Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

Public Bill Committee, 20 February 2007.

Written evidence to be reported to the House

Clause 31

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following: Amendment No. 95, in clause 31, page 17, line 38, at end insert—

‘(b) a scheme for whole council elections’.

Amendment No. 96, in clause 31, page 18, line 2, at end insert—

‘(2A) A council is subject to a scheme for whole elections if, under the scheme for the ordinary elections of its councillors, all of the councillors are elected in each year in which the elections are held.’.

Amendment No. 111, in clause 32, page 18, line 7, at end insert ‘or partial-council elections’.

Amendment No. 112, in clause 32, page 18, line 8, after ‘partial-council’, insert ‘or whole-council’.

Amendment No. 113, in clause 32, page 18, line 9, after ‘whole-council’, insert ‘or partial-council’.

Amendment No. 114, in clause 32, page 18, line 11, after ‘whole-council’, insert ‘or partial-council’.

Amendment No. 98, in clause 32, page 18, line 13, at end insert

‘within eight years of a resolution being made in accordance with subsection (1).’.

New clause 6—Changing scheme for ordinary whole council elections—

‘(1) This section applies if an eligible council resolves, during a permitted resolution period, that the council is to be subject to the scheme for partial-council elections.

(2) The council ceases to be subject to the scheme for whole council elections.

(3) The council becomes subject to the scheme for partial-council elections.

(4) The council must not pass the resolution unless it has taken reasonable steps to consult on the change to partial-council elections.

(5) It is for the council to decide which persons it is appropriate to consult.

(6) No resolution of the council may reverse the effect of this section within eight years of a resolution being made in accordance with subsection (1).

(7) In this section “permitted resolution period”, in relation to an eligible council, means a period specified in the second column of the following table in relation to that type of council

Andrew Gwynne (Labour, Denton and Reddish)

First, Mr. Chope, I welcome you and everyone else back to the Committee. Before I was rudely interrupted by the short recess—I trust that yours was good—I was making a strong defence of the election by thirds system. I wish to place on record my thanks to those who produce the Official Report of the Committee’s proceedings. I recalled that at the end of the previous sitting I was stopped mid-sentence and, after many sleepless nights trying to remember where I was in mid-sentence, I read with pleasure that my statement finished with a full stop. I am happy for that to remain so.

Unlike in Tameside, where there has been a long period of Labour control, and even in neighbouring Stockport, where, although the council currently has a Liberal Democrat majority, it is more the norm for no party to be in control, the system of thirds allows the officers to plan ahead. If it looks as though the parties in control are likely to change at an election, they can open up discussions with the opposition party or parties that are likely to take control after the election to talk about manifesto commitments, priorities and budgetary issues. It is clearly a system that is tried and tested, and one that works.

I acknowledge that, because most of my local political experience has been of annual elections by thirds, I am biased. I understand that councillors and Members of Parliament from areas that use an all-out system often hold similarly strong views about that system in the opposite direction from mine. That is the real issue, because there is no wrong or right way in which to elect councillors. Thirds is right for my area; others believe that all-out elections are right for their area. When people believe that the system is wrong for their area, why should they not be able to put their case and, after careful consideration and a council resolution, change it? That is what this part of the Bill will do and why I support it.

However, why must it be a one-way process? If it is okay for councils to move away from elections by thirds to all-out elections, why can they not move the other way? If a metropolitan borough, such as Stockport or Tameside, can move to all-out elections, why should not a London borough move from all-out elections to elections by thirds if it wants to? That it cannot is the source of my objection to the provision. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan that if, after an acceptable period such as eight or 12 years, perhaps more, the new system has failed to bed down, why should a council after careful consideration and a further resolution not be able to go back to the previous system? The would be real devolution and real letting go, which is what I hope we achieve through the Bill. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to my suggestions.

Given that, I urge the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, a fellow Stockport MP, to withdraw his amendments so that we can return later to the issue, with renewed vigour if necessary.

Tom Levitt (Labour, High Peak)

I rise to continue the Back-Bench rebellion that has been swirling for more than 12 days and almost 15 minutes. I have 10 years’ experience in local government at all three levels: four years as a parish councillors, two as a district councillor and four as a county councillor. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, I have experience of both election by thirds and all-out elections.

I would not advocate that a county council move to thirds because it would mean large multi-member constituencies and, in any case, county wards are so big that they do not equate to community boundaries; they are bigger. However, at district level, I have had experience of both systems and I favour elections by thirds. In Stroud district council, of which I was a member for two years, that does not necessarily mean that each ward has to be a three-member ward. It just means that a third of the councillors, including one in each three-member ward or none in the single or double member wards is elected each year.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish said, voting by thirds means that there will be no catastrophic change, leading to long-term planning not being possible. It means that there is constant public scrutiny and annual accountability. When there is a problem with a hung council, which is not always a problem, it can be resolved by the electorate within 12 months. Voting by thirds means that the parties have to find fewer candidates and that fighting elections costs less, although over the cycle the costs would be considerably greater. Although the turnout in any particular year can be shown to be smaller for elections by thirds than all-out elections, the turnout over the four-year cycle is considerably greater. Many people take the opportunity to vote more than once in the four-year period, and many more people have the opportunity to cast a vote.

I am not arguing that thirds is always the answer or that it should be the aspiration, but as others have said, it should be an option. Councils have the option to choose one method or the other and to change from one to the other, but very few councils take that opportunity. Therefore, to make it implicit in the Bill that a change in one direction is favoured over a change in the other—that one direction is right and the other is wrong—is almost to address a problem that does not exist. In any case, it does not address the question of a local council having the ability to decide. The unfortunate impression given by clause 31 is that it will make the process a one-way street. I therefore hope that the Minister will remove it. A former Secretary of State with responsibility for local government, Nicholas Ridley, who was for a time my Member of Parliament, described one-way streets as an infringement of civil rights. He may have chosen the wrong target for that comment—he was Transport Secretary at the time, I believe. However, in the Bill, a one-way street should not be the only way for councils to go when considering their electoral arrangements.

The downside of elections by thirds is that they are more expensive for councils to run. They eat up the time of officers because of the need to have elections in three years out of every four. It means that councillors need to have one eye on the electorate the whole time, not only during elections. Council tax has to be set bearing in mind electoral consequences every year, not once every four years. There are many reasons why councils should avoid voting by thirds, but they are not particularly good reasons. Paradoxically, the effect of passing the Bill as it stands could be that fewer councils will move to all-out elections, because they will not want to take the irrevocable step of moving in that direction. I do not think that there should be an implicit bias one way or the other; there should be a choice.

Finally, all-out election clearly fits the model of an elected mayor rather better than election by thirds. However, the tail should not be wagging the dog. We need to look at a wider range of models of executive accountability, a matter that we will come to later. As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish said, some members of the committee form a little cluster: Denton and Reddish, Hazel Grove, and High Peak. I hope that the fourth member of the cluster, our neighbour the Minister, will join us. However, I hope that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove will withdraw his amendment and allow the Government time to take into account the view of both the Committee and of those who participated in the previous scrutiny process.

Sir Peter Soulsby (Leicester, South) (Lab) rose—

Patrick Hall (Bedford) (Lab) rose—

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I call Sir Patrick Hall—sorry, Sir Peter Soulsby.

Peter Soulsby (Labour, Leicester South)

There is clearly considerable enthusiasm on the Labour Back Benches for amendments Nos. 94 and 95. Like other hon. Members, I am sympathetic to the Government’s desire to see effective and stable leadership in local government. That wish, which is clearly reflected in the Bill, is to ensure that local councils engage with their communities and electorates. If there were overwhelming evidence that effective leadership and engagement with local communities could be significantly enhanced by holding whole-council elections, I would support such elections and welcome a move by the Government to ensure that they were universal. However, there is no evidence that that leadership and that engagement are achieved by the mechanism of whole-council elections; therefore the Government are not proposing that that system should be universal.

Like a number of other hon. Members, I have served on councils that have had whole-council elections and on those that have had elections by thirds, and the experience is very mixed. In some circumstances, election by thirds produces effective leadership and engagement with local communities. In other circumstances, whole-council elections produce the same results. Sometimes, the reverse applies: I have seen areas that use elections by thirds in which councils have been out of touch with the electorate and community, and areas that use whole-council elections in which local communities have had little engagement with their local councils.

I can understand why, in many areas, local party activists prefer whole-council elections. I have heard it argued quite powerfully in a council that is not unknown to me and in which, against my judgment and my wishes, a choice was made of election for the whole council. There is no evidence that that accomplished anything other than a quiet life for party activists for a couple of years, or that it in any way enhanced the quality of the council’s leadership or the engagement of local people with that council.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would want to substitute the words party inactivists for party activists.

Peter Soulsby (Labour, Leicester South)

I suspect that we all have party inactivists as well as activists, and sometimes all parties feel that the inactivists are in the majority.

Very briefly, my argument, like that of other Back-Bench Members, is that if it is possible to move only in one direction—from elections by thirds to whole-council elections—I suspect that, perversely, it will make councils less likely to want to experiment. Knowing that there is no way back will make them reluctant to move towards whole-council elections rather than willing to grasp the idea on an experimental basis.

It is important to ensure that councils that choose to make such a change are not able to do so at short intervals, or in ways that are difficult for a local electorate to understand or that are confusing for the administration of the authority. It is important, of course, to prevent rapid reversals of direction, but it is also important to allow reversals of direction.

My firm view is that it is not the pattern of elections that is the determining factor in either public engagement or in effective leadership. There are different circumstances in different local authorities. For that reason, I hope that it will not be necessary to press the amendment to a vote and that the Government will listen and agree with the overwhelming view that is being expressed from both sides of the Committee that the matter is one for local discretion taking local circumstances into consideration, and that it should be left to the local councils involved.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I had not intended to intervene in the discussion, but there has not been such an uprising in the midlands since the pilgrimage of grace and as a southerner I could not resist the temptation to encourage it a little and see whether Labour Members would march to the gates of London and what response they would get from Ministers. I believe that on the previous occasion the gates were locked against the pilgrims. I hope that they will not be on this occasion, because the points that have been made are valid.

My experience, like yours, Mr. Chope, is as a member of a London borough council. I spent 16 years in a system of all-out elections every four years. On the other hand, my wife has served as a member of a unitary council elected by thirds. Working out who should canvass for whom, where and at what time has been a matter of domestic interest to us. She has not persuaded me any more than I have persuaded her. I remain of the view that there is considerable merit in the four-year cycle that we have in the London boroughs, ironically because it permits long-term planning and enables a new administration to know that it has a four-year run and officers to know where they stand. A few years ago, when my party lost control of the London borough of Bexley by one seat despite getting a majority of the popular vote, I was briefly almost converted to elections by thirds, but as we gained 23 seats last May, all was put right in the end.

The key test is this: if we are serious about devolution, the decision ought to be for a local authority to take. I take the point that that is true whether an authority is a London borough or a district. The hon. Member for High Peak made a valid point about the linkage with mayoral systems. In the London boroughs we have a certain number of directly elected mayors and it is clearly much easier in those circumstances to have all-out elections coinciding with mayoral elections. I certainly do not advocate electing the London assembly by thirds, although it might be an interesting idea. It should surely be a matter for a local authority to determine.

I was interested in the discussion about the effect of using thirds instead of all-out elections on turnout and engagement. I am inclined to agree that, by and large, that is not the determining factor. My hon. Friends and I will argue that other parts of the Bill miss opportunities to take measures that would enhance turnout, but the real disincentive to people to turn out to vote in elections is frequently the thought that it will not make any difference because local authorities themselves have very little discretionary power to make a difference. Enhancing local authorities’ freedom of action would undoubtedly be the greatest means of incentivising people to turn out to vote, and we have not gone as far as we would like in that respect. However, the electoral cycle is not the main determinant of turnout.

I have sympathy with the Labour Members who have spoken on the point that the clause is a classic one-way street. That cannot be right and I cannot see any intellectual justification for it. If it is right to move in one direction and if we believe that local authorities should as far as possible have the power to determine their own administrative arrangements, then surely to goodness it should be possible for them to move in the other direction. I would argue against the London borough of Bromley, for instance, moving in that opposite direction, but it ought to have the right to do so. That is the key thing.

If we expect local authorities to behave in a grown-up way, we must treat them as grown-ups and give them the opportunity to come a reasoned decision to fit their own circumstances. I have so far heard nothing to justify the provision, so I hope that the midlands uprising succeeds in securing a localist and devolutionary measure. I know the Minister to be a fair-minded man who will take on board the points made.

Angela Smith (Labour, Basildon)

I am answering this debate.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

The Under-Secretary is a fair-minded lady. I know both of the Minister to be extremely fair-minded. I hope that they will reflect on the arguments that have been made and accept the localist course, which is to let each local authority decide either way.

Patrick Hall (Labour, Bedford)

Thank you for my earlier temporary knighthood, Mr. Chope. I do not believe that it was awarded for being part of what my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak described as a rebellion, nor for being part of an uprising, as the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst suggested it was. This is not about uprisings and rebellions; it is about intelligent, thoughtful, decisive, constructive, helpful contributions to the parliamentary process. Our motivation is to improve the Bill and to strengthen local government. We want to do it from the point of view of some experience, much of it outside London, and from having seen some of the measures in practice on the ground for a number of years.

I am sure that others could add to this debate by describing their likes and dislikes. The area that I come from has had elections by thirds since the mid-’80s. I should mention that that is Bedford; I want to get the words “Bedford” and “Bedfordshire” on the record. I was a Bedfordshire county councillor when the county had all-out elections every four years, alongside a district that had elections by thirds. The two went together well. The Bedford borough elections led to an increase in activity. There were elections every year in that area, with county elections one year and three years of borough elections. That led to a lot more contact with the electorate. It also meant a lot more work, but those of us who are involved in local democracy sometimes enjoy doing that, believe it or not.

Alistair Burt (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

One of the consequences of the increased activity and interest in elections in Bedfordshire has been the support for an elected mayor and the process of electing a mayor. What does the hon. Gentleman think contributed to that? Was it a failure of the major, best known parties in the processes that he has described, or was it something else? What turned off the people of Bedford borough in such a way as to lead to the creation of an elected, independent mayor?

Patrick Hall (Labour, Bedford)

The hon. Gentleman knows the answer to his own question. I was very much involved in those matters. Before he came to Bedfordshire and became the Member of Parliament for North-East Bedfordshire, particular circumstances applied to Bedford borough; I could go into in some detail, but will not do so as it would not be appropriate. However, the argument is not about what happens in one particular place. There are reasons for having an elected mayor in Bedford. Colleagues have questioned whether having an elected mayor on a four-year term runs alongside having elections by thirds; I believe that in Bedford we have an example that shows that it does.

The hon. Gentleman was possibly alluding to strong leadership. I had concerns about the leadership of Bedford borough council, but that was due to personalities rather than the electoral system. It is important to remember that whatever system we have, whether all-out or by thirds, councillors are elected for four years. The question of whether we have a person in a stable position who is able to lead is therefore not necessarily determined by whether the system is elections by thirds or all-out.

The ground has been quite well covered by the debate so far. It does not come down to whether anyone here likes or dislikes a system of all-out or by thirds; what is important is devolution, local choice and local councillors and people deciding the best way to run local affairs in their area. The one-way street does not fit with that. There is no doubt that that is the wrong approach. It is not devolution, and I hope that Ministers will reflect upon that, although I understand that they might not be able to do so on the spot today. I therefore add my plea to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove to await Report, as I shall, and not press his amendment to a Division, in the hope that we can make some progress on the matter, which would be in the interests of local government.

Angela Smith (Labour, Basildon)

I thank all hon. Gentlemen for their comments on the amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak described himself as part of a Back-Bench rebellion, which the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst was anxious to join. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford made the point that it is important that in Committee we scrutinise everything that comes before us, which the Committee has done quite admirably in this debate. Indeed, almost a third of the Committee has spoken on the amendment.

I have listened carefully to all the arguments made in the debate and it is clear from the contributions that there is a real commitment in the Committee to ensuring that there is strong leadership in local government. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove based most of his comments on the need to be truly democratic, as he put it, so that local councils alone can decide these matters. My hon. Friends the Members for Wigan, for Leicester South, for Denton and Reddish and for High Peak also raised the issue of ensuring strong leadership in local government. We are seeking to achieve both those aims in the clause.

Obviously, there are members of the Committee with considerable experience of local councils. I have eight years of experience in Essex—I must mention Essex, as it has not been mentioned yet, and we are touring the nation and I am the House of Commons’ honorary Essex girl. Because of their great experience of local government, we ought to take note of the arguments made by members of the Committee.

The Government consider that there are strong arguments that whole-council elections bring benefits to councils and communities, creating greater accountability and clarity for electors, and that such elections have the potential to strengthen the democratic process. As I made clear to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove during the evidence sessions, the Government preference is for whole-council elections. However, as has been said in the debate today, it is not that straightforward. It may help the Committee if I describe the broader context, it is quite complex.

The current position is that all county councils and London boroughs have whole-council elections. In addition, all parish councils are required to have whole-council elections. Shire district councils may request either whole-council elections or partial elections, and 63 per cent. of districts have whole-council elections. They may change their electoral cycle by asking the Secretary of State to make an order. All metropolitan districts have elections by thirds. That is clear, then.

It has been widely recognised for a considerable time that there is quite a mish-mash of electoral arrangements, which can be confusing for electors. It could be said that it is just an accident of history that we have different arrangements for different councils. That was why the Government invited the independent Electoral Commission to address those issues in January 2003. The Electoral Commission responded a year later, stating that whole-council elections would increase participation and bring clearer accountability. The Government said that they were minded to agree with the principal recommendation, which was to move to whole-council elections for English councils. In the 2005 general election manifesto, we stated that

“the case for simplifying the current local government election cycle by moving towards ‘whole council’ elections every four years”

would be examined. That is what we have done, and that is what has been discussed in the Committee today and in the previous sitting. That is the background for adopting the approach that is outlined in the White Paper and the Bill.

Patrick Hall (Labour, Bedford)

With regard to possible confusion about councils and council elections, certainly that confusion would arise in all two-tier areas. Living in a two-tier local government area, I find that the public do not care so much which council is responsible for which service, nor what type of election it is; it is just seen as “local government”, and that there is an election. The only way to resolve that matter is to move to unitaries, which is not the subject of the debate. I think that the confusion will always arise in two-tier areas, regardless of whether the election is by thirds or all-out.

Angela Smith (Labour, Basildon)

It was perhaps because of that confusion that the Government asked the Electoral Commission to examine the proposals.

Tom Levitt rose—

Angela Smith (Labour, Basildon)

I will give way briefly; I want to make some progress, and some of the things I have to say may discourage hon. Members from making any more interventions.

Tom Levitt (Labour, High Peak)

I have never understood the point that the Electoral Commission makes about participation. I accept that, in all-out elections once every four years, turnout is higher than in any one particular year during the elections in the three consecutive years taken in the areas that elect by thirds. However, in the whole four-year cycle, the number of people who vote at least once in local elections is greater under the system of voting by thirds than it is under all-out elections.

Angela Smith (Labour, Basildon)

I do not think that I need to respond to that; my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak makes his claims, and the issue may be something that he will want to take up with the Electoral Commission.

In terms of what was in the White Paper and what was put forward in the Bill, first, as the Committee acknowledges, more discussion has taken place about measures that are designed to be devolutionary, giving power back to local authorities. We are devolving the decisions on this matter to local authorities. That is generally welcomed by members of the Committee. It would be for a local authority, not the Government, to decide whether to move to whole-council elections. The process for changing the electoral cycle should be a matter for local authorities alone to decide; it is a fundamental principle of the Bill that that is not a matter for the Secretary of State to decide.

The initial approach reflected the substance of the Electoral Commission’s recommendations for whole-council elections. The Electoral Commission’s 2004 report stated that

“whole-council elections every four years can provide a degree of inherent stability. Whole-council elections give a clear mandate to representatives for a programme of policies during the following four years, and allow time for an administration to carry through its policies. At the end of the four-year period the administration is held to account by the electorate and can be judged by its record, its success or failure.”

The commission’s findings led to our debate and to the Government’s proposals. The Government consider that whole-council elections can create the best framework to support and promote strong and accountable leadership if powers and responsibilities are to be devolved to local councils.

Notwithstanding the benefits, the Government recognise that in particular places, the pattern of local government elections can reflect long-held traditions valued by hon. Members. My hon. Friends the Members for Leicester, South, for Wigan, for Denton and Reddish, for High Peak and for Bedford and the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst made the point that strong leadership does not depend necessarily on the electoral cycles of a local authority. It is not automatically the case that election by thirds creates weak leadership or failing councils. Many successful councils elected by thirds have strong leadership.

The Electoral Commission recently stated that it would have preferred the Government to be more prescriptive and to legislate for all councils to move to whole-council elections with no local choice. I have made it clear that we accept the case for participation and accountability, but we have decided that local councils that elect by thirds should move to all-out elections only if they choose to do so.

We conclude that there should be a devolved process to allow councils, including metropolitan authorities, to move if they choose from partial to whole-council elections, but the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove would also allow county councils and London boroughs to move to partial elections, which is something not currently available to them. Our proposals will allow councils elected by thirds to move to whole-council elections, and our debate today has considered giving those councils the option to move either way.

I shall reflect on the comments made by hon. Members. The issues are quite complex. For example, if the amendment of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove were accepted and county councils that hold whole-council elections chose to move to thirds, that would have an impact on the electoral cycle of district councils in those areas. Also, because county councils are based on single-member wards, it would create some difficulty in organisation.

For those reasons, I have difficulty accepting the hon. Gentleman’s amendment. However, taking into account the debate as a whole, a strong case has been made for the Government to reflect on the issue. I do not think that there is a case for rebellion on the part of my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak. I welcome the discussion. It has brought clarity and new thinking to the issue.

Tom Levitt (Labour, High Peak)

My hon. Friend will be aware that the words “rebellion” and “High Peak” do not often go together. I am enjoying my five minutes of fame, but that was all I intended to have.

Angela Smith (Labour, Basildon)

That is a dangerous intervention for my hon. Friend to make. I would not want him to be encouraged by the response that he is getting this morning. I should like my colleagues to consider the issue and perhaps offer suggestions to the Committee and the House later that reflect the concerns raised about local democracy and equally about strong leadership, which we consider essential to local government.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I welcome the Under-Secretary to her first outing on the Bill, and I welcome the tone in which she has presented her and the Government’s views to the Committee. I hope that the Minister for Local Government picks up the same tone in future debates. It has been extremely helpful.

May I thank colleagues on both sides of the Committee for their contributions? I do not think that there has been a hostile word so far against the amendments that I tabled, other than the Under-Secretary’s view that they should probably not apply to county councils. That is clearly a matter for further discussion. In the light of what she said, I shall not go into some of the detailed responses that I might have done, but I would like to thank the hon. Members for Wigan, for Denton and Reddish, for High Peak, for Leicester, South, and for Bedford, all of whom indicated their view that the Government should go one step further with the clause. It was never any part of the argument thatI deployed that there was anything wrong with what was in the clause, but it is what is not in it that is wrong. If the Government are prepared to look at how the matter can be made a process that will work in the opposite sense and will come back and consider that in due course, that will be a major step forward.

I was particularly struck by two of the arguments that I heard. The first was deployed at our previous sitting by the hon. Member for Wigan, who said that probably the most powerful argument that the Government will ever hear is that this is not a matter of great moment for the tabloids and that the Government do not need to fear the press reaction. Knowing how important that consideration is for the Government when they conduct their business, I hope that that powerful argument will strike home.

I hope that it also clearly came through from hon. Members on both sides of the Committee—which is blessed with having people with a wide range of experience in local government—that nobody could point to any evidence that going in one direction only would lead to a benefit in terms of leadership, policy development or participation by the public. The arguments are finely balanced and I was pleased to hear what the Under-Secretary said. In the light of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendments.

Clause 32

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

Having debated the issue generally, I would like to consider the specifics of the mechanism under clause 32. Many local authorities do not have a political majority: sometimes there are coalitions; sometimes there are ad hoc arrangements; and sometimes there are formal arrangements for running the authority. Decision making can change quite quickly, particularly if people fall out, as has been known in local government.

Secondly, in local government, at any one time, there are vacancies. If one looks at the list of pending vacancies for local government, sometimes there are 30 to 50 seats across the country that are not filled at any one time. Even occasionally, when there are all-up elections, there are one or two vacancies per council.

Thirdly, there are changes of representation in wards as a result of by-elections and vacancies, and there are also defections. The clause says:

“No resolution of the council may reverse the effect of this section”,

but my point is that there may be a situation in which, having passed a resolution in the permitted period, the political control of the council changes within a matter of weeks, and the council’s opinion may change. A coalition, perhaps involving independents, may change, and the view of those who are responsible for running the council may change after by-elections and defections. Many votes go through in local authorities on casting votes of chairmen or mayors. Are we saying that when a vote to change the electoral arrangements goes through on the casting vote of the mayor and when two vacancies then return two members from a different political party and that changes the view of the council, the council cannot change a resolution once it has been passed? Essentially, a decision could be taken without the express wish of every member of the council because there may be one or two vacancies, or filling those vacancies may lead to a change in the political complexion.

I do not want to labour the point, but things change in local government. I have been on hung authorities when one committee has voted in the opposite way to another and it is total chaos. I therefore seek the Under-Secretary’s reassurance. Will guidance be given? Will there be any rules or will it be purely a matter for the council and the chairman’s casting vote? If the leadership of the council changes in the period concerned, will the new leader have any means of changing the resolution? At what point does the decision become irreversible? Is it on the council’s vote, or after the Electoral Commission has nodded to it? I appreciate that if political parties have different views about the electoral benefits of a change, which I suspect they may do in different circumstances, it may be a matter of political discussion and disagreement.

Some councils have run successfully for years with a majority of one and a casting vote. On such a finely balanced council I am worried that an irreversible decision could be taken, but a few weeks later there may be a very different majority able to take a completely different decision on this very important issue. I should be interested to hear the Under-Secretary’s views on the subject.

Angela Smith (Labour, Basildon)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the clarity with which he expressed his views while seeking enlightenment. I will say something about the clause and then respond to his comments.

The clause enables an eligible council—that is, a district that currently holds elections by halves or thirds—to move to whole-council elections. As I said, we will reflect on the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove. If a council wishes to make such a change, it must do so in a specified period, because the date of whole-council elections, as set out in clause 33, is different for metropolitan authorities and shire districts. It is 2008 for metropolitan districts and 2011 for shire districts. The specified period will run from 1 October to 31 December in the year before the elections are due and will ensure that, to stabilise existing arrangements, members of the public know about the change in good time but not too long before the first whole-council election.

The clause also enables the Secretary of State to extend the periods during which a resolution can be made, but we envisage doing so only in very limited circumstances, perhaps to give a council a bit of extra time and the flexibility to consider the proposals properly. The clause allows councils to hold council elections if they wish to do so.

On the point made by the hon. Member for Poole, there is a difficulty in hung, or finely balanced councils, but they still have to make decisions on their budget, which stands for a year. They have to stand by their decisions in the same way as other councils. We have to accept the decision of the electorate in choosing the council, and the decisions that that council produces. When a council has taken a vote and made a resolution, it will inform the Electoral Commission, but the commission has no role in ratifying the decision, which is taken by the local council. The council may want to consult and to have wide-ranging discussions on the best way forward, but the council’s decision, as in many other issues, is binding.

Clause 37

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

With this it will be convenient to take new clause 5—Referendum to approve proposals—

‘(1) Subject to the provisions of section 37(3) the local authority may from time to time make proposals to adjust the number of councillors per ward and must hold a referendum in the ward or wards affected before taking any steps to implement them.

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

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

(a) summarises the proposals;

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

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

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

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

I should like to have a little canter around the issue of metropolitan districts and councillors per ward. When I first stood as a district councillor the ward had about 1,600 electors. The number of electors for a county councillor was about 8,000. When I fought a parliamentary seat in the midlands the ward populations 12,000 or 14,000. The average for Birmingham is about 18,000 to 20,000. Most metropolitan districts have three councillors, elected in one thirds, and they have very large wards.

Clause 37 allows additional councillors—a fourth, a fifth, a sixth, a seventh or an eighth, the number is not specified. Presumably that means larger wards. Alternatively, does it mean the same size wards but a larger council? If there are 60 members and it goes to six members per ward there will be 120 councillors. That has both cost and governance implications. If one opts to have more councillors per ward but to keep the same number on a particular metropolitan authority, it means larger wards.

One of the difficulties with our system is delivering literature in a very large ward. I am sure that we all delivered to wards because no one else will do it. We have almost killed ourselves by spending every waking hour doing so. If the impact of clause 37 is to give us larger metropolitan wards, I cannot see how it will improve general governance. There will more councillors, larger wards and a bigger division between those at the top and the bottom. I hope that the Under-Secretary can explain exactly what the Government have in mind. With three-member wards, elected on thirds, if one goes to more members in the authority there could be two members standing for election. We need rather more of an explanation. That is why we tabled new clause 5, which contains proposals for a referendum so that there would be some check and some debate on any increase in the number of councillors.

There are also questions of gerrymandering, which, of course, was named after Governor Gerry of Massachusetts. Giving an extra representative to a particular ward may have a political significance, as can having odd or even numbers representing a ward. When southern Ireland went on to an single transferable vote system, initially after independence, some of the wards were sevens, nines or 11s, which meant that the quota for winning was quite low. As the parties got control of the system the size of seats came down to threes and fives, which benefited the larger party under the Irish system. Clearly, under a metropolitan system, if one starts to add representatives to wards under a particular formula, unless it is totally within an electoral quota, it could also have an impact. I should therefore like some reassurance from the Under-Secretary about how the extras will be added.

Under the parliamentary boundary commission system one, cannot add on the basis of projected growth. There is a base year when seats are determined and as the review moves forward there is some scope for arguments about change. However, in local government changes in growth in a ward may be taken into account. That is the one difference between the two systems. If districts can change the number of representatives per metropolitan ward simply by predicting that there will be a new housing estate in a ward and so extra representatives will be needed, it may have a political implication. That is why I want to have a little run around this clause.

I hope that the Under-Secretary can reassure me that all this is total nonsense. However, I do think that changing the numbers, we will have an impact on councils, ward sizes and, particularly if done on a predictive basis, on the political battleground.

Andrew Gwynne (Labour, Denton and Reddish)

Based on local knowledge, I think that the proposal is the correct one. My constituency has two local authorities, and one of them—in Tameside—was formed in 1974 when nine very independent towns came together. To this day, they remain very independent. Those towns are: the urban districts of Audenshaw, Denton, Droylsden and Longdendale, and the municipal boroughs of Ashton, Dukinfield, Hyde, Stalybridge and Mossley. When the borough was created, it was divided into 18 wards reflecting those towns. To a lesser extent today, those wards still reflect the townships of Tameside. Things got complicated in 1980, however, when an extra ward was given to the borough. Parts of the old boroughs of Dukinfield and Stalybridge were cobbled together into a new ward called Dukinfield Stalybridge ward, which confuses matters greatly because we also have the wards of Stalybridge North, Stalybridge South and Dukinfield.

Furthermore, in 2004, following the most recent boundary changes, the ward of Audenshaw, which had 10,000 electors, and the ward of St. Peter’s, which had 7,000 electors, had their boundaries altered because the average number of electors in each ward in Tameside was 8,000. To the great dismay of electors in Audenshaw—admittedly, a very small number—who are proud of their Audwinian roots, they were moved in to an Ashton ward, with which they have nothing in common. So, first, they were moved in to the ward of Ashton St. Peter’s, and then, at the next election, in to the Ashton-under-Lyne parliamentary constituency, despite the fact that their area of Audenshaw has been in the Denton and Reddish constituency since it was created in 1983, and in the same parliamentary constituency as Denton in every election since 1916, I think.

Some wards in Tameside no longer reflect the township boundaries. For example, Dukinfield is divided between the wards of Dukinfield and Dukinfield Stalybridge. Dukinfield ward is in the Denton and Reddish constituency and Dukinfield Stalybridge ward is in that of Stalybridge and Hyde. At the next election, Audenshaw will be divided in part between Denton and Reddish and Ashton-under-Lyne constituencies.

Tom Levitt (Labour, High Peak)

I just wanted to say that I never realised that life on the other side of the Tameside boundary was so much fun.

Andrew Gwynne (Labour, Denton and Reddish)

Perhaps my hon. Friend should have been at the ward boundary public inquiry. He understand just how much fun it actually was.

I think that the Bill is trying to achieve greater clarity and reflection so that wards mirror communities better. The building blocks of wards in metropolitan areas such as Tameside must have 8,000 electors, plus or minus. As I understand it, it would be possible for the Dukinfield ward to cover the whole of Dukinfield, perhaps with five instead of three members. Audenshaw ward could also reflect the whole of Audenshaw with four members instead of three. We might also have a smaller Ashton St. Peter’s ward with two members instead of three. In that case, we could better reflect the communities with which people identify, rather than create wards based on towns to which they do not belong. If the Minister can clarify that that is the intention of this part of the Bill, I give it my wholehearted support.

Angela Smith (Labour, Basildon)

As a southerner, I never knew that I would learn so much from the Committee about the north. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish and others. For a new Member, he has an encyclopaedic knowledge of his constituency, which he has put to good use in the Committee.

I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Poole for explaining what he intends by his new clause, which is, I think, probing. The new clause would do the opposite of what he wants it to, and the Government oppose it in the strongest terms. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not mean it—his party, like ours, is wedded to democracy—but the new clause would allow a council to ride roughshod over the principle of equality in elections. Under the new clause, the controlling party on a council could increase the number of councillors in a particular ward simply by holding a referendum of its supporters and members in that ward, and thereby increase that ward’s representation on the local council. I am sure that that is not what the hon. Gentleman intended, although I am grateful for his comments. He will not be surprised that the Electoral Commission opposes the new clause, which, it claims,

“risks undermining the established process of electoral reviews and the principle of equality of representation across a local authority.”

I turn now to what I think that the hon. Gentleman intended by his new clause. I am sorry that, having been so helpful on previous clauses—offering to take ideas away and reflect further—I cannot do so in respect of new clause 5. I think that the hon. Gentleman intends to provide for local authorities to increase the membership of wards by a consistent number, by multiplying the number of councillors across all an authority’s wards. If that were so, there would not be the problems that I have mentioned of electoral equality. However, decisions about wards and other such questions should be taken by an independent body, not by local authorities, even if they have the approval of the electorate. The independent Electoral Commission and the boundary committee for England are currently responsible for electoral reviews. It is through such electoral reviews that the number of councillors per electoral area—in district wards and county divisions, even though there is no reference to divisions in the new clause—and the boundaries and names of electoral areas can be changed.

I remind the Committee that clause 38 will allow local authorities to change the names of electoral areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish might wish to take that point into account if clause 38 is agreed to.

The total number of councillors on an authority may be changed under electoral reviews. The boundary committee will have to consider carefully the ability of the authority to provide convenient and effective local government under any council size. Allowing the local authority to change the number of councillors in a ward would also change the number of councillors on the authority as a whole, with no regard to the impact that such a change would have on the council’s ability to provide services to local people. The new clause would also mean that the total number of councillors for an area could be changed against the wishes of the electors across the local authority area as a whole.

The hon. Member for Poole was particularly concerned about whether the clause would mean larger wards. No ward in England currently has more than three members per ward: some have one, some have two and others have three. The Electoral Commission’s view is that having more than three members in a ward would dilute accountability and affect relations between electors and councillors. Clause 37 will allow flexibility to recommend one and two-member wards. A number of Committee members will already have a mixture of two and three-member wards in their constituencies. The clause does not necessarily mean that councils will be larger, but there could be smaller wards and fewer councillors per ward. That decision will be for the Electoral Commission to make, in consultation with the local authority.

My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish was right to say that the clause would remove the existing inflexibility and allow the Electoral Commission to better reflect communities. I think that his point is sound. If communities feel disengaged from their wards, they are less likely to vote. We want increasing participation and we want the electors to feel part of their wards and part of the community. At same time, we want to provide equality of representation.

We believe that there is a strong role for independent bodies to play. Although we are, throughout the Bill, looking to devolve decisions to local government, in this case it is right that an electoral body makes decisions in consultation with a local authority to remove the concerns that the hon. Member for Poole mentioned about gerrymandering. The right way to do that is for local authorities to seek a review from the independent Electoral Commission. I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

This has been a useful debate. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish mentioned a perfect example of why the clause was relevant to his borough. Despite the construction of many boroughs 30 or 40 years ago there are still lots of local loyalties beneath the borough level. I am glad that the Under-Secretary mentioned size decreases rather than increases, because I would be concerned about the idea of a four-member ward. If an area felt itself to have certain loyalties, it would be a better idea to split it into two two-member wards than to add a ward with three members and a bit to somewhere six miles away. If that is the idea behind the Bill, fine. That would also inevitably reduce the size of some very large wards, which would improve matters.

In light of the reassurances that the Under-Secretary has given, I beg leave to withdraw the new clause.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

You do not need seek leave, because the new clause has not been formally moved. I shall assume you are giving notice that when we reach the right place in the Order Paper you will not be moving it.

Clause 38

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments No. 130 to 135.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

Names are quite often important in politics, not least because there is usually a degree of history behind them. Wards are sometimes named after ancient parishes despite having been overcome by large housing estates. Nevertheless, I am nervous about changing names, because sometimes they can indicate also whether a seat is marginal, and a change of name can have an impact on that. Dare I say that the name “Basildon” has on occasion been totemic in people’s perceptions?

If I took over a local authority and worked out that it contained five marginal wards, the first thing that I would do would be to change all five names, because that might convey a different view of whether some of the wards were safe or marginal. Names are quite important in political competition. People who live in a constituency with a particular name may know that at a certain time it might not be marginal but that over many years it might become so. For that reason I am nervous about giving local authorities the right to change names of wards essentially at will, and without reference to anybody else. Subsection (3) says that that cannot happen

“If the name of an electoral area is protected”,

but will the Minister say what that means? I prefer to stick to names, so that people cannot change them at will until an overall boundary review.

Angela Smith (Labour, Basildon)

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s contribution. I accept that names are important—that is the reason why the clause has been proposed.

I may have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, because after the next general election the constituency of Basildon will be no more—it will become South Basildon and East Thurrock, and will be divided in two. So totemic election-night tears and joy around the country will be lost, although I am sure that another constituency will take on Basildon’s mantle.

I can give the hon. Gentleman some reassurance, however. Currently, the names of electoral areas—county divisions and wards in district councils—can be changed only on an electoral review by the Electoral Commission’s boundary committee. However, local authorities can change the names of their areas. They can change the name of the council, but not of wards, under section 74 of the Local Government Act 1972. That Act allows a district or county council to change its name by a resolution passed by two thirds of council members at a specially convened meeting of the council. That a local authority can resolve to change the name of its area but not of its wards seems to us a little daft. It can also change names of parishes, but not wards, if a parish council requests it. We believe that local authorities should be able to change the names of their wards.

Another point to consider is that there is no set timetable for when the electoral review takes place. Reviews can be between 10 and 15 years apart in some areas, which can result in the names of district wards or county divisions being out of step with real-world conditions. For example, a new development built in a ward may mean that the ward would be better identified by including the new settlement in its name.

There may be occasions when a local authority wishes to resolve issues arising from a ward name with which a community can no longer identify. In such a case the clause will allow a county council, district council or London borough council to change the name of the electoral area concerned. Any change would need to be agreed by the full council, which would need to pass a resolution at a special meeting held for the purpose. The council would then have to inform interested bodies including the Electoral Commission, the Office for National Statistics and Ordnance Survey.

It is worth considering the clause in connection with the previous clause. We are trying to ensure that local authority and ward boundaries reflect the communities there. The point made under the previous clause about two, three or one-member wards, alongside name changes, enhances the identity that the individual elector—[Interruption.] I hope that that is not for me.

Alistair Burt (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

It is—it says that you are doing very well.

Angela Smith (Labour, Basildon)

Thank you. The individual elector will therefore be able to have a relationship with their own electoral ward.

The hon. Member for Poole asked about protected areas. If the Electoral Commission has given the name within the past five years, it is protected, but if in the protected period the commission agrees to the name change proposed by the council, it can then happen. I am sure that when that appears in Hansard it will make great sense. The commission’s power to amend the names of local authority electoral areas will remain unaffected, so when a council proposes to change an electoral area within five years of a change made by the commission, the council must seek the commission’s approval. With such permission it can override the protection.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I rise to seek a little clarification. I do not disagree with what the Under-Secretary is saying, and from a localist point of view I see its logic. I wonder whether there is to be any requirement to consult. How will we deal with the situation of people being genuinely unhappy about a ward name being changed? In my constituency, when the Electoral Commission changed a particular ward boundary to create something called Mottingham and Chislehurst North, there was an outcry. It was partly because people did not want to go into Mottingham but more because everybody in Chislehurst North said, “We are actually called Chislehurst West—they have got it wrong.”

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Order. This is turning into a speech.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I would like to know if there are any means to deal with that without causing undue bureaucracy.

Angela Smith (Labour, Basildon)

The hon. Gentleman has a point, and that is one reason why we propose that the decision should be taken by local councils. The Electoral Commission’s boundary committee did the same in my constituency, misnaming it Basildon instead of Basildon and East Thurrock. By having decisions taken by local councillors we can remove that problem. The normal consultation process will apply, but having decisions taken by local authorities is the way forward.

In summary, the clause will give local authorities the power to make their own decisions about local names. That is part of the process through which we want to engage people with their electoral areas, to increase participation in local government elections and local government.

Clause 39

Alistair Burt (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 56, in clause 39, page 22, line 18, leave out ‘two’ and insert ‘four’.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 57, in clause 39, page 22, line

Alistair Burt (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

We now come to an interesting part of the Bill. The Minister has indicated that he will respond, so we hope that he has been refreshed by his break and we look forward to hearing what he has to say. If we are to believe contributions that the Committee has already heard from witnesses and Back Benchers, as well as from Back Benchers on Second Reading, there is plenty of scope for amendment and reconsideration by the Government of this part of the Bill.

A couple of amendments to the clause have been tabled. I will not steal the thunder of hon. Gentlemen representing the Liberal Democrats, who have more fundamental objections than we do to the concept of an elected executive, but I will be interested to join the debate on the next set of clauses. There is plenty of generic interest in the measures.

Perhaps the most difficult thing that the Minister will have to deal with is the sense that this is a top-down reform. For all the Government’s talk about devolving power and giving people more responsibility locally, the clause is another example that shows that the Bill is intended confine local government to a particular set of models at the Government’s insistence. From what we have already heard in relation to previous clauses from colleagues on both sides of the Committee, there is a feeling of concern that goes to the heart of what we talked about during the witness session, which is the sense outside of a degree of separation between the elected and those who elected them, and a concern that there is control from the top down. That sits uncomfortably in a mass participative democracy, in which people every day have more and more opportunity to express their views. The approach that the Minister is taking to the Bill on the back of the White Paper is not quite doing what he would like it to do. I think that we will have a number of discussions on a similar theme.

The limitations of participative democracy have been illustrated over the past few days, as we have seen the interest taken by the general public in the opportunity to petition No. 10. They have taken that opportunity in great numbers, only to have their desire for involvement slapped down by the very people who created the opportunity. There are people out there who are involved and interested, who want to say to the Government, “There are more ways of doing things than you are letting us believe, and your attempt to nanny us and corral us strikes us as an attitude of concern.”

The amendments are relatively small and I will not go into the larger issues affecting the concept of elected executives until we debate the next set of clauses. The amendments propose increasing from three to five the number of councillors who can be involved in the executive, so that the leader of a council would operate with four or more councillors, instead of the two or more councillors suggested in the Bill.

The spirit of the amendment is clear. It is recognition of the sense that things are more likely go wrong in a local authority when matters have been held by a small group of people and not disseminated to the rest of the council than when more people are involved. We maintain that a group of three people, invested with executive authority in a system that does not involve a directly elected mayor, is too small.

That should appeal to the Government’s general sense of control. In theory a group of one is by far the best number to make decisions—preferably the Secretary of State in a Labour Government. How easy decisions are in those circumstances. Great debates can be held. The issues can be examined fairly and objectively and weighed up and of course, the right decision will inevitably be reached. In the real world, however, more people have to be involved in decision making. I am reminded of the story about John F. Kennedy’s dinner for Nobel laureates at the White House. He stood up to address the dinner and said:

“I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White house, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.”

In theory, one can create a special model where a very small number of people may hold control, but unless those people are exceptional it is usually wiser to expand the group. Just two or more councillors, as under the Bill, are not sufficient. We have tabled our amendment, which would make it four or more councillors, to diffuse that executive control. There is a greater risk of cabals when there are only three councillors. When things go wrong in local councils, it is usually caused by a small number of people acting in a clique, often in one-party areas where over time corruption has got in. The smaller the number of people making the decision, the easier it is for such problems to arise.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I have been following the hon. Gentleman’s argument carefully. I think I understand it well. Does it lead him to the conclusion that a mayoral system is potentially more open to corruption than other systems?

Alistair Burt (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

There has to be a check on the power of the elected mayor. Certain safeguards are built in about how much power a mayor has when dealing with a local council elected at the same time and to which he must refer. It is the concentration of executive authority that is worrying. There is a balance to be struck. There are some cases where the public have spoken and directly elect a mayor. The mayor is subject to ultimate accountability by the people and in some cases we want to try that model, provided that the public have an opportunity to express their support and to change that system.

Another of our concerns about the Bill is that it is too much of a one-way street and does not give people enough power to move back from a system that they find uncomfortable. There is always the issue of the concentration of individual power, but directly electing a mayor and the way in which a directly elected mayor must work with the rest of his team make that less likely.

Peter Soulsby (Labour, Leicester South)

Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that it is the strength of the checks and the scrutiny that are most important, rather than the numbers of those who are being checked and scrutinised?

Alistair Burt (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

No, it is a balance between the two. There is a real danger in having a group of only three invested with the powers. Widening the number to five seems a better balance between scrutiny and numbers than the Bill’s provisions.

There was much discussion on Second Reading and among witnesses of the sense that councillors were out of the loop. We will discuss that more when we get around to considering whether there should be an option to allow authorities to go back to a committee system or an enhanced committee system if they want. We will support the amendments moved at that time to ensure that local authorities are given that option. Much of the evidence from witnesses and many of the comments made by Members expressed concern that in local government people came on to councils, but then found that they were out of the loop and not involved, so they did not stay long. They did not feel that the council was something in which they could participate. The smaller the number of people invested with authority, the more likely that is to be the case.

The amendment is a simple, straightforward mechanism to widen the number of people involved; it is safer to have five rather than three. I hope that the Minister will consider the amendment appropriate to the spirit of the Bill, as it would increase the number of people involved in executive authority and involve more people in participatory local democracy.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

Thank you, Mr. Chope. I also thank the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire for the manner in which he has spoken to his amendment, which strikes at the heart of what three of the amendments in the group seek to do. It gives me a good opportunity to explain the Government’s thinking on the executive arrangements.

Members have referred to the Bill as devolutionary. It is indeed a devolutionary Bill, and it is a decentralising Bill. However, I place caveats on that, on behalf not only of the Government, but of Parliament. One could take a completely devolutionary attitude and say that it is up to a council to make its own government arrangements and to do whatever it wants, but Parliament would want some limits to that.

The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire made a point about political disconnection, which also featured on Second Reading. As well as devolving power, we believe that it is equally important that local authorities are given power over significant sums of public money that cover not only local authority spending, but strategic direction over other public spending in the area through the duty to co-operate that the Bill provides, and through the local area agreement process on which it builds. Strong leadership is not merely a phrase or propaganda slogan. Strong leadership, or what can best enhance strong leadership, goes alongside the devolutionary powers.

Alistair Burt (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

While we are on the philosophy and strategy behind the Bill, I fully understand the reason why local authorities are the creation of Parliament and primary legislation, but is not the problem that because the public have become concerned about the centralisation of power—a process in which the Conservatives have played their part over the past 20 years—

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

A small part.

Alistair Burt (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

How good it is to have a colleague who gets to the nub of the issue at just the right moment.

The issue now presents a different problem for Government. It is not only about the curtailing of central power to make sure that local government works, but about bending over a little further and taking a bit more risk to allow the public the sense that centralism is genuinely being withdrawn. When they see the Government’s desire to enforce leadership structures, the public do not feel that that necessary risk is being taken. That point is at the heart of the clauses that deal with executive arrangements.

[Mr. Joe Bentonin the Chair]

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Benton.

The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire makes an important point about philosophy. I was trying to describe the process. It is necessary and right for Parliament and Government to set a framework. Obviously, we are discussing the best model and the best series of options for local councils. If we reflect on a previous debate about all-out elections and elections by thirds, we can see that strong leadership can be provided by either system. That was the most persuasive argument as far as the Government are concerned, which is why the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon, responded as she did.

To add force to my argument: so important does my party think that council leadership is that it is mentioned on page 107 of our manifesto. I can claim, too, a spectrum of political support for strong leadership, although not necessarily using the boundaries in the models that we have proposed. I often refer in public to the examples of Manchester and Kent where, whatever one’s views on party politics in those areas, there has undoubtedly been strong leadership, not just of the council as an institution, but of the place being represented—that is the crucial point. The leader of Manchester council is the leader of that city, not just of the council. I would argue the same for Kent—I use that area because it is a bipartisan example, but I could probably think of some for the Liberal Democrat party, too. In fact, I am desperately trying to do so.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I am sure that Liverpool was on the tip of the Minister’s tongue. I draw his attention to the fact that, of his examples of strong leadership, one council was elected by thirds and the other by an all-out election, so I hope he will take back his comments.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

That was exactly my point and why I responded as I did when I pointed the Committee to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. The criteria would be met, not of devolution, but of an executive and electoral governance model that can provide strong leadership to satisfy the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire, and achieve his goal of better connection, which I think is shared by the whole Committee.

I do not suppose that you will allow me, Mr. Benton, to go into the history of the centralising forces of local government, so I shall not do so.

Alistair Burt (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

Just cover the last 10 years.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

It was the 1945 Government who nationalised the utilities and did most to take financial powers from local government. But hey ho! Herefordshire—I think—is joining its primary care trust and local authority budgets. That is a significant move back from the other great centralising measure against local government—the national health service.

I shall set out the proposed legal changes because authorities and their executive officers will look at this debate, and before responding to the amendment, I shall comment on clause 39 more generally. It provides for changes to the executive arrangements that local authorities in England can adopt—the provisions refer to England only—and does so by amending section 11 of the Local Government Act 2000, which provides that the executive of a local authority shall take one of three forms: a mayor and cabinet executive, a leader and cabinet executive or a mayor and council manager executive.

For the record, in Wales, all things being equal, those three forms of executive arrangement will remain unchanged, subject to any future decisions by the Welsh Assembly and parliamentary approval of this Bill. Clause 39 will provide for those three models in England: a mayor and cabinet executive, a leader and cabinet executive or an elected executive, which we will come on to when we debate the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove.

The arrangements for a mayor and cabinet executive will be the same as they are at present. A person will be elected mayor of an authority and will then appoint two or more councillors of the authority to make up the executive. That is the case at the moment. Changes to the arrangements for a leader and cabinet executive made by clause 39 will strengthen the role of the leader of the council. As happens now, the council will elect a councillor to be the leader of that authority, but whereas the existing legislation allows the executive to be appointed by the leader or the council, in future, that decision will be in the hands of the leader only.

The Bill puts the executive power of the authority in its constitution into the office of the leader. In practice, whether a council is run by majority control or is subject to arrangements if there is no overall control, the process will not change much, if at all, in how the leader is chosen and how his or her power is exercised. The clause provides for the executive power to be in the hands of the person who is accountable to the public through the overview and scrutiny arrangements, an important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South. Those arrangements are the other side of the coin and are not covered in these clauses.

The other significant change is that in future English authorities will no longer be able to adopt the mayor and council manager model of executive. I correct my background briefing paper, which says that there is little support for such a model: there is no support for that model. The intention was to provide for strong executive power to be put in the hands of a mayor and his or her council manager when circumstances required it. In England, there is only one such example: the fine city of Stoke-on-Trent. That is why I made the recent ministerial statement to Parliament and why I am engaged in discussions with Stoke-on-Trent about the interim arrangements should we pass the Bill.

As I said, there is little or no enthusiasm for the model, which has the effect of concentrating power in the hands of an unelected official. Instead, we will make available the option of an elected executive whereby the whole executive is directly elected by the electorate of a council area. We may return to that point later.

The changes develop further the executive arrangements introduced in the 2000 Act, which have done much to speed up and improve the transparency and accountability of the decision-making process. The proposed changes draw on the lessons of research into governance and delivery in local councils, which shows strongly that the single biggest factor driving local government performance is effective and dynamic leadership. The need for such leadership can only grow; the ambitious agenda in which local authorities develop a clear local vision for the future of their area and have the ability to work with the partners we described in the Bill to shape their local economies and social and environmental circumstances can happen only if there is strong, stable and visible leadership.

Alistair Burt (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

The Minister is touching on issues that are covered in the White Paper under the heading “Stronger leadership” in paragraphs 3.15 onwards, which discuss the research he mentioned and the stronger leadership and effectiveness of leadership models. However, paragraph 3.17 states that

“many local authorities have adopted a cautious approach to change.”

Has the Minister or his Department done any research on why, in councils dragging their feet and allowing their feet to do the talking, councils have expressed a preference for not doing things his way? We come back to the sense of giving councils the choice to do things rather than forcing models on them. Why does the Minister think that the councils have been so reluctant?

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

Like the hon. Gentleman, I suspect, I have never believed that radicalism and structural change are the same thing. Some of the best councils have a traditional model of leadership. The Audit Commission’s comprehensive performance assessment scores for the current round will be made available later this week. There is no necessary cause and effect between an executive model and strong leadership; it can depend on the individuals involved and the body politic. New York is often quoted as an example of strong leadership with a mayoral model. Under Giuliani, arguably, it was, but it also went bankrupt under the same electoral model—or nearly bankrupt, but I will not go there. I am not saying necessarily that there is a cause and effect, but I am trying to create the circumstances in which that would be most likely.

Secondly, I believe that the Government are not, as the hon. Gentleman implied, imposing a model. We are trying to give a range of options within a framework within which strong leadership is most likely to come about.

Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

On the options that are going to be made available, most members of this Committee will have been lobbied by a number of groups, including the Local Government Information Unit, which expressed concerns that the Government have ruled out an option whereby the councillors themselves can choose to elect the executive. Would my hon. Friend be good enough to explain why that option was not favoured?

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

In practice, a council will be able to do that. The changes that we are making put the statutory executive power of the council into the hands of the office of the leader of the council. The process by which the council leader and the executive are appointed will, I imagine, be in practice as it is at the moment, through the decision of the majority group and the delegation of power to that leader and his or her executive.

What, therefore, is the purpose of suggesting this change? It is to ensure accountability. It is accountability for the policies and the delivery of the council and, crucially, accountability for the policy and delivery of the council’s services and activities through its partner organisations. They involve huge sums of money and require such accountability. With devolution—and this is an important point at the heart of the Bill—comes responsibility. To ensure that responsibility, it is quite right that accountability to the electorate and the back-bench councillors is there, more so than is currently the arrangement where there is a greater balance of accountability through the Audit Commission process and through Whitehall powers.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

The Minister will also be alert to the comments of the Local Government Information Unit that leadership does not necessarily mean the leader. My particular concern is this: he will have seen the submission from the Commission for Racial Equality, particularly paragraph 11, which expresses concern that the proposed mayoral or elected executive model would make even worse the current under-representation of ethnic minorities at council leadership or cabinet member level. Is not a cabinet of at least five, with opportunities for a leader to balance portfolios to reflect diverse communities, better than one of three?

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

One of the interesting political and policy developments as a result of the Bill is the failure of central and national bodies to realise that when we say we are devolving, we mean it. If Mr. Trevor Phillips writes to me about that point, I will redirect him to send his letter to the leader of a council. It is the council that will have to take such decisions and be accountable for them. I can see circumstances in which the hon. Gentleman is right and where there is a fall away in diversity among executives. If that happens, who is it that should hold that decision to account? Is it me, or more likely, my successor, or the electorate and the elected councillors of that area? I know what is more likely to be effective; I believe that it would be the people and the elected executive.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

Assuming a scenario in which a leader is appointed, and he then appoints, with the tacit agreement of the council, an executive, is it possible during his term of office for him to change entirely that cabinet or executive, perhaps even picking people from a different political party and for the council to be powerless to do anything about that?

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

It is possible, as is the case at the moment. There are councils in which executive power is shared even when a majority group is in control. On Second Reading, we had a debate about East Riding. The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart) intervened, and I pointed out that East Riding was—at the time he was referring to—a very successful Tory-Labour coalition. That coalition now involves the Liberal Democrats and the independents as well. To answer the hon. Member for Southport, that circumstance arises because of the accountability that the council feels to the local electorate, particularly when geographical areas within the local authority have different political traditions. Many members of the Committee will be familiar with that. Therefore, such accountability is more likely to come forward in those circumstances.

Alistair Burt (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

We do not wish to hear talk about the hon. Gentleman’s successor. May the king live for ever. He deserves it.

I want to bring the hon. Gentleman back to his earlier comment about the models of leadership and his not believing that he was offering a prescriptive model. I bring him back to my central contention—I do not think that others see it as he and the Government see it. The LGA brief states:

“The aim of the executive arrangements is clearly to enable strong leadership. While we support that objective, we believe that there is no single model or set of models suitable everywhere. Councils should have the discretion to put in place arrangements to suit their circumstances, including exploring new types of arrangements not currently on the face of the Bill.”

The LGA does not feel that it is having a free and open choice even though the Minister believes he is not being prescriptive about strong leadership. I ask him to reconsider the point that the nature of the Bill is less devolutionary than he thinks it is.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He referred to the LGA brief. I think what I said previously—and certainly what I intended to say—was that the Bill was not unduly prescriptive. It is quite right that there are limits to the devolution. One could envisage circumstances in which some authorities may go for a kibbutz-type of executive arrangements or perhaps even rolling referendums by text message every day. Some of the proposals that I have seen—

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

Petitions on websites?

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

The hon. Gentleman chides me by saying petitions. His party would try to govern the country—God forbid if it was ever given the opportunity—by decision through petition. That would mean contradictory decisions every hour of the day. I was not going to mention which party was responsible for some of the local authority governance models that would result in the clogging up of decisions. One can imagine what I am talking about.

I am teasing the hon. Gentleman, but there is a serious point. If one was serious about devolving power over executive decisions and public finances without putting conditions on what executive arrangements there should be, the majority of authorities would opt for an indirectly elected leader and executive. In practice, the process of choosing that leader and executive will be the same as it is at the moment. However, there is an important change on accountability, which strikes at the heart of what the hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve when he talks about reconnecting or connecting executives with the public. That is why I refer to being unduly prescriptive.

Regarding the new types of executive models, we again have to strike a balance between allowing authorities to make innovative suggestions and not allowing the irresponsible devolution of powers. As we will consider later, the directly elected executive model, one of the three options in the Bill, has come from local authorities. It did not come directly from the debates within the Department, but from within the local authority family.

Andrew Stunell rose—

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

I will give way once more but, Mr. Benton, I think that you will insist that I address the amendment, which is what I am meant to be speaking about.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I am interested in the point that the Minister has just made about the model coming from local government. Does he recall the look of bafflement on the face of the LGA deputation when they were asked where the model had come from and what the arguments in favour of it were?

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

I have seen a look of bafflement on the faces of members of the LGA on many occasions—worthy body that it is.

I can but repeat the fact that the idea of directly elected executives came from local councils throughout the political spectrum. On the one hand, I am accused of heavy handed centralism, while on the other I am criticised for taking an open, devolutionary approach. However, I guess that that comes with the territory.

The amendment would restrict councils’ range of options for the size of their executive when they choose to operate either a leader and cabinet executive or an elected executive. In the case of a leader and cabinet executive in England, the range of options is the same as the 2000 Act already provides for the existing leader and cabinet model. It is also along the same lines as the elected executive model. I listened carefully to the arguments made by the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire for increasing the minimum size of an executive to five from the current three. In essence, all the arguments are judgments about what we think may be appropriate in particular circumstances.

In some circumstances, five might be appropriate. In other circumstances, it may be eight or four. One of the things that I have learned in this job is just how important geography is to a local authority and to how decisions are taken. Let us consider the example of Cornwall, which is a significant geographical area, and compare it with the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish in Tameside. The geography—let alone the history and culture—changes how decisions are made and rightly so, which means that models of accountability must have flexibility. There is a fine line.

Alistair Burt (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

The Minister’s argument suggests that executives should be larger rather than smaller to deal with such matters.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

My argument concludes that greater flexibility is required. We are teasing out some paradoxes. Here I am again being devolutionary—let them choose.

The hon. Gentleman made a serious point about corruption. He referred to circumstances in which corruption would be more likely if there were only a small number of people. I acknowledge the common sense of that view, but I refer him to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South that accountability and scrutiny by the council and councillors individually and, of course, the probity of the officers protect us all against corruption in local government. The numbers that we propose under the Bill are the same as the existing circumstances. I am sure all Members join me in welcoming the probity of our local government, which in 99.9 per cent. of cases has proved to be very trustworthy. I am sure that the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire would join me in acknowledging that point.

The judgment is balanced, but greater flexibility is important. I want to put on record some of the principles behind the clause. Those that underpin the executive arrangements under the Local Government Act 2000 and the Bill are important. The Act provided for the first time a separation of the executive of the council and what is called the back bench of the council. I do not think it is appropriate to use a parliamentary term in respect of a council, but I am sure that members of the Committee will acknowledge the difference.

The 2000 Act provided that most council decisions were to be taken by a small number of high-profile, visible councillors whom the public recognised as responsible for those decisions, rather than through the previous committee structure, which I do not believe was transparent, visible or accountable to the public. That was done to make it clear to the public who within the council was responsible for those decisions. It was also done to speed up decision making and to enable councils to give more effective leadership for their areas.

Again, that is important in the context of the Bill. It is not just a question of speeding up decisions for the sake of it, or at the expense of consultation or accountability. It is important for the coming together of local authorities and their partners that decisions can be taken effectively and speedily. The biggest single complaint against local authorities from the private, voluntary and community sectors is the lack of effective decision making.

Peter Soulsby (Labour, Leicester South)

Does my hon. Friend accept that his point about the division between the executive and scrutiny is actually an argument for restricting the maximum size of the executive rather than the minimum size? Problems with the status and effectiveness of scrutiny are often a reflection of the perception—at the least—that all the most effective members of a local authority manage to become members of the executive and that scrutiny is undertaken by those who are left out.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

My hon. Friend raises an important point. My argument is against the amendment, the consequence of which could be interpreted as he said. Greater flexibility is what is important. It is sensible to have a maximum—I think that the figure is 10. Again, there is a balance.

The idea behind the 2000 Act was to make executive decision making more visible, more transparent and therefore more accountable, as well as to speed it up. The Act also did something equally important that the Bill builds upon, which was to provide for overview and scrutiny to hold the executive to account and to facilitate policy development in the local authority. The overview and scrutiny process does not merely scrutinise. It can take up reports, investigate and make recommendations to the council like our own parliamentary Select Committees. Despite the pain they can sometimes cause a Government, it is acknowledged by Governments and the House that they are a valuable part of our democratic process.

In building overview and scrutiny—one councillor described it at the Birmingham conference as overscrew and mutiny, which I took as a compliment to the concept—we are building on the 2000 Act in the Bill. We see it as an evolution, admitting that the council manager problem has not worked out as intended. We seek to develop further the governance framework for councils, both as regards the executive and—as we shall see when we come to overview and scrutiny later in the Bill—so that we can facilitate councils’ delivery of the strong, effective and accountable leadership needed to shape the areas they represent and not just the institutions of which they are the executive controllers, as well as their delivery of higher quality and responsive public services. One key point about leadership of local authorities is the ability to work with other partners from the business, voluntary and public sectors to make a joint effort to implement strategies. That is why executive models are so important in the new local government era.

I think I have answered the points that the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire made. He talked about the nature of participative democracy as opposed to representative democracy, and one must strike a balance, whether through the Bill’s measures to facilitate people’s involvement or not. It is obviously important to us all that actions or explanations for inaction are given in response to public involvement.

The point behind the Government’s thinking is that although opportunities for involvement and for influencing decisions are crucial, we cannot allow participative democracy to replace representative democracy. That would lead to a lack of decision making. It is a tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s imagination that the idea of increasing two to four on an executive was turned into a fundamental political philosophical debate, despite the fact that he directly contradicted the contribution from the hon. Member for Poole. However, I guess that they have to probe.

I hope that I have provided the Committee with an explanation of the Government’s thinking, and I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

Alistair Burt (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Benton.

The debate has been an interesting, and I am grateful for the way in which the Minister has dealt with it, but his imagination is running riot if he thought a contradiction was emerging between my hon. Friend the Member for Poole and me.

The Champagne moment this morning came from the Minister spreading open his arms and saying, “I am going to be devolutionary. Let them choose”. I shall remind him of those words when we discuss other models of council leadership. However, for now, I appreciate the debate, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I beg to move amendment No. 38, in clause 39, page 22, line 28, leave out subsection (6).

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 39, in clause 40, page 23, leave out line 19.

No. 40, in clause 40, page 23, leave out line 36.

No. 41, in clause 41, page 26, leave out line 13.

No. 43, in clause 41, page 28, leave out lines 10 to 15.

No. 45, in clause 41, page 29, leave out line 33.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I shall start by dealing with the question of strong leadership. Everybody in the room is in favour of strong leadership; the alternative would be to be in favour of weak leadership. Similarly, we are all in favour of good government, because the alternative is to be in favour of bad government. The Minister introduced the idea that we should be in favour of good devolution, rather than bad devolution, or as he put it, irresponsible devolution. I sign up to strong and good against bad and weak. Let us be quite clear about that.

The amendments would remove the proposal for an elected executive. I welcome what the Minister had to say about the continuation of the existing executive model. It, of course, contradicted the Bill, but it was good to hear that there will be no change. There will be a four-year term and increased accountability, but councils will be free to wangle the new rules that the Government impose on them, so that they can carry on as they do at present. Accountable turns into fixed as normal.

At the heart of the Government’s proposals there is confusion based on the complete misconception that strong leadership must mean strongly centralised leadership. The elected executive proposal provides a clear example of that confusion. The Minister referred to the examples of Kent and of Manchester. I might have mentioned Somerset and Liverpool. All sorts of examples show that neither the leadership model, nor the electoral system, or anything tangible in the Bill, leads to a significant difference in the performance of councils. Neither the number of stars councils get, nor what Ofsted thinks about them—or any of the factors that the Government routinely take into account to judge councils’ performance—are affected, either for the better or the worse, by the leadership models under which they function. That is not to say that there is no diversity in the performance of two councils with the same leadership model. Despite all the praying in aid of strong leadership for the model under discussion, it falls to bits if it is considered seriously.

The debate on clause 41 will probably go more to the heart of our criticism of the Bill than will the discussion on this group of amendments, which are designed to remove one of the models that the Minister is proposing. When we get to that clause, I shall argue that, in the spirit of devolution—with open arms, as the Minister so clearly demonstrated with his body language—we should be aiming for internal self-government for local authorities. We should have as many different models as possible with the minimum of prescription. Incidentally, I would not have supported the Conservative amendment, because it would have restricted councils’ freedom and ability to decide what to do.

I am surprised and disappointed that the Government are withdrawing the town manager model. It is okay to say that there is no support for it, but what is wrong with leaving it on the books so that a local authority can consider it as a possibility? The Minister may ask why, if I am saying that, do I want to get rid of the elected executive model? I should explain that I want to do so because it is operationally fundamentally flawed and unworkable. The Minister has had difficulty picking a solitary local authority that wanted the system. One was provided for him in the evidence session; it turned out to be Stockton. The response of the LGA representatives was, “Well, we do not have a whipping system in the LGA, so Stockton can think what it likes”—with “However daft it is” in square brackets. That must have been a powerful piece of evidence for the former Secretary of State, who has a constituency in the neighbourhood. However, it was not a powerful piece of evidence for the current Secretary of State, whose constituency is in the metropolitan borough of Bolton, which has no overall majority of members at the moment and has had changing leadership over the past three years.

We need to consider carefully the proposed model and what is wrong with it. It is unworkable in the most basic way. Some of the problems will be illustrated when we get to clause 41. A recent Conservative amendment would have restricted the size of the executive. Under the directly elected executive model, the size of the executive would have been predetermined before the process got to the ballot box. That means that it is not open to a Conservative party to say that it believes in a limited, small number or, perhaps—having just heard its views in the debate—a large number. Perhaps it would want a 14 or 15 executive member system—following what the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire said—as the way the authority should be led in future. It would not be open to a Labour party, perhaps with a more centralist view or a mini-mayor model, to say that it wanted a slate with two members on. What is wrong in practical, working terms, is the predetermination of the slate size, which cannot be a matter of electoral competition between the parties.

Other problems include the fact that, if the leader of a council goes under the executive model, all the members of the executive are immediately dismissed. I wonder whether the Government have considered what would happen if the leader was hit by a bus a fortnight before the council was to take a budget decision and all the executive members were taken out. There will be no opportunity to change elected members who are not up to the job—no crop rotation. If we have a Home Office situation—I do not wish to wallow in the Government’s grief on that—it will be impossible to move an executive member who is failing in the job or has become discontented with their lot. Of course there are all sorts of problems because, as has been mentioned, it is not automatic that the party with the largest number of votes in an area gets the largest number of seats. That is interesting in my borough of Stockport, where it has happened on a number of occasions.

That brings us to the matter of running elections for the council at the same time as those for the elected executive. Using rational thought, it seems to me that the leading councillors from each political group will be in the slates for the executive. One of those slates will be elected—let us say for argument that it is the Labour slate—at which point the executive members’ council seats will become vacant and there will be a set of by-elections to replace them. In an authority such as Tameside, where there is a regular, substantial majority of Labour voters in most wards, perhaps that would not be a problem. However, one can perfectly well see that in a large number of other places—I could speculate on where they might be—the subsequent by-elections would result in non-Labour members being elected and the majority of the Labour administration being lost.

All those issues are straightforward and practical, and the current model completely fails to address them. There is also the small matter of the change in political composition that takes place anyway as time goes on. Some 30 per cent. of local authorities currently have no overall control and 40 per cent. have experienced such a period in the past eight years. When we reach clause 41, I shall argue that it is void for want of certainty. It is impossible to tell how it will work or is intended to work and what its outcome will be, other than that all the predictions suggest it will be error-prone and prone to catastrophic failure because of the Government’s inability to say precisely what they believe should happen in each case. None of the situations in question is dealt with in the Bill.

In the spirit of our earlier debate, I ask the Minister to reconsider the matter, reintroduce it in the Lords if that is what he wishes to do and make some connection between people who know how local government works and the person holding a quill pen who wrote the words in the Bill. The clause is fundamentally and completely unworkable. That brings me back to my first point: if the Government wish to introduce more and more different models that councils can opt into, that is fine by me. I do not have a problem with it, nor does my party. However, just as they have now decided that they made a serious mistake with the town manager model for Stoke, which they have withdrawn, they have the opportunity to recognise the serious mistake they are making on this occasion before they make it. They can have another go at introducing a model that makes practical sense for local authority management and leadership.

I could wax lyrical and longer, but I have made my point as clearly and explicitly as I can. The model is unworkable and would be completely catastrophic for any local authority. Unless the Government can satisfy us on a number of issues, it is clear that they or their successors will come back to us and say, “It’s like Stoke mark 2. We screwed up and we want to take it away.”

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I am interested in the observations of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove and I have a lot of sympathy with him, gained from my own experience in local government and from talking to other people. I would prefer that the Government did not prescribe the governance system for councils at all. I would prefer that it was left for them to decide in a broadly devolutionary fashion, but if the Government are going to do it, they should get it right.

It is noteworthy that a range of the written submissions made to the Committee highlight exactly the same sort of practical concerns as those the hon. Gentleman has just described. The Local Government Association raised that concern and the submission from Unlock Democracy went into considerable detail about the practical implications. I do not want to repeat what the hon. Gentleman has said, but there seems to be a real concern here. The elected executive is a peculiar combination of a strong mayor model on the one hand and the traditional executive leader and cabinet that we are becoming used to on the other.

I see the logic of the strong mayor model. It is not always appropriate but one sees the logic of adopting the American pattern of one directly elected figurehead, with some separation between the elected mayor and the council that scrutinises him. In a Committee considering a different Bill, I criticised the way we have not followed that logic through in London. Under those circumstances, there is an argument for the mayor’s executive being separate from the council. That is what happens in New York where there is a system of deputy mayors who are not members of the city council. They form a legislature cum scrutiny body.

An interesting idea for a directly elected mayor of London in the future would be to have a slate and deputy mayors rather than some of the other bodies, but that is not what we have now. The directly elected executive takes the worst of that system—it removes the executive from the membership of the council—but does not have the benefit of the strong, single political figurehead with the strong electoral mandate that one has in the New York or London style systems. It falls between two stools. That is very dangerous.

I am just about old enough to have been elected to a London borough at a time when it still had something that was referred to colloquially as the aldermanic by-elections. There was a period when councillors elected a certain number of aldermen and there were frequently by-elections to fill their places.

Patrick Hall rose—

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman remembers that.

Patrick Hall (Labour, Bedford)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he think that the directly elected executive, whether or not there is support for it around the country, does not have a leader? I think it does.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

It certainly has a leader, but it is undesirable to decouple the members of the executive from membership of the council in the way that is proposed here and create by-elections. Although the leader has some status, it is not the same in terms of public perception and electoral legitimacy as that of a mayor. In the New York scenario it would be “Vote for Bloomberg for mayor” together with a list of his nominees for deputy mayor. It is not the same in practice. That is the real problem here.

In the days when there were by-elections to fill vacancies created when councillors were appointed to be aldermen, the turnout was usually minuscule. About a month after the main election for councillors one would try to persuade people to go out and vote again. Frequently turnout was down to about 10 per cent., which did nothing for democracy. The point is well made by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove. We have seen it in by-elections to this House when Ministers have been sent to the House of Lords, such as Lord Whitelaw of Penrith and others.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

You lost that seat.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Exactly. The electorate sometimes react against what they perceive to be a needless by-election. Funnily enough, the Government are creating a needless hostage to electoral fortune in requiring councils to go through that process. It is no good the leader of the council explaining that he did not want to have these by-elections to fill the places of members who are now members of his executive but that the Government require him to do so. That will not cut much ice with voters who wonder why on earth they will have to go through the rigmarole again a matter of weeks after they had had just done so. I think it would damage the credibility of the electoral system.

Secondly, I do not think it is desirable for the elected members in this system not to be people with constituents and constituencies. That is the difference: with the mayoral system, everybody seems to understand the separation of powers. The proposed system seems to hover between the two; it does not quite go the whole hog of the separation of powers on the American model, which might be intellectually justifiable, but produces some of the downsides without some of the benefits.

The point is also made about how important it is, if we are going to have somebody who is called the leader of the capital, that that person can demonstrate to the electors and the residents of the borough or district that they command the confidence of the majority of the councillors. It is very difficult for them to work otherwise. If people want a directly elected mayor again, that is fair enough, as they do not require that because they have their independent mandate. However, to dilute that situation with the leader and the executive is undesirable. Things do happen—councils change control. A practical example comes from my part of the world. Control of the London borough of Bromley changed as a result of two by-elections between the council elections, not this time but the time before. From 1998 to 2001, there was a change of control. What would happen if we had had a leader and an executive ostensibly there for a four-year term, but the majority of the council had gone the other way? That clearly would not be sustainable. There has got to be proper provision to prevent that happening.

There is also a concern about the inability to shuffle the pack. When I was a councillor in the London borough of Havering, the leader of the council appointed the committee chairmen, and they effectively formed a Cabinet. There came points when we thought that is was appropriate within our four-year term to move members around, so somebody might have been chairman of the housing committee for a couple of years—it might have been four years, and passed through an election—and wanted to bring people on. Somebody might have said they were not going to stand again at the next election, and he might want to bring somebody forward to get into that portfolio in time to fight the next election. There is nothing to suggest how that would be possible under the present system. Those are exactly the practical, nitty-gritty bits of day-to-day local government practice which whoever drafted the current proposal does not seem to have taken on board. That is why I have real misgivings about the way the clause is currently drafted. I really think that the Government should think about it again.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

I think we are engaged in creating undue disharmony from over-prescription. I would like to illustrate that with reference to my local authority, of which you and I, Mr. Benton, were members and, I think, leaders. I hope that we were strong leaders; I am sure that we were.

The current system in Sefton is that elections occur by thirds. The executive is established and it reflects the balance of the parties and the balance of the whole area. From square one, as long as there has been an executive, Sefton has had that system. We are very sensible, mature people who are capable of talking to one another, and habitually on the Cabinet, there has been a Tory leader, a Labour leader and a Lib Dem leader, with the Lib Dems currently leading the council—for obvious reasons, connected with electoral success. It does not lead to inefficiency: the Audit Commission and comprehensive performance assessment bear that out. It does not lead to hard decisions being dodged, and it does not lead to a lack of ability to work together. In fact, this year, the budget, which is normally agreed by two parties, was agreed by all three parties. What would be a nightmare in that situation would be an executive slate on a party basis. That would be profoundly distorting because of the political geography of Sefton. I am not sure that it is as politically diverse as Denton and Reddish, but it is certainly pretty diverse. Labour wins seats only in Bootle, and nobody else does, despite sincere trying from time to time, as you are all too clearly aware, Mr. Benton.

Central Sefton is a bit of a mix, and Labour never wins anything and never has in Southport. Whatever executive there were, including a directly elected executive on a party slate, it would necessarily be seen as a colonial power in some part of the borough. We could be saved by sticking with the status quo, although that is not quite the situation, and choose the option of leader and cabinet. Obviously, any leader in that sort of scenario would be very wise to appoint an all-party cabinet. However, as I understand it, there is nothing in arrangements currently before us that would prevent a clear-out by the leader, a quick change in the cabinet—rather like the Prime Minister from time to time changes his Cabinet—that destroys that balance, so reducing the authority to a state of comparative paralysis. Such things happen—if a leader went mad under the current four-year term arrangements, there would be little option other than to shoot him. There is an entirely workable and happy arrangement in Sefton, which operates consensually and satisfactorily whereas, under the Bill, we would be pinioned between two really quite unattractive alternatives.

Alistair Burt (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

When I first examined the clause, my approach was a permissive one—similar to that of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, who said that he had had trouble with ruling things out of the Bill, because if people want a directly elected executive, we should let them have one. However, given the further remarks that have been made by both him and others, I feel that the Minister needs to do more if he is to satisfy the Committee that the proposal is a good one.

The Minister mentioned that the idea came from local authorities themselves, but we could do with a bit of evidence for that. Stockton was mentioned in the witness discussion, but I cannot see in the White Paper a long list of councils that have clamoured for the proposal, and it would help if the Minister said where the push actually came from. The illustrations of practical flaws that have been given by those who have commented have been quite significant, and one wonders which council has missed them.

Let me pick out one of those flaws. It comes from one of the Minister’s party colleagues, so I think that he ought to answer it. Jeremy Beecham told the witness sitting of the Committee that he was unhappy with the proposal. He said:

“There is...a question as to why it is necessary for the executive not to be drawn...from elected councillors? Why do you have to treat them, as it were, as a class apart within the council?”——[Official Report, Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2007; c. 19.]

He made that point in answer to an issue that was raised by the hon. Member for Bedford about the involvement of councillors, and to illustrate that one could have all sorts of initiatives to involve councillors with a strong leadership model, and yet, despite that, the directly elected executive leadership model would produce a further barrier to involvement. Given that a colleague of the Minister offered that concern, the Minister might wish to think about it.

My second point is one that has cropped up on a number of occasions and was made by Unlock Democracy—the “one-way street” argument. The White Paper and the Bill presume that if the model adopted is that of a directly elected mayor or a directly elected executive, then that will be fixed and there will not be an opportunity to reconsider. That seems contrary to the spirit of devolution in which the Minister has set out.

The Minister has a tough set of questions to answer on the practical difficulties that have been raised by so many people connected with local government.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

I think particular praise should be given to you in your Chairman’s role, Mr. Benton, because obviously you had to remain neutral when the hon. Member for Southport made comments on your local council. The frozen look on your face was one that I wanted to put on record for the benefit of the readers of the Liverpool Echo. My mind boggles at where we could go on that.

Throughout the debate, including in the weeks and months preceding today, I have been surprised by the level of opposition from the hon. Member for Hazel Grove to the proposal. He has campaigned and spoken with some force, and I find that genuinely surprising. The idea for a directly elected executive, or a slate, came initially from Stockton council and has been considered by other authorities including, I believe, Cornwall and Durham county council. As I said during the previous debate, it is often the geography of a place that dictates the arrangements for best governance. I make my argument on this basis; the hon. Member for Hazel Grove has been almost passionate in his opposition to the model, and yet he claims that his approach is a permissive devolutionary one—if the model does not work, let Stockton worry about it. The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire said we had got it wrong over the city manager model—no, Stoke council has said it does not want it and I will not tell Stoke that it has to have it. That is perfectly permissive, but it passes the test of strong executive arrangements.

The hon. Member for Southport said that everything was hunky-dory in Sefton. Everything is not hunky-dory in Sefton. Your constituents, Mr. Benton, require good services, improvement in economic performance and regeneration. North Liverpool’s regeneration is the largest single infrastructure project in the United Kingdom, and it came about not because of strong leadership from Sefton council—I pay tribute to the hard work that the council does—but because of the intervention of the private sector and Government agencies. That is why it is happening.

We cannot accept that the status quo in all parts of the country is enough; we have a responsibility to ensure that the best models are in place. Regarding the directly elected model, I do not accept the argument that, on the one hand, we should be devolutionary and permissive and, on the other, because hon. Members do not like this particular model, it should not be allowed. That seems to be contradictory. If there are difficulties with that model, let us talk them through with the relevant local authorities.

I get the impression from Opposition Members that they do not accept the case that strong leadership matters.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

With respect to the Minister, does he accept that the thrust of the argument some of us are making is not that there is anything wrong with being devolutionary, but that it is the Government who have chosen to set up a particular menu from which councils must choose and therefore that it is incumbent on the Government to ensure that the menu includes options that are practically workable? That is my real concern.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire asked me to provide evidence of where the idea had come from, and I have done so.

Alistair Burt (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

You gave me three pieces of evidence.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

That makes it wrong?

Alistair Burt (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

No.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

Okay, so it does not make it wrong.

I will run out of time and I do not want to delay the Committee. Regarding the points that the hon. Gentleman has made about the comments by Sir Jeremy Beecham, I would give the same answer to Sir Jeremy Beecham as I have given to him. I do not think it is incumbent on me to respond to those points just because Sir Jeremy is in my party; it is incumbent on me to respond to the hon. Gentleman’s points because he is the Opposition spokesman.

Where the Government disagree with Sir Jeremy is that the model has come forward from local councils and it provides for a directly elected slate, which would offer visible and accountable leadership. There may be pragmatic problems in implementing it, but there are pragmatic problems in implementing any model of government. I am sure that, when our forefathers introduced the idea of ward councillors, they envisaged practical problems. However, in my view those problems can be overcome. The model is not a one-way street; it does provide for a reversal of the decision. The principle that underlies the arrangements in the Bill is that the method by which a leadership model is chosen is the method that can undo it, whether that be referendum or decision.

The hon. Member for Southport described the situation in Sefton. He could be absolutely right, but I would imagine that Sefton will not opt for this model, because of the reasons that the hon. Gentleman has given. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst displayed a centralising tendency, in effect saying, “Well, I will devolve as long as I like the model that is being given”. I do not accept that.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

As long as it works.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

The hon. Gentleman should trust the local electorate and the local authorities.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

I beg to move,

That the Order of the Committee [30 January], as amended [8 February], be varied as follows—

In paragraph 1(g) leave out ‘and 4.30 p.m.’.

The effect of the amendment will be to allow members of the Committee to attend the GLA debate on Tuesday afternoon.

Alistair Burt (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

We are happy to accept that. It is regrettable that a bit of shuffling is needed because the Department has Bills running at the same time, but that happens in a busy Department. I am sure that we can accommodate the amendment and ensure that we work to a timetable on which we can all agree.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I am certainly content with the motion, although I note that we might need to work late occasionally to make up the time.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 39, in clause 40, page 23, leave out line 19.

No. 40, in clause 40, page 23, leave out line 36.

No. 41, in clause 41, page 26, leave out line 13.

No. 43, in clause 41, page 28, leave out lines 10 to 15.

No. 45, in clause 41, page 29, leave out line 33.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

I thank the hon. Gentlemen for accepting the motion. The pace of devolution takes parliamentary time, and I am glad to see that the other Bill sponsored by the Department is proceeding as well.

When we adjourned, I was putting my argument against the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, which would delete the option of directly elected executives. Although that option probably will not be taken up widely by local government, the Government want to make it available.

I shall fulfil my undertaking to provide some of the evidence that the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire asked for in relation to findings on the changes made under the Local Government Act 2000. A number of pieces of research independent of Government have found improvements in the decision making, performance and leadership of councils as a result of the changes. Perhaps most prominent is the “State of the English Cities” report published in 2006, which laid particular emphasis on the economic success of local authority areas as a result of enhanced leadership. Research on best value in 2006 also showed that leadership was

“the single most significant driver of change and improvement in local authorities”.

There is a positive correlation between political leadership and the representative package of best value performance indicators.

Our Department—or its predecessor, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; the Department changes its name every now and again—carried out research in 2003. The local government workplace front-line staff survey—we have always gone for snappy titles—showed that front-line staff in the authorities that were performing less well, that is, those that the Audit Commission identified as weak or poor, were significantly more likely than those in good or excellent authorities to say that they needed better leadership by senior officers.

Alistair Burt (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

Ten out of 10 for artistic impression—that is an heroic effort to justify the Government’s proposals, but I remind the Minister of what we are talking about. We are trying not to get some measure of the importance of strong leadership in delivering effective local government—that is taken as read—but to justify the Minister’s and the Government’s contention that the desire for directly elected executives has been a ripple running through local government, stimulated by local government and councils themselves. It is not about research bodies talking about strong leadership or others commenting on it, but about finding the spark in the local government system that said, “We want this, and we want it now.” Despite the Minister’s best efforts, I am still uncertain that we are talking about a mass movement beyond two or three councillors thinking that it might be a good idea.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

As ever, the hon. Gentleman advances an heroic argument to justify inaction. As my evidence shows, the Government’s strategy for improving local government has proved to be working. One element of that strategy—I concede that it is only one—is our emphasis on better leadership of local authorities.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

The evidence that the Minister is bravely offering to try to justify his argument refers to “officers”. Much though councillors want to say that the leadership issue is about them, officers’ leadership is important as well. In my borough of Enfield, the change of leadership of the elected councillors, a change of officers at senior level and a much more streamlined leadership approach led to improvements, as the Audit Commission results this week will show.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to pay tribute to the chief executives and senior officers. The Local Government Association and the Government—if it is not immodest of me to say so—should be congratulated on the emphasis that they placed on the importance of chief executives and senior officers. The Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers should be congratulated on performing the tasks that we ask the chief executives to carry out, especially when we bear in mind councils’ partnership arrangements, whereby chief executives at management leadership level take on a raft of responsibilities. They serve their areas and the country well. We should all be proud of that on a non-partisan basis.

Our research included senior officers and frontline staff. The work on best value that was commissioned in 2006 showed the importance of leadership. The front-line staff survey backed that finding by considering authorities in the different categories. An evaluation survey in 2004 also backed the findings, showing, for example, that leadership by executive members was positively associated with the joining up of services and the better delivery of services to local people. In that survey, 71 per cent. of the respondents believed that leadership by executive councillors had had a positive impact on performance improvements in their authority.

A survey of councillors, officers and other interested parties in 2005 followed consideration of the impact of the Local Government Act 2000. Opposition Members, reasonably and rightly, often call for post-legislative scrutiny, and evidence on the 2000 Act shows that the role of leader was perceived to have become stronger by 79 per cent. of respondents in the case of authorities with an elected mayor, and by 69 per cent. of respondents in the case of other authorities. More than half the councillors and nearly three-quarters of the officers believed that the executive had become more effective in articulating the vision for their area under the new arrangements.

The latest research from the ongoing evaluation of the new councils’ constitution is being undertaken by the university of Manchester, which has played a very positive role in research on local government, as it has in every discipline of learning. It is probably the finest university in the United Kingdom. It found that 69 per cent. of councillors and 76 per cent. officers perceived the role of the leader to be stronger under the new executive arrangements. Moreover, some 52 per cent. of councillors and 72 per cent. of officers believed that the executive is more effective in articulating its vision for its area under the new arrangements, and 53 per cent. of councillors and 62 per cent. of officers believe that the executive has led the drive to service performance.

That is substantial evidence. Of course, it is reasonable for hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, to want evidence that accountability and scrutiny have gone hand in hand in that process.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I understand the Minister’s point, but where is the specific evidence that a directly elected leader and executive contribute? We all accept the general point, but how many local authorities in the research specifically said, “We want to have a directly elected leader and executive,” as opposed to the model of a leader and executive cabinet appointed by the local authority?

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

Once again, I invite the hon. Gentleman to come out of his centralist mindset and join me in the devolutionary world, where the matter is one for local authorities or, in the case of referendums for the position of elected mayor, for the local people to decide.

I referred to the strong support for the idea that the mayoral model has created an improvement in leadership, albeit not hugely greater than other executive arrangements—10 per cent. or thereabouts. An interesting piece of evidence for elected Members of Parliament and elected councillors who read this debate is that 68 per cent. of people surveyed in areas where there is an elected mayor knew the name of the mayor and who was responsible for their area, as opposed to 37 per cent. of people in a non-mayoral area recognising their council leader. That figure compares reasonably with Members of Parliament and shows that, in areas that have chosen to go for a mayor, the mayor’s high visibility has helped accountability. But—there is a big but, of course—the Government are not saying and have never said, “Thou shalt have a mayor.” We have said simply, “If you want one, you can have one,” in order to improve leadership arrangements.

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

I would like to take the Minister back to his remarks a few moments ago, when he stressed the importance of local authorities determining for themselves the structure of executive arrangements that they wish to take forward. Why has he excluded a hybrid committee structure in conjunction with an elected leader or mayor? That system has worked well in many local authorities—I am sure that we will come on to that point later in the debate. Why cannot local authorities determine the structure for themselves?

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point, which many authorities across the spectrum have made, asking, “Why can’t we have committees?” You would probably pull me up if I were to go into detail on that, Mr. Benton, because we are discussing the amendment on directly elected mayors tabled by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove. I shall just say “horse” and “camel”, and perhaps you will get a hint of the argument that I shall use when we consider the evidence of the success or otherwise of the committee structure. I refer, of course, to the idea that God so loved the earth that he sent his only son, not a committee, and if you try to design a horse by committee you end up with a camel.

If we seriously want to devolve strategic power over billions of pounds of public expenditure, the public will want accountable leadership and clear decision-making structures. That is my argument on the executive models. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove has put strongly an argument against the model of directly elected executives, arguing that it is unworkable and that support for it among local authorities is not huge. I argue that it is a reasonable model that has been proposed by some in local government and that satisfies the criteria that the Government have set in their policy. I invite the hon. Gentleman to put aside his centralising tendencies and join me in the idea that councils that want to take forward that model should be allowed to do so. I therefore invite him to withdraw the amendment.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

Some of the Minister’s words have been carefully noted down for subsequent debates. When I moved the amendment I prefaced my remarks by making it absolutely clear that, like everybody else in the room, I am in favour of strong leadership models. Obviously, what is in dispute is whether a particular style of governance is more or less likely to produce that strong leadership and positive outcomes for local authorities. There is clearly a difference of opinion between the Minister and myself on his other proposed models, but they are not the subject of the amendments before us.

I am appearing almost passionate about this group of amendments—that is how the Minister was kind enough to describe it—because the Government’s proposal is completely dysfunctional. It will not work. I cannot see how it could be made to work in a way that would allow a local authority to have strong leadership. The proposal is based on a series of premises that appears to be completely disconnected from any experience of how local government is run or indeed how any Government is run. At no point did the Minister make the case for a directly elected Cabinet in Whitehall. If we contemplate what that would produce, and the side effects, we will see that it would be as wrong for the governing party as for opposition parties and the country as a whole. As soon as we look at that model in a more familiar setting, it becomes transparent that it is completely dysfunctional.

A number of other points have been raised in the debate. Several Members commented on the problems that might arise from changes to control, capacity or aptitude, and on the necessity of bringing in new people during a four-year term or to rotate portfolios. All those things are ruled out by the proposed model. Such failings would mean less strong leadership than under the current executive model, whatever its strengths and weaknesses.

The Minister’s justification is that the system he proposes will improve accountability. It is extremely difficult to follow his argument when presented in that form. It will improve accountability in the sense that the people involved will be directly elected once every four years, but if it all goes wrong and after two years the directly-elected leader says, “It has all gone wrong in social services and I would really like to get rid of this person, but I cannot and you cannot blame me because I am trapped by the system,” where is the accountability? Who is loses an election on that basis? There is no accountability.

One wonders also about scrutiny. Let us suppose that a major gaffe is disclosed when scrutinising a particular department and the performance of the executive member directly elected to handle it. Scrutiny can be as condemnatory as it likes, but it cannot actually remove or hold to account that person, who can simply wave two fingers at the scrutiny committee and say, “I have got another two and a half years to serve and there is no way that you can touch me.” If that is accountability, the Minister has got a different view of it from the one that I hold and that I think that the Committee should also hold.

As hard as I read the Bill, I cannot get to the bottom of another aspect of the system. We have raised already the question of what happens if a subsequent by-election produces a change of party in the representatives elected to the council. The Minister did not specifically address that point—perhaps because he has no idea. However, it seems possible that what we really have here is an aldermanic system. If the directly elected executive can vote in the council, one could take the view that any change in control or, at least, the balance of the council, could be overwhelmed by the 10 or 12 additional votes of the directly elected executive. If that is true, it raises one question: what is the point or substance of any by-election of change that take place?

The system completely defeats the notion of increasing accountability, and puts pitfall after pitfall in the way of exercising strong, accountable leadership.

Patrick Hall (Labour, Bedford)

I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman’s logic. His argument is stronger if he envisages that the executive would be independent, but the chances are that it would consist of party representatives, like the rest of the council. Although the executive’s members would be elected for the district rather than the ward, they would probably be party people, so they would always be counted as part of the council.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

The hon. Gentleman raises the lid on the Pandora’s box of who is entitled to propose a slate, on what basis, and of what size. Let me accept the premise that he has offered, however. If one takes Stockport as an example, there could be a slate from the Liberal Democrats, one from the Labour party and one from the Conservative party, and perhaps one from some other group. On the basis of the Government’s present proposals as I understand them, there would be a fixed number on the slate, so there would be no scope for a party to compete by saying that it could run a borough more efficiently and effectively with five, seven, or 11 people, because the number would be a predetermined one. That is clearly a mistake, and I assume that when we reach the relevant amendment the Government will confess as much.

There will be by-elections in a variety of wards across Stockport, depending on which slate gets in, and there could then be a change in the council’s composition if the electorate decided—perhaps on a very low turnout—that it did not like what had happened. At that point, the executive would no longer have the political support of the council in delivering its policies. Indeed, it might be said that the executive would no longer be legitimate, and that the electorate had decided that it did not want the executive members to be the decision makers. Where is the accountability and the legitimacy in that? So every door and window that one opens in examining the proposal produces a more and more bizarre view and a less and less workable system.

It is fine for the Minister to say that the Government are just giving an option. That is what they did in Stoke, but after three years they have had to concede that the option did not work in local government. What I am saying is that the Government have taken away one option that they have decided is not workable and that, although they are offering three others, one of those is already predictably and visibly not workable. In effect, therefore, they are reducing the options to two, while claiming to be widening the choice open to local authorities. I cannot make any sense of the Government’s arguments and I believe that the proposal is mistaken. I shall press the amendment to a Division.

Clause 40

Alistair Burt (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

I have a couple of general questions. I am not sure what is behind the substitution of the title “senior executive member” for “elected mayor” in the clause, and I would be grateful if the Minister could let us know.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. To which provisions is he referring specifically?

Alistair Burt (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

Throughout the clause, the term “elected mayor” is taken out and “senior executive member” is substituted. I wondered what the rationale for doing that was. It is a genuine question—I simply do not know.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

Perhaps if I explain the purpose of the clause, that will answer the question.

Sections 14 to 16 of the 2000 Act deal with how functions are discharged by the executive of a local authority. Specifically, they provide that functions that are the responsibility of an executive may be discharged by members of the executive, committees of the executive, or officers of the council. Currently, where there is a mayor and cabinet executive, the mayor can either discharge a particular function or arrange for that function to be discharged by the executive, an individual member of the executive, a committee of the executive, or an officer of the authority. By contrast, where there is a leader and cabinet executive, it is the authority as a whole that makes those decisions unless, of course, it leaves those decisions to the leader.

Clause 39, which we have just debated, makes changes to the form of executive arrangements in England. As a consequence, clause 40 provides that, in future, all decisions about how executive functions will be discharged should remain in the hands of the mayor in the case of a mayoral executive; similarly, they should rest with the leader in the case of either a leader and cabinet executive or an elected executive, as in the model that we have just debated.

That means that, in future, all council leaders in England will have the same powers as mayors currently have to decide how executive functions are discharged. The arrangements in Wales, subject to the caveats that I referred to earlier, will remain unaltered. Therefore clause 40 strengthens the role of the leader and will help to deliver the conditions for the strong and accountable leadership that we have been discussing.

The provisions in the clause apply to all three models, so it is helpful to have a single term that refers to all three models, because the Bill, if Parliament allows it, will place the executive power in the leader’s office, whether that be a mayor, a directly elected leader of a directly elected executive, or an indirectly elected leader. It is simply common sense to have a single term.

Clause 41

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I beg to move amendment No. 33, in clause 41, page 24, line 16, leave out ‘move to executive arrangements’.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 34, in clause 41, page 24, leave out lines 19 to 31 and insert—

‘(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 33A and 33B, any principal council may submit a scheme of internal governance appropriate to its circumstances which shall stand deferred until the next election to the council.

(3) Where no recognised group has overall control, it shall be competent for the council to implement other arrangements as it may determine.’.

No. 100, in clause 41, page 24, line 26, leave out from ‘is’ to end of line 28 and insert

‘eligible for alternative arrangements if it is a district council or a metropolitan borough.’.

No. 99, in clause 41, page 24, line 28, leave out ‘85,000’ and insert ‘850,000’.

No. 101, in clause 41, page 24, leave out lines 29 to 31.

No. 35, in clause 41, page 24, leave out lines 36 to 38.

No. 36, in clause 41, page 24, line 41, leave out from ‘arrangements’ to end of line 1 on page 25.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I remind the Minister that he has now admonished the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire, the hon. Member for Ludlow and me, asking us to come out of our centralist mindset. I am not sure whether he has suggested that other Members should do the same. I am giving the Minister a chance to walk the walk, as well as talk the talk about coming out of his centralist mindset.

I shall start my remarks by saying that clause 41 is six and a half pages long. Whatever else, there should be a law against that. Consequently, the Committee should carefully consider the amendments to see precisely what I intend to achieve. I shall simplify matters by explaining that amendments Nos. 33 and 34 would give local authorities freedom to determine their own system of governance; amendments Nos. 99 and 101 would give authorities the option of having the committee system in certain circumstances; and amendment No. 100 would extend the eligibility of special arrangements to district and metropolitan boroughs without regard to their size.

The Government propose that small authorities should be able to retain what is commonly called the committee system, although most people understand that the system of 25 years ago is not what we are talking about. We are debating an enhanced committee system. My amendments would open up the options for local government of all sizes and classes, first, to decide their own system of governance entirely; secondly, to decide their system of governance and to have the committee system, if they are district councils or metropolitan boroughs regardless of size; and, thirdly, to be able to adopt the committee system if their population exceeds, not 85,000, but 850,000. Both numbers are arbitrary, but my intention is to show the direction in which I believe the Minister should be encouraged to go.

Let me deploy the arguments in favour of self-government. As I said on Second Reading, we conceded it long ago to Australia, Canada and colonies throughout the world, and it seems to work. They get on with it, so the Minister should have a little more trust in local government and its capacity to deliver and show leadership. It became clear on Second Reading that many of his colleagues share that view and feel that he is being too prescriptive, in particular by not allowing the possibility of the enhanced committee system to be an option for consideration by authorities unless they are in the smallest category. He is denying local democracy an opportunity.

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence of the dissatisfaction in local government about the executive arrangements. I tried to follow the 69 per cent., the 74 per cent. and the 89 per cent. figures that the Minister rattled off when referring to various studies. I do not know what the sample groups were when those were undertaken, but I have yet to find outside the membership of the executives themselves councillors who would agree with that analysis. Most of them consider that they have been excluded to some degree by the new arrangements. Many councils believe that they should have the option of the committee structure, one that is much more inclusive and inclined to consensus building than the executive model and much less remote from the communities that they serve.

I am not an unadulterated supporter of the committee system. I am far from saying to the Minister that every local authority should have it. I am certainly not arguing that we should go back 20 years and start all over again. However, if what he says about opening up local government and giving it more choices and options really means anything, he has a simple, practical way of doing that, which is by extending a system of governance that is tried and tested—and certainly not failing—into other council areas.

I want to make the pure gospel point that governance should be entirely a matter for local councils, but I listened carefully to what the Minister said on Second Reading and to what has been said in Committee and I know that his Department has struck a deal with other Government Departments about devolving functions and decision making to local government. To some extent, that deal is dependent on the Department for Communities and Local Government being able to show other Departments that the bodies to which it will be transferring powers and decision making have the substance and the effectiveness to carry out those functions. Therefore, a deal has been struck, and perhaps the governance issue is one of the prices that local government is expected to pay to achieve that.

I think that the whole Committee would benefit from a clear exposition by the Minister of exactly why neither he nor his Department is prepared to give any flexibility for the enhanced committee system. The amendments explore different options and different ways of achieving essentially the same thing, which is to widen the choices available to local government. They are not looking to bring in a system that is untried, untested and clearly dysfunctional, but to bring in something that is tried, tested and that demonstrably produces leadership results now in small authorities and which historically has done the same for more than 100 years in the largest authorities in the land. I am very happy to speak to the amendments and to listen to what the Minister has to say.

Alistair Burt (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

I am pleased to support the tenor of the amendments and to thank the hon. Gentleman for introducing them. Although we might be covering some old ground, I hope that they will encourage Committee members to reaffirm their commitment to the importance of choice in local government and to express again their concerns that a key manifestation of that choice in the present context would be to allow councils that so wished to propose and maintain an enhanced committee system.

The witnesses whom we heard expressed no doubt that that option would be broadly welcomed. Let me give some examples from their evidence. We had a debate that involved the three representatives of the Local Government Association. Jeremy Beecham was not keen to go back, so that is one vote against an enhanced committee system. When asked about his position on the options, Richard Kemp, the Liberal Democrat representative, said that

“it would be an option that I would support. I do not think that anyone wants to go back to the old committee system”—

the point made by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove—

“I do not think that anyone pines for that system, but an enhanced committee system, based on the experience that we have now, would be possible.”

So, that is one each. However, Simon Milton, representing the Conservatives on the LGA, said:

“I regretted the fact that councils were not given the option to have a committee system under the original Local Government Act. To be consistent, I would welcome that option, although I am not sure whether my council would go back to that system.”——[Official Report, Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2007; c. 20.]

That is two votes in favour of choice.

I will return to a familiar theme that the Minister must now hear echoing in his dreams. I do not know whether he caught that wonderful programme “Sleep Clinic” on the television last night that looked at the extraordinary contortions that people go through when their sleep is disturbed, what they hear and what they do not hear. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is hearing in his dreams, “choice, choice,” and at some stage tonight that he will share again that champagne moment that he gave to the Committee earlier when, as members of the Committee will recall, he spread open his arms and said, “I am a devolutionist, let them have the choice.” He said that in relation to a different part of the Bill, but, as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove said, all we are asking is that the Minister finds again in his soul that moment. He made that comment in relation to offering the choice of a committee system. He was not talking about forcing it upon anyone, not demanding that anyone has to have it, but simply giving people at local level their opportunity to choose a committee system for themselves.

Another voice from one of our witnesses was that of Gordon Keymer. The very name strikes a chord in all our hearts. Asked about the committee system and the problem of involvement, he said:

“What is happening too much at the moment in the executive system is that council meetings are dominated by two or three people and the rest are spectators. The figures speak for themselves—note the turnover of people who stay for only one term and leave because they are frustrated. The trouble is that we are trying to produce a whole lot of mechanisms to keep them happy by extending scrutiny and so on. If you look at it quite cold-bloodedly, all those things could be covered by active membership in the committee system. It is a great shame. People are not easily fooled.”

He said that when he goes down to watch his local council committees at work of an evening he thinks,

“Here are people who, from the very beginning, can involve themselves in local government, learn to speak and debate with officers and graduate to the council chamber and the full council meeting.”——[Official Report, Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2007; c. 41.]

That is what Gordon Keymer used to see on the committees on his council that he oversaw. That opportunity to learn and grow is not there now.

Tom Levitt (Labour, High Peak)

I get the impression that the hon. Gentleman is talking about the difference made by a well run council that engages councillors, be they there principally to make decisions or to scrutinise. That is the real difference that he is describing. Is there not a great danger of assuming that scrutiny is a lesser role and therefore less satisfying when, in fact, scrutiny is an important role when it is done and managed well?

Alistair Burt (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but a slightly distracting one. I am not seeking to prioritise the business pursued by committees over the functions of scrutiny and overview. The point is that local authorities should be allowed to make a choice about the structure that they believe is right for them, so that well run councils can make a judgment about the allocation of functions and their efficacy. The question asked by the amendments, following the points raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House on Second Reading and by the witnesses who came before us prior to the formal Committee stage of the Bill, is: why not give people the choice? That is all. A committee system may not be right for all councils. For example, it may not suit councils that have moved on to a different system and do not want to go back.

The overwhelming impression I had was that while it suits the leadership of a council to have a tightly controlled system, and a leadership will naturally support and understand an executive system that concentrates power, those who see the other purpose of a council as involving councillors so that they have more of a role than that of back-bench councillor—a role that people warmly welcome, but which keeps them out of the loop in the system—want the chance to do something more. I am sure that grass-roots resentment does not necessarily surface in those councils in which the executive and cabinet system works well, and which have mechanisms to get people involved, but to deny that there is resentment would be to shut one’s eyes to what is going on in local authorities.

I come back to the point made so well by Gordon Keymer about the frustration of people who come on to councils and feel trammelled in what they can do. We have enough evidence from over the years of people who have gone on to councils and then complained that they get told what to do by central Government too much and that they are frustrated by it. They then go into a system in which they cannot even express themselves through committees, and they feel constrained. No wonder people are walking out the door.

There is a simple mechanism that we can use. It is not to force councils to go down a particular route, nor to demand that there is a particular structure of local governance that they should all follow; it is to add another element to the mix for effective government. If the Minister is going to argue that he cannot in any circumstances foresee that a committee structure could provide effective leadership in the manner of the models already presented, I have to say that I doubt that such an argument will be supported by the broad mass of people who have been involved with local government over the past few decades.

Earlier, the Minister made the point that the issue is about quality of leadership and individual powers of persuasion in many cases, but the right people, the right structure and the right officers can make a local authority work. I do not see any reason why the Bill should not contain the option for authorities to have the opportunity to run the committee system if that is what they want to do.

The matter that we are debating is one of the strongest arguments against the Minister’s belief that he is a devolutionary Minister of a non-centralising Government who are prepared to take a risk in local government. If the Minister is true to the moment that he gave us with such splendour before lunchtime, this is the opportunity for him to relive that moment, to confess himself to be a true devolutionist and to say in a heartfelt manner, “Let them choose.” I am therefore delighted to support the amendments, and I hope that we can hear something from the Minister and indeed from his Back-Bench colleagues that will echo the sentiment of setting our local councils free.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

I rise to support my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Hazel Grove. I have the benefit of 12 years’ experience as a local councillor, first as an opposition councillor under the old committee system in Enfield, then in control as a cabinet member. Having been on two sides of the fence, I can give my view, both as a new councillor who was one of the youngest councillors elected in a committee structure and as a cabinet member.

The benefit of the committee format was that, at the very least, one knew where to go for information. The Minister has put forward in favour of an executive type arrangement the benefit of strong leadership. As a cabinet member, I certainly saw that, but there was a concern about those who were left behind. There was a feeling among other councillors who were newly elected under the cabinet model, which Enfield council adopted at an early stage, that they were left behind. Many well qualified councillors felt that they were not able to access information and were not party to decision making. They had to play catch-up to find out where the decision had been made and then subject it to scrutiny. New councillors do not feel sufficiently part of the scrutiny arrangements that form part of cabinet-style government. Councillors in Enfield often felt disfranchised and inadequately served by the scrutiny process. For all its imperfections, I say that the committee system suits every model of governance. It was certainly of value in Enfield, because people knew where to receive information.

When the Minister talked about sample groups that support the new executive arrangements, he did not mention the public. One should not forget that turnouts for local government elections have not dramatically increased across the board, despite some steps having been taken to improve leadership. There is still a major issue concerning community engagement, both of the public and of individual councillors on their behalf. When one talks about leadership, it is not only about executive leadership; it is about community leadership.

I understand that part of the intention of the 2000 changes was that community leadership should be upheld also by local councillors, as community advocates, who are not necessarily part of the executive. Without the option of a community system, they have felt increasingly disengaged. Without such a system, when the public are looking for information and seeking to find out about debates before decisions have been made, they are left to encourage councillors to call in a decision or to be part of a scrutiny process, which often feels inadequate. An option for a local authority to have a local community system should be provided.

One looks in desperation for consistency in the Bill. If the Minister is consistent, when he says there needs to be a stronger local voice for councils serving a population of more than 85,000 I presume he also thinks there should be a stronger local voice for populations of fewer than 85,000. What is the logic of not allowing a committee system for populations of fewer than 85,000? Why does it come down to the size of the population? Surely that stronger local voice should be there for them. If the logic of the Minister’s argument is that the option of a committee system should be taken away from those smaller population communities, it does not make sense.

Certainly the committee option available to populations of under 85,000 should also be there for those over 85,000. The option should be there for the sake of not just executive leadership but community leadership. It is important for individual councils to feel properly empowered and engaged in the process. If that means an option of a committee, so be it. Let the Minister take off the shackles of the centralising tendencies he sees in us and ensure that there is true choice for local communities. I support the amendment.

Peter Soulsby (Labour, Leicester South)

It was clear from the way that my hon. Friend the Minister spoke about the Government’s intentions in bringing forward this range of governance options that they are rightly concerned that local authorities should be capable of strong leadership. That strong leadership should be stable and visible. Those were the words that the Minister used to describe the sort of leadership we would want to see. He also spoke convincingly about the need for local authorities to provide, as many already do, strong leadership not just within their organisations but in the wider communities that they represent.

I am convinced that all hon. Members share the desire that local authorities should provide that leadership both internally and externally. I am also sure that no hon. Member would wish to see a return to the committee structure that many of us used to know, with all its frustrations and its inability to provide the sort of leadership that we would all wish for in local government, or, in many cases, to provide the accountability which we would also wish to see strengthened. It was often difficult to tell who was responsible for taking decisions within the committee structure, with each committee often able to blame another for the byways and alleyways that decision making was going down.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

The hon. Gentleman might be exaggerating a little. I can recall things called policy and resources committees that used to make all the hard decisions that other councillors feared to make. It was very similar to the modern cabinet.

Peter Soulsby (Labour, Leicester South)

I do indeed recall the strengths of that system as well as its weaknesses. I am convinced that those strengths can be used to produce a reformed committee structure and a system that would enable the leadership and accountability that we have all said we would wish local government to deliver. The two great advantages of the committee system were that it enabled a wide range of members to become engaged in the decision-making process in a useful way and, equally importantly, that it enabled opposition members to sit around the table to debate and to vote on matters on which decisions were being taken.

One of the great frustrations of the present structure for councillors, whether in opposition or part of a controlling group, is that they cannot directly participate in the decision-making process. They cannot speak and vote at cabinet meetings in many situations. Obviously the political make-up of many councils occasionally enables them to take part, but in many it does not.

Peter Soulsby (Labour, Leicester South)

I stress again that I am not arguing for a return to the committee structure as it was 20 or 30 years ago, but for the committee structure, much modified and modernised, to be included in the range of options open to local government. We do not need to think very hard to come up with some excellent examples of powerful leadership in councils with a committee structure and we do not need to think too hard about examples of effective community leadership being provided by councils with a committee structure. That leadership can be provided externally as well as internally.

The committee structure, much modified and much modernised, is not a panacea, but it ought at least to be an option. I also argue that the governance options that have been put forward by the Minister and the Government in the Bill are not a panacea either. They, too, are capable of being expanded to increase the range of opportunities open to local councils.

There is no doubt at all that it is vital for councils to be able to provide leadership to their local communities and for there to be strong and effective leadership within local authorities. There is no doubt at all that it is vital that whatever governance structure is adopted, it is accountable both internally and externally to the wider community and that the major issue of how the majority of members are engaged in the council’s process needs to be addressed.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

The hon. Gentleman is making me quite nostalgic for the committee system. One of its advantages for scrutiny and accountability was that officers’ recommendations, which often turn out to be what the council actually does, were subject to extensive examination from back-bench and opposition councillors, which simply does not happen today. I find that there are few pleas from officers to go back to the committee system, and there could be a good reason for that.

Peter Soulsby (Labour, Leicester South)

I certainly believe that when opposition members, if there is overall control, or coalition members if there is not, sit round a table in public discussing recommendations put in front of them by officers and are required to debate them and answer questions about their attitude towards them and the reasoning behind their position, that provides a degree of clarity and accountability that is not always provided in the current system. In at least some authorities, cabinet meetings are little more than a staged ritual in front of the present public, with decisions in fact being taken elsewhere.

Patrick Hall (Labour, Bedford)

When I was on Bedfordshire county council there were many advantages to the committee system. However, one of the disadvantages was the amount of time that it sometimes took for a decision to be taken because of the interminable sub-committees and perhaps sub-sub-committees—I cannot remember how many there were. I invite my hon. Friend to elaborate a little on what some call an enhanced committee system or, as I believe he called it, a modernised committee system. We need to know more about that because I do not believe that any suggestion of returning to the old system is credible.

Peter Soulsby (Labour, Leicester South)

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which gives me an opportunity to re-emphasise that I am not seeking a return to the system as we used to know it. I envisage a system with a much reduced number of committees and an enhanced central committee, be it called a policy and resources committee or a policy committee, that is clearly in control of the overall direction of the authority, with perhaps a limited number of sub-committees reporting to it. Such an arrangement would enable a local authority to have both the leadership role whose importance we have stressed and the accountability that is made possible by members debating across a table the direction of the authority’s policy.

To conclude, I am arguing that there should be a wider range of choices than is included in the Bill. I do not support the amendments, because there are a number of arbitrary elements to them, as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove acknowledged, which make them unsatisfactory. I hope that the Government will recognise that it would benefit good local government if there were a wider range of choices of governance than is currently offered. I hope that the Minister will agree to reconsider the proposals and recognise that the range to be offered is too limited and prescriptiveto local government. We have an opportunity to allow local government greater freedom in how it responds to local circumstances, to the local political environment and to local communities.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I want to pick up where the hon. Member for Leicester, South left off. I agree with him and I commend much of what he said to Ministers. His experience as a former leader of a large local authority should weigh heavily with them, especially given the Minister’s comment when he intervened on an observation by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire who said in the context of the Gordon Keymer scenario that the key test is contrasting a well run authority, whatever its structure, with a badly run authority. As my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate said, we should not work on the assumption that the committee system can work only in small authorities. There is no reason why it should not be applied in large local authorities in its enhanced form.

The point was made about clear political leadership and we all sign up to that. There was never a larger local authority in English history than, first, the London county council and then the Greater London council, nor were there local authorities with a stronger tradition of clear political leadership and direction. Herbert Morrison was as strong a local government leader as one could find operating under the old committee system, so were Ike Hayward, Desmond Plummer, Horace Cutler and—dare I say it— Ken Livingstone.

All those people gave very clear political leadership and direction to their authorities under the old committee system, never mind the modernised and enhanced one which, I agree with the hon. Member for Leicester, South, should be an option. If it could work then, why cannot it work now? Does it not come back to the quality and calibre of the politicians and the senior officers?

My experience chimes with that of my hon. Friends and others. If we want to keep good quality people in local government, they have to think that there is a worthwhile role for them. I do not denigrate scrutiny and I take the point, but if people believe that the only time that they will be able to take a decision and make a difference in a substantial and meaningful way is by waiting to become a member of the executive, it will put a lot of very good people off—hence the turnover, which is a real concern.

Some local authorities try to get around the problem because they want to be involved in scrutiny but a good council wants to be involved in policy development too. In Bromley, we call our scrutiny committees policy development scrutiny committees, which is an attempt to get members involved at an earlier stage. We could do that in the context of the leader and cabinet system and of the enhanced committee system too.

As I said, I spent 16 years as a member of a London borough council and for eight of those years I was chairman of one of the large service committees—first the environment committee and then the social services committee. It was under the old structure, but we gave a pretty clear political steer. We had a leader, who chaired the policy and resources committee; the chairmen of the five or six service committees were on the policy and resources committee and the opposition were also represented on it.

We had a system of delegation that enabled urgent decisions to be taken and we should look again at the legal problems that sometimes get in the way in that respect. We made sure that members—usually the chairman or the vice-chairman of the committee—were involved if urgent action had to be taken,. We also had a system whereby the leader and the service committee chairmen could meet senior officers and give them a steer, or direction.

The point is well made that, in the policy resources committee, not only could the opposition debate the issue and question the officers on their recommendations, but the officers had to account for them. That worked in a very large local authority—London boroughs were almost the same size as the city of Leicester, for example—and it worked on a bigger scale for the London county council and the Greater London council, so I do not understand why we are closing that option off.

I say to the Minister that there is a contrast between the Government’s approach to this clause and to the previous one. If we accept that the option can work for small local authorities, why close it off arbitrarily for larger local authorities? Would not the decentralising, localist option be to leave it open for all classes of local authority and, as the Minister said earlier, let them decide?

Andrew Gwynne (Labour, Denton and Reddish)

I rise to offer my comments on this part of the Bill, on which we have had an interesting debate.

Only the first two of my 11 years as a local councillor—between 1996 and 1998—were spent under the old committee system. So my experience of the old system is very limited. I grew up politically with the new cabinet system and its birth pains when first introduced. However, I must say from my two years’ experience that I think that we tend to hark back to a golden age that never existed. That was not my recollection of how the committee system worked. Members certainly felt more involved; that is correct. They had all the reports and tended to discuss issues with other members on different committees in the members’ room or at other meetings. Therefore, they had a general overview of what was happening in the council that perhaps they do not have now.

In my experience on the committee, however, decisions were made at the chairs’ briefing, which were bounced through the group meeting, sometimes with a row behind closed doors. Nevertheless they were bounced through and were rubber-stamped at the committee meeting open to the public and opposition often under the hard stare of the whips if there had been a row in the group meeting. I am all too familiar with hard stares from Whips, because I have been told to be brief. However, that was my experience of the old committee system.

The new system was undoubtedly a culture shock for those who had lived with the old one for a number of years. They had become familiar with it. It was very comfortable. The new one has taken time to bed down and in some authorities it is still not there. But where it is working, scrutiny and support for members not in the cabinet is certainly in place and working well. I take the point of the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst about pre-decision scrutiny. When I was a scrutiny chair in Tameside, we took the decision to lead the way on scrutiny in our borough. Afterwards, it was perceived to be a success and the executive asked us to do more of it. So where it works, it works well. However, I accept that it has taken time to bed down.

I shall turn to the information, which is there. Any councillor can ask for the background information to a cabinet decision in advance of it being taken. Information on the officers, who to contact and so on is all there in the forward plan. Certainly in Tameside—although it might be different in other authorities—the forward plan is debated at full council so there is the opportunity for all members, including back-bench members in the controlling group and all opposition members, to debate issues before the cabinet makes a decision.

Finally, I shall turn to amendment No. 99 tabled by the Liberal Democrats. I accept that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove said that the upper limit of 850,000 was arbitrary, but if it is right that some metropolitan district councils, which are currently prevented from having a streamlined committee system, should adopt one, it should be available to all of them. It should not be discriminatory. Of course, setting the target at 850,000 would mean that 35 out of the 36 metropolitan district councils in England could opt for the committee system—poor Birmingham would be left out. So if someone is going to argue that it is right for metropolitan councils to have that facility, it should be for all of them, and not all except Birmingham.

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

I, too, do not wish to detain the Committee, but to make one point. I rise in support of the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove. The point that has just been made is a telling one, however, and I hope that he will comment on it before he presses the amendment, if he chooses to do so.

We are looking at rearranging certain local government structures on a unitary basis, which means that a very many councillors will be participating in a new structure for the first time. In my view, it is likely that a number of councillors will not have participated nor had previous experience of either structure. I am delighted to have the opportunity to mention the possible restructuring in Shropshire where, as I told the Minister last night, we are possibly looking at a council of 96 councillors. One has to ask oneself what all those people are going to do in a council of that size that does not have any committee structure other than for overview and scrutiny. How are they going to get engaged and participate in decision making?

The points that have been made by other hon. Members are valid, so I shall not rehearse them—councillors will have a lack of opportunity to develop and grow and to participate in debate. So it is entirely appropriate to have a committee structure option on a hybrid basis.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

The debate is important, and it is being echoed in council chambers, in members’ rooms and in the wider local government family, so it is important that the Government present the arguments clearly. I hope to persuade the Committee that the ideas on which the amendment is based are ill-founded and would not achieve what the mover of the amendment intended.

I hope that I have already explained in our debates on previous clauses the Government’s intention and thinking in relation to the executive arrangements that we have proposed. However, let me repeat one point for emphasis. If one is truly ambitious for local government, one believes that local government can take up a strategic leadership role and a delivery role across the range of services, across the portfolio of economic regeneration of an area, across crime and disorder partnerships, across the children and young people’s agenda and the health and elderly people’s agenda. However, even medium-sized local authorities are being asked to give strategic direction over hundreds and hundreds of millions of pounds of public money, so the limit on the Government’s willingness to devolve power is that we can do so only when we are convinced that decision-making arrangements are in place by which responsibility for such matters can be taken. If people wish to portray that as an anti-devolutionary or centralist policy, I will have to live with that, but we are debating the subject of the barriers to devolution. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove takes an entirely consistent position—that councils should decide, but I want to persuade him that that is not in their interests.

Several hon. Members have said that strong leaders existed under the old system. That is true—I said it of the mayoral model in New York. My argument is not that strong leadership follows necessarily from an executive arrangement, or that an alternative arrangement cannot produce a strong leader. I think that strong leaders come out of strong political parties and a healthy body politic, which I think all of us have an interest in fostering. My argument is rather that the Government’s proposals are more likely to lead to strong and accountable leadership and are more likely to be fit for purpose for the new responsibilities and the extra powers that we intend to give to local authorities.

On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) said that if one is serious about devolution, one has to talk about money, because power flows from it. It is precisely because we are serious about devolving power over public money that one has to have confidence in the executive arrangements.

I have referred often to the 2000 Act, which we are building on by way of the Bill. That Act provided the types of executive arrangements, and separated the role of back-bench councillor from the executive councillors. As we are doing now, the Government took a devolutionary and pragmatic approach in 2000. That is the answer to the points made by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate, who asked why there should be smaller councils. Ultimately, the figure of 85,000 for population—it is population that counts, not the electorate—is an arbitrary one. The cut-off date was 30 June 1999. If an area had a population of fewer than 85,000, it could adopt what were referred to as alternative arrangements, also known as the committee structure. In the event, of the 86 eligible authorities, 59 adopted the alternative approach. Since then, three authorities—Cotswold, Fylde and Rossendale—have moved from alternative arrangements to executive arrangements, and have adopted a leader and a cabinet. I have looked in vain for a common thread between them but I could not find one.

The 2000 Act also provided for alternative arrangements as a fall-back position in case of a no vote in a mayoral referendum. That is the situation in Brighton and Hove, and I know that it will listen closely to this debate. But—and this is where we come to the core of the argument—the amendments would not allow the enhanced committee function to which my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South referred. Indeed, under the existing arrangements, it is possible for an executive to devolve executive powers to sub-areas. That is an important part of the devolutionary approach and of involving people and bringing them closer to their local authorities. An executive can already devolve executive powers by area.

In other authorities—the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst mentioned his own—the role of overview and scrutiny involves policy development and what are commonly called task and finish groups, through which recommendations can be made not just about traditional areas of council activity but about the wider activity of the area, the local authority and its partners. That is the nub of it.

I shall comment on the rose-tinted glasses that my younger colleague the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish mentioned, but the old internal decision-making committee structure, whatever its strengths and weaknesses, was a decision-making structure for the council as an institution and not for the area as a whole. It would not be able to take responsibility for the strategic direction of health, crime and disorder and children and young people, never mind social care or other responsibilities. One should see decision-making executive structures in the context of the wider, enhanced role that we are increasingly inviting local authorities to take. I think that that answers the point, because smaller areas do not take on the responsibilities.

A number of other points were made, which I shall try to answer. The hon. Member for Ludlow asked what the other councillors should do, as those who are not on the executive can feel excluded from decision making. It is precisely because councillors across the political spectrum too often spend more time in committees in the town, city or county hall—or, to be fair, in districts—and not as champions of their wards that we are in a situation in which too many councils have become distant.

The new functions that I have mentioned of overview and scrutiny and of policy development and reports across the whole range of services provide a fantastic opportunity for local authority back-benchers to be involved in decision making. Indeed, if one attends the overview and scrutiny committee, which is now a major annual event in the calendar of local government, there is excitement and a buzz about the potential role of overview and scrutiny.

I endorse strongly the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish made. Inadvertently, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst backed up his point when he mentioned a policy and resource committee made up of the deputy leader and chairs of the committees. What is that if not an executive by another name?

Peter Soulsby (Labour, Leicester South)

It is precisely right to liken that to a camel. The difference, however, is that opposition members were able to question directly both the executive and the officers on the thinking behind their recommendations to the committee. Surely, that was its great strength—and that is lacking in the cabinet system.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

I disagree with my hon. Friend on two counts. First, a functioning overview and scrutiny committee allows such questioning to be carried out in a way that is similar to the process in the House, although I would not take the analogy too far. Secondly, and more importantly, the public did not know what the policy and resources committee was. Because of the local government decision-making process that existed, the chairs of the committee took decisions, often in private, often involving two or three people and often not in the council building. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst looks perplexed, but he cannot, with his experience of local government, believe that Herbert Morrison took his decisions openly in committees in every instance and debated them and did not have a preconceived idea of what he wanted.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I am perplexed about the Minister thinking that Londoners do not know who Herbert Morrison was. That surprised me.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

If I did not know who Herbert Morrison was before I arrived in London, his grandson certainly taught me about him. I invite the hon. Gentleman to name one other chair of the committee from the London county council at the time of Herbert Morrison. Unless he is a complete local government anorak, which he is not, he will not be able to do so.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Freda Corbett.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

The legendary Freda Corbett is called in aid of an argument to return to the committee system. At least the hon. Gentleman is a conservative with a small ‘c’. I commend him for wanting to go backwards.

In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South, there is a serious point to be made about accountability and visibility. The amendment does not take us back, as he says, to the old committee system. Nobody has spoken in favour of the old committee system, which leaves we Committee members with the difficulty of not having a definition of what an enhanced committee is. I believe strongly that those councils that have grasped the executive arrangements and the overview and scrutiny opportunities are already finding ways to involve newer, and often younger, members in the decision-making process—Tameside is a good example—and are getting the benefits of that strong, speedier decision making.

I think that I have answered the points that have been made, if not to the satisfaction of hon. Members.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

The Minister made some pertinent, relevant assertions, including that cabinet members are far more visible than committee chairs ever were and that there is enthusiasm throughout the land for scrutiny and overview. Those are contestable assertions. It would be sensible to do some polling or evidence-based research to justify those claims and find out whether cabinet members were any better known to their local communities than committee chairs were and whether there is enthusiasm among back-bench councillors. The evidence is probably to the contrary, but has his Department commissioned any research to find out whether the Minister is right?

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

The hon. Gentleman asks a legitimate question. I have mentioned some of the surveys relating to this matter. Of course, the Department has taken up such research, as has the Improvement and Development Agency, the Leadership Centre for Local Government and, I think, the Local Government Association. One has to test the whole circumstance, including the overview and scrutiny and the executive arrangements. My real evidence is in the improvement of performance of local authorities. There is a correlation, which the research tends to show, between better executive decision-making structures and the enhanced performance of local government. I could throw in the 39 per cent. real-terms increase in grant as well, but Mr. Benton might accuse me of point scoring. I am not saying that there is always, necessarily cause-and-effect between the two things. I concede the point that the hon. Gentleman made reasonably. Strong leaders can emerge under any structure, but I am concerned with what is most likely to achieve that objective.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

I am struggling to understand the Minister’s logic when distinguishing between those smaller councils that have alternative arrangements and the larger councils. He suggests that councils with a population under 85,000 do not necessarily involve themselves in strategic issues. I question that, and I am sure that those authorities would question whether he is right that they are not involved in strategic issues about children and young people, crime and disorder and social care. They fundamentally are, and they would question and challenge the idea that they do not have a role to play in the strategic leadership of their local authority just because they are smaller.

Is it not true that the Minister is more worried about the budget and how much central money councils have to deal with? One answer would be to make them fully accountable and autonomous and to make them raise their own revenue. The other option would be to have a cut-off link of 85,000 based not on numerical population, but on the budget that it receives.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

The hon. Gentleman tempts me down the road of the other clauses on finances and on money-raising powers. If he will forgive me, I shall resist.

I said that, to some extent, the 85,000 figure was arbitrary. The hon. Gentleman rightly says that it is based on population not on electorate. All such councils, with the exception of one, are lower tier authorities. They are not involved in the big strategic issues to which I referred, although they are involved increasingly through enhanced two-tier working and under the auspices of the local area agreement. It boils down to a pragmatic approach. The one exception is the county of Rutland, re-created by a former Prime Minister out of—probably worthy—nostalgia. Rutland certainly has not asked for executive arrangements.

I concede to the Committee that the question is where one draws the boundary and how far one involves executive arrangements. I recognise that point, but it is right that the Government, and indeed, Parliament should draw the line at some point. Otherwise chaos would ensue.

The amendment that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove has tabled would not achieve what he wants, and that is because of the way in which it is written. Crucially, it would not achieve what my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South would like. What it describes as the enhanced committee structure can be achieved under existing executive arrangements in the 2000 Act. If I have the opportunity, I shall put into context those arrangements, particularly the points about Brighton and Hove, which is I imagine waiting with bated breath to find out how it fits into the clause. On that point, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I said at the beginning that the clause is six-and-a-half pages long. Perhaps I made it more difficult for hon. Members by offering three different options, but some criticism of the amendments did not, perhaps understandably, appreciate that.

As I said, amendment No. 34 would effectively provide all councils with the self-rule option; amendment No. 100 would provide self-rule to all district and metropolitan councils; and amendment No. 99 would provide self-rule to all councils of any shape with a population of up to 850,000. They were options, and perhaps if I had focused on just one, we might have had a slightly different debate, although then no doubt the criticism would have been that I had not taken account of other options.

I started by saying that I should like the Minister to come out of his centralist mindset, seeing as he has talked to the rest of us about doing so, and I am disappointed that he has not. The debate has brought out some accurate points. It is certainly true that my amendment does not define an enhanced committee system, but if close definition of the outcome had been intended in the Bill, we might have expected from the Government a little more precision on the directly elected executive. Given the response to the last debate, a lack of precision should not be a reason for ruling such a system out.

The Minister set aside 100 years of local government performance—until at least 1948, although we could take it further forward—when local authorities in places such as Birmingham, which has been mentioned, and Manchester were controlling utilities, transport and health as well as all the services that they now control. They did that using the committee system and, on the whole, they did it well.

I am disappointed by the Minister’s response. He recognised that the debate is important and crucial, but unfortunately he has come down on the wrong side of it. Once again, he has raised the red herring that there is some connection between performance or outcomes and the governance system. In a previous debate, I think I heard him accept that there was no connection; that is certainly the view of the Audit Commission, which believes that there is no connection between the governance system and outputs and outcomes.

Mr. Woolas rose—

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I shall be happy to give way to the Minister, but just now he seemed to resile from what he had conceded in the previous debate and to be saying that there was a difference in performance.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

I said that there was no necessary cause and effect and that it was, in my view, more likely that stronger executive arrangements would lead to enhanced performance. That is the view that the Department’s research has backed up. It is also a common-sense view, given the increase in the performance of local authorities as measured by the Audit Commission over that period.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

Perhaps we need to discuss this in some other place, but my understanding is that the Audit Commission is clear that when it looks at its ratings and comprehensive performance assessments, it cannot detect any difference in the performances of authorities based on their existing leadership model. That includes those with the alternative arrangements. They are neither noticeably worse nor noticeably better, and the same can be said for each of the categories. If the Minister wants to say that the Audit Commission has got that wrong or that I am misinterpreting what its data show, perhaps he will have another opportunity to put his point.

Alistair Burt (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the debate has been characterised by the Minister’s giving good reasons why he does not prefer that particular model? He would prefer a choice of others. However, he has not given a good reason why the choice should not be there for authorities to take if they wish.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

Absolutely. I thought that having given the Minister, in my big-hearted way, three possible options to pick, he might at least indicate that one or another might be slightly preferable to him. However, he has not chosen to do so. I do not intend to detain the Committee a great deal longer, but I want to press amendment No. 34 to a Division.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Let us deal first with amendment No. 33.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I beg to move amendment No. 37, in clause 41, page 25, line 12, leave out from ‘must’ to end of line 14 and insert

‘hold a referendum of local government electors in the authority’s area.’.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 42, in clause 41, page 27, line 32, leave out from beginning to end of line 9 on page 28.

No. 44, in clause 41, page 28, leave out lines 16 to 26.

No. 46, in clause 42, page 30, line 30, leave out subsection (3).

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I seem to be having a good innings this afternoon, but I will leave you in peace later on, Mr. Benton.

The amendment gives the Minister his second opportunity to come out of his centralist mindset in relation to the requirement for a referendum before a mayoral system can be introduced. The clause removes that requirement, but the intention of the amendment is to restore it. Again, the debate was rehearsed to some extent on Second Reading. There have been 32 mayoral referendums, but only 12 of those have been successful, in the sense that they have approved a mayor, while 20 have been unsuccessful. In the cases of four of the 12 successful referendums, there are vigorous campaigns to get rid of the mayor. The Minister said on Second Reading that it is of course possible to get rid of a mayor, which led me to have a careful look at the wording. It is indeed possible to do that, but only provided that the mayor agrees, because the council has to sign off any such change.

That is the current situation. Whatever the merits of the mayoral system, at least this completely novel form of local government required endorsement by the public before it was put in place. As the Library note states, Lord Hattersley has said:

“Originally the idea of switching from a proper council to an elected mayor had to be endorsed by the local people...But the rules have been revised. If a local authority wants to hand over its responsibilities to one individual supported by anonymous councillors with emasculated powers, it is now free to do so. The obligation to organise a referendum has been scrapped. Too many referendums produce the wrong result. That decision was, we must hope, the death throes of New Labour’s novel definition of local democracy—the right of the people to choose as long as they make the choice that the government wants.”

I could hardly have put it better myself.

It is extremely difficult to see any decentralising or empowering tendency at work. Local people, who have so far said by two to one that they do not want mayoral systems, will not be given the chance to choose, as it will be for councils to decide. I want to hear the Government’s answer to the criticism that they are proceeding simply in order to force through more mayors in the face of popular dissent. The facts are very clear. There is no need for me to go on any longer, but if the Minister would like to comment in passing on the way in which proposed new section 33N would be used to get rid of a mayor under the present system, I would be interested to hear his explanation.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

Thank you, Mr. Benton. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove for tabling the amendment and giving us the opportunity to debate this issue. The first premise of his speech, and of the amendment, is that the Government want more local authorities to take up the mayoral model, but that is not our policy. Our policy is that local authorities should have strong executive arrangements and that it should be up to them to decide whether they are within the boundaries that we have debated today.

Neither the Government nor I see what the hon. Gentleman described as the loss of a referendum as a defeat. It is good that some local authorities have taken up referendums. When the result has been against the mayoral model, it has helped to enhance the democratic process and to reconnect the local authority with the people. To think that that is the Government’s objective is to misunderstand what we are trying to achieve in prompting the debate about executive arrangements. We do not prompt the debate about mayors in order to impose—via the front door, back door or a side door—a mayoral model. It is evident from our policy decisions and debates that that is not the case. We are saying to local authorities, “We want you to have more power, but we want you to have in place the arrangements that would best suit that purpose.”

At the heart of the debate is the hon. Gentleman’s second premise, on which we differ, although it is an honourable difference. When he moved the amendment, he said that there should be a requirement to hold a referendum. In other words, were the amendment to be passed, we in central Government and Parliament would tell a council what it had to do in such circumstances. There is a similar debate on the unitary proposals. We are not saying to councils what the public test has to be. If one is a devolutionist, one has to trust the council. I imagine that if a council were to resolve to move to a mayoral model and that model was unpopular in the area, the public would have their say at the ballot box—indeed, I am certain that that would be the case. Therefore, the premise on which the hon. Gentleman has based his case is not where the Government are coming from. There may be, or may have been, people in the Government who thought that it would be a good idea to have mayors everywhere and to impose their introduction, but that is not Government policy.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

The Minister has, to some extent, pre-empted me, but the Prime Minister is not yet a former post holder. The Prime Minister seemed extremely keen on this form of government. Indeed, it has been suggested that that might be why the measure was first introduced.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

Again, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. There is a danger in politics that the Opposition believe their own propaganda too much. Our manifesto makes our intention very clear. The prompting of the debate about mayors is not so that the Government can impose their favourite model, but to ensure that there is debate about executive arrangements.

The hon. Gentleman has taken a perfectly consistent position, and I commend him on it. He has said that the decision should be by referendum, and it will still be possible under the Bill for the public to petition for a referendum. Also, executive arrangements that have been determined by referendum may be changed only by another referendum. The clause adds to our manifesto commitment that local authorities should be able to make that choice, which is why we reject the notion put forward in the hon. Gentleman’s amendment.

The hon. Gentleman asked me specifically about proposed new section 33N to the Local Government Act 2000, which is set out in clause 41 of this Bill. It ensures that changes to the governance arrangements of mayor and cabinet executive or elected executive—he would not like to see those, but in such circumstances, this would apply—cannot be made without the specific consent of the elected mayor or the elected executive leader, both of whom have a direct mandate from the electorate of the whole council area.

The effect of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment would be to enable an authority to make changes to its constitution, such as changes to the allocation of responsibility for functions between the full council and the executive, without needing to ensure beforehand that the executive was content with that. That would undermine the accountability of the executive. Those are the reasons why I reject the point of view that the hon. Gentleman has put forward.

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

Will the Minister clarify whether proposed new section 33N(2) would mean that if an elected mayor or leader lost a motion of confidence in his own performance, he could thereby prevent the change in structure and keep himself in post?

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

A directly elected leader, be they a mayor or an executive under the arrangements that we were discussing, can be removed only by the electorate, unless criminal or other such activity is involved—similarly, a Member of Parliament is elected for a period of office. We are saying that an indirectly elected leader would be elected by the full council for a period of four years, unless they lose the confidence of the council, which would be expressed, as happens now, through a resolution. Our intention is minor, but it is symbolically important.

At the moment, a council leader faces re-election by the full council every year. That normally happens at the annual general meeting on the Saturday following local elections, although it sometimes occurs in the following week. In practice, where there is majority control the decision is made by the majority group. Where there is no overall control, which is the case in a significant number of councils, that is subject to the arrangements. The council leader needs re-endorsement each year.

Under this proposal, the constitution of the council would assume that the leader would stay in office for four years, unless there is a motion of no confidence in them at any council meeting, so the presumption is the other way round.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

That would move towards the old Scottish system of a four-year convenorship, as opposed to having one-year leadership. Does the Minister intend or recognise that that will simply be bypassed in real life by the way in which we do things in England? Will he be a little more explicit about why he thinks that we need this provision rather than just leaving things as they are?

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

The hon. Gentleman has made a good point. Because of the process of dividing the role of the executive from the role of back-bench overview and scrutiny, the council as a corporate body requires its executive power to be accountable, and the presumption of leadership for four years enhances that. I admit that that is more symbolic than practical in the real world, and some local authority leaders have said that they would prefer an annual endorsement as part of their strong leadership, which is a reasonable point of view. To answer the hon. Gentleman’s question directly, placing that executive power in the office of the leader will enhance accountability and the council’s ability—let alone its leader’s ability—to implement its strategic objectives with its partners.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I very much appreciate the Minister’s generosity in giving way. I want to take him on to a different issue: will he confirm the point in the Library briefing that the only way to change an existing electoral mayoral system is if the existing elected mayor agrees to it under proposed new section 33N(2)(a)? That seems to be the model.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

Let me explain again the principle behind the policy that we are pursuing, as laid out in the Bill. The route by which an executive arrangement has been made is the route by which it can be undone. Of course, some stability for that must be built in and an elected mayor can resign or face other circumstances that would render him or her incapable of holding the office. In the absence of that—this is the case in Stoke-on-Trent—the elected mayor, who was elected directly by the population and whose office was created by the referendum, must stay in office until the end of the period.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

May I press the Minister on that point? Proposed new section 33N is apparently a clear statement that a proposal to change governance arrangements cannot be implemented unless the elected mayor has given written consent to the proposed change. In the event of a campaign against a mayor or popular consent against a mayor, he or she is entrenched unless they sign something according to that provision. Will the Minister tell me whether that is correct?

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

The hon. Gentleman slightly misunderstands what proposed new section 33N does. It does not apply to changing the model of governance, which is not what it refers to. The hon. Gentleman has quoted proposed new section 33N(1), which is not about changing the model of governance.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

Perhaps this is a matter to take up outside the Committee. However, the fact is that according to the Library note and my reading of proposed new section 33N(2)(a), the mayor cannot be dislodged and a new system cannot be proposed by the council unless the mayor gives assent to that.

Clause 44

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I beg to move amendment No. 105, in clause 44, page 31, line 25, at end insert—

‘(5A) Such termination shall not take place until the end of a period of three months after the elected leader ceases to hold office or until the election of a new elected executive, whichever is the sooner.’.

The amendment relates to what happens when the leader steps down. The Bill provides that when the leader steps down the entire executive falls with him. I said in an earlier debate that if the leader was to go under a bus today, with the budget being in three weeks’ time, it would be somewhat inconvenient. If, in an election year, the leader were knocked down by a bus on 11 November and were due to retire from the council the following May, under the six-month rule—

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I realised during the Division that I am trying to improve the unimprovable. Therefore, I would like to hear why the Minister feels that amendment No. 105—and in due course amendment No. 106—should not be accepted by the Committee, bearing in mind that his scheme will be totally unworkable unless he does.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

The passion of the hon. Gentleman’s campaign against directly elected executives continues to grow. I will defend the Government’s proposals and the schemes of my colleagues in Stockton and elsewhere.

In tabling the amendment, I think that the hon. Gentleman is trying to provide greater stability for the council that has adopted the directly elected executive model so that, if the elected leader ceases to hold office during the four years, for whatever reason, there can be stability and the remainder of the executive can carry on. The Government are keen to support stability in councils so, on the face of it, it would seem that I should accept the hon. Gentleman’s amendment. However, I have to resist it. I shall explain why

The Committee knows that the Government’s view is that directly elected forms of executive arrangements provide the strongest and most visible leadership and are therefore the most accountable. As with a mayor, a directly elected executive allows people to understand who is responsible for taking difficult decisions—in other words, they know where the buck stops. People would elect a directly elected executive on the basis of the manifesto that has been produced and, of course, they can hold that executive to account. However, under that system they expressly elect a leader and members of the executive. When they cast their vote they are choosing the person—the executive leader—whom they want to be in charge of delivering a manifesto and policies with the help of the executive members on his or her slate, if I can use that word.

The executive powers of the council rest in the office of the leader in those circumstances as in the other two options, and it is therefore essential that if that person ceases to hold office, the electorate are able to choose whom they wish to replace that leader. Of course, that would result in a by-election, and I suspect that it is part of the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about this model. However, I think that that is right. If the electorate have chosen an executive with a leader, and that leader resigns or leaves office for some reason, they should be able to choose a successor. That is a good thing and it will help to achieve the improvement of local democracy that we all say we want.

The provisions relating to the filling of casual vacancies occurring in the office of the elected mayor are contained in regulations; they were not included in the 2000 Act. Broadly, those regulations state that an election to fill the vacancy shall be held within 35 working days of the date that the office was declared vacant. Until such an election has taken place and the vacancy has been filled, the office is filled by the deputy mayor. Therefore, it would be inconsistent to include in the Bill the arrangements for such by-elections; to remain consistent, such provisions should be contained in regulations in order.

I would like to reassure the Committee, and take the opportunity to place on record, that we intend to provide for the filling of vacancies in the office of the leader of the directly elected executive in exactly the same way that is used for the office of mayor. Where there is a vacancy for the office of leader of an elected executive, an election for a new executive would have to take place within 35 days of the date that the office was declared vacant. That would be an election for a new leader and a slate of candidates. Until such an election had taken place and the new executive had taken office, we would intend to provide for the old executive, led by the deputy leader, to continue. Requiring the election of a new leader and executive within 35 days provides the stability required in an authority and, crucially, the transparency and accountability that I hope we all want to achieve. That is my explanation of how to make a workable proposal even more workable.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

It is always good to see Houdini in fine form. I understand the points that the Minister has made. I am pleased to hear that there will be suitable regulations. I am sorry that they are not to be in the Bill, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I beg to move amendment No. 107, in clause 44, page 31, leave out lines 35 and 36 and insert—

‘( ) The number of members of the executive which is to be elected shall be the number of persons included on the proposed executive that is declared elected, but that number shall not exceed 12.’.

I alluded to this amendment before. It deals with the question whether the Minister has a fixed determination that a set size of slate should be put before the electorate when the directly elected model is used, or whether he would prefer the approach that the Liberal Democrats see as right, which is that that, too, could be a matter for competition between the competing teams who seek to run the authority, and that the legislation should therefore allow for the executive being of the size of the winning slate, provided that it is not above a fixed number. We have said 12, but the Minister might prefer 10 as the cut-off number. It is a straightforward matter. Would it not be right to give the council and the electorate the right to choose the size of the executive team that they have, as well as their political and other composition?

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

I again congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his amendment, because councils that may be looking to adopt different models would wish to know about these important matters. My own point of view was influenced significantly by discussions with county council leaders of different political groupings who pointed out the geography of county councils and the distances that members had to travel. In one case, the chair of the county council has to do a 120-mile round trip to chair a meeting of the council or, indeed, a sub-committee of it. It was felt that it would be better to have directly elected members who could carry out functions in the administration, as well as the ward or division councillors who could concentrate on their patch and travel less frequently. There are other arguments in favour, and I do not dismiss those arguments. It is important that we have that flexibility.

That brings us to the hon. Gentleman’s interesting suggestion, which, if I understood him correctly, would allow competing slates to be of different sizes and give councils greater flexibility. Of course, one would have some flexibility. If a group wanted to have an executive slate of 10 including the leader, and in fact to give a portfolio only to four or five of those, that would be possible under the arrangement. We have already debated the wider issues behind directly elected executives and I have not convinced the hon. Gentleman that the proposal is desirable and workable. I will keep trying, but not for too long.

Clause 39 sets out our intention to extend to elected executives the current provisions that determine the maximum and minimum number of executives for mayoral or leader and cabinet models. That means that elected executives will, including the leader, contain a minimum of three members and a maximum of 10 members. The number of executive members that a council has is set out in its constitution and is determined by the full council. In determining the number of executive members, councils should have regard to certain factors, including the need to exercise their functions and the size of the council. The number of candidates on a slate will therefore be identical to the number of executives set out in the council’s constitution, which will have been subject to the consideration of the full council. We have put the cart before the horse, in other words.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I am sure that the Minister can easily envisage circumstances in which an opposition group might say that it had a different way of running the council, with a different number of executives, with different departmental allocations, and that that might be part of a legitimate—indeed, perhaps essential—theme of value for money or some other argument that they would wish to deploy. However, they would be trapped by a prior decision to have an executive of a certain size. I wonder whether the Minister would consider that situation.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

I confess to the Committee—I hope that my Whip will not make a note of this—that I debated this issue with the Liberal Democrat leader of a county council late one night in a restaurant somewhere in south-west England. The argument that I made then was as follows. The full council takes the decision on what model it will use. The full council takes that decision before the electorate have chosen which political colour of slate they want to run the council. In doing so, the council cannot pre-empt the decision of the electorate. Therefore, the number of people on the elected executive and what resolution the council forms in setting up that executive will, of course, come before the people have had their say. The executive’s obligation, therefore, is to include in the number of the directly elected executive members the equivalent number to that which would be in the cabinet of the leader, or indeed hypothetically the mayor, paying regard to the functions, the geography of the place and so on.

In practice, if a slate did not want to adopt that full role and wanted to change those functions, it would have to justify that to the council in the first instance. However, it would be wrong to allow a council to pre-empt the decision of the electorate by changing the constitution in such a way that a fair comparison could not be made. That was the conclusion of the late-night debate in a hotel in south-west England.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

Again I am disappointed by the Minister’s answer, because under the amendment the council would not be pre-empting the electorate’s decision; on the contrary, under his system, the council will be pre-empting that decision. It will decide whether to have eight, 10, or whatever the number might be of members, and it will have a constitution that is approved. Under the system proposed in the Liberal Democrat amendment, the council would not be pre-empting the electorate’s decision and it would be for those who contested the executive election to put forward a slate that they thought was appropriate to the circumstances of that council. Under the system that I am proposing, far from the council pre-empting the electorate’s decision, the situation would be exactly the opposite. However, it is clear that the haze has not yet cleared from that late-night hotel session and therefore I will not press the amendment today. I hope that wiser counsel will prevail in the ministerial office in due course. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

I would like to ask the Minister a question about the clause. My concern arises from the fact that the Minister envisages a slate of people being elected under the proposed system. One has to assume that many of those people will have been councillors, because they are the people who are most likely to wish to take executive roles with the authority, and that within a month or thereabouts there would have to be a by-election for all those members of the slate who have been elected as leaders of the council. Does the Minister envisage that that will lead to greater public participation in local elections, or to less? The only example that I am aware of in recent years of an election taking place shortly after a another election in which turnout rose was the case of my good friend and neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack). In that election, the turnout soared shortly after the general election in very peculiar circumstances.

When there are by-elections shortly after an all-out election, surely the turnout will be greatly reduced, which will lead to increasing apathy among the local electorate for local elections. In any event, it is a challenge for all those involved in local elections to encourage turnout. Does the Minister have any examples of any authority anywhere in the world where a similar system applies? It would be useful for the Committee to know that.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising a serious point about the by-election process that could result from this directly elected model. I thank him for giving me the opportunity to repeat my comments to The Daily Telegraph last week when I learned with great regret that despite the increased turnout at the election, the Conservative party have ignored the advice of the electorate in that part of the world and have tried to deselect the hon. Gentleman. I said that it was a terrible day for Parliament when hon. Members—

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Order Could I ask the Minister to come back to the point?

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

Thank you Mr. Benton. I think you put it more politely than my Whip was about to do. I have now completely forgotten the question that I was asked. It was about by-elections. In our model, if an individual stood both as a ward councillor and as a member of the slate, he or she would risk winning and losing. In the event of winning the executive election, they would have to resign the ward election and in the event of losing they would, if elected at ward level, carry on in that position. Those individuals would have to face that decision and make that judgment. It is right that under this model people cannot hold both offices, just as an elected mayor cannot also hold a ward councillor position. It is part of the separation of executive and policy.

Finally—this comes back to the point that I have been trying to get across to the Committee—it would be the council’s decision whether to go for this model. If it was aware of the possibility of forcing by-elections and took the view that it might be damaging to its democracy because of turnout or other factors—it is not right for me to pre-empt its considerations—I assume that it would not go for that model. But it would be a consequence of the model that is being put forward. I hope that factually answers the hon. Gentleman’s question.

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

It certainly answers the first part of the question. The second part of the question is whether there are any precedents anywhere in the world for such a system.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

The second part of the question was about the hon. Member for South Staffordshire but you, Mr. Benton, will not allow me to go down that road.

In this country the traditional way of filling a vacancy is through a by-election and that is what we are providing for, but there are other approaches in other European countries. For example, in France some elected representatives have a deputy elected alongside them. One could point to the example of the list system in the European Parliament. Those two systems avoid the need for by-elections, but I do not believe that that is a better alternative. It is better to give the public the say at the end of the day. While this model is not based on examples of by-election processes in other parts of the world there are directly elected executive models in parts of Europe, particularly in France. I hope again that that is a factual answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question.

Clause 50

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I beg to move amendment No. 102, in clause 50, page 36, line 11, leave out ‘ten’ and insert ‘four’.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 103, in clause 50, page 36, line 13, leave out ‘five’ and insert ‘four’.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

The clause deals with the time limit within which a further referendum can be held to change governance arrangements. The Bill specifies a period of 10 years in England and five in Wales. Why there is a difference is an interesting question, and I am sure that the Minister has a suitable explanation. The period seems to us to restrict the choices open to a community for changing its governance arrangements if it discovers that it has made a mistake.

The amendments propose that no referendum could be held within four years, rather than the 10 or five specified. I am interested to hear the Minister’s reasoning because, given all the emphasis he has placed on getting the model right and providing local choice and diversity, I would have thought that he would want to facilitate rather than obstruct an opportunity to correct an error—learning from the Stoke-on-Trent example, let us say.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

I repeat my earlier point about the Stoke-on-Trent experience: Stoke-on-Trent that chose that model and now wants to move away from it. It was not imposed upon Stoke by the Government, nor is it being taken away against the will of the people of Stoke-on-Trent. That is the consequence of devolution, and one must live with it.

As the hon. Gentleman said, the clause extends the period within which no more than one referendum can be held from five to 10 years for authorities in England. That change will provide increased stability for executive arrangements and prevent see-sawing between different leadership models. He referred to situations in some councils around the country.

There is a difference between the provisions for England and Wales is because of powers that are given to Wales in clauses that we shall debate later. I expect that, as a consequence of those powers being given, the Welsh limit will change to 10 years, but it would be premature on the one hand to devolve powers to Wales and on the other to dictate what the period should be. This is another champagne moment, although the hon. Gentleman looks as though he is more interested in a red wine moment.

It is right that people should have the opportunity to express their views on and influence their council’s leadership. As I said earlier, communities will still be able to petition for a referendum for an elected mayor, and we are extending that provision to directly elected executives. Local people will also have an opportunity to make their views known whenever a council proposes to change its executive arrangements.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I have understood the Minister to be saying that in the meantime, before the 10 years are up, a petition could be launched by local residents. Is he saying that, in that case, the provision would not have effect or would be superseded, or is he saying that the petition would lie on the Table until the 10 years were up?

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

Let me finish my point, because the situation will become clear and it will save the Committee time.

After earlier debates, Opposition Members should be in no doubt that in order to plan for and deliver the strategies that we all want, the Government believe that leadership needs to be strong and accountable. It is the latter of those criteria that the amendment would affect. It would mean that a council’s executive arrangements could be changed by referendum every four years, which would mean that every four-year term of office could be subject to a referendum on executive arrangements. If a referendum supported change, the executive would of course be undermined. The amendment would make that a possibility in every consecutive term of office. The turbulence caused by that situation would not be conducive to enabling councillors to improve their communities. In fact, it would be highly disruptive. That is why we propose to revise the provision under the Local Government Act 2000 to extend the minimum period between referendums from five to 10 years in England to give new executive arrangements the time they need to bed down and then to provide the stronger leadership that will benefit their area. To repeat my point on Wales, we propose no change to the five-year moratorium, as the Welsh Assembly has expressed no desire as yet to change it. Of course, the decisions of the Assembly anticipate our deliberations on the enabling powers contained in the Bill.

I understand the intention behind the amendments. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove wants further to increase people’s abilities to change their council’s executive arrangements. However, there is a balance to be struck between providing opportunities for communities to express their views and the stability that provides the foundations for that better and stronger leadership. I believe that we have struck the right balance. The petitions that are held now would, of course, lead to a referendum. Until the Bill is enacted, the five-year moratorium applies. After the enactment, the 10-year moratorium will apply to provide the stability that I have talked about.

I repeat the policy that I expressed before: the route by which an executive arrangement is created is the route that must be used to unpick it. In other words, the decision of a council can never overturn a decision of the people in a referendum. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman’s points.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I must say that I found that another disappointing answer from the Minister. The Bill would double the length of time that it would take for a local community to unpick arrangements that it believed were flawed and needed to be changed. The Minister—or his successor—will come to regret that, because he will find that there will be occasions where it would be expedient for the Government to allow local communities to exercise that choice and not to be inhibited by primary legislation that puts that barrier in place. Nevertheless, I have made my point, I have heard the Minister and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 55

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I beg to move amendment No. 121, in clause 55, page 41, line 15, leave out subsection (4).

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 122, in clause 55, page 41, line 17, at end add—

‘(2) No person appointed by virtue of this section may vote in any matter coming before the council to which that person has been appointed.’.

No. 123, in clause 55, page 41, leave out lines 26 and 27.

No. 115, in clause 55, page 41, line 30, at end insert—

‘(g) the degree of representation of the wider community’.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

The purpose of the first three amendments, all tabled by me and my hon. Friends, is to get rid of the proposed appointed parish councillors. There are many proposals in the Bill relating to parish councils that we strongly agree with and welcome. Bearing in mind some of the harsher things that I have had to say earlier today, let me say straight away that I believe the Government are approaching the parishes issue appropriately and we shall support them, on the whole. However, we believe that in respect of the provision of appointed councillors they have stepped off the path.

It should be remembered that parish councils already have the capacity to co-opt. They may co-opt to fill vacancies, and they frequently do. Indeed, the people they co-opt to vacancies would, in many cases, conform to the intentions here. However, they are co-opted if there are not enough candidates to contest an election, never mind to have one, and if vacancies remain afterwards. We think that parish councils ought to retain that democratic element and that those who serve on them should do so as a result of an electoral process, and not following an entirely separate appointment. Amendment No. 121 simply reads: “leave out subsection (4)”, which relates to appointed councillors, because we believe that the intention is mistaken. Amendment No. 122 would provide that any such appointed person could not vote on any matter before the council. In other words, they would be non-voting members of the parish council.

Patrick Hall (Labour, Bedford)

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify the distinction between a co-opted councillor and an appointed one?

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

Co-option is a power that parish councillors have already, provided that there is an unfilled vacancy on the council. It is a second-best situation, so to speak, in order to make up the numbers to the total of the council’s representation. The Government’s proposal is perhaps for the Minister to explain, but I understand from the clause and explanatory notes that they believe a wider range of people might serve on parish councils as a result. But, that might be said of Parliament and of principal councils. I wonder whether the Government think that in order to get a wider range of people into Parliament it would be a good idea just to appoint them. Actually, I suspect they do think that that is rather a good idea. If parish councils are to be, say, residents associations or some sort of sounding boards, that is fine as we need all sorts of representatives. However, if they are to be democratic institutions, they should comprise those who have stood for election and been voted in, regardless of whether or not they are community leaders.

On a separate and rather important practical point, the selection of appointees will be in the hands of parish councillors whose views on whom should be selected might vary quite a lot from those of the Minister. We therefore believe we should retain parish councils as democratic institutions and not—as was suggested in a sedentary comment—turn them into a version of the House of Lords where the great and the good are added to those who can be bothered to get elected. In very many parish communities, if people know that they have two means of getting on to the parish council—going through the hassle of standing and getting elected or sitting back, waiting and getting appointed—the number of people offering themselves for election will not increase. The process proposed by the Government will undermine the democratic nature of parish councils and I hope very much that the Minister will accept the amendments.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

Amendment No. 115 is essentially a probing amendment to tease out the circumstances in which councillors can be appointed. I would like some reassurance from the Minister that the clause will not simply provide a mechanism for those with the largest and most organised voices in a community to get undue representation on parish councils, which in the future might have considerably greater powers than they do now. The Minister will be aware that some people who work with the most vulnerable, excluded and disadvantaged groups can easily be overlooked because they do not seek credit for themselves. They are exactly the sort of people who would make excellent appointees.

Given the hour, I shall not labour the point, but I simply ask the Minister whether regulations would ensure that a balance of community representation is maintained and encouraged when appointments are made.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

I call Phil Woolas.

Angela Smith (Labour, Basildon)

That may be a champagne moment.

The clause that hon. Members seek to amend will allow parish councils to appoint councillors in addition to the normal quota of elected councillors as supplemental councillors co-opted to fill vacancies in the office of elected parish councillor. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford asked what the difference is. I shall come to that in a moment, but there will be no difference in the council’s role.

I want first to draw a sharp distinction between the official process of co-option and appointment as in the clause. All of us want parish councils to be the focal point of the communities that they serve, and to be as vital and effective in their role as they possibly can be. Some councils embrace that philosophy. If they could appoint people by virtue of their role in the community—for example, local teachers—they would be able to add to their effectiveness.

The hon. Member for Hazel Grove was quite cynical about the great and the good. I believe that parish councils want to embrace a wider group of people than just the great and the good.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

The little and the bad.

Angela Smith (Labour, Basildon)

The little and the bad.

There may be doctors, business people, faith and community leaders, local youth workers; someone suggested the local carnival organiser. They are people who contribute to the life of the community, but perhaps by virtue of the work that they do are not eligible to stand for the council. The appointment of such people could greatly enhance the work of councils, and we want to give power to the councils to appoint them if they wish to. We do not want to require councils to do it, and we will not put any pressure on them to do so. The intention of the clause is simply to enable them to appoint if they believe that people in their area—in their community—can contribute to making the council more effective.

As long as there are tight limits on the scale of such appointments, we are somewhat less concerned about the notional dilution of the council’s democratic credentials. As we heard, co-option is already commonplace in councils. In some areas, contested elections are relatively rare, particularly in smaller parishes. Co-option may be used to fill a vacancy; if there is no vacancy but somebody has a contribution to make to the life of the parish and to making the parish council more effective, the option is open to the council.

My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham asked about limits being imposed and the guidance that would be available. Although I cannot go as far as she would like, I can say that I recognise that limits are important. That is why we are seeking a regulation-making power. We want to ensure that the great majority of councillors are elected and that the council as a whole is democratically accountable.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.