Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

I thank Members of the Committee for their contributions. On the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, on the first of the appointee provisions, we intend to make regulations applying to the code of conduct to appoint councillors. I will come to the points she has made, but I shall start with some of the concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, have raised. As a former councillor, I believe that this is a very important part of the Bill; we must all be clear about what appointed councillors can do, and the rules and regulations that surround their role. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has reviewed the proposed power for the Secretary of State to make regulations about the appointment of councillors. The committee recommended that an exercise of the power which permits a majority of the parish members to be appointed, or which enables an appointed member to be treated as an elected member for the purposes of the chairmanship or vice-chairmanship, should be subject to the affirmative procedure. We have responded to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, declaring our intention to assure the Committee—as I now do—that we will make regulations which will prevent either situation arising. On that basis, we have told the committee that we felt that the negative resolution procedure still provides an adequate level of parliamentary scrutiny. Several of the noble Lord’s amendments deal with matters in primary legislation that we propose should be handled later, in the regulations. I therefore suggest that the amendments are not necessary and should be rejected. The details of the regulations are being discussed with the organisations representing the sector, but I am happy to give Members of the Committee the assurances they have asked for on some of these points. First, regulations will ensure that a substantial majority of the council—for example, two-thirds—rather than a simple majority must be in favour of any appointment. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, referred to numbers. This provision will not therefore be used to tip the balance of power within a council where members disagree on some issue. It is important to make that clear. Secondly, the regulations will maintain the principle that councillors must meet citizenship requirements and have a strong connection with the parish. I have a list of those requirements before me and if noble Lords wish me to go into them, I will do so. Basically, with some flexibility, they are very much the same as the citizenship requirements in place at present. Thirdly, we intend to ensure that the code of conduct will apply to all appointees just as much as to elected and co-opted councillors. Fourthly, the regulations we will bring forward will ensure that the number of appointees in any parish council can only be small. By small, I mean no more than one or two in most councils. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, talked about larger market town councils. We would consider a figure of three or four appropriate for such councils. Lastly, we have it in mind to limit the term of any appointment to one year. Appointments will have to be reconfirmed at an annual meeting of the parish council, and of course will automatically come to an end at an ordinary election. We do not want appointed councillors to be mere advisers to councils or observers of their procedures. Noble Lords know that that is already open to councils. We therefore anticipate that appointed councillors will have the same voting rights as elected councillors except in so far as the appointment of further councillors is concerned, which is the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. They will not be allowed to vote for more appointees like themselves. We do not think it right that an appointed councillor should have a hand in bringing in more appointees. We intend that the Secretary of State will issue guidance on the subject of appointed councillors to which parish councils will be under a duty to have regard. Amendment No. 200 seeks to delete the provision empowering the Secretary of State to issue guidance. We think it would be an unfortunate loss, and I am sure that parish councils would prefer to have access to authoritative guidance on the exercise of the power that we are proposing they should have. Having given these assurances, I suggest that it is not necessary for us to go into more detail in the Bill about what the Secretary of State must put into secondary legislation. However, perhaps I should highlight a few more points. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, wishes to prevent more than one third of councillors being appointed. We had in mind a rather smaller proportion than that, so I hope that we have met his concerns. Our thinking on the duration of appointments is that they should run from year to year, very much as the noble Lord has suggested. I am pleased to see that we have common ground there. I turn now to Amendment No. 197B, which seeks to prevent an appointed councillor holding an office under this section. Section 112 of the Local Government Act 1972 requires local authorities generally to appoint such officers as they think necessary for the discharge of their functions. That applies to parish councils, but subsection (5) further allows parish councils to appoint one of their own number to be an officer of the council without remuneration. We see no reason why an appointed councillor who is prepared to act as an officer without remuneration should be prevented from doing so. We do not have in mind to allow the appointment of persons on the grounds that they have in the past given distinguished service, even less to revive the somewhat archaic notion and title of ““alderman””, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, explained to us. This is intended to be a modernising change aimed at enabling parish councils to be more effective and more inclusive. Distinguished past service must be acknowledged and appreciated, but not by continuing it into the future for no other reason. I have a little more to say about the positive case for this measure. We expect that parish councils will want to appoint additional people to be councillors when they feel it could increase the parish’s effectiveness in the service of its citizens. That might include people who could help by virtue of the role they have in the community. We expect that sometimes the parishes would like to be able to bring in an additional councillor for a limited period to help with a particular project, or they might feel that the relationship between the parish council and a community group active in the area—a development trust, for example—would be improved if they could make such an appointment. An example of the potential value of this flexibility, and a possibility we are still considering, was recently put to us in a letter from the chairman of the National Association of Local Councils. The proposal was that a provision could be used to enable parish councillors to connect better with young people in their areas by appointing people under the age of 18, which is the new minimum age for election as a councillor. NALC has suggested that such a power would enable a council to appoint the chair of its youth council or the winner of an election in local schools to the full council. NALC believes that it would be a radical and positive contribution to the inclusion of young people and that many councils would enjoy an opportunity to exercise such a power in that way. I do not want to commit the Government to this at this stage. The proposal is at a very early stage, not least because important consideration needs to be given to ensuring the welfare of any children appointed as councillors. I would value noble Lords’ observations on the suggestion. The flexibility the clause will bring to parish councils will also enable them to tackle social exclusion in an innovative way by bringing in, with full participation, representatives of other groups who traditionally do not participate much in local democracy. The Campaign for Racial Equality has welcomed the proposal for that reason. I hope the assurances that I have given will assuage the doubts that have led to these amendments and I therefore ask for them to be withdrawn.