Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

Before turning to the amendments, I hope that the Committee will find it useful if I provide a brief explanation about why we are introducing the provisions in Part 3 of the Bill. In February 2006, the Committee on Standards in Public Life began a review of the Electoral Commission to ascertain whether its current mandate, governance arrangements and accountability framework remained appropriate. The review took place as a result of the Speaker’s Committee’s request for the equivalent of a financial management and policy review, which usually takes place every five years for non-departmental public bodies. The standards committee’s Eleventh report, Review of the Electoral Commission, published in January 2007, made 47 recommendations. They were made in the context of the key finding that the Electoral Commission had not successfully performed its core duties as a regulator to ensure integrity and public confidence in the electoral process and in the framework that governs political party funding and campaign expenditure. The standards committee therefore determined that the Electoral Commission should no longer be responsible for functions that may distract it from its core tasks. There are two recommendations in relation to Part 3. Recommendation 17 is that the Electoral Commission should no longer have any involvement in electoral boundary matters and that the provision in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to allow the transfer of boundary-setting functions in England, Scotland and Wales to the commission should be repealed. Recommendation 18 is that the Boundary Committee for England should become an independent body in line with local government boundary commissions in the rest of the United Kingdom. We have sought to base the provisions establishing the new Boundary Committee on the administrative arrangements in place in the Electoral Commission. Most importantly, we have provided for the Boundary Committee to be established as an independent body accountable to Parliament rather than to a government body. Furthermore, the process for the Boundary Committee to make orders that implement new local government electoral arrangements to wards and electoral divisions will continue to be independent of government, but will, in future, be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. I hope that the general overview I have given about why we are taking the Boundary Committee out of the Electoral Commission has been useful. I now turn to the amendments. Amendment 159ZEF was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and amends Clause 49(4), which prevents the Boundary Committee borrowing money. I assure the noble Baroness that that is not being done simply for cosmetic reasons. As I have indicated, when establishing the Boundary Committee, we have sought, where possible, to follow the arrangements in place for the Electoral Commission. We have therefore replicated the provision in paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which prevents the Electoral Commission borrowing money. As a general principle, it is right that bodies that are directly accountable to Parliament for their funding should not be able to borrow money. Paragraph 11 of Schedule 1 to the Bill sets out that the funding of the Boundary Committee will be provided directly by Parliament from the Consolidated Fund. The Boundary Committee will present an estimate to the Speaker’s Committee, which must examine it and lay it in the other place, where it will be approved. It would clearly be wrong for Parliament to consider and agree the estimate for the Boundary Committee and for the Boundary Committee then to be able to obtain additional funds through borrowing. If it requires additional funds, it must present its reasons to Parliament, which will determine whether they should be granted. A number of amendments in this group address appointments to the Boundary Committee. Government Amendments 159A to 159Z and 160A and 160B clarify how the appointment process for the chair of the Boundary Committee will operate. In relation to the appointment of the chair, it has been brought to our attention that the current drafting of Schedule 1 leaves some ambiguity with regard to the role of the Secretary of State. Schedule 1(2) provides that the chair of the Boundary Committee will be appointed on an Address from another place, mirroring the existing arrangements for the appointment of Electoral Commissioners. As the current chair of the Boundary Committee is an Electoral Commissioner, we deemed it appropriate that this process should be maintained. For reasons that I will set out when responding to amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, we do not believe there would be any difficulties with the Secretary of State being responsible for the appointment of the chair of the Boundary Committee. However, where possible, we have sought to replicate the existing arrangements. The other members of the existing Boundary Committee are appointed by the Electoral Commission and, as a result of the separation, we need to identify a mechanism for their appointment. We have therefore chosen to follow the model of appointments by Her Majesty on the recommendation of the Secretary of State. The Government’s amendment clarifies that there is a separation between the processes of appointing the chair and the other members of the committee. The appointment process for the chair will be by open competition and will not be restricted to the current membership of the Boundary Committee. The amendment is therefore necessary to make it clear that the process of appointment of the chair by Her Majesty following an Address is the only process required to make the chair a member of the Boundary Committee. In response to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in relation to the appointment of the other members of the Boundary Committee, I am aware that concerns have been raised by the Electoral Commission about the role of the Secretary of State. As we are removing the Electoral Commission’s role, we need to find a process for the appointment of the other members of the new Boundary Committee. We agree that it is essential that appointments to the new Boundary Committee are, and are perceived to be, politically impartial, independent and unambiguously made on merit. We believe that the appointment process for members of the Boundary Committee is at least as likely to deliver these aims as a process involving votes in another place. The appointments process will be undertaken, as is always the case, in accordance with the guidance of the public appointments commissioner, who will maintain oversight and audit of the process. The process that we are introducing will ensure not only that impartiality and independence are maintained but also that knowledge of the local government sector can be brought into the appointments process. In these circumstances, the Secretary of State would make recommendations for appointment on the basis of recommendations from the panel of officials, including an independent person, following a process of advertisement and executive search. We have therefore provided for the Secretary of State to be responsible for the appointment of members in the same way that she is for the appointment of various other public bodies, including the Audit Commission and the Standards Board for England. Government Ministers are also responsible for appointing members to bodies that are responsible for electoral arrangements. They are responsible for appointments to the parliamentary boundary commissions across the UK, and Scottish and Welsh Ministers appoint members of the local government boundary commissions in those areas. I am sure the Committee will agree that all these bodies operate in a thoroughly independent manner. We have ensured that the Secretary of State has no role in the determination of the Boundary Committee’s work plans and budgets and, most importantly, no role in decisions on local authority electoral arrangements, nor the making of electoral orders. Paragraph 2(6) of Schedule 1 provides for the chair to request to be relieved of that office. This addresses Amendment 159WA in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Paragraphs 2(7) and 2(8) provide for the chair to be removed for a number of reasons, including failure to discharge the functions of the office or being convicted of a criminal offence. The effect of the amendment would be that in those circumstances the chair would become an ordinary member of the committee. Clearly, it would not be appropriate for an individual who had been removed from the office of chair to become a member of the committee. Although there may be circumstances where the chair requests to be relieved of the office but wishes to continue as a member, we do not agree that such provision should be made. If we were to provide for the chair to become a member when he had been relieved at his own request, it would have the effect of artificially increasing the membership of the Boundary Committee by one member. I do not believe that this would be a justifiable use of public funds. Of course, it would be open to any individual concerned to apply for any vacancy on the committee if and when such a vacancy arose. The second matter addressed by the government amendments in this group responds to the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Government Amendments 159AA to 160C have broadly the same purpose as the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi. However, we have sought to ensure that the principle of restricting the delegation of the Boundary Committee’s order-making power is applied to all such powers. We agree with the DPRRC that the committee’s function of making electoral change orders under Clause 53 is a power that should be exercised by the full committee and that it would be inappropriate for it to be delegated. We believe that the restriction should also cover all the Boundary Committee’s order-making powers, as well as any powers exercised during the transitional period before the establishment of the new Boundary Committee for England, as set out in Schedule 3. As we are all seeking to achieve the same goal, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment. I thank the Committee for its patience. I hope that I have convinced noble Lords that their amendments should not be pressed, and that they agree that the government amendments clarify and strengthen the drafting of the Bill. I commend them to the Committee.