should be exercised in relation to that authority in accordance with that proposal. (2) The Secretary of State may be regulations make provision for or in connection with the submission of an application by a local authority under subsection (1) above. (3) Regulations under this section may include provision— (a) for the information required in any application; (b) for a local authority to show it has the capacity to give effect to the proposals; (c) for a timetable for consideration of a proposal; (d) for consultation with representatives of local government upon the proposals; (e) for independent assessment of a proposal; (f) for reasons to be given when an application is unsuccessful.'. Amendment No. 16, in clause 5, page 3, line 21, at beginning insert— '( ) A local authority may apply to the Secretary of State to amend, repeal, revoke, or disapply an enactment (whenever passed or made) which it considers prevents or obstructs it from exercising its power under section 2(1)'. Amendment No. 17, in page 3, line 21, after "thinks", insert— ', whether or not on the application of a local authority,'. Amendment No. 18, in page 3, line 24, at end insert— '( ) Before exercising the power under subsection (1) the Secretary of State shall consult representatives of local government and such persons as he feels appropriate.'. Government amendment No. 100.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Clause 6 confers a power on the Secretary of State by order to amend, repeal, revoke or disapply any enactment, whenever passed or made, that requires a local authority to prepare, produce or publish any plan or strategy relating to any particular matter. New clause 8 and amendment No. 100 make provision for the exercise of that power by the National Assembly for Wales. In doing so, they seek to balance the Assembly's legitimate desire to have a degree of control over legislation affecting Welsh authorities while reflecting that this House and Parliament retain primacy in relation to primary legislation. New clause 8 states that the Assembly may exercise the powers in clause 6 in relation to the plans specified in subsection (2). That covers issues relating to air quality, energy conservation and waste disposal. The plans concern specific policy issues that have been devolved to the National Assembly, and the Government consider that the Assembly should be able to determine how local authorities in Wales should exercise their responsibilities in relation to those issues. The list in subsection (2) is not comprehensive, and subsection (2)(d) provides for the Secretary of State to specify further plans over which the Assembly can exercise powers under clause 6 in due course. 6 pm Amendment No. 100 makes provision for the role of the Assembly in relation to the powers contained in new clause 6. It ensures that the Secretary of State will consult the Assembly before using his powers in clause 6 in a way that affects local authorities in Wales, and that no changes can be made to the Assembly's own legislation without its full consent. It also provides the Assembly with powers to submit proposals to the Secretary of State in order to make changes to planning requirements which are not contained in subsection (2) of the new clause. The amendments represent a sensible division of responsibility between the National Assembly and Parliament. Grouped with these amendments are new clause 6, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), and amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 18, which were tabled by the official Opposition. I will potentially listen to the Opposition's points but, briefly, all four amendments are, I hope, unnecessary. Local authorities can already make proposals to the Secretary of State. Indeed, my hon. Friends are actively encouraging them to do so through a range of initiatives. We have made it clear that we will look very closely at any proposals that come out of those initiatives, just as we will consider carefully and respond to proposals from any other local authority. I therefore hope that there is no question of any proposals being ignored. In the interests of time and given that many of the scrutineers—having argued for a considerable period about scrutiny of the Bill—have now disappeared from the Chamber, I shall commend the Government amendments and hope that the House will agree to them.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

We are more than happy to support the Government new clause, which gives important recognition to the work of the National Assembly for Wales. I wish to speak predominantly, but briefly, to new clause 6. I noted the Minister's rather strange use of the phrase, "I will potentially listen". I think that I am quoting him correctly.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I said, "I will particularly listen".

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

If the Minister checks the record he will see that he said, "I will potentially listen." I hope that he will listen to the arguments and, while I suspect that I may not persuade him to accept the precise wording of new clause 6, I hope that he might be able to add some words of encouragement to the points that I shall raise. The House will be aware that, under part I, all local councils will be given potentially important new powers on well-being. Liberal Democrat Members welcome those powers very much indeed and, with the Government, recognise that from time to time an existing piece of legislation may get in the way of local authorities exercising those powers in the way that they think appropriate. Clause 5 therefore gives the Secretary of State the power to amend, repeal, revoke or disapply enactments that may get in the way of an individual council, all councils or particular groups of councils. We welcome the fact that the Secretary of State is to have that power. Our concern is simply this: it is right and appropriate for an individual council that believes that a particular enactment is getting in the way of it fulfilling its new powers under the well-being clause to be able to go to the Secretary of State and seek his support for changes or revocations of that enactment. On 11 May, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), said: The Government have established the central-local partnership, a regular and formal meeting of local government representatives and Ministers not only from my Department, but across Government. That is the proper vehicle through which the experiences of local authorities can be discussed and brought to the attention of the Secretary of State.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 11 May 2000; c. 114.] We accept that that is one vehicle which enables councils to draw their concerns to the attention of the Secretary of State. However, we believe that there should be a bottom-up approach, in which an individual council should be able to go directly to the Secretary of State and not through the central-local partnership route. New clause 6 merely gives effect to the desire that an individual council should be able to go and discuss its concerns directly with the Secretary of State and seek his support for its wish to make changes to existing enactments. If the Minister is not prepared to accept the particular formulation of new clause 6, I hope that he will be able to put clearly on the record that individual councils will have the opportunity sought by the new clause, regardless of whether that is included in the Bill or simply a matter of him giving that assurance.

Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

First, I acknowledge the fact that the Government are doing right by new clause 8, which is the correct way forward in the existing constitutional and devolutionary arrangements between the National Assembly and this House. However, there was scope for the Government to go a little further, as the Minister is well aware. He will also be aware that Members of the National Assembly shared disappointment across the Assembly Floor in response to the statement from the Local Government Secretary, Peter Law, this afternoon. For future reference, it is important to note some areas in which the Assembly is closely involved in local government in Wales, such as European development plans—the process for which will shortly restart in Wales—best value plans, local education plans and so on. By virtue of the fact that local government in Wales is a devolved matter and by virtue of the developing role of the National Assembly for Wales, such matters could in time—and perhaps even now, under the Bill, have come under the aegis—[Interruption.] I am pleased to hear from a sedentary intervention that those things will happen, as it is in those areas that local government most interacts with local people, and through which local people see their values and aspirations put into print in local government documents and reflected in priorities that the National Assembly for Wales may well take forward. Many people in Wales want and expect to see that sort of thing emerge in the fullness of time from the Bill and the new arrangements for local government in Wales. However, there is some disappointment that the new clause, as presently constituted, does not take a wider approach to some possibilities for devolution and local government in Wales. We were told that, together, the Labour Administration at the National Assembly and the Labour Government in London would always ensure the best possible co-operation at every stage of devolution. That does not always seem to be the way because, for whatever reason—and perhaps the problem is with Government Departments, rather than Government Ministers—there are entrenched ways and, occasionally, a rather slow approach to developing local government in Wales. The new clause is rather disappointing for what it leaves out. However, it is to be welcomed for what it includes, which is probably the minimum necessary to ensure a balanced set of powers in the Bill. However, from the Welsh perspective it is a rather poor start to consideration of the Bill. I very much hope that the power that the Bill gives the Secretary of State—which is given to the Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, not a Secretary at the National Assembly—will include other plans which, when the time comes, will be used in an active and pro-active way. Peter Law himself said that he is under the impression that devolution is outside the radar of the DETR. On occasion, it is not so much outside the radar as that the radars, seemingly, are not pointing in the right direction. I hope that they will in future.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I have news for the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas): DETR does not possess any radar—at least, not in my experience. It will not have escaped the attention of right hon. and hon. Members that the time taken by the debate on the programme motion—which is of course taken out of the time for debating these important provisions—was 53 minutes, which is well over half the time allotted for substantive debate on the first two groups of amendments. I shall deal first with Government new clause 8, although I shall speak primarily to the Opposition amendments. The new clause seems straightforward and is linked with Government amendment No. 100. These matters clearly arise from devolution, and I do not want to get into a debate about that. I am puzzled about why the need for the changes was not spotted before, because it seems fairly obvious. One loses count, but I think that new clause 8 is one of 115 new clauses and amendments that the Government have tabled on Report. The only good news is that as the Bill bounces back and forth between here and the other place, the Government will have ample opportunity to rewrite it at least a couple more times. Although I do not query the sense of the new clause, I wonder why it has been unleashed on an unsuspecting House at this late stage. I hope that Liberal Democrat Members will not mind if I do not speak to new clause 6, which has broadly the same thrust as our amendments—which deal with a point that we debated briefly in Committee. We have tabled amendments similar to those that we tabled in Committee simply because Ministers were not prepared to accept those amendments any more than they are prepared to accept these. As hon. Members have pointed out, the Bill gives the Secretary of State significant powers to amend, repeal, revoke or disapply an Act in pursuance of the new well-being power. Given that the power is meant to be a benefit to local authorities, however, it strikes us as slightly eccentric that the Bill does not make it clear that local authorities should be consulted and that they can apply to the Secretary of State for him to exercise his powers. The thrust of our amendments, like our amendments in Committee, is to allow local authorities to initiate that process and ask the Secretary of State to disapply certain enactments that are getting in the way of exercising the new power. That approach is supported by the Local Government Association, which said that it would support a procedure that would allow authorities, by declaration, to state that all or some of their statutory plans were covered by their community strategy. It was in that spirit that we tabled the amendments in Committee. If that approach is not a problem, one wonders why Ministers were not prepared to accept the amendments. If they have every intention of consulting local authorities, as they say—we accept what they say, because we know that they are enthusiastic consulters—and of permitting local authorities to apply to the Secretary of State to initiate the process, why not say so in the Bill? I do not see what the problem is. As in Committee, we will not be pressing the amendments to a vote, but there are important questions that the Minister needs to answer.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

If, at the beginning of my earlier remarks, I said that I would "potentially" listen, I must point out that I meant to say "particularly", and I apologise. I hope that I will be able to reassure the hon. Members for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) and for Bath (Mr. Foster). I said earlier that new clause 6 and amendments Nos. 16 to 18 are unnecessary, and I meant that in a positive way. Local authorities can already make proposals to the Secretary of State; indeed, as I have said, we actively encourage them to do so, and both hon. Gentlemen recognised that. We shall discuss with the Local Government Association and, perhaps, the Welsh Local Government Association, formal arrangements for regular consideration of the use of the powers through the central-local partnership. It is important to highlight the availability of clauses 5 and 6 powers in the statutory guidance on the use of the well-being power and community strategies. That would provide a clear and permanent reminder to local authorities that they can apply to the Secretary of State at any time. I say to the hon. Member for Bath that there is nothing to stop an individual council making proposals to the Secretary of State at any time. I am sure that my hon. Friends will welcome that positive provision for England. On amendment No. 18 in the name of the hon. Member for Eastbourne, clause 8 already requires the Secretary of State to consult local authorities and local government on proposals to use his clauses 5 and 6 powers. The amendment is therefore otiose. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that explanation. 6.15 pm The discussion has been interesting and I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas). I welcome his positive approach to the Government new clause and amendment. As part of my duties, I watched the statement being made in the National Assembly this afternoon, and I watched with interest the important debate that followed. Understandably, the Assembly seeks the greatest possible scope to exercise secondary legislation powers. It is the Government's job to propose how the Assembly's wishes can be reconciled with the role of Parliament in introducing primary legislation, and that is what our amendments seek to do. I say to the hon. Gentleman that the door is not closed. The Assembly Secretary, Peter Law, confirmed in his statement that he is and will continue to be in dialogue with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, myself and colleagues in DETR and other Departments with potential involvement in the powers.

Llew Smith (Labour, Blaenau Gwent)

My hon. Friend said that he understood why the Assembly wanted more powers. Does he think that before it pushes for more powers, it should consider those that it already has, such as the power to make a bonfire of quangos, as it promised to do? Will my hon. Friend confirm whether there has been a bonfire of quangos? If so, when and where did it happen? If not, why has the Assembly not used the powers at its disposal to democratise government in Wales and to increase the power of local government?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. In passing the Government of Wales Act 1998, there was a desire, which I share, to ensure that we democratise quangos in Wales. He and I, and the House, will have to judge in due course the extent to which the National Assembly has achieved that objective. In response to the Assembly Secretary's statement this afternoon, my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), who is also an Assembly Member, made the same point as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith), and said that the Assembly should make good use of its existing powers before taking on new ones. I hope that hon. Members can accept the new clause, and that I have been able to reassure the hon. Members for Bath and for Eastbourne that the Government are willing to listen to them. I thank the hon. Member for Ceredigion for his welcome for the Government's steps to date. Obviously, we may return to this matter in future.

PROMOTION OF WELL-BEING

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I beg to move amendment No. 95, in page 1, line 18, after "anything", insert— 'including, subject to section 3(2), the raising of money.'.

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 8, in page 2, line 6, leave out "or present". No. 9, in page 2, line 8, at end insert— '( ) A charge may be imposed in respect of anything which is done in the course of exercising the power under section 2(1).'. No. 55, in page 2, line 21, at end insert— '( ) Action taken by a local authority outside its own boundaries shall only be undertaken with the consent of the authority within whose boundaries the action is proposed to be taken.'. No. 11, in page 2, line 23, at end insert— '(7) Nothing in this part shall empower a local authority to engage in trade otherwise than is provided for by the Local Authority (Goods and Services) Act 1970'. No. 10, in clause 3, page 2, line 28, leave out subsection 2 and insert— '( ) The expenditure of a local authority under this Part in any financial year shall not exceed the amount obtained by applying the relevant provisions of subsections (4), (4AA), (4AB), (4A), (4B) and (4C) of section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972. ( ) All expenditure under this Part shall be subject to the accounting and inspection requirements set out in subsection (7) of section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972.'. No. 212, in page 2, line 28, leave out subsection (2). No. 96, in page 2, line 29, leave out "or otherwise". No. 15, in clause 4, page 3, line 17, at end insert— '(4) A local authority may require other public bodies, whether statutory or voluntary, in its area to comply with and to participate in its strategy for promoting or improving the economic social or environmental well-being of their area.'. No. 97, in page 3, line 20, at end insert— '( ) No requirement imposed by this section restricts the exercise of the power under section 2.'.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I said earlier that Liberal Democrat Members, at least, welcome the new power to promote well-being which the Bill gives councils. There is, however, concern in many quarters about the financial arrangements for exercising that new power. The Government, rightly, are anxious to ensure that councils cannot, under the power, introduce new forms of taxation or other ways of raising money. That is covered explicitly in clause 3(2). That subsection says, however: The power under section 2(1) does not enable a local authority to raise money (whether by precepts, borrowing or otherwise). There is concern that the words "or otherwise" provide the Government with a catch-all arrangement whereby any possible means of raising funds to pay for activities introduced under the power of well-being may be proscribed. The general view is that it would be far better if the Government stated explicitly in the Bill which fund-raising activities they wish to proscribe and allowed local councils to use any other approach that they may deem appropriate. The problem is compounded by the fact that the Government are undertaking a major review of local government finance. At present, there is still considerable uncertainty about the outcome of that review and widespread concern that, although local authorities may be given a new power of well-being, they may find it difficult to raise the funds needed to carry out some of the activities that they believe are important. Local councils might engage in activities in partnership with other bodies in their areas. Indeed, the Government rightly wish to encourage such activities, but there is confusion about the financial implications if such a partnership were to raise money and produce a surplus. Perhaps the Minister will consider the specific example of a partnership involving a local authority and other bodies that chose to establish a shop in a rural community. Would that shop be permitted to generate a surplus under the phrase "or otherwise" in clause 3(2)? The purpose of amendments Nos. 95 and 96 is allow the Minister to provide greater clarification of the arrangements. She drew the Committee's attention to the powers under section 150 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and suggested that section could represent the vehicle by which councils could use such powers. It is important that she clarify precisely how she believes that section could be used to deal with the problem. Amendment No. 97 raises a separate point. Under the Bill, councils will be required to develop community strategies and to have regard to them subsequently in any activity that they undertake. That makes perfect sense. However, the concern, which is best illustrated by the problems that occurred at the Rover plant in Birmingham, is that a council may wish to propose several activities that it believes are the right ones to undertake in response to a particularly difficult problem, but that they might not be covered in the strategy that the council has developed. Will the council have acted correctly if it develops activities that are not contained in the community strategy? Such activities may lead to legal challenges. The purpose, therefore, of amendment No. 97 is to provide some comfort to councils that propose activities that are outside the community strategy, but which they believe are in the best interests of the people whom they serve. The Minister gave an assurance in Committee that it is perfectly legitimate for one to deal with an issue in a way not outlined in the community strategy. She accepted that the Government had to create legislation that deals with the real world and the way in which people act…—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 11 May 2000; c. 96.] The problem is that councils may act in the best interests of the local community, but legal action may be taken against them for so doing. Amendment No. 97 would therefore provide some comfort for councils that attempt to act in the best interests of the people whom they serve.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I shall of course speak to amendments Nos. 8, 9, 55, 11, 10, 212 and 15. My hon. Friends and I welcome the new power, as does local government in general. However, as we argued in Committee, we think that the Government's proposal is a smoke-and-mirrors exercise because no new money attaches to the new power. Ministers have made it abundantly clear that councils will be given no extra money to exercise the new powers and that, if any of them tries to use existing methods of raising money, it could get into difficulties with the capping regime. We have serious doubts about how effective or helpful local authorities will find the new power. In the brief time left for this debate, I shall quickly speak to our amendments. Amendment No. 8 would remove the words "or present". As we argued in Committee, we think that councils are primarily elected to look after their local residents and council tax payers and that, under this extremely wide provision, councils would be allowed to use the power for the benefit of many different people and groups of people who happen to be in a council area at any given time. In Committee, the Minister made the fair point that, every day, many thousands of people travel in and out of the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke). However, in more typical council areas, there may be concerns about whether such powers will extend to asylum seekers, travellers and tourists and about how they tie in with the council's other responsibilities. Commuters are one thing, but travellers may bring a series of other concerns. Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 deal with the vexed matter of charging. There is a strong feeling across local government that there should be greater freedom to charge for services, especially discretionary services that councils are not obliged to provide. The Minister was broadly constructive in Committee and talked about consulting widely and drawing the matter into the process surrounding the Green Paper on local government finance. Although we are happy with that up to a point, some issues should be addressed sooner rather than later, because councils face the problem now. Both sides of the Committee accepted that it would be some time before the Government could produce proposals, consult on them and put them into law. A ray of sunshine is the possibility, which the Minister mentioned in Committee, of using powers under section 150 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, to which the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) referred. The Local Government Association's latest briefing on the Bill states: We would welcome assurance from the Minister that, if necessary, the Section 150 powers will be used to provide a temporary solution during the interim period while we await a Local Government Finance Bill. It would be helpful if the Minister gave such an assurance today. One of the councils that has been proactive on the issue is City of Westminster. In one of its briefings, it states that there is a compelling and powerful argument that if a local authority is not obliged to provide a service, then it should be entitled to charge for it if it does. We take the view that that is a fair approach. Lest it be thought that it represents a sectional view held only by Conservative-controlled authorities, in its helpful briefing to the Committee the Local Government Information Unit said: The recovery of costs, or making a charge for services, will be important issues. We have concerns about the impact of this clause… We believe that councils need the assurance that they will be able to adopt suitable means of recovering their costs. 6.30 pm Amendment No. 55 is self-explanatory: Action taken by a local authority outside its own boundaries shall only be undertaken with the consent of the other authority. That strikes me as perfectly unexceptional, so I was surprised that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, in an otherwise courteous and friendly reply, came up with no conclusive answer. He certainly did not say in Committee that the Government would do something about that matter, which is odd, because the Minister in the House of Lords said that he was happy to go away and look at it. Perhaps the Government's thinking has moved on. Although time does not permit a detailed debate now, we also touched on whether councils will be allowed to trade under the new power. The Minister's answer seemed to be that they will, but will not be able to charge for doing so. She said that local authorities will be able to supply goods and services to other bodies, provided that they are satisfied that that comes within the terms of the promotion of well-being. However, they will not be able to charge for them.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 9 May 2000; c. 76.] Amendment No. 212, which would leave out clause 3(2), is one of the most significant of our amendments. Again, it is important to recognise that the Minister in the Lords and Ministers in Committee made it clear that there is no question of extra money being provided for the new power or, indeed, of allowing councils to raise more money through the council tax. There is still a question mark over charging. I shall not quote what the Minister said in Committee at length; in a nutshell, the answer is that councils that want to take advantage of the new power will be required to strip the money out of other budgets for other purposes. Amendment No. 15 makes it abundantly clear that councils will be the leaders in their communities in taking advantage of the new power and that other bodies will have to co-operate with them and comply with their plans. Councils across the country—of all political persuasions—want that important issue to be clarified in the Bill. I hope that the Minister can give us that assurance in the time available.

Hilary Armstrong (Labour, North West Durham)

We remain firmly opposed to the idea that central Government should dictate what authorities can spend on community well-being. That is a judgment for authorities and their communities, to which they are accountable. For that reason, we recommend that the House oppose amendment No. 10, which would impose spending limits similar to those that currently apply under section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972. The hon. Members for Bath (Mr. Foster) and for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) suggested that the power will be effectively limited because it will not of itself allow authorities to raise finance. I can assure the House that the prohibition on raising finance in clause 3(2) is not intended to limit what authorities can do for the well-being of their areas. Local authorities will be able to finance activity under the well-being power from council tax resources, redistributive non-domestic rates, borrowing charges and revenue support grant. In other words, any legitimate income can be spent on the power, but it will not be possible for the power to be used of itself to raise new taxes. That is what we are dealing with here. We have already accepted that local authorities should have greater scope to charge for discretionary services, but that needs to be looked at carefully. At present, authorities cannot trade, except under the terms of the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970.

POWER TO MODIFY ENACTMENTS CONCERNING PLANS ETC.

AMENDMENTS TO THE 1972 ACT

LOCAL AUTHORITY TO DECIDE WHETHER TO INTRODUCE EXECUTIVE ARRANGEMENTS

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

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

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

We now come to what Lord Whitty, the Minister in the Lords, called the central part of the Bill: the Government's intention to impose structures on local government. The avowed intention behind the new clause and amendments Nos. 1 to 3 is to return the Bill to the form that it took on this issue when it last left the Lords and to reflect strong feelings across local government throughout the country. Amendments Nos. 57 to 60 would deal essentially with what we regard as the Government's bogus fourth option, which they are peddling to local government, although I gather that they had a signal lack of success at the Local Government Association conference last week. There are three central flaws in their so-called fourth option: it still requires the production of a council executive, it seems to apply to whole categories of councils rather than to individual ones—that flexibility is absent—and, inevitably, the say-so of the Secretary of State is required. Amendment No. 214 would remove clause 23—I shall return to that—and amendment No. 21 would remove clause 28(3). On structures, despite having relatively pleasant debates in Committee—I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is not in the Chamber—we were subject to an awful lot of sloganising by Ministers. One was the famous slogan of the Minister for Local Government and the Regions: no change is not an option. The problem is that the Government purported to give local government three options for structures—although they now claim to have added a fourth—but, depending on which survey we accept, perhaps 1 or 2 per cent. of councils are remotely interested in having a directly elected mayor. Perhaps that figure will have decreased following the experience of the London mayoral elections. I have yet to meet any council that seems at all interested in the council manager model, but one may exist. The Minister may wish to quote it or them when she responds. However, the Minister's attitude reminds me of Henry Ford's attitude to car buyers—they could have any colour that they liked as long as it was black. For the vast majority of local authorities, the Government intend to impose the executive or cabinet model or structure. A question is bound to be asked, and it has been by Conservative Members and an increasing number of right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Benches. If the Government's idea is such a good one and is so popular, why not ask people to choose? Give them a set of options. If an option really means an option, they can decide, or they can operate their status quo if that works for them. They can operate an updated version of that status quo or other models that they may be able to construct. I shall refer to the latest briefing on the Bill by the Local Government Association. It states in its covering letter that its main remaining concern about the Bill is the lack of flexibility in the Government's approach. It states: Whilst it is understandable that the government would not want to make regulations for 410 models it is the sheer diversity of local government that has led to the call for greater flexibility. The Government has stated their commitment to the operation of executives under any form of new arrangement. This amendment confirms that commitment. It does not provide for arrangements that do not include such an executive. The key passage reads: The Association remains of the belief that for some authorities, particularly smaller ones or those of a more rural nature, a separate executive is not necessarily the most appropriate way of achieving efficiency, accountability and transparency in decision taking. The LGA would support an amendment that provided for some authorities to apply to the Secretary of State to be able to introduce other models, which may not include a separate executive. If the Government's idea was such a good one, we might expect that Labour-controlled authorities would embrace it with enthusiasm. It is true that some have done so, but we fear that they have adopted that approach because they are attracted by the possibility of secrecy and carrying out decision making behind closed doors. The London borough of Camden, for example, might well have embraced these wonderful modernising ideas. However, when it came to it, Camden, which is an overwhelmingly Labour-controlled council, voted 43 to zero against the Government's proposals. It is—[Interruption.] The Minister always dissolves into paroxysms of laughter whenever I read out these figures. It is the way that I tell them. Surely it is vaguely depressing for her that Camden is so utterly unenthused by her proposals. Perhaps she finds the situation amusing because she fully intends to drive the Bill through the House and force Camden, 43 to zero or not, to put into effect the cabinet system. It is interesting that the then leader of Camden, Councillor Arthur, who I believe is now the ex-leader, was one of three abstentions. Another good example is that of Brighton and Hove. We had quite a detailed discussion about it in Committee. It was one of the first councils to adopt the cabinet system. The now Lord Bassam, the then leader of the council, was enthusiastic about making Brighton and Hove one of the pioneer authorities in implementing a new Labour system. Only this May, despite the fact that Labour has a 12-seat overall majority, councillors voted by 34 to 31 against changes to the current set up. They ordered a plan to be drawn up for a three or four-party committee system. Since then, things have moved on somewhat in that the cabinet system is still being operated on an interim basis. It seems that some of the Labour rebel members were got at. I believe that an all-party task group is considering the future structure of Brighton and Hove council. 6.45 pm Councillor Geoffrey Theobald, the leader of the Conservatives, said: The Council was one of the first to go over to the cabinet system because the then leader, Lord Bassam, now a Junior Home Office Minister, wanted to pleased his close friends— the Prime Minister and the Minister for Local Government and the Regions. It is strange that two councils that might be expected to be at the cutting edge in modernising local government would vote against the Government's proposals. [Interruption.] The Minister is keeping up her usual running commentary on these matters. I am sure that she will have the chance to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Labour local government has not exactly embraced the Government's proposals with great enthusiasm. I know that the right hon. Lady will groan, if only inwardly, at my reference to the Labour campaign for open local government. She and her right hon. and hon. Friends have succeeded in creating a sort of resistance movement within Labour local government. It is made up of about 1,000 supporters, of whom about 500 are councillors in about 90 local authorities. I understand that they include leaders, chief whips and other leading councillors. We heard at great length about the views of the Labour campaign for open local government in Committee, and I do not intend to repeat them now. Its views are not limited to those councillors who are members of it. These views have spilled over and are now shared by a number of Labour Back Benchers. When these issues were put to Ministers in Committee, their response was to rubbish the Camden operation. It was said that Camden's responses were in favour of white, well-heeled people from social classes 1 and 2 and that they were "grossly over-represented." However, Camden went to far greater lengths than any other council of which I am aware to consult local residents on whether they wanted the changes proposed by the Government. It sent out many questionnaires and held 30 public meetings throughout the borough. It had focus groups representing the disabled and ethnic minorities. It made many targeted attempts to get a real view of what local people thought. Camden has shown the way. It has demonstrated that, with the right council taking the right approach, voters—residents—will take an interest in the structures of, and changes to, local government. It has shown also that in the real world there is no enthusiasm for the Government's proposals. I was at the Local Government Association conference in Bournemouth last week, and heard of the less-than-warm reception that the Minister received from local government in its massed ranks when she announced the Government's proposals. Local government gave her the Women's Institute treatment. I challenge her, as I did in Committee, to tell the House who wants the changes. Who is driving them? Apart from a small coterie of Ministers and others in the new local government network and a few new Labour think tanks, who wants them? Going round the country as I do, talking to councillors of all political persuasions in all parts of the country, I have yet to find any real enthusiasm, except for one or two—

Paul Beresford (Conservative, Mole Valley)

My hon. Friend understates the case. Most of the local authority members to whom I have spoken are actively opposed to the proposal. They opposed it because they do not like corruption, they want democracy and openness, and they see it as an opportunity for people who want to bring in corruption, to wipe out democracy, to stop the press seeing, and to bring in secrecy and control. Local government has had a small smattering of corruption, in percentage terms. The proposed system will allow more corruption and less detection.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

My hon. Friend speaks from great experience. I shall summarise our main objections. The first is that no one seems to want the wonderful new structures, so why do Ministers not leave the matter up to local councillors? There is an element of compulsion. That is the thrust of our amendments. Secondly, why does the Minister insist on damning the entire committee system, which has served many councils well over a number of years? Why does she persist in speaking about an old-fashioned committee system, rather than the streamlined committee system that many councils operate? Thirdly, has the Minister made any attempt to estimate the total cost of the changes across local government? We know, for example, that Durham city council has budgeted £300,000 towards the cost of establishing a cabinet structure. Not a penny of that will make life any better or easier for the residents and council taxpayers. Fourthly, and most of all, we do not want a two-tier system for local councillors. All councillors should have equal worth. The concept of back-bench councillors should be anathema in local government. We believe that small groups of people making all the decisions is bad for local government, and that a massive split between executive and scrutiny is bad news for those who do not happen to be on the executive. For all those reasons, it is essential that the House, or failing that, the other place, writes into the Bill the clear right of councillors to choose another option if that is what they wish—not the bogus fourth option that the Minister has been peddling unsuccessfully, but a real, red-blooded fourth option. I shall touch briefly on amendment No. 214, which would delete clause 23. We do not know why the Government are so set against political balance applying to cabinets. It works very well in places such as Conservative-run Bedfordshire. However, it has been grabbed with alacrity by some old Labour councillors, and at least 60 per cent. of existing cabinets are one-party cabinets, many of which meet in secret. Finally, amendment No. 21 would delete clause 28(3). We call this the "abandon all hope, you who enter" provision, because, once a council has moved to an executive system, there is no way of going back to the previous system. That is harmful and unnecessary. It chimes with the general air of compulsion that surrounds the Government's attitude to local government structures.

Ronnie Campbell (Labour, Blyth Valley)

I shall speak briefly about the argument for opening up local government to the people and the press. We have a cabinet system in my constituency which I am told is working well, although some back-bench councillors do not have the power that they would like. I suppose that that will come with time, as the scrutiny committees get down to their work. The cabinet minutes go out to all the councillors and the press, and anyone can attend cabinet meetings—the press, the public and local councillors who are not members of the cabinet. This week, copies of the agenda went out, and one of the items on the agenda was a matter on which the council must decide what it will do next year. I understand there are to be substantial cuts next year in Blyth Valley, due to shortage of money. Some of the suggested cuts for the cabinet to discuss involved leisure centres and other amenities. The paper was supposed to be private and confidential and councillors were asked to keep it to themselves, because it had not yet been discussed with the work force. Unfortunately, as it went out to all the councillors, the local press—the Newcastle edition of The Journal—got a copy, and printed it this morning. The trade unions and the work force were at the door of the council, demanding to know what was going to happen. Of course, the matter has not yet been discussed. That is the role of the cabinet—to discuss such matters, then go to the work force and tell them. That example shows that openness goes two ways. Openness is right and I believe in it. My council has done right by being open, but the press showed disregard for an item in a cabinet paper that should have remained confidential until it had been discussed. I do not know what we can do about the matter but, after today's furore, I believe that it should be raised on the Floor of the House.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

During the 18 years of Conservative Governments, both as a local councillor and then with the opportunity provided to me as a Member of the House, I railed strongly against the centralising tendency of those Governments. I suspect that many Members of Parliament and many members of the public looked forward to a new dawn for local government, following the election in 1997. Unfortunately, in respect of centralisation, the sun has yet to rise. From various measures, it is clear that the Government continue to be a centralising Government. That is best demonstrated by their insistence on imposing on all local councils a requirement to change their decision-making arrangements to one of three models selected by the Government. In response to that challenge from the Government, different proposals have been made from the those on the Conservative Benches and our Benches. I shall speak predominantly to new clause 7, which is an entirely different response from that offered by those on the Conservative Front Bench, and I hope, therefore, that it will be possible to have a separate vote on new clause 7. It was a great privilege to represent my party in the House on education and employment matters for quite some time. I vividly recall the challenge made by the current Secretary of State to all of us to deal with standards, not structures, in education. That phrase applies equally to local government. We are all concerned about the lack of public interest in local government, and we all want to find ways of involving the public more. The solution lies not in structural changes, but in giving local councils greater opportunity to do the things that are most likely to benefit local communities, and to have a voting system that would enable people to feel that when they voted, they could truly make a difference. That is not the Government's approach. They have decided that three options are to be foisted on local councils. I am the first to acknowledge that the Government have been prepared to make some concessions, following our deliberations in Committee. There is now greater flexibility in those three options, but all three of them and any of the flexibility that is offered still require the fundamental model of a single executive. It is vital that a genuine alternative approach also be offered to local councils. However, I do not take the Conservative Front-Bench view that the fourth option should be merely the status quo—indeed, without even any possible checks with the local community as to whether it supports the continuation of the status quo. I tabled new clause 7 because I believe it is important that whatever option a local council brings forward in the current climate should be tested for local public support. 7 pm The new clause would provide the opportunity for an individual council to make its own proposals, different from the three that the Government insist on, but with certain caveats. First, it must ensure that the proposed arrangements would make the council's decisions efficient, open and accountable. Secondly, the new clause would require that as part of the package there should be effective means of scrutinising council decisions. Thirdly, it would require that the proposal be demonstrated to have wide-scale popular support. In the form of those three provisions, and also the provision that the proposal be presented to the Secretary of State for approval, the Government are given a genuinely acceptable fourth option meeting all their requirements—the inclusion of scrutiny, efficiency, effectiveness, openness and accountability, the Secretary of State's having the last word, and a requirement that the public demonstrate their support for the model. We have even gone further and made it a requirement that the council making such a proposition shall have to demonstrate why its proposals will be better than those made by the Government.

Richard Livsey (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

To reinforce what my hon. Friend says, in the part of Wales that I come from, the county of Powys, which has an excellent formula for the administration of local government, is 120 miles long. The cabinet system is not appropriate there. In terms of distance, it is the equivalent of Bristol controlling what goes on in London. We must have flexibility of the kind to which my hon. Friend refers.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He strengthens my argument by making the simple point that no two councils are the same. There are about 450 councils in the land. What will best suit one council may not best suit another. Even the requirement that there be an executive or cabinet may not suit all councils. Therefore, we suggest a way of moving forward that meets many of the Government's concerns. The new clause does not merely say that the status quo can continue willy-nilly. Even if a council like my hon. Friend's wishes to continue the status quo, as it may well do, it will be required to demonstrate that it has popular support. Of course, Conservative Front Benchers are perfectly entitled to propose the status quo as their way forward, but it was rather rich of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) to pray in aid the briefing document from the Local Government Association and to read out various sections, without giving a full reading. To put the record straight, I should also read out what the LGA says in its document sent to all of us. It said: The Association supports the removal of clause 9, which would have allowed authorities to "opt out" of Part II of the Bill without any consultation with local communities and their stakeholders. It is wrong for the hon. Gentleman to pray in aid the LGA for his new clause, when it is absolutely clear that the LGA is not supporting it. Having read all the LGA document very carefully, I suspect that I could with integrity pray it in aid to support new clause 7.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

Before the hon. Gentleman gets too carried away with that line of argument, I would point out that I was not necessarily suggesting LGA support for the precise wording of our new clause; but it is clear that the Government have still failed to persuade the LGA or any significant local government body that their so-called fourth option is really anything of the sort.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I entirely agree. The hon. Gentleman and I are at one in believing that the Government are wrong to impose on all councils three options that, in the main, have very similar features anyway. Both he and I believe that local authorities should be given much greater freedom to decide how they are to operate. Nevertheless, we have a different approach to how that should be achieved. I end by suggesting to the Minister that there are many rumours, as there always are, about the Government's proposals. There is undoubtedly one category or group of councils that the Government's proposals fit least easily—the shire district councils, those particularly small councils with relatively limited powers. The rumour is that the Government may at least allow them to opt out from having the three models imposed on them. I should welcome hearing from the Government whether the rumour is true. If it is not, it should be.

Llew Smith (Labour, Blaenau Gwent)

I shall speak briefly in support of new clause 7. In doing so, I know that I have the support of not only my constituency Labour party but the Labour council. Unlike Camden, it had no abstainers, I am pleased to say. There was total opposition to the cabinet system and the mayoral system from the Labour group in Blaenau Gwent. However, I disagree with the Conservative Front-Bench spokesperson's explanation of why so many local authorities have already brought the cabinet system into being. He said that it was because they welcomed secrecy. I do not think that that is so. Most have introduced it not because they support it, but because they see a degree of inevitability about the whole process. When the Government came to power, they told us that they were committed to devolving power. We all welcomed that. The Government will argue that acts of devolution were the setting up of the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. Some of us in the House did not think that that had anything to do with devolution, but a great deal to do with nationalism. However, if we take the Government at their word, and accept that the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament were created as acts of devolution, it is sad that they have not applied the same logic to local government. With both the mayoral system and the cabinet system, the Government are not devolving power but centralising it in the hands of the mayor or the cabinet. My local authority, my constituency party and I find that politically unacceptable. We also find it sad, because we regard local government as probably the most democratic arm of government and, indeed, of the United Kingdom state. Putting power in the hands of the mayor has nothing to do with devolving power; it is centralising power in the hands of one person. Unless his or her agreement can be obtained, the things that one wants for one's community will not happen, because that one person will not accept them. If in place of the mayoral system we have the cabinet system, instead of one person taking the decisions 10 people will take them. Once again, that is unacceptable, because those who are not in the cabinet are not part of the decision-making process and cannot reflect the aspirations of the community that they represent. They cannot have a say in making policy for that community. The reason for going on a council is to involve oneself not only in the debates but in the votes, in a way that will affect one's little community in a positive way.

Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

I understood the hon. Gentleman to say, looking at local government in Wales, that the cabinet system in local government was unacceptable per se. Will he confirm that that is what he was saying?

Llew Smith (Labour, Blaenau Gwent)

I am saying that I, my constituency party and the Labour group on the council unanimously oppose the cabinet system and the mayoral system because we are committed to devolution. We believe that the proposed system has nothing to do with devolution, but that it has a lot to do with centralisation, to which we are opposed. I know that some will pray in aid scrutiny committees. We welcome those bodies, but we know that their creation has nothing to do with devolving power. Those who are not members of the cabinet will have no say in decisions, and the job of those who are members of the scrutiny committee will be merely to scrutinise. I see little role for councillors who are not members of the cabinet—many of them will be able to go home because they will have no say in the decisions that affect their communities. That is sad. We will have lost an opportunity to devolve power and to make councillors more accountable to the communities they represent, and we will have made it more difficult for the electorate to perceive the relevance of councillors and to exert some control over them. For those and many other reasons, my position, that of my constituency Labour party and that of the Labour group on the council is one of opposition to both the cabinet system and the mayoral system, but of support for the committee system. Local government is probably the most democratic arm of the British state.

Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

I find myself in agreement with much of what the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) said in support of new clause 7, but in total disagreement with his approach to local government in Wales. I support the principle of separating out the executive functions of local government, because that is a progressive and modern approach to local government management functions. The system can succeed and has been seen to do so in several areas in England and Wales. None the less, I fear over-centralisation in local government. I believe that local government is truly devolutionist in that decisions are made at local level. I have serious doubts about the Government's current approach to local government—the imposition of a rigid template, a one-size-fits-all executive structure that local authorities must adopt. On those grounds, both Opposition new clauses—especially the Liberal Democrats' new clause 7—have much to recommend them. I should have liked to avail myself of the Back-Bench privileges that were much discussed during the hour-long debate on the guillotine motion, but I was taken ill with food poisoning and thus prevented from tabling my own amendment, which would have cast the National Assembly for Wales in a central role. New clause 7 offers a way forward: at least in Wales, the Assembly could be the body that considers different arrangements and, in consultation with local authorities and local people and with the support of local people, enables a committee system to continue in Blaenau Gwent, for example, while a cabinet system is adopted elsewhere. Let me set out some of the difficulties peculiar to Wales and the reasons why the one-size-fits-all approach will not necessarily work. For a start, there are the unitary authority areas, especially the large rural areas such as Powys, which has already been mentioned. There is the somewhat anomalous position whereby two of our unitary authorities—Powys and Gwynedd—have area committees. Where does an area committee fit into a cabinet system? That has not been addressed.

Hilary Armstrong (Labour, North West Durham)

indicated dissent.

Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

Well, I do not think that it has been fully addressed. We in Wales have independent councillors—I should say that they are not crusty old Tory councillors. Independent councillors in Wales are curious beasts: many are members of Plaid Cymru or the Liberal Democrats, and one or two might even be members of the Labour party; however, the majority who stand as independents do so in rural areas because they are, in effect, the voice of the local community, often closely allied with farming interests. We have found that independent councillors fit ill into the cabinet system that has just been set up in my area. We in Wales have limited options. Whatever happened in London, the mayoral option was ruled out for Wales when Russell Goodway adopted his course of action in Cardiff. The role of executive manager has never been tried in Wales and has no track record, so I doubt that any local authority will opt to have such a beast.

Jon Owen Jones (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff Central)

Why are elected mayors in Wales ruled out by the example the hon. Gentleman cites, given that it involves a non-elected mayor?

Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

The fact that it also involves a mayor taking too much executive power to himself will provide a warning to many areas. There are other reasons why mayors would not work in many rural areas, but, for brevity's sake, I shall not pursue that matter now. If the Bill is passed in its current form, the cabinet system will become the de facto system of local government in Wales. That will lead to considerable local unhappiness and discontent.

Richard Livsey (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the cabinet system will wholly exclude people living in the vast rural areas of Wales that we represent, which will be wholly excluded from the decision-making process?

Hilary Armstrong (Labour, North West Durham)

indicated dissent.

Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

The Minister evidently disagrees with the hon. Gentleman's observation, but that is what local people have told me. The Government must listen to the views of local people. We in Ceredigion held a wide-ranging consultation on the cabinet system. Local community councils were dumbfounded and bemused by the way things were going; they did not understand how they would now relate to what they regarded as a local-member-led council. My council might be regarded as extremely old fashioned in that respect, but it achieves the best education results in Wales, so there must be something to be said for the traditional methods of carrying out council business in Wales. We in Plaid Cymru favour the principle of establishing an executive, but we recognise the need to gain local people's support for any change, especially in rural Wales and other areas. However, so far the Government have singularly failed to persuade the majority of people in Wales and in England that their proposals offer the best local solution. There is no doubt that people want to have a greater say in how their local government works—they might even want to shape their local government executive. However, the Bill imposes on that executive a shape that fails to give local people—and, in Wales, the National Assembly—a strong enough voice. In Wales, the way forward could legitimately involve the National Assembly to a greater extent. I hope that, in another place and at another time, close scrutiny will be given to this part of the Bill. There should be an opt-out, perhaps along the lines of new clause 7, whereby, if local people working with the local authority come up with an alternative arrangement, they will be allowed to adopt it as their local government structure. Local government will not succeed without the encouragement and full support of its local community, but there are elements within the proposed structure that fly in the face of that principle.

John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)

We are engaged in a century-old debate between centralisers and devolvers about centralisation and decentralisation. In the late 1970s, those working in local government were told by Anthony Crosland that the party was over. Then, we got dragged into the monetarist debate and we were told that part of our public expenditure was causing an economic crisis. The Tories tried to undermine both local government powers over public expenditure through rate capping and local government structures. During that 20-year period, members of the Labour party worked to develop policies that would reinvigorate local government when a Labour Government were elected. That renewal was to be based on the return of powers and of resources. Then, within months of the general election, the debate was hijacked into discussion of structures: the argument was suddenly about the need for new structures, such as mayors, cabinets and so on. The thrust of our policy had held good for 15 years, and it is true that the current Government are releasing new resources and giving local government new powers; this Bill forms part of that. However, the Bill does not set councils free, but imposes on them a structure that none of them and no single major local government association wants. Until months before the general election, most of our Front-Bench colleagues rejected the system. We criticised the previous Government's proposals with their mayoral options as ludicrous. However, the pressure from some groups in the Labour party with no experience of local government has led to the potential loss of democratic freedom that we are considering. I support new clause 7 because it tries to re-establish some form of local freedom. We were told about the advantages of the mayor and cabinet option. We recently had a test of that system in London. It did not increase turnout, which remained roughly the same as for the Greater London council elections. It did not increase effectiveness. I have served in the new structure for the past six weeks and while I do not criticise the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who has to work with the existing structure, it is not a model of effectiveness and efficiency. It was argued that the system would enhance the quality of the candidates and the elected mayor. It is ironic that, after 18 years, the same person is running London under the new system as under the old system. The system's drawbacks are clear. It undermines local choice. New clause 7 seeks to re-establish at least the potential for retaining the option of a streamlined committee structure. The Government's proposals have the potential to establish a local oligarchy, which works in secret and is prone to corruption. From the Webbs onwards, the Labour party has argued that the committee structure enabled training in local democracy. The Government's proposals establish two classes: the deciders and the spectators. We are wishing the parliamentary system on local government. What arrogance. It demonstrates on the part of the Labour party leadership contempt for local government and contempt for local councillors, in the same way as some have contempt for our party and our rank and file activists. We are throwing away the opportunity of retaining all the options. The Government's proposals do not constitute modernisation, which allows organic growth of democratic systems at local level. They are a step back to a system that has failed elsewhere, and will fail in this country. At the local government conference, the Minister argued that there was a fourth option that would allow the flexibility that local government required and demanded. I ask the Minister to clarify in the brief time available whether the fourth option allows for the streamlined system of committee government for which Labour local government has argued. If not, I shall vote for new clause 7.

Alan Simpson (Labour, Nottingham South)

I follow on from the last point that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) made. I welcome the proposals in new clause 7, especially the tough tests for which it would provide. I would opt for that, but I would also settle for local government having the right to make the choice if it could pass the tests. I am not sure whether that was the view that the Minister expressed when she addressed the local government conference. She said that a fourth option existed. However, the Bill does not make clear the nature of that option and whether it includes the possibility of a reformed committee system. If not, we are closing down local government rather than opening it up. I congratulate the Nottingham Evening Post on its responsible campaign in my area against the secret society. It has campaigned to open up local government to proper accountability and for the ability of local people to hold local government to account. If we do that, we have many options for inclusion and local choice, some of which are set out in new clause 7. One area in the county has already begun to follow that path. Newark and Sherwood has set out proposals for broadcasting its council meetings. The public can phone in directly to pose questions during committee meetings. There are many ways in which to open up local government. I hope that the Minister will clarify whether we will present local people with a revised committee system as one of the options that they can choose for themselves. If we do not, we shall tie ourselves to the presumption that local government cannot lead, but must be led down a path of openness. That is a tragedy. The three options for which the Bill provides will sadly guarantee less openness.

Hilary Armstrong (Labour, North West Durham)

I am sorry that some of my hon. Friends did not attend some of the earlier debates because some interesting ideas have been presented. Much misunderstanding continues to exist; I am sorry about that, and I take some responsibility for it. In response to the comments of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), I say that we have rehearsed the arguments often. I tell him and some of my hon. Friends that we have not suddenly discovered a problem with the committee system; it was identified by the Maud committee and, in 1993, by a joint Government and local government working party, which included all the local government associations. That joint working party stated: Most major policy decisions in practice are not taken by the full council, its committees or subcommittees but elsewhere within the ruling group—where there is a majority group—or in consultation with the leadership of other groups where there is a minority administration or coalition… Formal authority may rest with the full council, or with the committee, but the real authority rests with individuals. The Local Government Management Board, which was established by local authority associations to deal with support, training and negotiations, stated: A concentration of decision making powers in small groups outside the formal arenas characterised the committee system and that that had increased over the years. However, the pretence is maintained that the full council makes the decisions. As we all know, the reality is that it does not. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) claims that he is not enjoying the experience of serving in the Greater London Authority cabinet. My hon. Friend is not in the cabinet as an elected Member, but as an adviser and supporter. However, the public have the right to know that he is an adviser and that he is not giving advice secretly or without it being made public. That is a better system than the previous one. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and I share an ambition to find ways in which to reflect the integrity of the aims of accountability, scrutiny and better contact with the public in the broad framework that we are trying to establish in the Bill. We are working in the same way on many matters. However, we are divided on one substantive issue. The new clause proposes that each council should have a separate method of doing things. That would mean that the statute book would have to recognise that, and uphold the individual constitutions of every single authority. That would lead to too much parliamentary interference. The new clause would provide for too much central control rather than the much looser framework that we seek. I believe that the hon. Member for Bath is not paying sufficient attention to scrutiny and that several executives mean that fewer people are left to scrutinise. That is a key point for local government: there has not been substantial scrutiny in the past. Much greater scrutiny is required. Not only decisions, but their effect on individuals need to be scrutinised. I hope that the House will reject new clause 1 because it will take local government back to the problems that the Maud committee and the local government associations considered: decisions by small, unaccountable cabals. Nobody knew what those cabals were talking about. We are trying to move away from that. I believe that our fourth option will take us in the same direction as the hon. Member for Bath. I hope that hon. Members will reject the amendments.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

We are not happy with what the Minister has said. It is the same tired old stuff. I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to press the motion to a Division.

APPLICATION FOR LOCALLY DEVELOPED ARRANGEMENTS

PRIOR DISCUSSION BY POLITICAL GROUPS

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

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

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 61, in clause 20, page 14, leave out lines 17 and 18 and insert— 'arrangements for the overview and scrutiny of the executive (such arrangements referred to in this Part as overview and scrutiny arrangements).' No. 62, in page 14, line 18, at end insert— '(1A) Overview and scrutiny arrangements may provide for the discharge of functions and the exercise of powers by— (a) a committee, (b) a sub-committee, (c) a member, or (d) an officer of the authority (in this Part referred to as overview and scrutiny bodies).'. No. 66, in page 14, leave out lines 20 and 21 and insert— 'arrangements make provision so that the powers of overview and scrutiny bodies include powers, between them'. No. 63, in page 14, line 36, at end insert— '(f) to require that the implementation of any such decision as is referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) of this subsection is deferred until a decision has been made whether or not to exercise the power conferred by subsection (3).'. No. 67, in page 14, line 37, leave out "committee" and insert "body". No. 64, in page 14, line 43, at end insert— '( ) Unless the matter is certified by the authority's monitoring officer to be urgent, no decision by an executive, a member of an executive or a committee of an executive, under its executive arrangements, shall be implemented within less than five working days after the decision is published.'. No. 68, in page 14, line 44, leave out subsection (4). No. 69, in page 14, line 45, leave out "may not discharge any" and insert— 'may by resolution of the authority discharge'. No. 70, in page 15, line 6, leave out— 'committee of a local authority' and insert— 'body of a local authority which is a committee of the authority'. No. 71, in page 15, line 9, at end insert— 'or by a single member or officer of the authority.'. No. 72, in page 15, line 15, leave out "committee of the authority" and insert— 'body of the authority which is a committee of the authority'. No. 65, in page 15, line 22, at end insert— '( ) Where a member of a relevant overview and scrutiny committee finds that a decision by or on behalf of the executive ought to be subject to immediate review he may, with the agreement of two members of the relevant overview or scrutiny committee, cause the decision to be delayed until that overview and scrutiny committee has considered the matter.'. No. 73, in page 15, line 23, leave out subsection (9) and insert— '(9) Overview and scrutiny arrangements shall include provision ensuring that members of the local authority's executive do not discharge any functions or exercise any powers under those arrangements.'. No. 74, in page 15, line 26, leave out— 'committee of a local authority' and insert— 'body of a local authority which is a committee of the authority.'. No. 75, in page 15, line 32, leave out "committee of the authority" and insert— 'body of a local authority which is a committee of the authority'. No. 76, in page 15, line 44, leave out "committee" and insert "body". No. 77, in page 15, line 47, after "before", insert "him, her or". No. 78, in page 16, line 1, at beginning insert— '(in the case of a committee)'. No. 79, in page 16, line 3, at end insert— '(15) The authority shall appoint officers to assist the overview and scrutiny committee in discharging their functions, and such officers may not also report to the executive.'.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I shall not read out the amendments in this group. If I did, I would run out of time entirely—[Interruption.] I am glad that the Government Whip finds it all so funny—but, then, I suppose that it is quite funny when one is at the steering wheel of such a programme motion. One of the curious, almost theological issues that the Committee examined was whether there is whipping in scrutiny committees. We had a fascinating debate on that subject, in which the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), assured us that the Labour party national executive had issued a decree that whipping should not occur in scrutiny committees. So, that is all right then. However, sometimes, what the Labour party national executive decrees and what happens in the real world are as different as day and night. The purpose of new clause 10 is to make it absolutely clear that, as subsection (3) provides, those who serve on scrutiny committees should behave in a wholly non-partisan fashion, and that, if there has been prior discussion in a group meeting or some type of whipping, it should be notified to the local authority's head of the paid service in advance of the relevant meeting. If Ministers are so confident that Millbank's writ runs throughout Labour-controlled local government, there could be no harm at all in including that provision in the Bill. Of course, the only reason why Ministers might be reluctant to accept new clause 10 is that they have a sneaking suspicion that such practices are indeed going on in Labour-controlled local government. The most debated example that has come to light so far—it is in the nature of these things that they rarely come into the public domain—is that of our old friends at the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, which, as I said in Committee, seems to have fallen into every elephant trap conceivable in this legislation. That borough is one of the great pioneers of the modernised local government system. The Hammersmith and Fulham cabinet decided to introduce charges for home helps. However, three Labour councillors took the view that that was not a good idea and, in a scrutiny Committee, voted against it. By way of background, it is worth remembering—I think that my arithmetic is right, but the figure may have increased since I last checked—that, in its brief life, the Hammersmith and Fulham cabinet has made 607 decisions, only one of which has been overturned as part of the scrutiny process. The process is, therefore, not really biting in the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. As the Fulham & Hammersmith Chronicle reported, the three hapless Labour councillors were banned from speaking to the press while they face disciplinary action after voting against the proposal to charge elderly and vulnerable people for home help services… A Labour spokesman said no decision had been made yet but disciplinary action could include the withdrawal of the whip. That sounds suspiciously like whipping to me. Coincidentally, on that same day, as reported in the local government press, the Minister for Local Government and the Regions, in a debate on this Bill, told the House: We, as a party, have already made it absolutely clear that no whip will be allowed on scrutiny committees. However, Mayor Andrew Slaughter—who draws a substantial salary for being the so-called executive mayor in Hammersmith and Fulham, but who has managed to retain his day job—was reported as insisting that councillors could be whipped without the scrutiny process being undermined. He said: It's only reasonable that the party expects adherence to policies agreed at group meetings. It would be fascinating to hear what the Minister has to say about Councillor Slaughter's interpretation of the Bill. 8 pm Amendments No. 61 and 62 deal with scrutiny. We believe that there need not be a split between cabinet or executive committees and scrutiny committees. In Committee, we had a long and constructive debate on the experience of Wiltshire county council under Councillor Peter Chalke. There, the best of the committee system has been retained, even though there are completely independent scrutiny committees. So impressed was the Minister by what is happening in Wiltshire that she dispatched officials there the other day to find out how it works. I hope that she tells the House the results of that visit. It would be interesting to see whether the Wiltshire approach could be a fourth or even a fifth option in this regard. Amendments Nos. 63, 64, 68 and 65 deal with deferring decisions, delays in implementation, attempts to restrict the function of the scrutiny committee and immediate review. They are designed to improve the scrutiny process, if that is the road down which we are going. Amendment No. 79 touches on an important issue that deserves a whole debate in itself—the role of officers. The second consultative draft of the proposed guidance published by the Government stated: Where the same officers are supporting both the executive and overview and scrutiny committees, there is the potential for conflict—overview and scrutiny committees will be questioning the executive's decisions which should be based on officer advice. It is clear that the guidance recognises that there is some need to protect officers whom the new system might place in an invidious position. We believe that it is artificial to rely on the scrutiny system as the answer to everything. Nowhere is it more artificial than in Hammersmith and Fulham, where scrutiny committees are clearly being whipped on a regular basis. Elsewhere, Newham has 59 Labour members. The one other member is an independent Labour member. How on earth can there be independent scrutiny by other political councillors if there are no members from other parties? Those are important questions, to which there were few answers in Committee. I hope that our luck is better this evening.

Adrian Sanders (Liberal Democrat, Torbay)

As the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) explained, new clause 10 would place a duty on the leader of each political group to disclose whether any matter on the agenda had been subject to prior discussion by that group. It is an admirable proposal, and a worthy attempt to prevent the whipping of members, but I suspect that it is unworkable. Whether or not the new clause is accepted, the system will probably encourage group members who want promotion to the executive not to rock the boat. That is the fundamental flaw in the split between executive and scrutiny committees, as it sets up two classes of councillor. The other amendments in the group would water down the Government's explicit split between executive and scrutiny committees, and give councillors more flexibility over the arrangements. That would destroy what the Government are intending to do, but we have some sympathy for making the arrangements more flexible. The really important amendment is No. 79, which the hon. Member for Eastbourne said deserved a debate in its own right. It would require separate officers to serve the executive and scrutiny committees. Clearly, if scrutiny is to work, that is a good idea, but there is a resource implication. The amendments do not cover the question of whether the paid head of service should line-manage the officers of both committees—

AMENDMENTS TO THE 1972 ACT

FUNCTIONS WHICH ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF AN EXECUTIVE

DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS: LEADER AND CABINET EXECUTIVE

DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MANAGER EXECUTIVE

DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS BY AREA COMMITTEES

DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS OF AND BY ANOTHER LOCAL AUTHORITY

OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEES

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; BACKGROUND PAPERS

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

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

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

Throughout this Bill's passage through the House, the issues relevant to these amendments have been the basis of an informed and constructive debate on access to information. I am sure that that will be the case this evening, too. I hope that both sides of the House will agree that we all start with one aim in mind—to ensure that the new structures are as accountable and transparent as possible. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that the third aim of the executive arrangements, as identified by the Joint Committee, was to improve efficiency and establish a more modern approach to decision making. The debate has been concerned with how we strike that balance. During debates in Committee, we identified that the central issue to ensure access and transparent decision making is public access to information. First and foremost, local people need to know what decisions are going to be taken, and also when and how they are to be taken. They need to know what information, analysis and ideas will be available to decision makers, and what will influence them. Above all, local people need and deserve to know how they can make their input into the decision-making process. Decisions that affect people should not come as a surprise to those affected. Equally, once a decision has been taken, the public need to know what that decision was and the reasons for it. It is through this public access that, to a considerable extent, the accountability that we all seek will be delivered. It is unfortunate that the Opposition should diminish the role of overview and scrutiny, as it is vital to this matter and to the proposed structures. All the new structures, with their separate, identifiable executive and powerful overview and scrutiny committees, will contribute significantly to ensuring that future decisions by the council are made in an open and inclusive process that involves local people in deciding local issues. Central to building the framework to deliver that ready access will be a requirement for executives to maintain a public forward plan of decision making, as set out in our guidance. People will see what decisions are going to be taken over coming weeks and longer. They will also see how the executive is planning to consult and involve them, and how they can participate. Amendment No. 112 empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring such a forward plan. For the information of the House, draft regulations were yesterday made available showing how we intend to use the powers, should clause 21 be amended as we propose. I recognise that there remain genuine concerns about whether the access regime really will bring about a culture of openness and transparency. I accept that these concerns have been fuelled by recent experiences, referred to earlier by right hon. and hon. Members, of the experimental new working arrangements being tried by some councils. Councils are already making significant progress in trying new and innovative ways of working that will involve local people far more readily and significantly in their decision making, but not every experiment has achieved the kind of openness that we want to see and will be required under this measure. Indeed, some have fallen well short of the spirit of our proposals. I remind right hon. and hon. Members that these shortcomings, where they exist, have arisen before councils can adopt fully the new structures that the legislation will put in place. They are, therefore, not yet compelled to adopt the regime of public access that we are introducing; they are instead using existing legislation not to promote openness but, on occasion, to increase secrecy. To achieve our aims, there must be change. Not only must there be a tough regime for access, there needs to be a culture of openness, and public confidence that such a culture exists. It is important that all right hon. and hon. Members accept that we are talking not just about structures but about mechanisms and levers to try and drive a new culture into local government. That is what we are putting in place, and the proposals need to be seen in that light. We are therefore taking one further measure which I believe will dispel some of the proper concerns that have been raised and build that public confidence. Amendment No. 111 will allow the Secretary of State to specify in regulations the circumstances in which a council's executive must meet in public. If the House accepts that amendment, we intend to make regulations requiring that when a decision is being taken collectively by an executive, and is one of the key decisions that will be of the kind contained in the forward plan, the executive will have to meet in public to make that decision. The draft regulations placed in the House yesterday make that clear.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

What is the logic of having meetings in public to discuss key decisions and still having the possibility of meeting in private, or in secret, to discuss decisions that are not key and are, by definition, probably rather unimportant?

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

That is no different from what happens currently. I do not think that anyone would argue that every decision, such as those currently delegated to an officer, for example, should have to be taken in the formal arena of a public meeting. That is not in the spirit of the point that I made at the outset of my speech about the balance that needs to be struck between openness and transparency on the one hand and efficient decision making—which is also in the interests of local people—on the other. As I was saying, the draft regulations will make it clear that such decisions will have to be made in public. In addition, to ensure that openness and accountability are a reality, we shall make it clear in our guidance accompanying the Bill that it is not just when a formal decision is being taken that the meeting should be in public. People should not be able to get around our clear intentions for access by, for example, questioning officers in private about their advice one week and, the following week, formally taking the decisions without a debate in that public arena. One could argue that that has been one of the problems with the committee system, and it should not be carried over into the new regime. We shall therefore make it clear that we expect that when the executive is having a collective discussion with officers, pertinent to any key decisions, the public should have access to those discussions.

Patrick Hall (Labour, Bedford)

My hon. Friend has made an important and welcome statement that goes beyond regulation 3 on page 5 of the draft regulations to which she has just alluded. Will she confirm that the wording of regulation 3 will need to be revisited again to make it clear that a meeting of a council executive will have to be open when matters pertinent to key decisions are being discussed, not just when those decisions are being determined? Secondly, regulation 15 seems to leave the definition of key decisions to individual local authorities. Would it not be more sensible to have national parameters to help define key decisions?

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I remind my hon. Friend of what I said. We will make it clear in the regulations that we expect that when an executive is having a collective discussion with officers, pertinent to any key decisions, the public shall have access to those discussions. The regulations will reflect that commitment. On my hon. Friend's second point about the definition of key decisions, the draft regulations are, as he knows, out for consultation. What constitutes a key decision is a specific question that councils are being asked in that consultation. In fact, that was drawn to the attention of the local authorities when the draft regulations were published. We will take cognisance of the responses that we receive on that issue before firming up our views on how a key decision should be defined. Certainly, the responses of local authorities will be very germane.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

My understanding of the process that is being sought, and my view of an ideal process, is of a seamless mesh of access to information prior to a decision being made, while a decision is being made, and after it has been made via the scrutiny process when a key decision is in question. Is it the Government's intention that the new clauses will allow for scrutiny when a decision is being entertained but has not yet entered the decision-making process? That is what happens in Select Committees in this House, even though no legislative process is being undertaken at that particular moment.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

We have already made it clear during extensive discussions in Committee that key decisions announced in the forward plan that we envisage will be weeks—possibly up to three or four months—in advance of a decision being taken, and that overview and scrutiny committees can call the executive members responsible to account before the decision is taken. That is already provided for in the draft regulations.

John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)

On the definition of key decisions, I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important to consult local authorities. Does that mean, therefore, that these regulations will be brought before the House for debate for potential amendment and approval?

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

In terms of the outcome of the consultation, there will be the opportunity to discuss the regulations. We are very comfortable about moving in this direction and with responding to some of the issues that have been expressed. I hope that no one would argue that there should be no opportunity for early discussion in private among executive members about issues likely to lead to key decisions. It is in the interests of local people that members, with officers, are able to explore options and think through the implications of potential decisions before they make a decision. Certainly, in terms of the concerns that are being expressed, we are also clear that when an executive is meeting to discuss issues that are pertinent to key decisions with officers, those should be in the public domain. I hope that that reassures some of my hon. Friends and hon. Members about the concerns that they have raised.

Alan Simpson (Labour, Nottingham South)

I am grateful for that clarification, but will my hon. Friend confirm what will be covered as regards advance disclosure? The timetabling is not clear. How much advance disclosure should there be? Would draft reports be covered by advanced disclosure requirements? Technically, it would seem that under the regulations a draft report could be the subject of a subsequent decision without any advance disclosure. Is it clear that the regulations will cover draft reports as well as the formal reports?

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

Yes, I think that our policy is clear on that. Under the Bill as it stands, where a member of the executive receives officer advice the report must be disclosed at least three days before a decision is taken. We are not saying that an executive member must have officer advice before taking a decision, although, as the guidance makes clear, in most circumstances we would expect that to be the case. Our aim is to start from the position that too many councils have excluded the public from decision making for too long. That is a hallmark of the committee system. The desire to change that system is at the root of our proposals. Public access must be the norm. If people are elected to represent their communities, they must be seen to be delivering the best possible deal for those communities and to be accountable for that. We shall carry over into our new provision the existing concept that certain matters, such as those relating to individuals or commercial contracts, are exempt information, on which, notwithstanding any general requirement for open meetings, decisions should properly be made in private. While we will carry across that concept, as I said in Committee, we shall review those categories to find out whether they are too widely drawn and should be reined in. Again, we will be consulting on that.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

As it might save time later, will the hon. Lady explain now what is the difference between what she is proposing to accept and applying the existing system of openness, as contained in the Local Government Act 1972 and elsewhere—subject always to confidentiality—which applies to council and committee meetings, to cabinet or executive meetings? Would that not be far simpler and achieve much the same result?

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

No, it would not. We are talking about an entirely different system. The hon. Gentleman has a complete blind spot about scrutiny and cannot see the advantages of a separation between executive decision making and scrutiny. Precisely because that is the structure that we are talking about, which we believe is preferable to the moribund process of the committee system, we need different arrangements to ensure access to information. Those are the arrangements that I have put before hon. Members today in our amendments. In Committee, the hon. Member for Eastbourne said that his aim on access to information was to hold the line and that is what he just said. He asked why things could not stay as they are. Holding the line is not good enough. We want to move that line decisively towards better access, greater openness and greater accountability for local people. The arrangements that we propose will achieve that aim much better than the present arrangements.

Margaret Moran (Labour, Luton South)

On the issue of greater openness and accountability, I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the media have expressed concern about access to information and the openness that the executive will allow for reporting. Is she also aware that at the first executive meeting of Luton borough council, Luton on Sunday, usually the scourge of the council, expressed amazement at the openness and accountability that is now available? It is far in excess of what was previously available. Also, the three days prior notice of information from the executive needs to be reconsidered if we are truly to be more accountable not merely to the media, but to citizens who want to be more involved and informed about the important work of the executive.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am aware of developments in Luton because I was there last week to talk to council members, as she knows, and I was impressed by what they are doing and the spirit in which they are trying to implement their new arrangements in advance of the Bill becoming law. If she will bear with me a little longer, I will deal with the number of days notice. In addition to our robust access regime, our amendment for open executive meetings and the review of exempt information—the outcome of which we can implement through an existing order-making power when the consultation is complete—we are also putting some other provisions before the House. New clause 9 will ensure that background papers are now listed with reports. New clause 11 will allow us to increase the minimum number of days that papers are available in advance of decisions, to which my hon. Friend referred, and we shall consult on whether we should use that power in the near future. Finally, amendment No. 112 allows us to make regulations for the forward plan. In addition, we will for the first time bring key officer decisions into the access-to-information fold. All of those provisions taken together represent a considerable advance on the status quo that the Conservatives want so dearly to maintain. On the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and others, I am sure that the spirit of their and our objectives is the same. I believe that the regime and the measures that I have outlined will more than meet the concerns from which the amendments sprang. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that the regime that we are putting in place will ensure that decisions are not only taken accountably, following rigorous local debate, but that they are seen to be so taken, and that where an individual member of the executive is taking a decision, she or he does so after proper debate and only once people know all the facts. My hon. Friend's new clause 5 would achieve just that and our draft regulations deliver those aims. Therefore, I think that we are in agreement in wanting proper access and accountability. I hope that he shares my view that our package of measures will deliver that. Finally, the Conservative amendments speak for what they are. In contrast to our regime for access and for reforming, modernising and extending existing provisions and significantly improving public access to them, the Opposition's amendments reflect their stance of holding the line, staying put and not recognising that local government in this century is a far cry from local government two centuries ago when the system that we still have was designed. Indeed, it is a far cry from the local government of the 1960s, when the then Member for Finchley, now Baroness Thatcher, introduced her private Member's Bill. Time has moved on, we have moved on, local people have moved on in terms of what they expect, but the Opposition and their amendments have not. In short, I cannot accept the amendments. We can all agree, however, that we want a proper, transparent and accountable system that really allows local people to know who is taking the decisions, and when and how they can influence those decisions. The framework put in place by our provisions will deliver that. I commend new clause 9 to the House.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The speech made by the Under-Secretary of State was a tour de force; it was remarkable. She accused the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) of wanting to hold the line. She said that the Government did not want merely to hold the line, but to move beyond it. To hold the line was not good enough, she said; they want better access. In effect, she accused the hon. Gentleman and his party of looking backwards, while the Government are looking forward. She said that the Government are making progress. According to her pronouncements tonight, we certainly are making progress. Indeed, during the past few months, we have made much progress. However, it would be somewhat disingenuous of the hon. Lady to pretend that all forward movement has occurred so easily. Even her hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) found out only a few moments ago that obtaining concessions from the Government on the issue is like getting blood out of a stone. The hon. Gentleman pointed out—helpfully, his words planned and ready—that there were surely two improvements that we could make. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman knows that I too wanted to raise those issues. He asked the Minister whether it would not be a good idea to revisit both draft regulation 3 and the definition of "key decisions". All he needed from the Minister were two short words: "yes" and "yes". However, the hon. Gentleman did not receive those answers; instead, the Minister made a longwinded attempt to arrive at "yes" and "maybe"—even the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

Not fair.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The hon. Gentleman made it clear that a clear statement was needed in the regulations on the definition of a key decision. If the Minister checks the record, she will find that she referred only to what would be placed in the guidance. In a moment, I hope that she will confirm that she intends to ensure that the change of definition appears in the actual regulations. For the many people who care about freedom of information and openness in government, a long and weary road has been travelled. Both sides of the House can claim credit for the progress that has been made. They share that credit with many organisations: the Society of Editors, the Newspaper Society and, not least, the Campaign for Freedom of Information, whose members have worked tirelessly on the issue. Credit is deserved by those organisations and Members on both sides of the House, including the hon. Member for Eastbourne, who is even now rising to his feet and to whom I give way.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I am not so extravagant as to ask the hon. Gentleman to include me in his list, but he might think of including Baroness Thatcher.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

On this one occasion, I am delighted to include the right hon. and noble Lady. The House will recall that she and another former Conservative Member of the House, Robin Squire, promoted measures on the matter. Progress has been made. However, it is worth reflecting on the genesis of the matter. For example, when the draft Bill was considered by the Joint Committee, it recommended that the agenda of the executive be published in advance, together with all papers relating to items which are on the agenda for decision. Advance publication of the agenda is hardly a major request. However, paragraph 2.99 of the Government's response to the Committee, published in December 1999, stated: The Government is concerned, though, that a requirement to publish papers before a meeting might once again drive majority groups into private discussions outside the structures of the council and the purview of the overview and scrutiny committees. At that time, the Government were not even prepared to consider advance publication of agendas. That is where we started. Since then, with pressure from many organisations and from Members on both sides of the House, the Government have come to believe that we need the production of a forward plan that details the matters in respect of which the decision is to be taken…the name of the decision ta…by when the decision will be taken…who will be consulted…the means by which any such consultation is proposed to be undertaken…how, and by when, people should make representations to them…a list of the documents, other than documents that are [then] available only in draft form, submitted to the decision-taker for consideration in relation to the matter in respect of which the decision is to be taken. That represents good progress. Furthermore, there must be three days advance access to reports, agendas, and background papers for decisions that will be taken at meetings held in public. The finalised reports on which decisions are taken by individual executive members must, apparently, be publicly available in advance. I should be grateful if the Minister clarified that point, as there is some confusion in the draft regulations that we saw yesterday. Other progress has been made. After a meeting, individuals must produce a record of the decisions, including the reason for the decisions and the alternative options considered and rejected. The Government have agreed to undertake a review of the exemptions from public rights of access to meetings and information in schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. They have also agreed to amend the Act to require officers to list the background papers to their reports in the reports themselves. That is a pretty impressive list of the changes that we eventually managed to get out of the Government. I suspect that, tonight, all that many of us want to persuade them to do is to state categorically that they are willing to take one more, final step. I should like the Government to do one more thing, although I accept that they are unlikely to do so—I should like many of the issues that we have successfully debated to be included in the Bill. I should prefer them to take that route instead of dealing with such matters in separate regulations. However, I accept that that is probably a step too far for the Government at this stage. The hon. Member for Bedford identified the two key issues on which we seek a clear statement from the Government. The first relates to key decisions. We need to be clear that the Government are willing to reconsider and widen the scope of the definition of "key decision" and, after consultation, to ensure that it is included in the regulations. I hope that the Minister will give us a clear "yes" on that matter. The second issue relates to meetings that may or not take place in secret. Currently, it is the Government's intention to allow a group of members of the executive, if they want to do so, to hold in private a meeting to discuss a particular issue before a decision is taken. As I understand it, we have tonight heard a clear intention to change that arrangement. Unfortunately, the current draft regulations state: Subject to regulation 4, a meeting of the executive of a local authority, or of a committee of such an executive, shall be held in public if it is a meeting at which consideration is to be given to a matter in relation to which a decision taken at the meeting would be a key decision. The important phrase is "at the meeting". There is a real possibility that members of the executive may meet—on an agenda item, with papers in advance—to discuss the pros and cons of a proposal, perhaps the proposed closure of a school. It may well be that the decision on the issue will be taken at a later meeting, or delegated to an individual executive member. In those circumstances, under the current draft regulations, it would be possible for the meeting to be held in private, if the executive so determined. That would mean that members of the press and the public did not have the opportunity to listen to the arguments for and against that decision. It is certainly my belief, and that of the Campaign for Freedom of Information and the other organisations to which I have referred, that that needs to be changed, so that there is a clear statement of what is meant.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

For the avoidance of doubt, will the hon. Gentleman make it clear to me that, wherever his party forms the executive in a local authority, he will use the best endeavours of his national party machinery to ensure that that local authority abides by the laudable sentiments that he has expressed this evening?

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making his comments in a non-provocative way. It would have been possible to have been slightly more provocative.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

rose—

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Now the hon. Member for Eastbourne is going to be provocative, just when I was hoping that for once we could all come together and agree to move forward positively.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I am tempted to say, "You rang?" Does the hon. Gentleman not think that this is a problem that will shortly solve itself?

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The hon. Gentleman has now got me puzzled. The example to which I was referring was certainly one that would not easily solve itself. Perhaps he knows of another. I take the spirit of what the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) says. He will be aware that it is very much the view of the Liberal Democrats that decisions that are entitled to be made at local level must be made by people at that level. It is not for those at national level to tell them what decisions they should take. I nevertheless give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that my party will take steps to encourage all Liberal Democrat councils to operate with maximum openness. I suggest a form of words to the Minister for draft regulation 3. I shall read it slowly so that the Minister can take it in. It might say something like: "Subject to regulation 4, a meeting of the executive of a local authority, or of a committee of such an executive, shall be held in public if it is a meeting at which (a) a key decision is to be taken or (b) discussion is to take place concerning a matter about which a key decision is to be made or may be taken in the future, whether by the executive or by any other decision-taker." From what the Minister said in response to the hon. Member for Bedford, I think that that is in line with what she has in mind. I seek a clear assurance about the definition of key decisions, and an absolute assurance that, where discussions about key decisions are taken in a meeting of the executive for which there is an agenda item and for which papers have been prepared in advance, the meeting will be held in public, whether or not the decision is taken on that occasion. If I can obtain those two assurances, I will not urge my hon. Friends to press our new clause and amendments to a vote, and we shall support the Minister's new clause.

Mark Fisher (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent Central)

Like the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), I welcome what the Minister had to say this evening. She was helpful in addressing the genuine concerns that have been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House to the effect that the new structures for local government should be at least as open and transparent as they were in the past. We should all recognise that the Minister and the Government have moved very far from the Bill as it was originally printed and from the discussions in Committee that I read in Hansard. It is a tribute to the Government that they have listened to the case put by hon. Friends, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall), by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and by other members of the Committee. It is to Ministers' credit that they have done so. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford that one or two matters still need clarification, and the hon. Member for Bath has identified them. It is important that any discussion on a key issue, whether or not a decision is to be made on that occasion, is open to the public and that they are notified in advance. That is what members of the public want. They want to see what their councillors say, how they address the issue, and on what information they base their decisions. Those are the determinants—not whether or not a decision is taken. I am sure that the spirit of what my hon. Friend the Minister said takes that into account. I hope that that spirit will be reflected in her reply and in the draft regulations. That similarly goes for the definition of a key decision. There are greater difficulties in defining a key decision. It is difficult to define them, and in a way I regret that we are going down that path. I would like to say all important decisions—but perhaps "important" is equally open to definitional difficulty. I cannot say that I envy the Minister the job of wording regulation 15, but it needs to be wider, and we need to hear something in the spirit of what she said in opening the debate, but clearer and firmer than that. There are still one or two further matters that need clearing up. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) raised the question of draft reports. I listened carefully to the Minister's reply, and she appeared to be making a different point rather than answering my hon. Friend's point about draft reports. Draft reports do not lead immediately to a decision, but they can be crucial. The drafting of an original report for a local authority will determine the tone and parameters of any important decision about, for example, the closure of a school or an old people's home, or anything else. So the issue of draft reports needs to be considered. I hope that the Minister will answer that point a little more clearly in her reply to the debate. I agree with the hon. Member for Bath that, ideally, the provisions should be written into the Bill rather than into regulations, but perhaps that is difficult for the Government to accept at this late stage in proceedings. No one will press the Minister tonight to put the provisions in the Bill. The progress that we have made on the regulations is sufficiently encouraging, and it shows the spirit in which the Government are dealing with the issue. There are issues on which we need the greatest possible legislative clarity. This is a difficult area. Most hon. Members are sympathetic to what the Government are trying to do, which is to release local authorities and their decision making from the impenetrable, slow and cumbersome committee structure. However, in doing so, the Government inadvertently went down a much less transparent route in the original Bill. The Minister has saved the legislation and the Government tonight from that unhappy and probably unintended route, and has retrieved the situation; but she must recognise that significant decisions will still effectively be delegated to members of the executive—cabinet members, as they call them in my local authority in Stoke-on-Trent—and made in conjunction with the chief officer. It will be difficult to achieve transparency in those decisions. Any one of those decisions may not come within the definition of a key or important decision, but cumulatively they have a great effect on all our constituents. We are pursuing a difficult route which will lead the Government to keep a very close eye on matters. I hope that, quite apart from these regulations, the Government and the Ministers will revisit this piece of legislation over the coming months and in a year or two's time, to see how it is working and whether members of the public—and of the local press—are worried about a lack of transparency. It was very encouraging to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran) say that the local newspaper found that the present arrangements as demonstrated in Luton were actually more open than the legislation would require. That is to the credit of her local authority and the way its councillors and officers are operating in the spirit of the legislation, but we all recognise that it is perfectly possible to operate in a different spirit. Moreover, when decisions are very contentious and difficult, and a local authority feels itself beleaguered—as happens all too often—there is always a tendency for any local authority to smuggle things through and take decisions which, once they are a fait accompli, people will have to accept. Those of us who have been councillors in the past and have been chairs of committees understand that tendency only too well; it crosses all party divides and is simply a human tendency. It is thus very important that we get this aspect right tonight, because whether we get it right or not along the lines that we are talking about, this will be difficult legislation to put into practice, and it will be difficult to ensure that there genuinely is openness; so the greater the clarity we get from the Government—in what the Minister says in winding up, and in the drafting of the regulations, and in the monitoring of the operation of the legislation—the better. The spirit of what the Government are doing is right. Since Committee, the Government have moved an enormous distance in addressing these problems of openness and access to information, but we still have some way to go. I hope that, when the Minister winds up, she will recognise that advice in the spirit in which it is offered to her.

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

I very much agree with what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) has just said. He summed up the problems that we face succinctly and clearly. Where I disagree with him is that I would not be so sanguine that we have found the solution to the problem—although he is cautious about it. I always feel extremely wary when we send a Bill to the other place in a sense incomplete, with a key area of it lying around as draft regulations on which the Government will consult. Our final destination on this vital issue remains so uncertain. We have been considering the Bill since April, when it had its Second Reading. We have had hundreds of amendments and here we are, in July, at its last knockings in this House, still fiddling with a vital section of it. That is a great indictment of the Government. The Minister, in the little tirade at the end of her speech, said that Conservative Members were a bunch of old-fashioned neanderthals. [Interruption.] Of course we probably are—at least, I probably am, but not my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson). However, that little diatribe hid the fact that each and every one of the concessions that the Minister has made tonight has had to be wrung out of her bit by bit; the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) was quite right about that. Every gesture that has been made in this respect has been resolved by trench warfare waged not only by the Opposition but by Labour Members. We are about to agree to the amendment—my hon. Friends would not wish to agree to it, but we are about to do so because the Government have a large majority on it—even though we still do not know the definition of the key word. What is a key decision? We still do not know that. We do not know what can be interpreted as a key word. As I understand the regulations, the decision as to what a key decision is will ultimately be decided by the local authority concerned, with some guidance from the Minister in some manner, which we have not seen—[Interruption.] I am sorry. It has been seen, but it has not been agreed. That is an extremely dangerous thing. I cannot believe that journalists and editors throughout the country will be satisfied by that. The old committee system was described as slow and cumbersome. In many respects that is true, and those of us who have been councillors know what it is like to sit through some endlessly boring committee stages, but they are open to the public and to the press, and the arguments that flow back and forth can be heard by everyone. If decisions are not key decisions, but are nevertheless important decisions—the discussions before the closure of a school, perhaps—they will be taken in private and will not be properly explained and challenged until the scrutiny procedure starts, as I understand it. I believe that we now have an intensely bureaucratic set of regulations, which are out to consultation. We do not know what they will be like in the final analysis. I believe that the House will be asked tonight to nod through a very significant provision that could bring about a substantial diminution of press freedom and public freedom—without our seeing the detail, which, in my view, should be in the Bill.

Neil Turner (Labour, Wigan)

I very much welcome the changes that have been made to the Bill in regulations. We have moved an awfully long way from the first drafting. As I said, that is a tribute to the work that has been done by Members on both sides of the House and by other organisations. The Government had to balance the need to allow councils thinking time to get together with their officers and discuss things that are in the air before they take key decisions, with the need for a clear, transparent, decision-making process. We now have what is probably approximately the right balance. I very much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) on the need to monitor the working of the legislation. The regulations are obviously quite complex and will be difficult for authorities to operate. We need to monitor, to ensure that the regulations are complied with. There is a clear need for Government, and for ourselves as Members representing people, to ensure that our councils do the proper thing. We need to be aware that the legislation is only part of the process of modernising local government; the other part was the Local Government Act 1999, which provided for the creation of community plans. The community plans involve the community in the way local government takes its decisions. The regulations make it absolutely clear that the community, local businesses, voluntary groups and individuals must be involved in that process. When those elements are combined in the decision-making process, the result will be that the transparency, the openness and the involvement of the public in local government will be very much better, once the Bill becomes an Act. I therefore welcome these moves by the Government, and hope that the House will approve them tonight.

Richard Shepherd (Conservative, Aldridge-Brownhills)

I share some of the reservations that have been expressed by my hon. Friends about the journey that the Bill has made on openness and on its provisions for access to information. I gladly pay tribute to the Campaign for Freedom of Information, which has been a beacon of light, has monitored progress, and has demonstrated benchmarks. In an earlier reading of what seemed to be almost another Bill from another world, one took the view that it had been drafted by the Home Office. It had all the magnificent over-defensive reactions that reflected the thought that dangerous talk cost lives and that local electorates should not have the same standard as is suggested for the Bill. It seemed inconsistent that a Government who were taking steps to advance open government were also permitting a situation that denied the residents of my local authority, for example, the access to information that they had traditionally had. The fact that the regime is now looser than was originally conceived in the Bill is to be welcomed. 9 pm The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central made two valid points. First, if terms such as "key decision" are not properly defined, that gives rise to anxiety. The standard in one place may well be different from that in another, and I know that the Minister is mindful of that fact. However, if a constituency covers two local authorities, two different standards of access to information might apply. That would give rise to conflict and would reduce our ability to participate. After all, openness of information is the greatest incentive to participation and to involving people in local government. They feel more involved if they know what is going on and, if they are sufficiently interested, they may participate in the process. All political parties are trying to reach out and increase participation and the sense of validation of the decisions taken. I am naturally cautious about executive-style mayors such as we have in London, but I am a Conservative and one would expect me to view change with caution to some extent. Therefore, the first point that the hon. Gentleman raised was the variable standard between authorities. The hon. Gentleman made another important point on the issue of regulations. The House drowns under regulations and we have very little say over them. They are not even properly scrutinised. I was going to whisper, but I do not have to do so in the House because most of the information traded here is not relayed anywhere else. Therefore, I will mention the Child Support Agency. We all agreed with the concept, so it bears some relation to what the Minister is doing here. However, on a quiet summer's afternoon, when we were busy and our concentration was elsewhere, a raft of regulations was passed. As a Parliament, we caused great hurt to many of our constituents. For many years, we have had to sit—I certainly have—in our surgeries wondering how such an outcome could have come about. It is difficult to put right a wrong. Although regulations have the effect of primary legislation, they are not primary legislation in the sense that we can take up the House's time to try to satisfy ourselves—this is what the process is about—that they are fair and reasonable. The hon. Gentleman said that he was bit cautious about regulations, but that he accepts the good intent of the Government. I am very concerned about regulations, however, because 2,500 of them flood through as statutory instruments each year, and that is in addition to the 2,500 pages of legislation that existed even before the Home Secretary announced yet another Bill for this Session. I hope that the Government take that point on board, because it is disappointing to think that we shall not see the regulations before the Bill is returned to the House of Lords. I want to give a cheer to amendments Nos. 82 to 87, which were tabled under a distinguished collection of names, to which mine was also appended. I commend to the Government a more vigorous approach when the matter is considered in the Lords. I hope that they will enable us to discuss the regulations in detail without the constraints that apply to most regulations.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

I shall add my brief comments to those who have said that the measures that the Government have introduced on Report will lead to a culture of openness in the new form of local government. That is important, because when we consider the past and the future of local government we should be honest. The idea that there was a golden age of openness in local government that the Government first ignored, and then had to be dragged kicking and screaming back towards, is not true. In the past, local government has, in some circumstances, operated in admirable conditions of openness. However, there have also been instances in which local authorities have operated in shocking conditions of secrecy. There have also been occasions, even after the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 was passed, on which local authorities subverted the requirements of such legislation by various means, including caucuses, pre-meetings, half-group meetings and half-group and officer meetings and so on. In circumstances in which it is clear that a major decision is to be made, a seamless web of information should be made available to the public before it is made. That is the order of the day when that decision is being entertained and discussed and once it has been made and implemented. The Government have suggested changes to the Bill. I was a member of the Joint Committee of both Houses that scrutinised the draft Bill and, as hon. Members have reflected today, it is right that considerable moves have been made from some thoughts that came before that Committee. The circumstances that will exist after the Bill is enacted will be a challenge to any local authority that wishes to pursue its activities in secret. The assumption will be that a good reason must be put to the public if items of any major importance to that local authority are to be decided in private. That does not mean that there are not circumstances in which certain decisions should be discussed in private. Certainly, there are circumstances in which decisions should be taken privately, such as those relating to tendering of contracts, in which a third party can get an advantage from those contracts, or cases relating to employees or disclosure of information which, in certain circumstances, may be prejudicial to individuals. However, I can think of only a few occasions when that is relevant, and there is an overwhelming case for openness in local government, which the changes will advance. I commend the Government amendments for the way in which they engender that culture. Finally, there is now an onus on those in all political parties who purport to speak for local government at national level to make sure that excuses are not made for local authorities that are run by their parties in a majority, if those parties fail to live up to the culture of openness that the Bill will introduce. I certainly hope that what the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said and what Conservative Members said in support of that greater openness will be backed by action in future. If local authorities do not do that, those parties should take action themselves.

Richard Shepherd (Conservative, Aldridge-Brownhills)

The hon. Gentleman said that he could see good reasons why certain matters are confidential, and cited tendering as an instance. That relates to the commercial confidentiality argument which goes right through whole areas of British government. Why should a tender, which is an open market transaction, be protected by secrecy? In the United States, that would considered an outrageous suggestion, as people, including the public at large, want to compare open tenders. One might not take the cheapest tender, but one is forced to give the reason for that, such as quality of goods, service or reliability. I am nervous about starting to cocoon areas on the ground that they may require confidentiality.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

Of course that must be constrained very scrupulously, but I am concerned that the playing field might not be level. If a private company wants to gain some advantage, for example, in a land transaction and the local authority is required to give it access to information that enables it to take advantage of the tendering process, the public might be deprived of money that might otherwise have gone their way if that information had not been available to the private company. Such a requirement would be necessary if we had a regime in which everyone—whether a public, private or voluntary body, or whatever—were always required to disclose exactly the same information. Unfortunately, private companies have been able to take advantage of the openness of public bodies to make deals to the disadvantage of the public interest. We should be aware that that is possible and ensure that, in that instance and that instance only, the public interest is not compromised by the fact that the playing field is not level in those circumstances. I hope that the spirit of openness heralded by these amendments is made a reality. One political party has recently introduced an ethics committee to its own internal proceedings. I imagine that that party would want to ensure that its ethics committee looked into any local authority, on which its representatives were in a majority, that proceeded secretively. Hon. Members from all parties have signed up to an important principle tonight. We should now ensure that, in future, the reality of local government conforms to the principles that we have enunciated.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, the Government have got themselves into a terrible mess. They have twisted, turned and tried every way to save their face, but it will not wash. We have heard all the usual guff about openness, transparency and so on, and we must all learn a new theology about key decisions. The Minister had the temerity in her opening remarks to boast about the fact that the draft regulations were put out for discussion. Yes, they were, but only since yesterday—talk about legislating on the hoof. The Government have rushed out the draft regulations. [Interruption.] I shall take no lessons from Ministers; they have the great panoply of the civil service at their disposal and have been preparing all this stuff for years. We are having this discussion only because we pressed the matter in Committee, because the Minister has been greatly embarrassed in the media—we know how important they are to the Government—and because a bunch of brave Labour Back Benchers have tabled amendments. The Government have rushed out the draft regulations and guidance because they are in an absolute panic, trying to buy off a Back-Bench rebellion—apparently, successfully for the moment. They have made an embarrassing climbdown, but to avoid the appearance of having done so, at least to anyone below the age of five, they have produced an incredibly contorted system of new regulations and guidance on key decisions that hapless local authorities will have to work their way around—as if they have not got enough on their plates with best value, cabinets and all the other weird and wonderful stuff, and with the odd directly elected mayor thrown in. It is as if Ministers' memories have been erased. If all that is so clear, obvious and straightforward, why did not they do it at the outset? Why were these proposals not in the Bill when it was printed? Why were they not set out in the 400-odd amendments that the Government tabled in the other place? Why were they not in the nearly 400 amendments that the Government tabled in Committee? Why have they appeared only in the 115 amendments that the Government have tabled at this late stage of the Bill's progress through the House? 9.15 pm If everything was so clear, obvious and self-explanatory, why did the Government resist the Opposition's amendments and the amendments tabled by other parties in Committee? Our proceedings this evening have turned into a face-saving exercise. There has been the occasional coached intervention from trusties on the Government Back Benches to make it seem that we are engaged in a natural, organic process. The Government's first instinct at all stages of the Bill's passage through the House has been to resist a movement to keep the regulations, rules and practices that applied under the previous Conservative Government. That has not been a movement towards greater openness. Let us leave all that to one side, however. Let us take it that we are where we are. If these matters are so important and significant, why are we debating regulations in a vacuum? My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) made the point clearly. There will be consultation and eventually regulations will be produced. One wet afternoon, they will pass through some part of the House. By then, the spotlight will have turned on something else. Who knows in what form the regulations will eventually appear? If these issues are so important, they should be set out in the Bill. By way of semi-explanation, the Minister responded to the old adage that the best line of defence is attack. She made the usual attack on the committee system. She alleged that the committee structure excluded people. No, it did not. People had a right to go to council meetings and committee meetings except where there was something properly confidential to be discussed. That is the point. The clear purport of the Opposition's amendments has not changed throughout the progress of the Bill, as the Government have twisted and turned. It has been straightforward. We wish simply to ensure that the position that applies to council meetings and committee meetings will apply to meetings of executives or cabinets. The Minister derided a phrase that I used in Committee, but I make no apology for using it again. We have been seeking throughout to hold the line. The right hon. Lady said that that was not good enough. That is absurd. She went on and on about the moribund committee system and the status quo, for example. However, our position could not have been clearer, simpler or easier to understand for those in local government. Baroness Thatcher, as she then was not, introduced a private Member's Bill that set out the original provision of openness. It became an Act in 1960. We opened up the meetings of councils and committees to the public and the media. Further legislation was introduced, not least the measure that was brought before the House by my former hon. Friend, Robin Squire, which cemented the approach of openness and introduced some details, quite properly. I see no reason why that system—it was simple to understand and was operated over many years—cannot be applied to the Government's proposals. The Minister mentioned scrutiny. What relevance does that have? We are talking about meetings of cabinets or executives and whether they should be in public. In a desperate attempt to solve problems of their own making, the Government have produced an intensely complex and bureaucratic regime, against which I would happily contrast our common-sense approach, which is based on experience. That is why I shall invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against Government new clause 9. Our two amendments are straightforward, and they were debated in Committee. One refers to part I of schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, which enshrines the rules that I have already discussed, which currently apply. The other would amend clause 21 and put the onus on an executive which wants to meet in private. Not surprisingly, the Liberal Democrats, as is their wont, are trying to have it both ways. They are trying to run with the hare and the hounds. They push for amendments, but are happy to accept the bizarre results that the Government have come up with. It is no surprise, therefore, that last week at the local government conference, when the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) was asked whether he was optimistic or pessimistic about the future of local government, he replied, "Both."

Adrian Sanders (Liberal Democrat, Torbay)

As the hon. Gentleman will recall, I said that I would be optimistic, were the Liberal Democrats in government.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I am not sure that I remember the hon. Gentleman's comment quite that way, but let us not fall out about it. If the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) can engage in drafting on the hoof, let me do the same. I shall provide the clause that Ministers are looking for. They do not need a lot of clever parliamentary draftsmen. The wording, subject to all the confidentiality provisions that ordinarily apply, should be something like this: Meetings of the cabinet or executive should be held in public when (a) members are making a key decision, and (b) members are not making a key decision. Is that simple enough for Ministers? I do not understand the logic of producing all sorts of regulations, under which one must first establish what is a key decision. A series of criteria must be met. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), or possibly my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, pointed out, the same people must make the decision as to what a key decision is, but let us leave that on one side for the moment. When it has been decided what is a key decision, which must be discussed in the usual way in public. Fair enough, but why not apply that to all decisions, key and non-key? Why not continue the present practice, whereby a council meeting or a committee meeting has a full agenda, and apart from items of confidentiality, which are usually taken at the end of the meeting, the meetings are open to members of the public and the media? I do not understand the problem that Ministers perceive, except that they are trying to pretend that the current proposal was the idea all along, and that they have not been driven to that expediency by pressure from the Opposition, the Liberals and their Back-Bench colleagues. Let me give the Minister a warning. Why does she think that her cabinet ideas have been embraced with such alacrity by certain Labour-run councils, even before the Bill passes into law? Does she agree with Councillor Brendan Bird of Hammersmith and Fulham, a leading member of the Labour Campaign for Open Local Government, and someone who may be advised not to walk in any dark alleys on his own at present? With reference to the Government's proposals, he asked: If this is modern, why do all the good ol' boys love it so? I will tell him. For many of them, the secrecy was the attraction—the ability to hold meetings behind closed doors, as they did in the past, but to be approved for doing it and seen as part of the modernising agenda. I warn the Minister that some of her dwindling band of supporters in local government may well melt way if the attraction of being able to meet in private—in secret—without public or media being present, is not available to them. On the mechanics of the Government's proposals, we received the draft regulations only yesterday. Of course, I was grateful for my copy. Is it not remarkable how fast a Government can move when they are up against a Back-Bench rebellion? The accompanying letter makes the obvious point that the draft does not incorporate any comments received in consultation. That would be an achievement, given that that started only yesterday. Regulation 15 contains the definition of a key decision. Such a decision must be an executive decision which, in the opinion of the decision taker— that may be somewhat subjective— is likely to result in something that has a material effect beyond the internal workings of the local authority or has a significant effect on the authority. We discussed in Committee how one would define those terms and the incurring of expenditure. I wonder whether that definition includes decisions about councillors' expenses and allowances, for example. There are other cases involving special urgency and other ways in which one can avoid the strict requirements of the regulations. At the end of the day, there are still three major objections. One is that these are regulations; they are not in the Bill. Secondly, they still require people in a given authority to put decisions into a particular category, and it is for them to interpret those regulations. Thirdly, as I have already indicated, the problem is much simpler to resolve than that. The House does not need to be reminded at too great a length, but it may need reminding to some extent, of the problem we have been trying to address. It took up quite a bit of time in Committee. It seemed to me that the burden of proof was firmly on Ministers who wanted to change the existing system, which seemed to me to work well, and that they should make a good and convincing case if they felt that there was any reason not to apply the regulations to the new cabinet system. We wanted to stop the Government effectively retreating from the Conservative legislation that I have already described. Mr. Andrew Ecclestone of the Campaign for Freedom of Information put it rather well when he said: We are now finding a Labour Government removing the rights Mrs. Thatcher gave us. That is absolutely spot on. Perhaps the most appalling example of the kind of thing we are trying to tackle was described in an article in The Guardian by Mr. Peter Hetherington, referring to Cardiff council where fat-cat councillors gave themselves huge pay rises. They included the then lord mayor, who was initially paid a package of £58,500. The local council was so irritated by media criticism of that that it decided to cancel all council advertising in the local press and set up its own 140,000-circulation newspaper. The really awful part of it is that those decisions were made by the cabinet in secret. I have a final illustration of why 1 think the Government are trying to persuade us that they have throughout had a certain mindset which is simply wrong. Very recently, as Mr. Hetherington pointed out, the Labour national executive described current campaigns against the cabinet system as "naive, misinformed or mischievous". The fact is that a whole range of people have come forward to oppose the Government's proposals: Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Charter 88, newspaper editors, main television channels, the National Union of Journalists, the Council for the Protection of Rural England—the list goes on and on and on. But the reason we are here today discussing these tortuous amendments is very simple. It is nothing to do with any of those organisations, or even with me or my hon. Friends. It is because Labour councillors and Labour Back Benchers were not prepared to put up with what the Government are trying to impose. I say, "Good for them!" I do not mind their having the credit if that is where the credit is due. Good for them, if they are heading in the right direction. We could be dealing with this problem in a much simpler, clearer, crisper way. That is why we shall vote against the Government's new clause.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

Despite the regulation churlishness from some quarters, I detected some warmth from some hon. Members for the provisions that we are bringing forward tonight. I welcome that very much. In the short time that I have I shall try to deal with some of the residual issues that hon. Members have raised. The definition of key decisions will be enshrined in regulations. Contrary to the view of regulations expressed by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), and as his hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) acknowledges, regulations are legislation and are binding on local authorities. I agree that the definition contained in draft regulation 15 is incomplete; it is imperfect, but we are working to improve it in close co-operation with local government and others. We commit to change it if that is the outcome of the consultation—that is why the regulations have been published in draft. Hon. Members may want changes to be made to the definition, but we expect key decisions to be the sort of decisions that traditionally would have gone to a committee for agreement, that the local community wants to know about and that are properly the concern of elected members. We shall consider the form of words suggested by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), but I have to tell him that it goes too far. I shall explain why, because it relates to an important point that we have skirted around in our debate. A degree of ambiguity lies at the heart of some of the concerns expressed by hon. Members tonight: on the one hand, they express a desire to decentralise and to give as much discretion and decision-making power as possible to local councils, local councillors and local people; on the other, they appear to challenge the integrity of councillors by attempting to constrain them. We are consulting on the definition of a key decision and we shall analyse the responses. However, I should like hon. Members to acknowledge that there must be a degree of local discretion on whether a decision is significant. A decision that would be significant to a small shire council might be a small matter to a large metropolitan authority. We must have confidence in local councillors' ability to make decisions with integrity and to discuss them in the public domain. I hope that the House accepts and acknowledges that point.

David Winnick (Labour, Walsall North)

Will there be any monitoring of the way in which local authorities allow in the press, and will cases of abuse be taken up? That is an important matter about which many people are concerned.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

Yes, not only will there be monitoring of those practices, but they will be open to challenge. If decision takers are making decisions about what needs to be discussed and decided in the open, those decisions can be challenged through the structures that we are creating; people will have to account for decisions about what needs to be in the public domain, as well as for the substantive decisions they make in their role as councillors. The reassurances I have given do not encompass draft reports, because such reports are not meant to be made public. We need to acknowledge the need for officers and members to be able to think the unthinkable: they need to be able to set down a series of options early in the process of decision making, at a stage when options have not been finned up, but a decision is imminent. Having said that, there is provision against abuse—for example, the possibility of reports remaining in draft form until immediately before a meeting. The provisions for prior publication of reports and our undertaking to review whether three days are enough—

MEETINGS AND DOCUMENTS: NOTICE ETC.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION ETC.

EXECUTIVE ARRANGEMENTS: FURTHER PROVISION

REFERENDUM IN CASE OF PROPOSALS INVOLVING ELECTED MAYOR

APPROVAL OF OUTLINE FALL-BACK PROPOSALS

ALTERNATIVE ARRANGEMENTS

REFERENDUM FOLLOWING PETITION

INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS ETC.

ELECTED MAYORS ETC.

TIME OF ELECTIONS ETC.

POWER TO MAKE PROVISION ABOUT ELECTIONS

INTERPRETATION OF PART II

RESTITUTION ORDER

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

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

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Having sat here for the past four and a half hours and seen trashed by the guillotine great lines of amendments for which I was responsible, it is a relief to be able to move and speak to new clause 3 and to some of the amendments in this group. New clause 3, which deals with standards of conduct, was discussed briefly in those halcyon days when the Bill was considered in Committee. I think that the new clause's purpose is quite clear: to give protection to local taxpayers if the criminal actions of one or more councillors or officers results in costs to the authority as a whole. The effect of the new clause would be that, when a miscreant was found guilty of a criminal offence, it would be at the judge's discretion to impose a restitution order on the guilty party, to order him to pay a sum to a council to cover some or all of the costs resulting from his actions. As we also discussed in Committee, there is a broad consensus that surcharging has passed its sell-by date. However, there is a sound principle behind surcharging—that local taxpayers should not have to foot the bill when a few rotten apples abuse the position of trust in which they have been placed. As the new clause would apply only in cases in which there had been a successful criminal prosecution, a high standard of proof would be required before the axe could fall on individuals. The risk of unjust or unduly severe penalties would be minimised both by that fact and by the fact that the penalty would be at the discretion of the judge in the individual case, who, having heard all the evidence, beyond the straight guilty verdict, would be able to make an informed judgment on intent and degree of responsibility. During the debate in Committee, the Under-Secretary said that she was sympathetic to the spirit of the new clause, but believed that the courts already had powers in that regard. However, an authority would have to pursue a separate action to recover its costs. The new clause would ensure that the same court considering the criminality of a person's actions would also be able to determine the penalty. That would mean that the courts would not become clogged, and that authorities would not have to gamble potentially large sums in lawyers' fees for further court action to recover relatively small amounts. It is slightly disappointing that the Government have not chosen to follow up the idea, given the sympathy for the idea expressed in Committee. We feel that the proposal would reassure local council tax payers that councillors and officers who abused their positions would be sufficiently punished. Amendment No. 34 deals with the duty to comply with the code of conduct. In Committee, I raised the potential problem of whether councillors should be covered by the model code of conduct for activities outside those involved in being council members. I gave the example of councillors who are appointed as school governors, as members of community health councils or of economic partnerships, and so on. The Minister assured the Committee that councillors nominated by their respective councils to outside bodies should be covered by the model code of conduct. However, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) raised the subject of indemnification. He asked whether such councillors would be covered by their councils for any indemnities that they might have. The question of indemnification has not been addressed by the Government, which is why we are relaunching the amendment today. I should be grateful for a response on that matter from the Under-Secretary of State. Amendments No. 35 to 39 deal with standards committees. In Committee, we discussed this matter at some length, although the role of standards committees remained unclear. We appreciated some of the intentions behind the committees, but it was not clear how they would carry out the functions that had been described. The amendments would bolster the integrity of the members of the standards committee in the eyes of council tax payers and the electorate at large. They would therefore strengthen the Bill, rather than weaken it. Councillors themselves have raised the points contained in the amendments. At present, the Bill requires that only one independent member must be appointed to a standards committee. We propose that standards committees should contain more than three people. In addition, we propose that, to be truly independent and to carry out properly their role of overseeing the conduct of councillors and the training and conduct of councillors referred to them, they should have a majority of independent members. We also propose that standards committees should not be chaired by members of the executive, and that they should not even contain such members. We believe that a standards committee investigating questions of potential misconduct, or queries from the public involving members of the council executive, would be in an anomalous position under the Bill as it stands. The amendments would prevent possible conflicts of interest if standards committees have to deal with breaches of the code that involve members of the executive. Some people have suggested that all the members of standards committees should be independent, others that they should consist of members of neighbouring authorities. That would allow them to play the sort of twinning, overseeing role that takes place at the moment, for example, when audits are conducted. Still others have suggested that several authorities should pool together for a single standards committee, as I gather already happens in west London. In that way, they could not only share best practice, but cut down on costs. That would seem a good, practical suggestion, but as the Bill stands, such a sensible procedure would not be permissible. 10 pm The Minister was also vague about what powers will be available to members of the standards committee, in particular their role in those cases referred back to them by the national Standards Board for England. It was a feature of the report by the Joint Committee, which asked whether it was appropriate for members of the executive to be members of the standards committee as well. In Committee, the hon. Lady accused me of being inconsistent and, now, prescriptive in making these suggestions. However, we are merely trying to maintain the integrity of the new committees that the measures are establishing. The hon. Lady also said that local authorities and their members should have ownership of the standards committees and their own code of conduct, although I cannot think of other areas, such as politics or financial services, in which the Government have been so keen on self-regulation. Does the Minister not think that our amendments would actually strengthen the role of the standards committees, and what is the point of them otherwise? Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 deal with the standards boards. As presently constituted, they would have a minimum of three people. We propose that their membership should consist of at least five people and that those people should have appropriate qualifications. The new standards board is potentially immensely powerful; it will have the power to make or break the careers of councillors whose misdemeanours come before it. To have just three members of the national standards board also seems rather unfair; one has been designated as chairman, one as deputy chairman and the poor third one will be left out as an ordinary member. There are other examples of committees fulfilling and overseeing scrutiny and disciplinary roles which have far more members. The Neill committee, for example, consists of 11 members. What was most bizarre when we discussed these measures in Committee was that, rather late in the day, the Minister for Local Government and the Regions suddenly said that it was not the Government's intention that those committees should consist of three people, but that the quorum was made up of three people. Nowhere in the Bill is that mentioned. It says quite clearly that the Standards Board for England is to consist of not less than three members. We invited the Minister to make it clear in the Bill that the membership of the Standards Board for England would be rather greater than three, such as five or more. Alas, the Government have again failed to address this anomaly. It was absurd; we asked the Minister when was a quorum not a quorum—apparently when it is called a standards board. I genuinely think that this had not been thought through when the Bill was drafted. That is why our amendment is a sensible and strengthening measure. As part of this group of amendments, we suggest that members of the standards board should have at least four years' experience as councillors or officers of local authorities. That, surely, is not demanding—four years is a normal term of office for a councillor. Because this is a new committee, with immense powers over many thousands of councillors up and down the country, it seems only appropriate that its members should have had some experience in the bodies that they are overseeing. Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 deal with the conduct of investigation. This is where we discussed ethical standards officers who are potentially very powerful individuals. They have the power to instigate investigations of councillors, to suspend councillors and to recommend penalties against councillors. Given the immense powers that ethical standards officers will have—powers of investigation and to summon various documents—there should be better safeguards against such officers not having connections with the councils that they are investigating. In the amendment, we suggest that ethical standards officers should have had no link with councils that they are investigating, either as a councillor or an officer, for at least 10 years, rather than five. That seems a sensible period of time.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

To whom exactly will the ethical standards officers be accountable?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

That is an interesting question. Although, on the face of it, they will be accountable to the standards board, the exact terms of their operation are still to be defined. In Committee, we asked many times for a definition of their roles and powers and whether those powers could be capped. We were not given answers. I served on the Standing Committee that dealt with the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which provides for similar regulatory officers with immense powers. In this Bill, we are setting up another phalanx of investigation officers, whose accountability is questionable. Certainly, the link between their accountability and the local electors has not been established.

Dafydd Wigley (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

The hon. Gentleman referred to the immense powers conferred in the Bill. Does he agree that the essential prerequisite is, therefore, an adequate appeals system? That is now a prerequisite under human rights legislation. To what extent does he feel that that aspect has been covered by the Bill?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. If he had been a member of the Standing Committee, he would have heard me mention the European convention, in particular article 6, and whether it applies to these activities. We are talking about a body that has the power to levy uncapped penalties—fines or suspension from a council role—and there are potential implications for conflict with the European convention on human rights. In Committee, I asked the Minister to clarify that matter, but she was unable to do so and promised to come back to me. I fear that she has not yet done so. The matter is as relevant today as it was then. The functioning of the regulatory procedure of ethical standards officers and the standards board—the powers of tribunals—could conflict with the ECHR, in which case the Bill will be undermined. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and I reiterate his question to me to the Minister. What is the role of these officers and of the other powers in the conduct of investigations as regards article 6 of the convention? To get back to the point, a 10-year lapse is necessary because officers may have been with a council for many years before that. The world of local government is relatively small. Surely 10 years is the minimum safeguard. That is the basis of amendments Nos. 42 and 43. Amendment No. 44 deals with reports from ethical standards officers. As it stands, they can inform virtually everyone about the outcome of an investigation and give them a copy of the report, other than the person against whom the investigation was launched. It would seem to be a grave injustice if the target of the report is the only person not to be able to see it. In Committee, the Minister for Local Government and the Regions described a similar Opposition amendment as a worthy ambition that would produce some difficulties. Again, she promised to come back to us on Report. I notice, however, that the Government have tabled no amendments on that subject. The right hon. Lady offered the excuse that the report might contain sensitive information about the perpetrators of a complaint and that, if the matter was not referred further—if the person was cleared of any misdoing—it might damage the person who made the allegations. Surely, the person who was sneaked against—to put it mildly—is due some human rights protection from potentially vexatious complainants. There is no detail about any compensation that might be due to someone who was the victim of such vexatious complaining. A person who was the subject of inquiry might even have been penalised along the way for not complying with the handover of documents and so on, even if it was found that there was no case to answer. It appears that there is a presumption of guilt until proven innocent. That too seems to breach the European convention. The amendment provides that the ethical standards officer must inform the subject of the investigation of the outcome and that that person is entitled to see a copy of the report. In Committee, the right hon. Lady said that she would continue to consider the matter and that she would try to ensure that the framework was right. I should like to see some evidence of that, because it is not apparent in any of the 115 Government amendments before us. Amendment No. 45 deals with the decisions of case tribunals and with appeals—a matter to which the right hon. Member for Caernarfon referred. When a councillor has been accused by the Standards Board, has taken the case to appeal—a facility added by the Government—and the case is pending, we suggest that the councillor should not be suspended, given that the period of suspension could be lengthy. In Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), said that the Government would introduce the right of appeal and that she was willing to reconsider the matter, given that a by-election could be triggered when councillors were disqualified from standing while an appeal was pending. While the appeal had still not been heard, a councillor could lose his or her place on the council; a by-election could be held and, as he or she would not be entitled to stand, someone else could take the seat. If the Court of Appeal found that the person was not guilty—that the charge did not stand up—there would be no compensation. That accused councillor would have lost his or her seat. Thus, it is only right that, while an appeal is pending, a councillor should not be disqualified. The amendment would provide that safeguard.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in arguing that case—with which his right hon. and hon. Friends will assuredly agree—he can invoke the precedent of experience in the House? The hon. Member for Newark (Mrs. Jones) was rightly able to prove at appeal her innocence, and thereby remain a Member of the House. That prevented a situation in which, otherwise, a by-election would have been triggered. She was properly able to exercise her rights. Councillors, too, should be afforded such rights.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

My hon. Friend offers an interesting and helpful example. I should be interested to hear the Under-Secretary's response. The ethical standards officers and the standards board seem to have been afforded heavy investigatory powers. Those powers suggest too great a presumption of guilt. We were promised further information from the Minister and from the Under-Secretary, but it has not been forthcoming in the Government amendments tabled on Report. Will the Under-Secretary address those matters in the few minutes left for debate on this group?

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

We have had a rehearsal of many of the issues that were raised in Committee. I shall deal with them as comprehensively as I can in the time that I have left for this section. On new clause 3, it was made clear to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) in Committee that, although we were in sympathy with the spirit of what his new clause sought to achieve—that councils should be able to pursue losses arising to the authority from criminal misconduct by councillors—we felt that sufficient provision was already available to courts considering criminal cases that might arise from misconduct to issue a compensation order or provide for financial restitution. That still stands; we have not changed our view. I can offer the hon. Gentleman reassurance on the particular point that he made. Separate action by a local authority will not be necessary to invoke any of the powers in cases involving a criminal conviction. The court hearing the criminal case can order that restitution be made to the local authority. So the Bill does not impose on the local authority the additional burden of seeking compensation or restitution. The courts have those powers available to them. There is therefore no need for any special provision for such cases other than that which already exists and is available to the criminal courts. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham tabled a raft of amendments on the size and composition of local authority standards committees. We believe in striking a balance between setting appropriate parameters and allowing councils of different sizes and with different functions some flexibility in the composition of their standards committees. We think that the balance of representation between independent members and members of the council is about right. It is after all right that councils should have some discretion. The hon. Gentleman reminded me that I had used the term "ownership". I make no apology for that. It is important that councils should own the local body that is entrusted with establishing its ethical framework and code of conduct. The hon. Gentleman is confused about the responsibility for the code of conduct, as opposed to the investigation of specific allegations. Local authority standard committees will not be responsible for investigations, so the hon. Gentleman's point that we are introducing self-regulation is not one that stands up to scrutiny. Local authorities will not be regulating themselves. The standards committees will have a different function. It is important that members of the council should own that function and be part of the apparatus that sets in place the code of conduct and ensures that the council's procedures for enforcing it are robust, but investigation of issues will be a matter for the ethical standards officers.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I think that the phrase "self-regulation" was one that the Minister herself used in Committee. Given that time is running out, I should be grateful for her response on the European convention; she promised to come back on that point. Has her confusion been resolved?

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I was not confused in Committee, and I am certainly not confused now. We are convinced that the provisions for appeal against the findings of a case tribunal, which are contained in clauses 75(10) and 76(15), are robust. It is our view and in line with the advice that we have received that the provisions in part III are compatible with the European convention on human rights. We are proceeding on that basis. The hon. Gentleman tabled an amendment on the standards board. He is confused about the difference between a quorum and a constitution. The Bill sets in place the minimum for the board to function constitutionally. That is different from a quorum, which is the number needed to take a particular decision. That will be for the board itself to decide, in terms of its operational procedures. We have already told the hon. Gentleman that we envisage a standards board of five or six members. In the few moments that I have left—

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Will the Minister give way?

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

No, I will not. In relation to amendment No. 45, we have produced Government amendment 203—

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) should not have been talking while I was putting the question. It is not the done thing.

PRINCIPLES GOVERNING CONDUCT OF MEMBERS OF RELEVANT AUTHORITIES

MODEL CODE OF CONDUCT

DUTY OF RELEVANT AUTHORITIES TO ADOPT CODES OF CONDUCT

STANDARDS COMMITTEES

FUNCTIONS OF STANDARDS COMMITTEES

STANDARDS BOARD FOR ENGLAND

REPORTS ETC.

LOCAL COMMISSIONER AND COMMISSION FOR LOCAL ADMINISTRATION IN WALES

INVESTIGATIONS BY LOCAL COMMISSIONER IN WALES

REPORTS ETC.

INTERIM REPORTS

MATTERS REFERRED TO MONITORING OFFICERS

DISCLOSURE AND REGISTRATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS ETC.

CODE OF CONDUCT FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

INTERPRETATION OF PART III

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION FOR LOCAL ELECTIONS IN ENGLAND AND WALES

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. Members present who served on the Committee that considered the Bill will be well aware that a considerable amount of our time was spent debating what measures could be taken to improve the public's interest and involvement in local government, and in particular what measures could be taken that would improve turnout at local government elections. It became increasingly clear that it is the Government's view—erroneous, in my opinion—that turnout at local elections is likely to be increased as a result of their measures to change the decision-making structure of local government. The view that was expressed from the Liberal Democrat Benches, to some extent supported by Conservative Members, was that such moves were unlikely to make any change in the turnout at local elections, but that two measures might go some way to achieve that much desired aim. The first, as I said earlier, would be to increase the power of local government to ensure that it could take steps to respond to the concerns of the people that it sought to serve; the second would be to change the electoral system. Mr. Michael Thrasher of Plymouth university, an expert in these matters, has estimated that where a form of proportional representation for local government elections is introduced it will be likely to increase turnout by about 7 per cent. That may not seem a particularly significant increase, but given that the starting point is in the order of about 30 per cent., that is a rather more significant increase than it might at first appear. It was not merely to increase turnout at local elections that we tabled the new clause, however. We did so because we believe that in local government, as in all other spheres of government, the electors have a right to ensure that their voice is heard, and heard in the sense that the parties that they represent, and seek to represent by their votes, are appropriately represented in that particular governing body. The House is well aware that, at present, there are, up and down the land, a number of local councils that are, in effect, one-party states. There are a number of examples where that one-party state is a Labour one-party state, examples where it is Conservative, and even examples where it is Liberal Democrat. I was speaking only the other day to the leader of Richmond upon Thames council, who pointed out that he has on his council something like 80 per cent. of the seats, having achieved for Liberal Democrats fewer than 50 per cent. of the votes. Confronted with the problems of an unfair electoral system, it is interesting to note that the Government have already responded. They have seen to the introduction—perhaps not in the form that Liberal Democrats would like—of proportional representation for the European elections, for the Greater London Assembly elections, for the elections for the National Assembly for Wales and for the Scottish Parliament. Of course, for elections to the Assembly and for local government in Northern Ireland, there has been a form of PR for some time. Shortly, we shall see Labour party support in Scotland for the introduction of PR for local government.

Dafydd Wigley (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

In the normal run of events, I would very much want to support the new clause. The hon. Gentleman referred to the National Assembly for Wales, so why would the new clause provide for orders to be introduced by a Secretary of State, but make no provision whatever for the power to be used by the National Assembly for Wales in the way other measures in the Bill make such provision?

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. Perhaps, he rightly shows a possible deficiency in the package of measures that we have introduced. It is up to him to introduce additional proposals to rectify that possible omission, but I am delighted that he said that we would have his support for the measures, subject to the further provision being made. I remind him that there will be a further opportunity in another place to attend to that matter. Were he to arrange for that to be done, he would have the support of my colleagues in another place. I am grateful to him for raising this point. Having seen the Government's interest in moving towards PR in a number of the tiers of governance in this country, I merely seek to give them the opportunity to introduce it for the tier of local government. As I have said, there are many good reasons for doing that. One would certainly be to bring to an end the problem of the many councils—about 90—that are run by a single party with 80 per cent. or more of the seats. Indeed, there is a further problem with the nature of the current system. It does not very often lead to changes in political control. Some 55 local authorities have been under the same political control for more 20 years. Most fair-minded Members of the House would accept that there are problems to be addressed and might accept that the introduction of PR may go some way to solving them. If they do not wish to be fair-minded in that sense and are merely concerned with their own party political interest, it is worth reflecting that continuation of the first-past-the-post system may lead to significant problems for some of the parties represented in the House. Research shows that, following the most recent local government elections, a continuation of the first-past-the-post arrangement could lead to a significant reduction in the Labour party's representation in local government in subsequent years. If there is merely a concern about party issues, the Labour party at least might wish to do something about the electoral system. Again, according to the research, first-past-the-post systems were primarily responsible for the dramatic fall in the number of Conservative councillors from 1979 to 1997. Their number more than halved. 10.30 pm The question then is what support there might be for such measures. Interestingly, support is very wide ranging. The Local Government Association—whose chairman I shall return to in a moment—the Local Government Information Unit, the New Local Government Network, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers, the Scottish Council Foundation and others have spoken of the merits of moving to PR for local government. Politicians of all parties have expressed support for PR. It will come as no surprise that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have, over the years, made comments in support. However, it is perhaps more instructive to note the views of those such as Sir Jeremy Beecham, who said in 1998: In too many town halls today there is no effective opposition. The introduction of a reformed local electoral system, which will give representation to opposition parties and which more accurately reflects their electoral performance, is needed. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg), in a document that he wrote with Mr. Andrew Adonis, advocates the introduction of PR to break up single-party states and to make sure that decisions are scrutinised by a viable opposition. The Minister of State has continually expressed concern about scrutiny. On the Conservative Benches, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) has spoken a number of times about his support for PR. On one occasion he said: What I don't understand is why the government hasn't simply opted for proportional representation. He went on to argue that PR is far simpler than holding referendums, and that as we are beginning to have PR in other tiers of government, we should introduce it to local government. Turning to the Labour Benches, while it is well known that the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), the Home Secretary, rejects the introduction of PR for Westminster, at least at present, he has said: But I've also always said that there's a very different case when it comes to the voting systems at a local level. I also have quotes from various members of Plaid Cymru, the party of the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), and from members of other parties. That is instructive, but is also useful to know what the media are saying about PR. The Mirror has argued in favour of it so that no party can ever totally dominate for years. Mr. Peter Riddell in The Times has argued that without PR, Labour will continue to be embarrassed by its one-party local states. Support has come from the Local Government Chronicle, Mr. Andrew Rawnsley in The Observer, editorials in The Independent and various writers in The Guardian. Again, that is all very well, but academics who see the matter in a different light have also provided support for the argument. Professors George Jones and John Stewart are among those who have argued in favour of PR. Interestingly, support also comes even from the world of business and commerce. For example, Lord Haskins, chair of Northern Foods, said: Strong local government needs the backing of the local community, and the best possible people as councillors. Proportional representation is one of the best ways to achieve this. There is growing support on both sides of the House, throughout the media and among the population at large for the introduction of PR. Proportional representation at local government level would ensure a fair voting system in this country in which people's votes really would count. Only when people feel that their votes will count are they likely to even bother to go out to vote. To those who are concerned about turnout and the involvement of local people in local government, I strongly suggest that the introduction of PR would go a long way to resolve their concerns. Although my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have a clear view as to our preferred option—the particular form of PR that we want—I stress that we have not incorporated that in the new clause. We have left the matter open for wide-ranging debate before the House discussed the regulations that we propose and before the Secretary of State introduced them. By its very nature, the new clause is enabling. It would enable much wider debate before the introduction of a form of PR, but PR is what local government and local people need and deserve.

Neil Turner (Labour, Wigan)

I am not opposed to proportional representation per se. [Interruption.] We need to look at an institution before deciding whether PR is particularly relevant to it. I would oppose PR for institutions that legislate or deliver services because the stability, clarity and transparency of strong government are important to them. Proportional representation clearly goes against the whole history and tradition of government in this country. Each of us holds a constituency surgery, and people want to see their Member of Parliament or councillor. They want to be able to confront us and to have the comfort of saying, "I'll withdraw my vote if you don't do what I want you to do." That might not be a particularly strong threat to some of us, but we would all be personally affronted by such a remark. It would be no good thing if we were able to say, "I'm third on the list, so you can withdraw your vote to your heart's content. It will make no difference to me." The argument has been made that PR would increase turnout, but the evidence is mixed at best. The Greater London Authority elections this year produced no increase, yet they were held under a form of PR. Equally, it is arguable that the form of PR used in last year's European elections reduced turnout. If there is no evidence that PR would increase turnout, would it increase effectiveness? Again, we can look at the evidence. Audit Commission performance indicators show whether hung councils or those with strong representation from one party are more effective. Hon. Members should look at the graphs for low-cost, high-delivery councils and for high-cost, low-delivery councils and put a spread over them. They show no correlation whatever between performance and status, whether councils are hung, strongly controlled or marginal. There is no correlation between a council's effectiveness and the type of control.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Has the hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to read the Joseph Rowntree Foundation's most recent document, "Findings"? If not—it was circulated to all hon. Members only in past few days—may I suggest that he would be well advised to read it before continuing with that line of argument?

Neil Turner (Labour, Wigan)

I have not seen the document, but I will look at it. My experience in the Greater Manchester area is that authorities such as Stockport, which is largely a hung council, and my own, which is strongly Labour, both provide effective services at low cost. The argument for proportional representation by the fair votes campaign confuses equality with equity. There is no doubt that proportional representation would produce a lot more councils where there is no overall control—hung councils. That will mean that the least popular party will effectively become the most powerful, because it is that party, rather than the electorate, which will decide the form of administration. The third party will always have power because it will decide whether to join the second or the most popular party to become the administration. The way that the electorate decides in this country means that the third party is usually the Liberal Democrats, so it is no surprise that they support a fair votes campaign that would give them access to power by the back door, when they are so consistently rebuffed at the front door.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) may not be against proportional representation per se, but he advanced some powerful arguments against the new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). It is important that people should be strongly motivated to vote in local elections. From my experience, the most important aspect is that, when they vote, they know that they can change those who control the council or local government. Low turnouts in local elections are usually associated with elections by thirds, which mean that, even if everybody in all the council wards voted for a particular minority party, they still would not be able to achieve a change in the control of the council. Councils for which there are all-out elections every four years tend to have a higher rate of voter participation than councils that are subject to elections by thirds, quarters or halves, as the Government propose. The way to make people feel that their vote counts is by means of a system where, through the ballot box, they can change the control of their own local government.

Tom Levitt (Labour, High Peak)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. If 40 per cent. of people voted in an election once every four years, and if 40 per cent. voted in an election by thirds one year, one year and one year, rather more people would vote for that council at least once over a four-year period than in an all-out election once every four years. Splitting the election into thirds increases the number of people who vote over a four-year period.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

If everyone is allowed to vote once a year for four years, rather than once every four years, they will be able to vote more frequently and their collective votes will be more numerous. That misses the point that I am making, which is that, when people vote, they know that their vote can change the control of their local government. If they do not feel that their vote will be able to change the control, they are less motivated to go out and put their vote in the ballot box. That is why the experience of local government in this country shows that local authorities where there are all-out elections tend to have a much higher turnout than authorities that have elections by thirds. In my constituency, there are two district councils, East Dorset district council and Christchurch borough council. Last year, there were all-out elections and people realised that they could defeat the Liberal Democrats and change control of those two councils. That is what they did, both in East Dorset and in Christchurch, and now both those councils are run by the Conservatives.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) seems to be under the illusion that if people vote every year and the turnout is 40 per cent., it is a different 40 per cent., each year, making a total of 120 per cent. It is, of course, the same 40 per cent. who are likely to vote each year. The evidence suggests, if anything, that voter fatigue means lower turnouts if people have to turn out for many elections. Hence the turnout on a four-year basis tends to be higher, as my hon. Friend says.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point. If we need to get more people involved in local government, why do we not keep the system simple? Nothing could be simpler than a system whereby the candidate who receives the most votes wins. Everybody understands that. The Liberal Democrats seem to want to change the system so that it is far more complicated. We need to attract people to vote in local elections. If we keep the system simple, we are more likely to be able to attract their interest. Therefore, I strongly oppose the new clause.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

During the Committee stage, alas, time constraints prevented us from being regaled by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) with the regular feature that the Liberals trot out, that of proportional representation, so the hon. Gentleman has been slightly indulged here this evening, but his case has been no more forceful. The hon. Gentleman spoke of one-party states where the party had been in power for 20 years, and when people turned up to vote it made no difference. The conclusion was that a PR system would mean more seats, particularly for Liberals, and that more Liberal councillors would be a good thing for him. The hon. Gentleman also tried to tempt our support by saying that the dramatic fall, as he put it, in the number of Conservative councilors—by some 50 per cent between 1979 and 1997—which has largely been reversed in the past three years, I hasten to add, was due to the voting system working against us. We are not complaining about it. If anybody should be in favour of PR purely for their own reasons, it would be us, but we are not, because we do not believe that it brings about a strong result. The hon. Gentleman was flailing around, quoting all sorts of unknown professors. I am sure they have produced all sorts of wonderful treatises to back up his argument. Then the hon. Gentleman made another great, sweeping statement, that there is growing support from all sections of the public at large for what he inevitably calls "a fair voting system"; that only if the public feel that their votes count will they vote, but there is no evidence to suggest that, where the experiments have taken place, that is happening. The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) quite neutrally, as he put it, made a very good case that we have had the experiments with the devolved Assembly in Wales and the Parliament in Scotland, which have produced low turnouts, with only 25 per cent of the population of Wales voting in favour of the Assembly. There is a hung Parliament and a hung Assembly, and the turnout was no greater than would be expected in any normal election, despite a form of PR being used. In the European Parliament elections, where we had a form of PR for the first time ever, there was a record low turn-out. The hon. Member for Wigan also mentioned the London Assembly. The turn-out there was a derisory 33 per cent., and we have a hung Assembly. As the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), said in a written answer last week: Almost 300,000 people did not use their second preference vote for the Mayor… About 130,000 did not cast a vote for a constituency assembly member and about 70,000 did not cast a vote for a London assembly member.—[Official Report, 29 June 2000; Vol. 352. col. 599W.] Now the hon. Member for Bath is suggesting that we should extend this failed system, which has certainly done anything for increased turn-outs. One of the biggest bugbears for the Government, shared by all sides of the House, is how we can increase turn-outs at elections. There is no proof that any proportional representation systems have done anything to improve the turn-out. Our fear is that the creeping experimentation with PR that is getting into every sphere of new forms of governance, such as the new assemblies and local government bodies, has Westminster as its next and ultimate target. Apparently, as part of the deal stitched together between the minority Labour Administration and the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish Parliament has commissioned a report into using PR for Scottish local elections. Leaks of the report have started to emerge and I wonder whether the Minister for Local Government and the Regions is in a position to provide a progress report and tell us when its findings will be made available. We have heard nothing from the hon. Member for Bath to tempt us to experiment with further forms of PR in local government. I can perceive no evidence that there is growing support for it from all sections of the public. As for the whole business of having more elections, we have found time after time that election fatigue contributes to lower turnouts: we saw that last year, when we had European Parliament elections, local elections and elections in Scotland and Wales. The result of the hon. Gentleman's proposals would be that the least popular party became the most powerful. Backdoor merchants that they are, the Liberal Democrats want to promote PR, but we should have none of it. In the few minutes that the Minister has left to respond to the debate, I hope that she will take on the subject of the findings of the Scottish report.

Hilary Armstrong (Labour, North West Durham)

rose—

Hilary Armstrong (Labour, North West Durham)

I was going to tell the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) that the whole report was made public last week, so I do not know where he has been. Perhaps he does not understand that Scotland is still part of the United Kingdom; therefore, what is published in Scotland is available to everyone in England and Wales—indeed, everyone in the world. If he had looked at the websites or in newspapers, he would have seen the report, but, once again, he has failed to keep up with events. I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) tabled the new clause, and he will not be surprised to learn that the Government have not changed their view since debating the issue in Committee. Our position on proportional representation for local government elections is well documented, having initially been set out in the local government White Paper, "Modern Local Government: In Touch with the People". The Government do not propose to change the voting system for local government, other than in the introduction of the supplementary vote system for the election of directly elected mayors. We believe that local government modernisation requires more fundamental change than simply changing the voting system. Our debates on the provisions of this Bill and the Local Government Act 1999 bear that out. In Committee, I said that no Government close down debate. There is a debate going on within the Labour party about the principles of PR, especially in relation to elections to this House. A similar debate is going on in Scotland on the suitability of using PR for local government elections. However, I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's proposal helps the debate. The Government do not believe that there is any point in including in the Bill an enabling provision for a system of elections by proportional representation. Furthermore, I am not sure whether an enabling clause is the right way in which to introduce such an important constitutional change. Although the new clause provides for any order to be subject to affirmative resolution procedure, it would essentially leave the decision to the Secretary of State. The House would not find that acceptable. Much more debate would be required outside and inside the House before we considered such proposals. The Government's position is clear, and consistent with our comments in the White Paper. I believe that the House's position is also clear. I hope that the hon. Member for Bath will withdraw the new clause, although I suspect that he will not.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Let me put the Minister out of her misery immediately: I have no intention of following her final piece of advice. I confess that this evening's contributions have contained no surprises. I acknowledge that I have placed the Minister in a rather difficult position. Like her, I am conscious that the Labour party will hold a major debate on proportional representation this weekend. I suspect that the Minister no longer has any idea of its outcome.

Tom Levitt (Labour, High Peak)

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the debate is not only about PR versus the status quo? Electoral reform is a much wider issue. Is he not being disingenuous by limiting the new clause to PR, when we should hold a much wider debate on electoral reform? PR is only one option.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. However, it is a little rich of him to accuse me of being disingenuous by not including wider matters in the new clause. A Bill that addresses some of those issues has only recently been passed. My party supports some of the experimentation that would increase the opportunities for people to vote. I accept that there is a wider issue to consider, but we are confining ourselves to PR in the new clause. I acknowledge that the Minister is an especially difficult position, given that the Labour party's view on PR is ebbing and flowing. She clearly did not want to upset any apple carts. I am therefore delighted that she said that the Government would at least not close their mind on the matter. I strongly recommend to the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) the recently published Joseph Rowntree Foundation document, which is entitled "Political behaviour under proportional representation". I shall read two brief extracts from it. It states: The current first-past-the-post voting system in local government elections often results in major discrepancies between the proportion of votes cast and the proportion of seats parties win on the council. Inflated majorities resulting in long periods of effectively unchallenged one-party rule can often generate a sense of complacency in the dominant party, with electoral success regarded as a foregone conclusion. That is especially apposite, given the Minister's claim that the purpose of the Bill is to sort out the mess in some of the one-party councils by undertaking what she describes as modernisation of local government. One of the best ways in which to modernise local government is to give it the opportunity provided by proportional representation.

ADVISORY NOTICES

PAYMENTS IN CASES OF MALADMINISTRATION ETC.

GRANTS FOR WELFARE SERVICES

INDEMNIFICATION OF MEMBERS AND OFFICERS OF RELEVANT AUTHORITIES

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 12 addresses the issue of indemnification which the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) mentioned earlier, but obviously had not spotted on the amendment paper. The new clause will allow the Secretary of State by order to confer a power on local authorities in England and police authorities in Wales to provide indemnities to their members and officers. It will give an equivalent power to the National Assembly for Wales in relation to Welsh local authorities. The new clause responds to an amendment tabled in Committee by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) that attempted to confer a power of indemnity on local authorities. In response, I pointed out to him that such a power raised many complex issues, but I also offered to see whether a suitable enabling provision could be introduced to enable the Secretary of State to confer an indemnification power on those local authorities once those issues had been discussed with local government. The enabling power in new clause 12 covers all local authorities to which part III applies, including principal authorities, town and parish councils and single-purpose authorities. Before making an order under the power, the Secretary of State is required to consult representatives of local government and their employees. The introduction of the power will enable the removal of an unhelpful ambiguity in the current powers of local authorities, and I am sure that hon. Members will welcome it.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I shall be very brief. I am delighted that the Under-Secretary has been able to introduce new clause 12 in response to a request that we made in Committee. She was not convinced that it would be possible to hold the consultation process in the short period between the end of the Committee's deliberations and now. I advised her that members of local government were ready and waiting for her telephone call, and she may wish to know that I called the Local Government Association immediately after our Committee deliberations were complete and said that it should expect a telephone call from her. I am delighted to hear that that call was made within less than 24 hours, and that agreement was sought with such speed. I wish that that was always the case, but I am delighted with the new clause.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Conservative Members are delighted with the new clause too, of course, although I am a little surprised that the Under-Secretary did not refer to it when I raised the question of indemnification in connection with the previous group of amendments. The Under-Secretary has already confirmed that any councillor or council appointee who sits as a councillor, a school governor, as a member of a community health council or of an economic partnership, for example, is covered by the model code of conduct. Will she further confirm that the new clause means that such an individual will be fully indemnified by the council if they take on any activities such as I have set out?

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

The hon. Gentleman does not seem to have read the new clause very clearly. He is confusing two matters. We are no longer dealing with the code of conduct, but have moved on to indemnification. The hon. Gentleman asked about the extent of indemnification. That will be the subject of the consultation to which I referred earlier.

ALLOWANCES AND PENSIONS

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 70, line 31, leave out "pensions,".

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

The amendments have the particular purpose of reversing the trend towards professional, full-time councillors, and of preventing the substantial increase in the power of patronage that will result from the Bill. Amendment No. 217 would remove the proposals relating to allowances, and the requirement to pay pensions to councillors. In Committee, we opposed the Government's proposal to pay pensions to executive members in the cabinet system. We did not consider that any councillor should be entitled to a pension, but the complaint to the Government was that it is was unfair to pay pensions only to executive members, rather than to all councillors. The Government have decided, therefore, to extend the pension regime to all local councillors. We oppose the provision, as we believe that being a councillor is a matter of public duty. We do not consider it an activity that deserves large-scale reward, as the Government propose. In addition, the proposal has unleashed a host of headlines in various local newspapers about fat-cattery, especially in Labour councils. No sooner was the idea of cabinets mooted than councillors throughout the country, particularly Labour councillors, began to award their leaders substantial sums of money. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) said in Committee, Hammersmith and Fulham was the first in this respect, with the council leader becoming, at that time, the most highly paid in the country. Hot on the heels of that award was the leader of Cardiff city council with an allowance of between £35,000 and £40,000 a year. If my memory serves me right, the lord mayor of Cardiff was earmarked a salary of £58,000. It was only after protests and difficult meetings that that amount was reduced. When that issue was debated in Cardiff, members of the Labour group who opposed paying the lord mayor such a salary were subsequently suspended. That demonstrates the attitude of Labour councillors towards the new cabinet system. My local newspaper, and that of the Minister for Local Government and the Regions, is The Journal in Newcastle. [Interruption.] The right hon. Lady points out that The Northern Echo is her local paper, but I believe that The Journal also circulates in her constituency. In any case, The Journal carried out a survey of north-east councils and their reaction to the cabinet system. It produced a headline, which I think damages all in local government: "Labour Councils Branded Tat Cats'". The paper contained an exposé of the amounts paid to various councillors. I am pleased to say that it included a photograph of me, taken nearly 15 years ago. It is always flattering to be reminded of what one looked like 15 years ago. The Journal did a detailed analysis of how councillors' allowances had increased. In Sunderland, for example, the leader of the council's allowance went up from £10,900 to £30,000 a year. The leader of Sedgefield council, the Prime Minister's local authority, put up his allowance from £4,000 to £15,000 a year. If that were not enough, there have been huge increases in the leader's salary and costs in Newcastle from £14,000 to £29,375, with the total allowances for the cabinet increasing by more than £619,000—a staggering amount of money.

Tom Levitt (Labour, High Peak)

I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman's list with interest. Is he saying that only people who can afford to be councillors and pay their own pension contributions should be councillors? That is the conclusion that I am drawing from his remarks.

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

That is not the case at all. We accept that people should have a reasonable allowance to enable them to be councillors. [HON. MEMBERS: "Spell it out."] I will spell it out. We do not want people making a living as full-time councillors. That is utterly against the ethic of being a councillor. Those of us who have been councillors believed that the officers were the paid hands doing the job and that councillors were responsible for political control and advice. However, we did that as part of a different duty, not as a full-time career. The Government are proposing to make being a councillor a full-time and highly paid job. Once we introduce high salaries, we increase not only the benefit to the individual but the power of patronage. That is one of the most important issues to come out of these proposals for high salaries. Labour party groups talk of abolishing whipping, but if one does so but has the power of patronage, one achieves the same thing more effectively. As we have seen, if one becomes one of the chosen few who will get a cabinet job, with the salary and the pension, one also has the opportunity to serve on a national health service trust, with another £19,000 a year—that has happened frequently in the north-east. It is significant that the names of the leading figures in local government in the north-east of England crop up time and again—I am sure that that also happens in other parts of the country. If one goes through the magic circle into the inner core of the Labour party in local government, one will pick up a salary of £30,000 a year, expenses, trips and, if one is lucky, a place on an NHS trust or on another quango. [Interruption.] Hon. Members think that that is funny, but The Journal also looked into how often leading councillors in local authorities in the north-east went on trips in this country and abroad. It discovered that some councillors incurred costs of £15,000 a year simply going on trips.

Dennis Skinner (Labour, Bolsover)

I am intrigued by these Tories who are worried about money. I heard the other day that the Short money that they receive has increased by 270 per cent. I have never heard them complain about that. They have been transferring their staff from central office into the parliamentary office to use the Short money and it ought to be investigated. If a local authority did that, it would be surcharged.

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would have liked to respond, but I accept your ruling. There is no connection. The Bill is about local government, local councillors and this insane cabinet and executive system that the Government are proposing to force on them willy-nilly. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is so keen on so much government going on behind closed doors, with unaccountable councillors going on trips and not revealing how much they are spending. This is a jolly debate, but when The Journal telephoned authorities to ask how much they spent on trips for their councillors, a large number refused to reply. It is worth mentioning the names of the councils that refused to give any details on conference attendance or expenditure. The Journal lists them as: Newcastle, County Durham, Redcar and Cleveland, Sedgefield, Hartlepool, Tynedale, Derwentside, Easington, Durham City and Darlington. We listened to lectures from Labour Members on Second Reading and in Committee about openness, yet a number of prominent councils, which spend many thousands of pounds a year on trips and visits, refused to itemise who got what and who went where.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The gravy train.

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

Indeed. The Government and Labour Members are forcing this system of cabinet government on local authorities against their will, in spite of opposition in the country and on the Labour Benches. The Government are in danger of damaging the reputation of local government in consequence. Council tax payers throughout the land have had to pay substantial increases because the Government have cut grant—people pay well over £1,000 for quite ordinary houses in some north country councils—but are seeing councillors helping themselves to vast increases in allowances and to more money than rate payers ever dreamed of. That will be hugely damaging to the reputation of councillors and of local government across the country. I do not pretend that our amendment will change that, but I hope that we can send a message to the other place. When their lordships consider the measure, I hope that they will reconsider the matter. The reputation of local government and of many decent councillors will be besmirched by the measure.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Throughout the deliberations of the Standing Committee, I much enjoyed the contributions of the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson). However, I confess that his performance this evening causes me some confusion. I read carefully the string of amendments and have some difficulty in relating his remarks to their broad thrust—even that of those tabled by his colleagues and himself. The key issue is relatively simple and narrow. Until this evening, the Government intended, in their proposals for executives, cabinets and scrutiny committees, that only one category of councillors—members of the executive or cabinet—should be eligible for a pension, with the agreement of the particular council. The Government were not minded that such provision should be available for other groups of councillors—such as those serving on scrutiny committees. In Committee, I argued that that was a bizarre idea. The Government maintained that the scrutiny role was vital, yet councillors who served on scrutiny committees were to be deemed second class compared with those who served on the executive. In an effort to make progress on the matter, two proposals were made this evening. The hon. Member for Hexham suggests that we can even things up by refusing to allow any councillor, in any category, the possibility of a pension. That would be one way of solving the problem. The amendments tabled by myself and my hon. Friends to provide equality would extend the pensions option to all councillors, subject to the agreement of the council. I was delighted to see that the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions himself saw fit to add his signature to two of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) and myself—a clear indication of his support for our suggestions. The effect of other Government amendments would be much the same as those that we propose, although the wording is marginally different. I could chalk that up as a success, but that is not important. What matters is that the Government recognised an injustice and were prepared to do something about it. I welcome that. I hope that, when the Under-Secretary replies, she will turn her attention to amendment No. 191—the effects of which appear to be somewhat bizarre and would mean that the National Assembly for Wales would be unable to give advice on some matters. If my interpretation is correct, that would be a retrograde step and we should have difficulty in supporting it. I look forward to an explanation of why the Government think the provision is necessary.

Hilary Armstrong (Labour, North West Durham)

The amendment has disappeared.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

If that is so, I am absolutely delighted. I am extremely pleased that the Government have accepted the principle of ensuring greater equality between councillors who are members of the executive and those who are members of scrutiny committees. It is a pity that they did not accept that earlier, but I am delighted that they have done so.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I intended to start by replying to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), but as the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has already noted, nothing that he said related to the amendments, so I find myself at something of a loss. The hon. Member for Hexham spent a lot of time talking about allowances for councillors, not about the payment of pensions, which was the subject of the amendments. No one would support the award of unjustified salaries and allowances to councillors, but neither do we support the rubbishing of all councillors in which the hon. Gentleman engaged. That is equally reprehensible. The assertion that councillors do not merit a reasonable allowance for the time and work that they put in is a cheap, populist jibe that diminishes the excellent work that the vast majority of councillors do. The hon. Member for Hexham should have talked about his amendments. I am surprised that the official Opposition continue to oppose outright the payment of pensions to members of the executive. The principle that those councillors who, because of their position in the council, devote a significant amount of time to council work deserve a pension is widely accepted in both the local government world and beyond, and indeed, by the Conservative group on the Local Government Association. It will be interesting to see what the group thinks about the amendments tabled by the Opposition. By providing that the basic or special responsibility allowances paid to members of the executive of an authority may be pensionable, we are acknowledging that the amount of time spent by some members on council duties is significant. With executive arrangements, we expect that this may increase further, and that some councillors, particularly those in the executive, may become more or less full time. It is right that we recognise that such councillors may lose out on pension rights where they do not also have paid and pensionable employment. If we are to attract the right people and a wider range of people into local government, it is important that we make such provisions. Having said that, we need to think long and hard about which councillors should be entitled to pensionable allowances, as I shall make clear in a short while. In the sense that we must not undermine the voluntary principle of public service to which the hon. Member for Hexham alluded, I agree with him. It may prove to be the case that some councillors' roles are so demanding that we should make provision in regulations to give them access to an occupational pension such as the local government pension scheme. If that is the case, we will need to have the powers to do so. Clause 94 provides those powers. I see that an amendment has been tabled by the Opposition Front-Bench team to remove the provisions in the Bill that deal with independent panels. That one really foxed me. The Opposition may have a view about whether councillors should receive pensions, but to be opposed to making an independent panel the mechanism for making recommendations to a council is difficult to understand. In contrast to the amendments tabled by the official Opposition, the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bath have a great deal of common ground with the Government amendments. For the record, amendments Nos. 46 and 47 were first tabled by the hon. Members for Bath and for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) and now appear as Government amendments, and of course we will accept them—just in case the hon. Gentlemen were in any doubt. Amendments Nos. 49 and 51 have the same purpose as Government amendments Nos. 187 and 189, but we do not feel that they do all that is needed, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept the Government amendments and not press his own. We also intend to accept amendments Nos. 48, 50 and 52 in the name of the hon. Member for Bath, so we will not move amendment No. 191. The other amendment to which the hon. Gentleman referred has not been selected. As I made clear in Committee, we believe that it is right that everyone, including councillors, should have access to an adequate occupational or personal pension to supplement the basic state pension. All councillors will be able to benefit from stakeholder pensions, which are specifically designed to provide access to supplementary pension provision. I hope that, for most councillors, council work will not be their principal occupation, and these councillors will receive levels of allowances that are more in line with the intended target group for stakeholder pensions; but, with the advent of executive arrangements, we expect that some councillors may become more or less full-time, and it is for those that the enabling powers in the amendments are particularly designed. I have said that I intend to accept amendments Nos. 48, 50 and 52 to ensure that the enabling powers in clause 94 are as flexible as possible, in order that we can respond as we and the councils gain experience and circumstances change, following implementation of all the elements of the modernisation agenda in the Bill. However, in accepting the amendments, I should like to make a few things absolutely clear and place them on the record. First, I consider it unlikely that the amendments will prove necessary in the long run because I think that all principal councils will ultimately be operating executive arrangements. The only way in which a principal council could find itself in a situation where it is not operating executive arrangements is if it is operating the alternatives following a referendum defeat, and we have already made it clear that we believe that to be unlikely. Secondly, we believe that the new councillor role was created by the executive arrangements, which may mean that some councillor roles are such that they should receive pensionable remuneration. Thirdly, I believe that I have already made it clear that pensionable remuneration may not prove to be the best option for any member's roles, but the best case is likely to be for members of the executive. I must tell the hon. Member for Bath that I find it difficult to envisage any roles in arrangements of a non-executive style that might demand pensionable remuneration. Therefore, although I believe that we should ensure that the enabling powers in the clause are wide enough to enable us to respond to the multiplicity of potential situations and arrangements that could arise following enactment of the Bill, I do not necessarily accept that we shall need to use all of that flexibility. In summary, I shall repeat what we are proposing in relation to the various amendments. To ensure that the powers in the clause are wide enough to allow us to be flexible, and to enable us to react flexibly to the results of the consultation that we shall engage in on pensionable remuneration, we shall accept amendments Nos. 46, 47, 48, 50 and 52. I shall move those and Government amendments Nos. 187, 188 and 189 in the appropriate place and I shall not move amendment No. 191. However, I must oppose amendments Nos. 49 and 51 because they are technically flawed and, in my view, the amendments that we have tabled will achieve the intended effect. I most certainly oppose Opposition amendments Nos. 30 to 33 and 217, and I hope that the hon. Member for Hexham will withdraw amendment No. 30 and not press the others. Amendment negatived. Amendments made: No. 46, in page 70, line 32, leave out "of an executive". No. 47, in page 70, line 34, leave out— executive" and "local authority" have' and insert ""local authority" has". No. 48, in page 71, line 13, leave out— 'which are operating executive arrangements'. No. 187, in page 71, line 15, leave out "executive" and insert "council". No. 188, in page 71, line 17, leave out "and" and insert "or". No. 50, in page 72, line 9, leave out— 'which are operating executive arrangements'. No. 189, in page 72, line 10, leave out "executive" and insert "council". No. 190, in page 72, line 23, leave out from "State" to end of line 25. No. 52, in page 72, leave out lines 26 and 27.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.] Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.] Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, to be further considered tomorrow.