Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

Public Bill Committee, 8 March 2007.

Further written evidence to be reported to the House

Schedule 14

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I beg to move amendment No. 212, in schedule 14, page 166, line 44, at end insert—

‘Matter 12.6

Provision for and in connection with methods of election and electoral arrangements.’.

Welcome back, Mr. Benton. I shall be brief because we have to make a lot of progress today.

The schedule relates to the powers devolved to the National Assembly for Wales and on pages 165 and 166 of the Bill is a list of additional powers and changes to powers. The amendment would add an additional power transferred to the National Assembly for Wales that relates to the delegation of methods of election and electoral arrangements for local government in Wales. At the moment, the Assembly and the Administration in Wales are competent to propose changes, but they have to be signed off here at the Westminster Parliament. Bearing in mind the huge surge of democracy that took place in this building last night, I hope that the Government see fit, particularly remembering the devolutionary words of the Ministers in this Committee, to agree that the amendment should be added to the list of powers, thus giving the Administration and the Assembly in Wales the competence to make the same changes that have been made in Scotland and which would be very much of a piece with the devolutionary atmosphere in the Bill.

Angela Smith (Labour, Basildon)

It is good to see you back in the Chair, Mr. Benton, this fine morning. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for tabling the amendment. It is interesting how the word “devolution” is sometimes bandied around in Committee and the different interpretations that are given to it.

The amendment would enable the Assembly Government to bring forward proposals for the National Assembly to legislate on methods of election and electoral arrangements for local government in Wales. The UK Government are committed to using UK Bills to confer new powers on the National Assembly if it is appropriate to do so. The Assembly Government have asked that we take the opportunity of this Bill to bring forward proposals in respect of local government in Wales, but they have not sought the power that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove has asked us to give. Devolution is a matter that the Assembly Government should raise first. It would not be right for the Committee to propose something that has not been requested by the Assembly Government. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

On the grounds that we live to fight another day, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 166

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I beg to move amendment No. 178, in clause 166, page 118, line 36, leave out ‘senior executive member’ and insert ‘whole council’.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment

No. 179, in clause 166, page 118, line 36, after ‘arrangements’, insert

‘by majority resolution of the whole council’.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

The amendment relates to who should be authorised to delegate power to ward councillors. Should it be a senior executive member as the Bill states at present or should it be the result of a decision made by the whole council as set out in the amendment? Given the power as it is, senior executive members might be a lot more reluctant to devolve power than the council collectively and, in fact, the Government’s wishes might be frustrated. There would be more flexibility and more devolution if the matter were for discussion and decision by the whole council.

I am sure that all members of the Committee understand the realities of power and local government. In 80 or 90 per cent. of all decisions, it is likely that the council will follow the wishes and direction of the executive members. However, it seems proper for the council as a whole to have the opportunity to override an executive who are excessively centralist or unwilling to release power or to devolve decision making. The Minister has just said that devolution can be used in many ways. Obviously that is true, but the amendment is about ensuring that there is internal devolution or broader democratic oversight of the devolution inside councils. I hope that the Under-Secretary will feel minded to accept our amendment.

Angela Smith (Labour, Basildon)

I hate to disappoint the hon. Gentleman twice in one day, but I may have to do so. I hope that when I explain the reasons why, he will be happy to withdraw his amendment.

In speaking to the amendment, it may aid the Committee if I also say something about what the clause does. At this point, I would like to talk about what we are considering and explain what is intended by the empowerment of councillors for which the Bill provides.

Clause 166 is part of a strategy we have discussed many times during the course of the Bill. It enables councillors to be more visible to the electorate and to act more visibly. As we have discussed before, it is about being champions of the local community—front-line councillors who take the opportunity to effect positive change in their areas. The clause as it stands allows local authorities to empower individual members to discharge functions on behalf of the authority, but only to the extent that they relate to their own ward or division. It will be the job of the authority, discharged either by a senior executive member or, where appropriate, the full council, to determine the scope of the delegations. The arrangement to which the clause refers covers the methods to be used by councillors in exercising the empowerment that they are given by the authorities, as well as the scope. The clause provides for the Secretary of State to exclude specified categories of function by order and to limit the manner or the circumstances in which local authority arrangements can apply. Hon. Members will accept that there are many local authority functions that would be quite inappropriate to delegate to individual councillors.

We are talking about relatively straightforward issues. The proposal for the Secretary of State to limit by order is a significant constraint on the innovation. We need to work very closely with the Local Government Association and others to define it. We need to consult widely on laying an order before Parliament before coming to a final decision. Hon. Members will be aware that the clause dovetails with clause 92. It enables councillors to discuss matters themselves in the community concerned. It would be inappropriate and a waste of council resources always to refer such matters to overview and scrutiny.

Reading through yesterday’s edition of my local paper, I found an example which, I think the Committee would agree, would be a matter for a councillor with those powers. An 81-year-old lady living in Noak Bridge in Basildon had an intruder in her sheltered accommodation home. She asked the council to fit locks on the windows. The council’s response was, “We have not got the money for the locks, it is not in the budget. However, if you buy them yourself we will fit them.” That is an example of a situation in which a local councillor, using a small delegated budget, could buy the locks and arrange for them to be fitted without going through overview and scrutiny. The power is therefore limited. We expect that most authorities will want to make such arrangements themselves. Although it is a relatively minor power, it has major significance to the constituent who is on the receiving end of that support from the local councillor—or lack of support from their council. The power is a backstop—an extra provision to help local residents in a situation in which local council services have not worked well.

Another example is fly-tipping. A local resident has made repeated calls to a council to clean up an area that has been repeatedly fly-tipped. A local councillor, however, might be able to move things along more quickly, or start again through the official channels if they were not able to get action from the council. The first step would be for the council to speak to the service provider. When that does not work, there has to an additional recourse in which a councillor—many hon. Members on the Committee have been councillors themselves—can cut through the bureaucracy and get something done much more quickly. However, it is not for the Government to tell local authorities what those arrangements should be. In the two examples I gave, a small budget might be made available to councillors for a function, or a councillor might be given the opportunity, in limited circumstances, to place priority orders for the work of council contractors. Again, that will be for individual authorities to decide.

It is worth saying that it is not the Government’s intention to try to force front-line councillors into an executive role that they do not want.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

Perhaps the key comes in the Under-Secretary’s last phrase. I do not disagree with what she said about the desirability of local councillors having the opportunity to intervene in the direct way she describes, but the amendments are not about that; they are about the inhibitions that can be placed on such interventions, and whether a councillor’s budget and the decision to devolve will be at the behest of an executive member or of the whole council. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will address that issue.

Angela Smith (Labour, Basildon)

Patience is a virtue—I was coming to that in my very next sentence, but I thought it was worth setting out exactly what the clause seeks to do. With his experience of local government, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that in 2000, the separation of executive and front-line councillors was defined by legislation. The legislation provided that most council decisions were taken by a small number of highly visible, high-profile councillors—the executive or cabinet, as those groups were called in some areas. That made it easier for the public to identify clearly the councillors responsible for decision making. Council executives make the majority of day-to-day decisions—any function of the authority is the responsibility of the executive unless specified otherwise by regulations. Certain council functions are not under the direct authority of the executive, as specified by regulations. For example, decisions on development control and licensing are both functions for which a full council committee is responsible, and a full council makes budget decisions.

Under clause 40, when a function is an executive function, the executive can confer or delegate it to an individual councillor. When a function is a function of a committee or a full council, it will be for those bodies to delegate. It does not seem right for a body that does not have a responsibility for a function to delegate it to someone else. Clause 166 will allow the executive or the authority, depending on which of those has the responsibility for the function concerned, to empower an individual councillor. Although devolved powers are important, we would not want powers such as the budget, which is a function of an entire council, to be placed with an individual councillor. I hope that that explanation satisfies the hon. Gentleman—I can see him pondering it now—and that he will withdraw the amendments.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

It is always disappointing to get a rebuff and I have had two in 10 minutes from the Under-Secretary. I understand the point she made, but I cannot say that I am satisfied. Nevertheless, I beg to ask leave the withdraw the amendment.

Clause 167

Clause 168

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

The clause seems restrictive about what a local authority can do. Proposed new section 21(1A) of the Local Government Act 2003 states:

“The Secretary of State may issue guidance about the accounting practices to be followed by a local authority, in particular with respect to the charging of expenditure to a revenue account.”

I am interested to know the reason for the change to the 2003 Act. Will the Minister explain it? It need not be a long explanation.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

Good morning, Mr. Benton. I will endeavour to explain the reason briefly, although I think that the hon. Gentleman recognises that it is sometimes difficult to be brief about local government finance and, in particular, capital financing.

If you will allow me to do so, Mr. Benton, it may be helpful for me to take the opportunity to draw to hon. Members’ attention the letter that I wrote to you and the other members of the Committee, enclosing information on the amendments that will be introduced on Report to limit the scope of the Secretary of State’s power to direct proposals for unitary authorities. I gave that commitment and I wanted to record that I have fulfilled it.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

He is buying time.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

No, I am not buying time. I have the explanation and I am fulfilling the obligation that I gave to the Committee in putting it on the record, following the agreement with the Local Government Association.

The answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Poole is that the clause, as he will see, contains three separate provisions, all relating to part 1 of the 2003 Act. Hon. Members will recall that that legislation was used to bring in the prudential capital finance system, which allows local authorities to borrow to pay for capital projects without Government consent, so long as they can afford to service the debt from their own resources. That system has been widely recognised in local government as a success. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport will remember it well. It has been one of the major changes in local government finance.

Clause 168(1) is needed because the new capital finance legislation replaced earlier statutory provisions. The latter are referred to in subsequent pieces of legislation that remain in force, but all those references were rendered obsolete by the 2003 Act, which is a common result of new laws. As is usual, the 2003 Act contained a power enabling the cross-references to be updated by secondary legislation, and in 2003 such an order was made, containing all the consequential amendments that were then thought necessary.

The need for further such changes has recently been identified and it is possible to deliver them through this Bill, which is why I have included clause 168(1). As the hon. Member for Poole will know, it amends section 74 of the Housing Act 1988, which provides for the transfer of local authority housing to housing action trusts. In dealing with payments between the parties, it relies on terms used in the former local government capital finance legislation. Those provisions now need to be expressed in the terminology of the 2003 Act.

That means that this is a tidying-up clause, because we did not spot the need for the changes last time. In fact, that is slightly unfair to my team. This is a consequence of terminology. We are bringing up to date matters that have been referred to before. I hope that the explanation is satisfactory and if I were to say that my speaking note goes on for another seven pages, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would consider that.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

I am sorry I asked—[Laughter.]

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

I have been learning that all night. It took me to about midnight to get to that one.

Clause 169

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

I beg to move amendment No. 235, in clause 169, page 121, line 36, at end insert—

‘(oa) an authority established by an order under section (implementation of proposals by order) of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (joint waste authorities);’.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 26—Proposals for joint waste authorities in England.

Government new clause 27—Consultation.

Government new clause 28—Implementation of proposals by order.

Government new clause 29—Membership of joint waste authorities.

Government new clause 30—Consequential amendments.

Government new clause 31—Joint waste authorities in Wales.

Government new clause 32—Interpretation.

Government amendments Nos. 236, 237, 239, 242, 244 and 246.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

I have long believed that any Bill passing through the House should have a final schedule to be known as the schedule for common sense. These proposals are common sense, long overdue, have been requested by local authorities and they will improve service delivery and save the taxpayer money.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Benton, for allowing me to table these amendments. In all honesty, if I had had time, I would have included them in the published Bill. However, because of time pressure and the desire to get things, I wanted to wait but I am glad that I have been able to introduce the amendments in Committee.

Waste is one of the top pressures on council tax. The increase in waste, as a result of a more prosperous and changing society, is one of the main inflationary pressures on local government, as identified by the joint work that we have done with the Local Government Association. I have been pressed on this point by the Association of District Treasurers for many months and, indeed, years.

These new clauses allow districts and counties to enter into joint arrangements for the collection and disposal of waste. London boroughs already do this between them, by joining up—of course, London boroughs have the waste and recycling responsibility—into four London waste authorities. Metropolitan authorities have the opportunity, and the largest waste authority in the country is the Greater Manchester waste authority, which involves 10 local authorities working together to achieve efficiencies in procurement and savings.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

Two or three years ago, Lichfield district council was top. I am not talking about the parish being the largest parish in the country—I was slapped down and told it was Weston-super-Mare—but I do know that Lichfield district was the best recycler in the country. It has been held back, to some degree, by liaison with Staffordshire county council. This measure will help us go from second place, which is where I think we are, back up to first place.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

I was with David Smith, the leader of Lichfield district council yesterday afternoon. [ Interruption. ] Indeed, he is a Conservative who chairs the West Midlands Local Government Association very ably. I can confirm that what the hon. Member for Lichfield says is true. I can also confirm from my conversations with the leader that the mace is safe; the hon. Gentleman need not worry, but he makes a good point.

Lichfield has done very well but, broadly speaking, the authority areas that recycle the most are the better-off areas. That is true irrespective of the political persuasion of the council. The districts have been asking to be able to work with counties for some time. We had a group report from the high-performing local authorities, of which I believe Lichfield was a member. These are the three-star and improving and four-star councils that group together to advise the Government on how to make improvements in these matters. Their report, in support of this proposal, identified efficiency gains of approximately £150 million that would result simply from knocking down this legislative barrier to being able to set up joint working authorities.

The separation of decision-making powers and funding streams into two-tier areas inhibits the efficiency of the waste management function. Additionally, not all local authorities have the optimum size to deliver the efficiencies. It has long been the case that the argument for unitary authorities has rested on the example of districts collecting rubbish and counties disposing of it. As part of our permissive regime, we are trying to encourage joint working as well as considering unitary proposals.

Tom Levitt (Labour, High Peak)

If the measure is likely to enable Lichfield to improve its performance, will it also help the Liberal-Conservative controlled High Peak council to rise from near the bottom of the recycling league?

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

I expect that it will, and I expect that if I answered to the contrary, I would get a steaming letter from my hon. Friend. He is right. We are trying to facilitate better working together across boundaries and between tiers of government. The financial pressures on waste and recycling identified by the councils result from the huge need for capital investment in recycling and other measures identified by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs strategy document. Not all of that, incidentally, should or will fall on local authorities. However, it is the local authorities’ responsibility. There are significant financial reasons why the proposal is beneficial.

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

As in so many other matters during this part of the debate, I rise to highlight the merits of Shropshire as a pathfinder in many areas of local government. We are a four-star county council, and we have established with the district councils a Shropshire waste partnership, which began its deliberations some six years ago. Had the legislation existed at the time to facilitate what is proposed in the clauses, it would not have taken the districts and county six years to achieve joined-up waste collection and disposal, which is due to come into force at the end of this year.

I support the Government’s objective but, contrary to the Minister’s point a moment ago that the measure is necessary to demonstrate the importance of unitary as an appropriate model, we in Shropshire have secured agreement between the two tiers—

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Order. I am sorry, but this is becoming a lengthy intervention. It is beginning to sound more like a contribution.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

My argument is not an argument for unitary. My point was that the desirability of bringing together collection and disposal has been used as an argument for unitary. It is the most common argument. Because the Government have a genuinely permissive approach, it makes sense if we are not imposing unitary authorities—and the hon. Gentleman knows that we are not—to facilitate better joint working between districts and counties, particularly where they have asked for it. The head of steam behind the measure is very strong indeed. Ken Thornber, leader of Hampshire county council, made strong representations with his districts on that point, as have other county local authorities.

New clause 27 will introduce a requirement on local waste authorities to consult relevant electors and other interested persons in their area on a draft of their proposal. New clause 28 will allow the Secretary of State to implement proposals for joint waste authorities.

New clause 29 provides the requirements for membership of joint waste authorities. Only members of the constituent local waste authorities will be able to be members of joint waste authorities. A newspaper headline on the proposal in the Daily Mail, instead of describing it as a common-sense measure, said something like “Blair to chop elected authorities of rubbish responsibility”, implying that we were establishing a quango that would not be accountable. Of course, the waste authorities, like existing waste authorities, will be led by elected members, albeit elected members from different areas. Perhaps the journalist had had a heavy lunch and was looking for some knocking copy. I assure Committee members that only members of the constituent local waste authorities can be members of that new joint waste authority.

If the proposals are accepted, we would require a number of consequential amendments to be made to ensure that joint waste authorities are considered as the relevant authority for specific functions in the Bill and in other legislation. Those changes are set out in new clause 30 and amendments Nos. 235 to 237 and No. 242.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

As the Minister knows, the London borough of Bromley has a good record on recycling and is top of the league in London, particularly if garden waste is excluded. Perhaps the Minister could introduce a clause to enable West Ham United to get up the league table. That is a tall order, but I was hoping that he would work on it.

My specific point relates to an issue that I mentioned during the evidence hearings. Will there be anything to prevent local authorities in different counties from forming a joint waste authority? One can think of circumstances, albeit unusual ones, in some of the big conurbations where it may make economic and environmental sense for people to combine across county boundaries. That is not how we tend to think in local government terms, but it may be sensible. I should like reassurance that, if there is agreement among all the authorities, there would be nothing to inhibit them from doing so.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

The Government have issued guidance to Alan Curbishley, the manager of West Ham, advising him to use a mobile phone when driving, because I have been told that that is the only way he will get three points. I apologise, Mr. Benton, because I should have declared an interest as a Manchester United season ticket holder. We tried to assist West Ham’s negotiations with the Olympic delivery body to ensure that the club was able to move into a new stadium. My rationale was that it would then compete more with Chelsea and Arsenal, which would benefit Manchester United.

The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is a big and desirable yes. Authorities are already coming together through contracting arrangements. For example, the Park Royal industrial estate in north-west London—the largest in western Europe—spans the boundaries of three London boroughs and has contracting arrangements for shared waste disposal and recycling. I mentioned previously other examples of districts, particularly in rural county areas, coming together to co-operate on revenue and benefits. On the hon. Gentleman’s point about the waste authority, there is a case for what he suggests—either on the edge of a conurbation with a rural area or between districts spanning county boundaries.

Authorities that do not share a geographical boundary are increasingly coming together, where it makes sense for them to work together, in respect of expertise, geography, or for other reasons. For example, Tameside metropolitan borough council, a four-star council, and Camden council in London co-operate on processing housing benefit claims for Camden residents. Unison’s claim for London weighting for employers in Tameside was one of the most innovative that I have seen. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is right. Such joint working, leading to efficiencies, breaks down barriers, stops local authority boundaries being the be-all and end-all, and allows change through a commissioning regime that will allow savings to be made. It is ridiculous that there are different arrangements for the procurement of vehicles, and so on, when the taxpayer can benefit from better working together.

The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is yes and I am grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to put my case.

Alistair Burt (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

With his joke, the Minister made an early bid for the champagne moment of the day. We welcomed the joke—it was very well put. I wondered whether he would follow it up with further knowledge of West Ham and the great Bobby Zamora, and repeat the well known chant, “When the ball’s in the goal, it’s not Shearer or Cole; it’s Zamora.” [ Laughter. ] That was perhaps a lame effort by me to steal the champagne moment of the day, but we will come back to that later. [ Interruption. ] One just knows certain things about football. But I am from Bury—I am a Reds and Shakers fan.

My purpose in rising is to welcome the new clauses. Conservatives have been pressing the case to allow such co-operation.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I want the Committee to be aware that Stockport County have broken a 119-year-old league record for winning matches and not conceding goals. I would not want the moment to pass, as football teams seem to be the flavour of the moment.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Order. We should move away from football soon. Each party has had a little go, but it might be as well to return to the amendment under discussion.

Alistair Burt (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

We shall not try your patience any further, Mr. Benton, on such a lovely morning.

My party welcomes the new clause. Indeed, we have been pressing for some time for the introduction of such a measure. We appreciate that it is permissive and that it allows authorities the opportunity and option to work together, which is exactly the right thing to do.

I thank the Local Government Association for its briefing. We appreciate its work in informing the Committee and keeping us up to speed through its briefings. I wish to raise a couple of points that it made and get the Minister’s comments on them. The LGA states that it is

“not convinced that it is necessary for the bill to provide the Secretary of State with powers to dissolve Joint Waste Authorities.”

It said that it would seek a brief explanation

“of the circumstances in which the Secretary of State might take such action”

and use such powers. It states:

“The LGA is keen that the final drafting of the bill puts local authorities firmly in the driving seat when a proposal for a Joint Waste Authority is formulated. Central government must not be prescriptive in making modifications and we would like assurance that any duty to consult is proportionate.”

I would be grateful if the Minister would briefly tackle those two points, if he can.

While the Minister is finding the information, I would add that he was right to say that waste is a significant and growing factor for local authorities and their budgets to deal with. Many councils make the point that increased duties are placed on them by the Government, but that it is sometimes difficult for them to find resources to meet ever-more onerous requirements. There plainly is complete complementarity of interest between the Government and local authorities in doing their best on this score. I would like to congratulate Bedfordshire county council, which has made significant efforts to improve its recycling position. Its committee, under the leadership of Councillor Tom Wootton, has done very well.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

The hon. Gentleman refers to councils’ recycling. Would he join me in congratulating the Conservatives on Sutton council on deposing their deputy leader because he did not find time to recycle at all? Is that something that the hon. Gentleman would recommend other local authorities do?

Alistair Burt (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

The hon. Gentleman is tempting me not to a champagne moment but to a suicidal moment in welcoming the deposing of any Conservative council on any council. On this occasion, my briefing is not sufficiently extensive for me to give him an adequate response. He has put the matter on the record in his own way, and we should be content to leave it at that.

Just to reiterate, Conservative Members are pleased with the new clauses, and we hope that, where it is appropriate and where it would be effective, joint waste authorities come into being.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

We, too, welcome the provisions and the way in which they have been introduced. In responding to the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire, however, could the Minister tell us whether the Secretary of State’s residual powers, which the LGA has queried, are a response to the situation in Greater Manchester? For a number of years, it was a matter of great frustration that the waste authority’s constituent councils were required to reach a unanimous decision to change the charging regime. It was widely recognised that the regime operated contrary to public policy in that it charged those who recycled most, rather than those who recycled least. That has now been put right, but there was a logjam in the decision-taking process, and I should be very satisfied if the Minister could reassure me that the power that he holds, to which the LGA objects, would prevent such a logjam in future.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

On that last point, I shall need to write to the hon. Gentleman. I agree with what he says. As he knows, my council is the secretariat for the Greater Manchester waste authority, and—it is surprising what one learns as a local MP—the procurement contract into which it is entering is the largest public sector contract in Europe. It relates to rubbish, bins, collection and recycling and is hugely important to the public and the taxpayer. If I may, therefore, I shall give him the details that he needs in a letter because I do not know the answer to his question.

I think, however, that I can go some way towards addressing hon. Members’ other questions. On modification, a proposal made to the Secretary of State that might require minor alteration would be fettered because the Secretary of State could not create a joint waste authority for an area that was different from the area specified in the proposal or establish a joint waste authority to discharge functions that were not specified in the proposal.

On abolition, new waste authorities might be created through the amalgamation of waste authorities that had come forward under the new proposal. If three districts came together across county boundaries, as the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst suggested, and the new authority was a success and wanted to expand, it would need to make a new proposal, and the old one would need to be abolished. In exceptional circumstances, an authority might simply have imploded and might not be working, and its poor performance would mean that it would have to be got rid off and that new arrangements would have to be put in place. The provisions are intended as a backstop should an authority seriously fail. Those are the circumstances that are envisaged under the new arrangements, and I hope that that answers the point in the LGA briefing.

New Clause 11

New Clause 12

New Clause 13

New Clause 17

New Clause 18

New Clause 19

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 243.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I should like hear from the Minister the reasons for this provision. When I originally saw the draft new clause, I thought it said “shall” and not “may”, which would have concerned me. Bearing it in mind that this was the position the last time we had European elections, I wonder why the Secretary of State needs such a power. It already exists. I would like the Minister to explain.

Alistair Burt (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

I read the clause with the same interest, and I wonder whether the Minister will enlighten us as to whether it will become a regular feature of elections. Are the Government going to say that it will be a fixed arrangement that, when European elections are to be held, the local elections will automatically be moved? If that is the case, we might as well know it.

However, a subsidiary matter is causing great interest in Bedfordshire. The people of Biggleswade are asking why it is being done that way round. Why is it that the long-standing tradition in our country of having local elections on the first Thursday in May should be changed for the benefit of elections to the European Parliament? People in Biggleswade say to me, “Mr. Burt, why, in the ember days of his premiership, does the Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, not go to the European Commission and say, ‘How about you moving your European parliamentary elections to the date on which we traditionally vote in Biggleswade—the first Thursday in May?’?” I have to say that there is some force in that argument.

As well as the Minister enlightening us as to whether it is to be standard practice that, every five years, we should accept the date of the local elections being moved to coincide with European parliamentary elections, will she also say whether the Government have made representations to the European Commission and the European Parliament on changing the date of their elections in order to coincide with our local and district elections in the county of Bedfordshire?

Angela Smith (Labour, Basildon)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentlemen for their wise and interesting comments. It is always helpful to know what the voters of Biggleswade think about any particular issue, so I am grateful for that.

New clause 19 and amendment No. 243 will amend the Representation of the People Act 1983 to provide the Secretary of State in England and Welsh Ministers in Wales with the power to change the day of local and Greater London authority elections by order, so that they can take place on the same day as European Parliament elections. Prior to the last European Parliament elections, in 2004, we took the power, in the Local Government Act 2003, to combine them with other 2004 elections. However, that power applied only to the 2004 elections, and this is a recurring issue, particularly in England where there are local government elections in most years.

The next elections to European Parliament are due to take place in June 2009. In that year, local elections for all English county councils are due to be held on 7 May. We seek to give the Secretary of State the power to combine such elections without the need for primary legislation by making an order to combine elections that fall due at around the same time.

As the Government said in 2003, we have taken a number of measures since 1997 to improve participation in the democratic process. Our proposal then to combine the 2004 local, GLA and European Parliament elections was in line with other measures that focused on voter convenience and assisting the voter. We wanted to ensure that voting was convenient and not a hassle or difficulty, and we wanted to remove as many barriers as possible. That is why we thought it right to hold the 2004 elections on the same day, so that people did not have to vote twice in six weeks.

Such a change might be valid on any number of occasions, as having only a few weeks between two election dates creates a significant risk of there being a very low turnout for both polls or either one of them, particularly the second one. We all want to ensure that as many people as possible participate in the democratic process. It is worth noting that turnout at the 2004 European elections was significantly higher than in 1999. It rose from 24 per cent. to 38.5 per cent. Research for the Electoral Commission’s follow-up report on the European elections found that combining the European Parliament elections with local elections and the mayoral and assembly elections in London was an important factor in improving turnout.

There is a presumption that combining local and European elections, on whichever date, is generally the right way forward, but that would depend on the circumstances, and it would be inappropriate to say that it was automatically the right thing to do. It might depend, for example, on the length of the period between the first Thursday in May—the traditional day for local elections in England—and the day set for European elections. Combining polls has advantages, but I readily admit that it also has disadvantages. With combined elections, there is always a concern, particularly among local councillors, that local elections will be subsumed and will not get the priority or recognition that they deserve.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

Will the Under-Secretary clarify whether there is a limit on the duration between local council and European elections that the Government would not want to go beyond when ensuring that such dates coincide?

Angela Smith (Labour, Basildon)

I am not sure that I fully understand the hon. Gentleman’s question. Will he expand on it?

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

Clearly, it might be appropriate to combine elections that are due to take place in May and June, but it might not be appropriate to combine them when the European elections are due to take place at a later date. Combining elections that are due to be five or even 12 months apart would have a bigger impact.

Angela Smith (Labour, Basildon)

That is exactly why we want flexibility. That is also why I say that combining election dates might not be appropriate in all circumstances. It would be a matter to be decided by order after discussion and consultation. There are many cases in which it might not be appropriate. It is important that in local elections, local issues are to the fore in any campaign. That should be taken into account.

Alistair Burt (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

I am not sure that the Under-Secretary will like my intervention. Does this power mean that the Secretary of State can move the date of an election by order? When there is discussion as to whether it is right to move a particular election date, will there be a debate and a vote in the House, or are we agreeing to a process that will preclude that discussion and simply allow the Secretary of State to make the decision?

Angela Smith (Labour, Basildon)

It would be for Parliament to decide by order. The Secretary of State could not make the changes without putting an order before Parliament. There would probably need to be consultation and discussion. I do not think that any Government would move election dates lightly. The hon. Gentleman will recall that prior to the 2005 general election—

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 243.

Angela Smith (Labour, Basildon)

When we adjourned earlier, I was waffling about a date. [Hon. Members: “No, no!”] I have lots of help from my colleagues. I was making a point about occasions when the date of an election should be changed. It should be changed only in exceptional circumstances, to be helpful and supportive to the electorate. That would be the main reason.

The new clause will ensure that any such proposal would always come before the House. It would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and would be voted on by the House. I can confirm that we have spoken to the Local Government Association, which is content with the new clause.

The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire asked whether it would be a matter of arranging for the elections to be on the day of local council elections or on the day of European Parliament elections. The proposal in the new clause is to align the election dates. European Parliament elections always take place over a four-day period, from the Thursday to the Sunday, and they have to take place in June. The specific dates are set by the unanimous decision of member states in the European Council, so obviously the British Government would play a role in deciding on the date. Alignment of the dates is important.

There are two key points. The date will be set by agreement of the House of Commons—by a vote in the House—and the proposal is intended to help the electorate as a whole. Nobody would ever do this lightly. It is an important step. The new clause gives the option to the House to vote, if required, on the alignment of election dates.

Alistair Burt (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

I am grateful for the Minister’s explanation, and thank her for the time that she spent on it. It is tempting for the people of Biggleswade to feel that perhaps those in Barcelona, Bavaria and Budapest should bend to their will. However, in the spirit of international co-operation, and on the basis that this may not happen on each and every occasion, we can appreciate the reasons for the new clause. I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the thinking behind it.

New Clause 20

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

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

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 245.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

New clause 20 and Government amendment No. 245 relate to the desirable objective of bringing local authority services and health services closer together. It is proposed to establish a joint needs assessment to ensure that social care services and health services jointly engage in the assessment of local health needs. The argument behind the proposal is that we must do that without imposing extra or excessive bureaucracy in the system.

The types of needs assessment that already take place in some areas consider medium and long-term health needs. One area may have a particular difficulty with heart disease, lung disease or some such, and other areas may have different needs. The new clause allows for local discretion, but, in so far as it is not devolutionary, it compels health authorities and local authorities to do the needs assessment together. It will strengthen earlier clauses on local area agreements by requiring the responsible local authority and the primary care trust, being the two lead bodies, to produce such a needs assessment.

To put it on the record, a “need” means a significant overlap in the impact or potential impact of the exercise of functions of the primary care trust and the responsible local authority. Such an area might include social care provision for older people, which will be substantially affected by the delivery of both preventive and acute health care primarily by PCTs.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

Would not that always occur? Is there not always a problem when, for example, a cottage hospital is unable to discharge an elderly person because there is no available place for them in a nursing or care home? I welcome what the Minister is saying, but he uses the word “if”. I would say that it is virtually probable in every district that that very problem will occur, particularly with an elderly population.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. We are talking about the assessment of needs. It is a future assessment, and in that sense, it is not directly about the delivery of services. We are trying to address the fact that in some parts of the country, the PCT undertakes a needs assessment as part of its duties while a local authority addresses its social care priorities. The new clause is about joining up, simplifying, getting rid of bureaucracy and all the things behind the thrust of the Bill.

Hon. Members might recall mention during debate in Committee of there being too many targets. It is quite possible to have one target for a local authority and another, sometimes contradictory, target for health care. The deputy group leader of the Local Government Association’s Conservative group, Councillor Milton from Westminster, often cites the case of Kent, which discovered apparently contradictory targets on teenage pregnancy for the local authority and PCT. That is not desirable. Members know of examples in their constituencies; indeed, we get applause during after-dinner speeches for pointing out contradictions in the bureaucracy. The new clause will address that problem. The hon. Member for Lichfield has a fair point, but the measure deals with needs assessment.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned districts. I believe that he represents an area covered by a district, one that we have heard about during this debate—Lichfield. We should not forget south-east Staffordshire and Staffordshire as well. The new clause will address that issue by requiring that in two-tier local authority areas, the county council must consult its district councils on the joint needs assessment.

Supporting statutory guidance on the clauses and part 5 of the Bill will make it clear that the local authority should take into account the joint strategic needs assessment’s findings in setting targets in the local area agreement and in preparing the sustainable communities strategy, a point that I also direct to members of the Committee considering the Sustainable Communities Bill. I put it on the record because it will be useful to me in that Committee on Wednesday. The new clause should be seen as part of the broader provisions in part 5 to strengthen partnership. That in turn, we hope and intend, will help to deliver more responsive care.

Government amendment No. 245 will amend the Bill to ensure that new clause 20 comes into force by means of a commencement order rather than automatically two months after Royal Assent. That is a practical step to ensure that PCTs and local authorities have been provided with the necessary guidance to assist them in meeting the duty.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

Given that the new clause refers to the responsible local authority, might there be circumstances in which a number of local authorities need to get together to do a health and social care assessment? Will the new clause provide for that?

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It will. It puts the responsibility on the responsible local authority, which means the local authority responsible for social services. In that case, the local authority with more than one PCT would be covered. The responsibility is on the local authority as well as the PCT.

We are not so much banging heads together as saying, “Make arrangements so that the needs assessment for your area is covered.” The needs assessment itself would be for the local authority area and not necessarily the PCT area, which may be different in those instances where there is no coterminosity, which as the hon. Gentleman knows, are fewer now than they used to be due to the joined-up nature of this Government. I hope that, rather like the provision on joint waste authorities, that is seen as sensible.

We backed away—just to share this information with the Committee—from the requirement to put this assessment in the community strategy. That would be unpicking strategies that had already been decided. I expect that they will be part of that joint strategy. However, we do not want to make it a tick-box exercise, to use the management jargon; we want to make it real. On that basis, I commend the new clause to the Committee.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I have one brief point to make. I very much welcome the thrust of this new clause together with the other parts that strengthen consultation. I hope that this will enable us—I am sure that the Minister will be able to confirm it—to look not only at needs of the type that he referred to in his own comments but, for example, at the increasing need for capacity in GP surgeries and to make sure that there is clear involvement of the local authority.

If that happens, I hope that we can avoid the thoroughly unsatisfactory situation which arose, only this week, in my constituency. Due to a lack of capacity, a GP surgery suddenly got the PCT to issue a direction to change its catchment area. About 1,200 people, some of whom are quite elderly and have been with that surgery for 50 years, are arbitrarily told that they have to find another doctor. This is the excellent Bromley Common practice. The PCT arbitrarily took that decision because of a capacity issue. Neither the local council nor the local Members of Parliament knew anything about it until constituents and the local newspapers got on to them. This measure is welcome if, together with the other provisions that we have already discussed, it goes some way to preventing that thoroughly unsatisfactory situation.

It is important that the ethos of early consultation and involvement of elected representatives and patients is built into the system right the way through. I expressed concerns about the abolition of the patients forums and how effective LINKs would be in this regard. This is a classic example. This surgery’s problem arose due to the Mayor of London, about two years ago, directing refusal of an application to build a surgery because the land was green belt. There has been a crying need for an alternative proposal for that practice, but there has not been a mechanism to pull everything together. In the end, we get this arbitrary decision without any form of consultation, which has caused great distress to a lot of my constituents. I hope that this provision will provide some means of dealing with such issues and would like reassurance on that point.

May I tell the Minister while he is thinking about it—to give him a little more time—that the Minister for London very much appreciated his Alan Curbishley joke?

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

I think that my Parliamentary Private Secretary appreciated it even less. That is probably why she is not here.

The reason for my puzzlement is that I do not honestly think that this clause addresses the hon. Gentleman’s point. I think that the rest of the Bill makes the situation that he describes less likely. This provision is not about the delivery of services. It is about the initial planning phase of a joint assessment of the health needs of the area. The GP capacity is directly and primarily a matter for the PCT. The hon. Gentleman will know that GPs stand in an unusual relationship with PCTs. The joint needs assessment could examine GP capacity as a need of course, but the PCT must take action to increase or decrease that capacity. That relates to our debate about the planning of services and the consultation on that issue. I hesitate to give the hon. Gentleman a guarantee, because the real world will get in the way of any such Government guarantee, particularly if a GP retires or other policies intervene.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I feel slightly guilty about putting the Minister on the spot, but this has been a timely opportunity to put that particular concern of my constituents on the record. Will he take that concern—particularly the points about consultation and planning—back to his colleagues in the Department of Health?

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

I am more than happy to endorse the press release to the local paper in south-east London. The serious point is that the value of scrutiny has been demonstrated, and whatever policies one puts in place, they will never be perfect. That raises the paradox of devolution and equity. We have devolved power to a London level, but if London disagrees with the decision of a different level, one has problems. However, returning to the narrow confines of the Government new clause, in deference to my boss, the Whip, I shall sit down.

New Clause 22

New Clause 23

New Clause 24

New Clause 25

New Clause 26

New Clause 27

New Clause 28

New Clause 29

New Clause 30

New Clause 31

New Clause 32

New Clause 1

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

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

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 8—Local authority resolution to change electoral system

‘(1) Any local authority may, not later than 12th September in the year that is two years before the year in which it shall take effect, resolve that the next two elections of the local authority will be held using an approved electoral system other than that used for the previous election.

(2) A resolution under this section—

(a) takes effect, subject to paragraph (b), for the next two elections of the local authority; and

(b) continues in effect until either—

(i) a further resolution under this section takes effect; or

(ii) a poll of electors of the local authority held under this Act takes effect.

(3) A local authority may not resolve to change its electoral system more than once every five years.’.

New clause 9—Approved electoral systems

‘(1) The following methods of election shall be approved electoral systems pursuant to this Act—

(a) “First Past the Post” which means the system currently used for elections to the UK Parliament.

(b) “Single Transferable Vote” as defined in the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003 (asp1) by the Scottish Parliament.

(c) An “Additional Member System” as defined in the Scotland Act 1998 (c. 46).

(d) An “Alternative Vote” system which is one in which if no candidate obtains the votes of 50 per cent. of those voting in a single member constituency the subsequent preferences of those who voted for the losing candidates are successively taken into account until one candidate has obtained 50 per cent. of those voting.

(e) An “Alternative Vote Plus” system which is an Additional Member System in which the constituency Members are elected by means off the Alternative Vote system.’.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I had wondered whether this sleep-inducing process of saying “aye” and “no” was going to continue, thereby allowing new clause 1 to slip in.

The new clause is about the single transferable vote. Clearly, some of my colleagues are dedicated followers of STV. In fact, some hon. Members in other parties may feel that my colleagues are obsessed by STV. I hasten to add that I do not put myself in that category. Yesterday we had an historic vote on the House of Lords. Today, there is an opportunity for another historic vote to reform our own voting systems and go for the single transferable vote for local council elections. Clearly, that particular solution is the Rolls-Royce of electoral systems to replace the Austin Allegro that we are currently attempting to drive. The Government might not want to go for the Rolls-Royce solution, but we have new clause 8 in front of us that would provide them with something in between—perhaps the Mondeo of electoral systems.

Let us focus on new clause 1 and the single transferable vote. It is important because proportionality ensures that each vote has the same worth. Hon. Members will know, depending on which part of the country they represent, how the present electoral parliamentary system helps them. Proportionality in south-west London, an area that I represent, is not effective, or at least people’s votes are not reflected effectively in the political representation of Members of Parliament in that area. Fortunately in south-west London, the Liberal Democrats benefit from the lack of proportionality in relation to the Westminster system. The same applies at a local level as well.

We welcome the fact that Scotland is pioneering the use of STV for its local elections. In local elections from 2000 to the last election, voter turnout varied between 29.6 per cent. and a maximum of 40 per cent. Clearly, the turnout was very low. That is because in many parts of the country how people vote makes very little difference in terms of who is elected to represent them on their local council. Hence the need for the single transferable vote, which, we believe would improve voter turnout. Furthermore, it would make councils more representative of the communities that they seek to reflect and their elected representatives would be more representative of the communities that elect them.

In our view, more women would get elected under a single transferable vote system for local elections; currently, only 29 per cent. of local councillors are women. More members of the black and ethnic minority community would be elected as well; only 2 per cent. of local councillors are from that community.

I am realistic, however. I recognise that, although the Labour party in Scotland has conceded that STV is the way forward for local elections, there is no evidence so far that the Government in Westminster will endorse the system. If the Minister is not willing to support new clause 1, he has new clause 8 as an alternative. It is based on the Parliamentary and Local Elections (Choice of Electoral Systems) Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) and is about offering options to local councils. Why is that a way forward? We need a mixture of systems, and that principle has been accepted in London, where the electoral system chosen is different from any other in the country. Indeed, a beneficiary of that system is sitting in the Committee with us.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I hate to sound pedantic, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that I, like all Conservative and Labour GLA members, was elected under the first-past-the-post system.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out. However, the electoral system put together to elect members of the Greater London authority elected him, but equally elected other list members.

We accept the principle of different types of electoral systems. New clause 8 would provide options to local authorities in respect of the type of electoral system that they could adopt—whether, as set out in new clause 9, it was first-past-the-post, the single transferable vote, additional member, alternative vote or an alternative vote plus system. Local authorities would have a choice of systems, as they have a choice of whether to go for a mayoral or executive option.

Neil Turner (Labour, Wigan)

I wonder why the Liberal Democrats in Scotland did not allow a plurality of systems when they had the opportunity, with the Labour party, of changing the system there.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I do not have the answer to that, but as a Labour party representative, the hon. Gentleman may be closer to the action there. He may be able to get a response from his own colleagues on why they supported the system now in place.

Neil Turner (Labour, Wigan)

I imagine that Labour Members of the Scottish Parliament are still nursing their arms, which were shoved up their backs by the Liberal Democrat MSPs.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

If a small bunch of Liberal Democrats was able to arm-wrench the hon. Gentleman’s Scottish Parliament colleagues as he suggests, I thank him for highlighting what a weak and feeble bunch they are. I shall pass on that message to my colleagues in Scotland, who will welcome it in the run-up to the Scottish elections. I am sure that they will make good use of that information.

New clause 9 sets out the different options that local authorities could go for. In new clause 8, we provide a method through which they would be allowed to opt for and try different systems, although they would not be allowed to change the electoral system on a regular and confusing basis; there would be a period during which they could not change the system.

The voting public cope very well with an electoral system in London that includes borough elections and elections for the Mayor, for the Greater London assembly, for Westminster and for the European Parliament, and may include at some point parish council elections. I am confident that that public would be able to cope with a system that changed from time to time, or with any of the options that local authorities could choose.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

I am looking through some of the other new clauses that the hon. Gentleman will be proposing later this afternoon, and I want to get behind his motivation. Could it be despair? I understand that of those who regularly support the Liberal Democrats at general elections, only 16 per cent. could identify “Ming” as the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I thank the hon. Gentleman. However, I am having difficulty linking that intervention to new clauses 1, 8 or 9. Perhaps he can help.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

I believe that the hon. Gentleman is despairing because, given that the Liberal Democrats seem to command only 16 per cent. of support in recent polls in our first-past-the-post system, it is felt that his proposal offers the only way that those of the Liberal Democrat persuasion can get elected to Parliament.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Order. We should return to the new clause.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

Thank you, Mr. Benton; I was going to make the point that the hon. Gentleman is tempting me to stray far beyond the remit of the new clauses.

As I stated at the beginning, new clause 1 offers what we consider to be the Rolls-Royce electoral solution—the one that would provide the most representative local government. However, if the Government are not keen on that, they have the alternative proposed by the hon. Member for Bury, North. That would provide the sort of choice that the Minister seeks to provide in other respects for local authorities.

Andrew Gwynne (Labour, Denton and Reddish)

The hon. Gentleman mentions choice, and my personal choice is the first-past-the-post system. However, new clause 9 lists various voting systems, ranging from first-past-the-post to the single transferable vote. Why can we not choose the system used for elections to the European Parliament? Do the Liberal Democrats favour some versions of proportional representation but not others?

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to highlight the fact that the system adopted for the European Parliament was not one that we supported. I also note that the hon. Gentleman supports the first-past-the-post system; perhaps I detect a little self-interest.

Tom Levitt (Labour, High Peak)

Just for the record, those who support the first-past-the-post system may also support the alternative vote system, which is on the hon. Gentleman’s list. I note, however, that the drawing of ballots and choosing councillors at random is not included. Surely, it should be an option.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I thank the hon. Gentleman. I am not familiar with the system of drawing councillors’ names in random ballots, but I must not be tempted explore it, Mr. Benton, because you will seek to bring me back to the matter in hand. In fact, I have concluded my remarks. I hope that the Under-Secretary will respond positively to our sensible proposals.

Angela Smith (Labour, Basildon)

It is rare at this stage of a Committee’s proceedings to have so much excitement. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington for raising the issue. I hate to disappoint him yet again—he looks so tragic when I do.

Every voting system has its advantages and disadvantages, and hon. Members will have judged which they believe is best in the interests of democracy. I was somewhat surprised that the new clause was proposed, however, because after looking through my papers over the weekend, I came to the House on Monday only to read The Guardian headline that said, “Campbell sets Brown tests for Lib-Lab coalition deal”. I shall not go too far down this path, Mr. Benton, but given the question before us I think I might be given some licence. For many Liberal Democrat leaders the big issue—the deal-breaker—has been PR. Yet in an official briefing——although it was later retracted—

“journalists were told proportional representation was ‘not a deal breaker or a deal maker’”,

although the Liberal Democrat party previously insisted on it. There clearly has been some change in policy, which is why I was so pleased to see that old habits die hard.

Tom Levitt (Labour, High Peak)

That could explain the observation made by the hon. Member for Lichfield a few moments ago. Perhaps it was not the word “Ming” that people did not recognize, it was the word “leader”. [ Laughter. ]

Angela Smith (Labour, Basildon)

I have always been known as a very generous person and I do not want to intrude on private grief. I think you would instruct us to stick more closely to the amendment.

There are arguments for and against the introduction of a PR voting system and it has to be recognised that we have new PR systems for the devolved Administrations. The hon. Gentleman is tempting me because of that to welcome his new clause. Many of us are aware of the benefits of a first-past-the-post system, such as the direct relationship between the elected and the elector in a specific geographic area. That is something that many of us in this House greatly appreciate and value.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Angela Smith (Labour, Basildon)

I have barely got into my stride. I will give way when I have talked about the merits of first past the post. It is that system that is used to elect councillors and local authorities in England and Wales. Members of the GLA are elected using the additional member system. I think that it does help members to represent the interests of their area when there is that clear relationship between the elected and the elector and when—this is very important—the citizen who elects people knows who they are electing and knows who is representing them. I acknowledge the virtues of some other voting systems but that is a significant advantage of the current system.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I understand what the Under-Secretary says in relation to the link between a constituency or a ward and the representative, but does she not agree with me that at a ward level, particularly if a ward is represented by three councillors under an STV system, it is still perfectly possible to achieve a link between a recognisable small area and representatives elected under STV?

Angela Smith (Labour, Basildon)

Lots of things are possible in life but I still do not think the STV system or the systems described by the hon. Gentleman give that same accountability, which is also important.

Having said that, the Government recognise that first past the post is not the right system in every circumstance. We have a number of different systems. Mayors in local authorities are elected by the supplementary vote system. The Scottish Parliament has another system. The Welsh Assembly and Greater London assembly use the additional member system. The European Parliament uses the list system. In each of those cases there was a good reason why those systems were adopted—including the fact that it was in the Government’s general election manifesto that those systems would be introduced. There was no such promise in our last election manifesto.

I do not think there are any grounds for changing the system for local government elections. That system wherein the elector goes into the polling booth and puts a cross by the name of their preferred candidate, and the candidate who gets the most votes wins, is very straightforward. The hon. Gentleman concentrates on the type of voting system, but a clear theme throughout our deliberations has been the need for strong leadership and strong governance. In democracy, it is not only the type of voting system that is important; the quality of leadership is also a test when we make that assessment.

The hon. Gentleman spoke about not wanting to cause too much confusion, but I found that strange when I re-read the new clause, given that if it were accepted councils could resolve to change their electoral system to one of the five types outlined in the new clause. We could end up with each district council a county area choosing a different electoral system with which to elect its members. That would be extraordinarily confusing for the electorate. I do not think you would get clear and accountable representation in those circumstances.

Tom Brake indicated dissent.

Angela Smith (Labour, Basildon)

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but that could be the outcome.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

Why would it be so confusing?

Angela Smith (Labour, Basildon)

If the hon. Gentleman cannot understand why having five different electoral systems used to elect members to various bodies within one county is confusing, it probably explains why he is proposing the new clause and other hon. Members are opposing it.

Following its consultation on electoral reform in local government, the Local Government Association concluded that elections for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the European Parliament and the Greater London assembly, which used alternative voting systems, have

“involved greater complexity to the voter”.

It was also concerned that adding complexity might depress turnout or demoralise voters. The democracy task group commissioned by the LGA expressed concern

“that the replacement of first past the post”

with a system of proportional representation will

“inevitably lead to an increase in the number of No Overall Control (NOC) authorities”,

which

“has clear implications for stability of leadership”.

The task group also stated that although there was no consensus

“to either retain or replace the first-past-the-post system...a majority of the Task Group favour retaining and developing the existing system”.

There is an ongoing review of the experiences of new voting systems used in the devolved Administrations. The Government feel that it would be inappropriate to try to pre-empt the findings of the review by encouraging the introduction of yet more electoral systems. In view of the those arguments, I hope that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington is convinced that the proposed new clauses would not provide the best way forward and that he will withdraw them.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I thank the Under-Secretary for setting out the Government’s position so clearly. I am still smarting from that vicious assault on my party leader, but I have just about recovered.

I was interested to hear the Under-Secretary deploy the fact that there might be an increase of authorities with no overall control as an argument against the new clauses as if such a situation would be the end of the world for local authorities. Others might say that such an increase would mean that different parties would have to work together to ensure that the majority views of a local authority were represented.

Alistair Burt (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

I ask the hon. Gentleman to cast his mind forward and to speculate on whether, in the event of a hung Parliament, the Government’s arguments might be revised to some degree.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I can assure him that the Liberal Democrats will be consistent in all respects and I hope the Government will be likewise.

It is clear that the Under-Secretary is adamant that the Government know best and that there is no scope for allowing either local politicians or a local electorate to decide the appropriate voting system for their locality. It would therefore be pointless to pursue the matter today. We may wish to return to it in the other place—supposing that that is still there.

New Clause 33

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

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

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new schedule 1—Articles 2 to 11 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government—

Article 2—Constitutional and legal foundation for local self-government

Article 3—Concept of local self-government

Article 4—Scope of local self-government

Article 5—Protection of local authority boundaries

Article 6—Appropriate administrative structures and resources for the tasks of local authorities

Article 7—Conditions under which responsibilities at local level are exercised

Article 8—Administrative supervision of local authorities’ activities

Article 9—Financial resources of local authorities

Article 10—Local authorities’ right to associate

Article 11—Legal protection of local self-government

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I believe that new clause 33 and new schedule 1 might command a greater degree of interest, if not support, from the Government than the previous group of new clauses. New clause 33 and new schedule 1 relate to the European charter of local self-government, in which the Minister indicated an interest during our sitting on 22 February. The purpose of the proposed measures is to ensure that the principle of local self government is recognised in legislation.

For those who are not so familiar with it, the charter states:

“All local authorities should manage a substantial proportion of public affairs in the interests of the local population”,

which is something that I am sure all hon. Members support. The charter also states:

“The powers of local government must be recognised in legislation”

and that

“local authorities must be able to act freely on all matters that they are best placed to deal with”.

That is motherhood and apple pie in certain respects, but the charter contains a phrase that might be more problematic for the Government:

“Financial resources must be made available to local authorities to local authorities to enable them to carry out their tasks”.

Clearly, the Government recognise the issues. On 22 February, the Minister indicated to my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove, who leads for the Liberal Democrats on such matters, that he was inclined to pursue the issue. In fact, he invited us to table written questions to enable him to come back with further detail on the matter. I assure the Minister that questions were tabled today. We have not given him much time, but they were tabled electronically so they will be in the system and he will be able to see them in a few days, and I am sure that he can respond to them in writing. The purpose of the written questions was to find out what discussions have taken place between the Government and local government—either individual local authorities or local government representative organisations—on the European charter of local self-government and the timetable for any future ratification of the charter.

The amendment, perhaps unlike those in the previous group, is positive. It would ensure that something the Government recognise as important is embedded in domestic legislation so that local government will have the safeguards that all members of the Committee want it to have to ensure that it can carry on its business in the way that we feel is appropriate and very much in the spirit of the Bill. With that, I conclude my remarks and hope to receive a more positive response from the Minister on new clause 33 and new schedule 1 than I did on the new clause relating to STV.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has tabled the questions electronically, a modernisation introduced when I was serving under my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), when he was Leader of the House.

The Government signed the European charter of local self-government on 3 June 1997 and ratified it on 24 April 1998. They did not choose to exercise the right to reservations to certain provisions allowed by the charter, so all its provisions have been relevant to local government since August 1998. In the explanatory memorandum that was laid before Parliament recommending that the United Kingdom ratify the charter the then Minister for Local Government and Housing, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Durham (Hilary Armstrong), accepted that

“Subscribing to the charter strengthens the Government’s partnership with local government and will enable key domestic policies to be developed and implemented more effectively”.

For that reason, we were pleased to ratify the charter on the basis that it would enshrine

“basic principles already reflected in the United Kingdom of local democracy”.

At the time, we also made clear that any future legislation affecting local government should further strengthen the degree of compliance with aspects of the charter and ensure continued compatibility with its provisions. I am therefore happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman and the Committee that subsequent reforms to the system of local government in England and, indeed, those detailed in the Bill adhere to the provisions in the charter and the spirit in which it was developed.

For example, part 1 of article 10 of the charter sets out that local authorities shall be entitled to co-operate with other local authorities to carry out tasks of common interest, a prerogative granted by giving local authorities the power of well-being under section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000. Therefore, although we agree with the reasoning of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington in tabling the amendments, the Government see no reason to accept them on the basis that they would add nothing to the recognition that we have already given to the right to local self-government by ratifying the charter and adhering to its principles in subsequent reforms. That is the bad news.

Furthermore, we do not have in our parliamentary system a broad tradition of incorporating international treaty obligations wholesale into our domestic legislation when there is no need to do so. My notes do not say, “Pause for intervention from Conservative Members regarding human rights law,” although they ought to. However, in the absence of such an intervention, I shall answer the question that the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst was going to ask. His predecessor would certainly have asked it.

Hon. Members may say that the Human Rights Act 1998 incorporated the European convention on human rights, a Council of Europe treaty, into domestic law. However, the 1998 Act is distinct for one significant reason: it incorporated a human rights legal framework into domestic law, for the first time requiring domestic law to be interpreted as compatible with the convention. It provided a system of legal challenge and redress for UK citizens who were aggrieved about their rights, as set out in the convention. Its purpose was to bring those home those rights without the need, as was the case prior to the 1998 Act, for citizens to resort to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg for any matter arising in relation to their rights under the convention. In other words, the Human Rights Act incorporated into domestic law that which was already domestic law, as covered by the treaty, and simply meant that one could access the law without having to go to Strasbourg. The European charter of local self-government provides no such mechanism of redress or challenge, so there is no case for incorporating its provisions wholesale into domestic law.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

The Minister may be about to deal with this matter, but he has left me rather confused. Will he clarify why he suggested that my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove submit a written question? Was it so that the Minister could explain that the matter had already been ratified, everything is hunky-dory and we do not need to make any changes?

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

No, it was to say that the Government agree with the hon. Member for Hazel Grove and that the purposes, intent and outcome of the European charter—which is debated and is an important issue in local government, as the hon. Gentleman knows—are already in place and in operation and form one of the tests of new legislation.

I was going to say what the differences are in respect of the Human Rights Act, but the hon. Gentleman did not argue that there was a parallel, although others would. There is no case for incorporating the provisions of the European charter of local self-government wholesale into domestic law, because it provides no mechanism for redress or challenge, which is in stark contrast to the argument that I have just outlined in relation to the Human Rights Act.

Even if there were to be some monitoring or enforcement mechanism attached to the charter, which there is not, the relationship between the two instruments is different. One protects the rights of individual citizens and the other ensures that domestic institutional structures conform with internationally accepted norms. I strongly support the hon. Gentleman’s views, as anybody who has read my speech to the Committee of the Regions would understand. [Hon. Members: “We all have.”] I am glad to hear that. I fell asleep reading that speech to myself. Hon. Members may say that that is true of all my speeches. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary says, “Get on with it!” —and I have lost my place.

Alistair Burt (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

How much does the Minister think that those in local government can rely on the assurances contained in the European charter of local self-government, bearing in mind that local decisions made in the past couple of years by the people of France and the Netherlands on the rejection of the European constitution are presently being undermined by processes in the EU to get round the referendums that said no to the constitution?

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Order. We are going well outside the scope of this debate.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

The European charter is a treaty and member states are therefore obliged to comply with both it and the other treaties that have been mentioned. The proposed constitution is not a treaty. There is no redress mechanism in the European charter, so including the charter in UK law wholesale would duplicate pre-existing domestic law and would be unnecessary.

I strongly support the principles behind the charter, and I accept the argument of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington about the important part that the charter has played in delivering democratic local governance—and not just in the UK, incidentally. However, the new clause is unnecessary and it would introduce a confusing innovation into the expression of our existing legal framework for democratic local self-government. The Biggleswade villagers of the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire would rise even more in anger at that. I ask the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington to consider those remarks.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I thank the Minister for his explanation and for his clarification that the charter has been ratified. Given that incorporation in UK legislation would be inappropriate in practical terms because of the lack of any redress mechanism or enforcement powers, the decent thing to do is not to press my arguments. Therefore I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause 170

Clause 174

Clause 175

Schedule 1

Race Relations Act 1976 (c. 74)

Rent Act 1977 (c. 42)

Interpretation Act 1978 (c. 30)

Coroners Act 1988 (c. 13)

Local Government Finance Act 1988 (c. 41)

Food Safety Act 1990 (c. 16)

Environment Act 1995 (c. 25)

Police Act 1996 (c. 16)

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (c. 36)

Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003 (c. 10)

Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 (c. 21)

Schedule 5

Schedule 6

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

The schedule is given effect by clause 103, which repeals a number of outmoded or unnecessary provisions concerning matters which byelaws can currently address in the interests of tidying up and removing outdated provisions. For example, the schedule deals with section 231(1) of the Public Health Act 1936 so that references to byelaws regulating the location of bathing machines and the costumes to be worn by bathers are omitted.

Alistair Burt (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way on such an important provision. Where did the pressure come from for the changes in the byelaws? What evidence can he put before the Committee that the byelaws are in fact outdated and no longer needed?

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

From busybody local Conservative local councillors. Nudist beaches is the answer.

Patrick Hall (Bedford) (Lab) rose—

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

I give way.

Patrick Hall indicated dissent.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

No, I do not give way. My hon. Friend does not want to be drawn. There are none in Bedford—beaches, I mean.

The schedule also makes further minor amendments relating to health byelaws to remove obsolete provisions and makes minor refinements to provisions relating to enforcement by police community support officers, so that the enforcement of byelaws is consistent with the enforcement against similar low-level nuisances. The serious point is that to ensure that legislation is respected, we must have a means of abolishing outdated laws. Of course, the schedule will not remove the power to introduce byelaws consistent with the law.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I have looked carefully at the schedule, and I believe that there is an omission relating to the powers of the Department for Transport covering smoking in Eldon Garden.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

I am assured that there is no such omission, but I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his vigilance. He might recall that during debate on the part of the Bill relating to parish byelaws, the Government argued successfully—he accepted it—that in order to be truly devolutionary, it was better to give an all-encompassing power rather than to name specific bodies. I have explained the schedule, and I commend it to the Committee.

Schedule 15

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

I beg to move amendment No. 147, in schedule 15, page 170, line 48, leave out ‘4’ and insert ‘1’.

The amendment is simply a correction of a drafting error in part 7 of schedule 15. The reference to schedule 4 of the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004 should have been a reference to schedule 1.

Alistair Burt (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

Before we come to the debate on the schedule, may I say on the Opposition’s behalf how much we have appreciated being chaired by you, Mr. Benton, during these proceedings? We should be grateful if you also passed on that message to Mr. Chope. In thanking you, we also thank your hard-working staff and all Officers of the House. I know that in a moment, the Minister will thank his team and colleagues, both from his own Department and from the Department of Health. We have all benefited from their hard work in substantiating the clauses and those other issues that have been put before us. The conduct of the proceedings and the way in which both Ministers have dealt with the matters before us have been entirely conducive to an extremely favourable atmosphere in the Committee. We have worked hard, got things on the record and said what we wanted to say, and have done so in the very best of good humour.

Proceedings have been enlivened by the occasional champagne moment. May I beg your indulgence for two seconds, Mr. Benton, and consider the candidates eligible for giving us the champagne moment of the series? There are one or two on the Government Benches. The hon. Member for Bedford deserves one or two mentions for having pushed the odd amendment under the wire.

The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford has kept us in order, and his occasional prompt has been helpful to us all. The hon. Members for Hazel Grove and for Carshalton and Wallington have produced their own exceptional moments, not least this afternoon when yet again they put forward STV—more in hope than expectation—and gave it a good run.

On my own Benches, my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow, who is sadly not with us this afternoon, ensured that Shropshire was mentioned as much as Bedfordshire. He spoke warmly of the powers that might have been lost in his area with the powers of direction that we discussed during the early part of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst did a great deal to ensure that Bromley and Chislehurst was kept well on the map. His extensive knowledge of local government matters in London and of Pratts Bottom provided great moments for the Committee.

Running up very much on the rails is my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate. In moving very creditably the first amendment that I suspect he has moved to a Committee, he introduced us to the formidable Mrs. Burrowes. I hope that she will appreciate that by her endeavours, we have now gone beyond the formidable. We now know that we can also refer to her as redoubtable, rigorous, exacting, tremendous, colossal, indomitable and—my personal favourite—puissant.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

My wife will not appreciate being called colossal, even though she is five weeks away from having our sixth child.

Alistair Burt (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

This lady, against whom none of us should play Scrabble for cash, has risen still further in the estimation of this Committee with news of the pending sixth member of the Burrowes household. May I ask my hon. Friend what his majority is as he is doing a valid job in trying to increase it?

My hon. Friend the Member for Poole has the honour and distinction of being the very first member of any Standing Committee to ask a witness their business and to start off the proceedings of the witness process in Standing Committees in the House. He will always be remembered for asking the first question in such a session. It was a moment of history and certainly a champagne moment.

Tom Levitt (Labour, High Peak)

The hon. Member for Poole will also be remembered for the wonderful speech in which he moved an amendment and then disclosed that he had forgotten why he was moving it.

Alistair Burt (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

I discount that because so many Ministers do that. It is less of a champagne moment than a recurring occasion.

Just before I close my remarks on the Ministers, I have to say we remember the Under-Secretary carrying through with grace a number of different clauses, particularly those relating to parishes. The Minister for Local Government has carried the bulk of the Bill. His personal good humour and qualities make it damned difficult to pin anything on him. He is exceptionally reasonable and knowledgeable in these areas, and has certainly given the Committee the benefit of his great wisdom and we have enjoyed working with him and occasionally fighting against him.

Without doubt, the first champagne moment was the best: the explosion on to this Committee of the blond bombshell, who was moved to put Lichfield on the map because he was so tired of hearing about Shropshire and Bedfordshire. My hon. Friend told us in great detail about the solid gold baubles held in Lichfield, in contrast with our Mace downstairs, which is only silver gilt. As you know, Mr. Benton, it is not only what you say, but how you say it. The moment that my hon. Friend brought Lichfield into this Committee will be long remembered. He therefore has my vote for the champagne moment of the proceedings.

Patrick Hall (Labour, Bedford)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that moment was somewhat reduced in intensity when we learned that the hon. Member for Lichfield does not represent the biggest parish council in England?

Alistair Burt (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

Those are minor details. We should not forget the majesty of the moment.

Thank you very much for your indulgence, Mr. Benton. I thank all those who have helped move the Committee proceedings forward. We look forward to dealing with the Bill on Report in due course.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I echo many of the comments made by the official Opposition spokesman in thanking you, Mr. Benton, and Mr. Chope, for chairing the Committee so effectively. I thank your officials for providing the appropriate support and help at the time when it was needed. I thank the Ministers for their repartee, which I have enjoyed considerably during our debates, as have my hon. Friends.

There have been so many champagne moments that I suspect that the term “champagne socialist” is about to make a reappearance. The Opposition have lost a number of major battles, but we have won a few skirmishes along the way and we will return to a number of the issues on Report and, no doubt, in another place when the time comes, where, after last night’s proceedings in the House, this Bill will be received in a very rowdy fashion. However, I am sure that those in another place will enjoy it. I have enjoyed the proceedings and look forward to many more in this place.

Patrick Hall (Labour, Bedford)

If I may, I should like to say from the Back Benches how much I have enjoyed being a member of the Committee and what a positive experience it has been. I thank you, Mr. Benton, and your colleague, Mr. Chope, for helping to maintain the positive atmosphere from which we have all benefited.

It is not unknown for Government Whips, whatever the Government, to pack Committees with hon. Members whose key qualification is that they have no knowledge of, or any interest in, the matters at hand. However, that has not happened on this occasion. Colleagues in this Committee have a deep interest in local government and public involvement issues and they have experience, to boot, which has benefited the scrutiny and debate that we have enjoyed. Perhaps Government Whips can take this message to heart and pass it on: this is the way things should be done in future.

We have learned about towns throughout the land, some of which I had never heard of before, including some fine names from Manchester way, which I should like to hear again.

Andrew Gwynne (Labour, Denton and Reddish)

There is Duckinfield, Audenshaw and my home town, Denton.

Patrick Hall (Labour, Bedford)

I thank my hon. Friend. We also heard about Biggles, the famous constituent of the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire, who I had not come across for some decades—in fact, since I was a boy—in respect of the hon. Gentleman’s views on European elections. I wondered where he had flown to. Clearly, he landed in Biggleswade—and there he will stay. Most welcome of all have been the numerous opportunities to make relevant and highly deserved references to Bedford, Kempston and Bedfordshire.

We have also learned that, as a result of the hard work and commitment of a number of Committee members, they are ready to forego their lunch or dinner, depending on what part of the country they come from.

Above all, we have benefited from the constructive, co-operative approach of all Opposition Members. The tone was undoubtedly set by my hon. Friends the Ministers, who have, by their listening approach, generated that response, which is welcomed by all hon. Members. Not only have my hon. Friends rejected a centralising authoritarian tone, they have been devolutionary and open in their approach. That has had the unexpected benefit of generating what my neighbour, the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire, famously coined a champagne moment followed by many more. I have not kept count, but no doubt we shall see the benefits one day. A sad fact about the conclusion of our proceedings is that there will be no more. I thank all members of the Committee for what they have done to make this a worthwhile experience.

Tom Levitt (Labour, High Peak)

I am grateful to you, Mr. Benton, for your chairing of the Committee along with Mr. Chope, and for allowing me a couple of minutes to reflect on the context in which the Bill now proceeds. As others have said, it has been a Committee stage of great humour and constructive debate and one in which people have boasted about the achievements of local authorities. I have not had to say anything much about Derbyshire’s achievements. Everyone knows that it was the first county council to receive a four-star rating and that it has maintained the position at the top of the tree, which speaks for itself.

In my capacity as chair of the all-party group on the community and voluntary sector, I wish to say a word about the importance of the Bill. For the record, I also chair the board of trustees of the Community Development Foundation and I am a member of the Commission on the Future of Volunteering, as is the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire. During the past 12 months, the third sector has come of age under legislation. Before then, we did not have a Minister for the third sector or an office of the third sector in the Cabinet Office, which works closely with Ministers at the Department for Communities and Local Government. We did not even have a Department with “communities” in its title and that was dedicated to prioritising the values that communities embody.

Twelve months ago, we did not have the Charities Act 2006. I had the honour of serving on the Standing Committee that discussed it. The Act brought about the most radical uprating of charities legislation for 400 years. It brought in root-and-branch changes to how charities in the voluntary sector operate. This week, the Charity Commission launched its consultation on the meaning of public benefit. In the past few weeks, the Offender Management Bill has produced a great debate about the role of the voluntary sector in delivering such services. I very much hope that, following last night’s vote, my suggestion of indirect elections to another place might be taken up and that the voluntary sector will be well represented there, too.

This Bill has been dynamic and almost revolutionary in its approach to how the voluntary sector, the third sector, the community sector and social enterprise feature within the framework of our society. It has recognised the sector like no other measure before it. It has involved local area agreements and local strategic partnerships. It has made the delivery of services something in which the sector will be a real partner. The development of community strategies will be a major part of the Bill and we cannot exclude community groups and voluntary sector groups from that. The Bill has given them a statutory role in consultation. It has even integrated them into the scrutiny of health.

Although the Bill has not been hitting the headlines, it will achieve many of the aims of the Sustainable Communities Bill that is before the House. We shall look back on it as a landmark for having liberated that sector and as a milestone in the development of participative democracy. I accept that it still has a long way to go, but the voluntary and community sector has many friends in another place and I am sure that its role will only be enhanced by the treatment there. I wish the Bill fair wind in another place. I look forward to it coming back to the Floor of the House and, one day, we shall look back on it not only as representing an entertaining and historic few weeks because of how the Committee operated, but as a landmark in the history of the voluntary sector.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

I echo the comments that have been made. I want to use this opportunity to remind the Committee about the proposals on unitary consideration and re-emphasise that I have written to all members of the Committee and you, Mr. Benton, fulfilling my pledge to give details of the amendment that we intend to introduce on Report. There was some concern and I accepted that. We have concluded our discussions with the Local Government Association and that is reflected in the amendment. I said that I would write to the Committee and I did so this morning.

I would like to make a few observations. First, I echo the regret that the press do not report the proceedings of Standing Committees as much as they should. Due to the changes that have been introduced, I know that there is access to our deliberations through the internet. I believe that Standing Committees are webcast—I am not sure what that means, but it says it here. However, I really do think that commentators and parliamentary reporters should report more because these matters are of importance to many tens of thousands of councillors around the country.

I know that the Minister for Local Government, whoever he or she is, and his or her colleagues, receive much correspondence on these matters in their postbags. I have been following the Local Government Chronicle and the Municipal Journal—I do not wish only to pick out the LGC—and they have not been following our proceedings as closely as I would wish.

Patrick Hall (Labour, Bedford)

Is it not a comment on the nature of much of our media that I am sure that the Committee would have been reported on if we had had lots of personal nasty rows? Instead, we have got on with the job that Parliament expects and are completely ignored.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

That is the dilemma of politics. I was reflecting on the fact that had the short title of the Bill been ‘Abolition of Swimming Gear: Brighton Beach’, it probably would have got more coverage, if you will pardon the pun. I have been working on that; perhaps I should not have bothered.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

The Committee would do well to consider the evidence session of the Public Administration Select Committee today which was looking at that very point, with evidence taken from mySociety. The problem is not so much the media, but ourselves. We are in the dark ages in terms of electronically communicating the affairs of the House and, in particular, Standing Committees, in a consistent manner. That is why there is a problem of communication.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

Clearly the hon. Gentleman’s five children have been informing him of the state of modern technology. I too have that benefit from youngsters. The problem involves a bit of both, I believe. I make that point because the law is based on the intent of Parliament. That is expressed by Members in making legislation as well as by Government in putting forward proposals. That is important.

My most sober moment during the Committee’s deliberations was when the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire returned from his visit and reminded us that although we may have differences over issues of public policy, they pale into insignificance compared to the difficulties of some countries.

As someone who has been the Whip on three local government Bills as well as having helped to shape this Bill, my second reflection is that I strongly believe that there is a significant step-by-step improvement going on within local government. The independent auditors say so, although the public do not always say so and that is their right. Their expectations increase and we have to just accept that. That is the nature of democratic politics.

Local government is, however, improving. One of the reasons for that is a broad consensus across the Local Government Association. I pay tribute to Sir Jeremy Beecham, David Kemp, Sir Simon Milton and Lord Bruce-Lockhart who have put into place that consensus. They have built up a consensus that is not wishy-washy or based on the lowest common denominator. We work with them across Whitehall and across local councils, and we tried to shape the White Paper and the Bill in the context of that consensus. I believe that that has been reflected in our deliberations.

The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire was kind enough to make some flattering remarks about my good self. I wish that he would stop, because his remarks do not always help me when I am in the White Hart in Lydgate, but I am grateful to him none the less. I have always shared the attitude of others from Greater Manchester that more flies are caught with honey than with vinegar. That is worth remembering in life as well as in politics.

In my view, the Bill is mistitled. It is not a Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill; it is a local government reform Bill, a local government involvement in health Bill and a public involvement in local government and health Bill. It tries to bring together public services in a new local framework, and I think that that is very important.

Similar aspirations are embodied in the Sustainable Communities Bill, which is promoted by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd) and which is being debated in another Committee. That Bill should now be considered in light of the policy positions and discussions that have been considered in this Committee, and I look forward to further debates on it.

I echo the thanks that have been expressed to you, Mr. Benton. As ever, it has been a pleasure to work under your chairmanship. Four or five years ago, I was appointed as the Whip for the hon. Gentleman who is our Chairman, and I read advice from the various available publications on how to conduct the affairs of a Whip. That included measures that one could take to persuade and cajole—one is not allowed to say “bribe”, but you know what I mean. I looked down a list of my flock, at the head of which was your name, Sir, and I thought, “I don’t think I am in a position, as a new Member, to tell Mr. Benton what he should and shouldn’t be doing.” So I informed him what the Whip was and when, and asked him if he would kindly consider travelling to Westminster to take part in Divisions, and normally, Sir, you did—and I was very grateful.

The second name on the list was that of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), and the third was that of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman). At that point I put in a transfer request.

You bring huge experience to the Chair, Mr. Benton, and a gentlemanly approach to our affairs, and your constituents are well served by you, as are those of Mr. Chope. I first met Mr. Chope in 1986, when he was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to Lord Brooke, who was then the Minister with responsibility for universities. It was he who wisely informed me about the theory of cock-up and conspiracy—advice which I have carried with me ever since. Mr. Chope was the Under-Secretary with responsibility for local government for two years in the 1980s, and has a huge amount of experience in local government. I know that he was pleased to be asked to chair the Committee, and I pass my thanks to him through you, Mr. Benton.

I also thank the Clerks, who as ever are professional and patient, and the Hansard writers, who have had to put up with a variety of accents from across England—not least my own—which make life difficult. I hope hon. Members noticed that I did not pronounce “bathing costumes” in the way in which it would be pronounced in my part of the world. I am grateful also to the Doorkeepers. We have had a small number of Divisions, which reflects the care with which the Bill was drafted, but the Divisions that took place reflected some important points of honest difference between the parties.

I thank especially the officials—not only those from my Department, who have worked diligently on the Bill and on the White Paper for several years and who have put a huge amount of effort into them. I have seen proof of the old adage that preparation and planning make life easier. The Committee might wish to know that some of the officials worked for Mr. Chope when he was Under-Secretary of State. I can testify from my experience that the professional reputation of civil servants and officials is well founded.

We have also been helped by officials from the Department of Health, whose money I am using to pay for the champagne at the reception that we will be having at a suitable point, and officials from the Cabinet Office. We have also been served by officials from the Electoral Commission who have given their advice.

Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

To pick up on the plaudits to officials, we Back-Benchers ought also to thank the many organisations that have contributed to the debate and supported us throughout the process. For me personally, it was the Local Government Information Unit and the Local Government Association, but other colleagues have received support from a range of bodies. I just wanted to put that on record.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. My experience is that the amount of briefing, concern and lobbying on local government far outweighs that in other areas of public policy, for obvious reasons. What has struck me is the level of professionalism in the bodies making representations. As my hon. Friend says, they are to be thanked.

I also thank Committee members. This Committee stage has been an enlightening experience. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford rightly said that care had been taken to ensure that the Committee included Members of Parliament who know what they are talking about. When my hon. Friend the Whip suggested that approach, I was somewhat taken aback. I am one of only a few members of this Committee who have never been a councillor. I have tallied up the years of experience in local council represented on the Committee, and it is substantial. It makes Brian Lara’s scores look rather low. That expertise is across the range, for which I am grateful to hon. Members.

It has also been enlightening. We heard about the family of the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate. We congratulate him and look forward to the new arrival. He is a lawyer, which I do not hold against him. One of the few things to which I am looking forward in the event that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stands down is once again being able to take the mickey out of lawyers and public schoolboys. During the past 13 years, we have not been allowed to do so—says he, trying to remember whether the Chancellor has ever been a lawyer. No, he has not, so we are on safe ground. The point that the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate made about reported crime has had a big impact on thinking in the Department, and I thank him for it. It shows that raising such points is worth while.

The hon. Member for Lichfield came to the aid of the mace of Lichfield. What he did not know was that I had received advice the previous day from no less a figure than the head of the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers. If colleagues want to join a trade union, SOLACE is not a bad one to remember. I point out that the average tenure of the chief executive of a local authority has been less than that of a Minister for Local Government for 15 years. I am not sure whether that is a good thing or a bad thing; I suspect that it is a bad thing.

The head of SOLACE asked me whether I had looked at the issue of maces, because when proposing to create unitary councils, one must protect the traditions and nuances of local councils, including parishes. He informed me that one of the biggest difficulties in the Banham proposals considered in the 1990s was that the Government of the day realised that unless they introduced late amendments to the Bill, they would be in danger of confiscating all the maces from the councils. I took his advice. When the hon. Member for Lichfield raised the issue of the mace, which he did in his usual friendly and jocular fashion, he was making a serious point. In making changes, one must bring people along and protect traditions where they do good, not harm. There is an important philosophy running through this radical Bill, which the exchange on maces led to.

The hon. Member for Poole has an Adjournment debate with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government at the end of proceedings tonight on the local government finance settlement in Poole. The hon. Gentleman’s proposition, as a true Conservative, is that because it is rich it should get more money. That has been the argument of the right for many centuries. The argument to the contrary that we Labour Members tend to put, is often put with more passion, but rarely with as much articulateness and diligence—

Angela Smith (Labour, Basildon)

Articulateness?

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

Articulation. I thank my hon. Friend. I should be grateful if she gave me a glass of water. The hon. Gentleman will be making his case on behalf of his constituency. It is a pleasure to work with him in Committee. He always gets to the big point and does not mess around with the trivial points, and the debates reflect that.

The hon. Member for Hazel Grove cannot attend. He has apologised for missing this afternoon’s sitting. He and his colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench have, on the whole, put their points fairly and have, I think, accepted the genuine intentions of the Bill, which is on the whole devolutionary. They have taken the opportunity, as Liberal Democrats often do, to read some press releases, which are normally about the single transferable vote. I refer to that in my notes as the single transferable speech, because I have heard it many times and it is always the same. Nevertheless, I suppose that they should be congratulated on their consistency. I thank them for the way in which they have approached the Committee.

The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is part of the 555 group. There are three members of that group on this Committee who were elected in 2005.

Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Four.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

I said in response to the hon. Gentleman’s maiden speech that he was a category A Member of Parliament. He has shown his diligence in this Committee, as well as his expert knowledge of local government. I thank him for that.

I particularly thank my Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford, who, with his Opposition colleagues, has ensured that there has been sensible time for debate. The noble Lords will, on reading the proceedings in Hansard, be satisfied that scrutiny has been given in the right way and with due time, without the need for confrontation. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the way in which he and his colleagues have crafted that and I thank all the hon. Members involved.

I also thank my hon. Friends, who have brought to the Committee knowledge, not just of local government, but their many years of experience in their constituencies and of the voluntary sector. I thank them for that. I will be scrutinising proposals in Bedford with particular vigilance, given the views that have been expressed. I look forward to that.

Neil Turner (Labour, Wigan)

Before the Minister ends his thanks, I want to point out that the unique thing about this Committee is that we were able to question people prior to our proceedings. It is right to put on the record our thanks to the officials who facilitated that unique process, which was useful. That is a good innovation that will benefit the scrutiny process in the House.

Phil Woolas (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth)

In echoing that, all Committee members will have noticed that, when changes are introduced in parliamentary proceedings, there are those who wish to see rapid, radical change and those who resist it. However, life has a way of bedding in and my belief is that, in future, it will be taken as read that it is common sense to undertake such evidence sessions. In reality, the procedure saved Committee members time, because we would have been lobbied in any event. I remember that we were lobbied in our advice surgeries and around our constituencies about the minimum wage legislation, so I echo those remarks.

I particularly thank my Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham who, like the Whip, is silenced by the process that we undertake in Committee deliberations. Not only has she been of enormous help to me and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, but she helped to influence the policy, the debate and the amendments. We would not have had so many champagne moments without her. I have always been proud to be a champagne socialist. I have never seen the point of socialism unless it involves the proposition, “If they can have it, why can’t we?” I think that the term was originally intended as an insult to members of the Labour party, but I never saw it as such myself. However, in light of my confession, I should like to spend some more of the Department of Health’s money on champagne for Committee members at a suitable point. The French vintner Joseph D’Argent said,

“No Government could survive without champagne.”

How right he was.

The Bill is very important in relation to the reconfiguration of public finances and the relationship not only between central and local government but between central Government and government services provided locally. Although the framework that we are adopting in the Bill has not, as my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak said, been the subject of headlines, the Bill will have good repercussions far beyond this Committee in the years to come. I know that it has been welcomed by the Local Government Association and others.

I thank you, Mr. Benton, and the rest of the Committee, and I look forward to working with members of the Committee in implementing the legislation in future.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Before I put the remainder of the proceedings to the Committee, let me respond on behalf of Mr. Chope and myself by saying what a great pleasure it has been to have the privilege of chairing this Committee. I thank the Ministers, Opposition spokespeople and all members of the Committee for the courtesy and co-operation that they have extended to Mr. Chope and myself throughout our proceedings.

I value, as always, the assistance provided by the learned Clerks, the Official Reporters and everybody who has contributed to the smooth running of this Committee. Just one quick comment of my own on the uniqueness of the Committee, I think that our experience with the witness contributions at the beginning of the proceedings proved very valuable. It was most interesting. I do not know where things will go to from here, but I found it very valuable and informative. Thank you all very much indeed.