Localism Bill

My Lords, when we discussed the provision about general competence in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Newton, who is not in his place, chided me for my apparent diffidence in respect of the way in which I moved amendments at the time. I did and do welcome the conferring of the power of general competence that the Bill provides, especially in the light of the general perception in the media by such august bodies as the TaxPayers’ Alliance and even occasional Ministers that ““general incompetence”” is the term that should be applied to much of local government—something that I certainly refute. However, there are flaws in the Government's proposals and the amendment addresses at least some of them. The two amendments in this group relate to what can only be described as a dispensing power which the Secretary of State will take to disapply, repeal or amend legislation that he conceives somehow inhibits the exercise of the general power of competence. It is fair to say that in Committee the noble Baroness addressed concerns that had been raised about, for example, the application of human rights legislation on matters of that kind, and indicated that these were not envisaged as being embraced by the Bill. Certainly I accept that point. However, a great many pieces of legislation, on the face of it, appear to fall within the provisions of Clause 5(1) and therefore are subject to amendment, repeal or revocation, in the words of the clause. They extend over a wide area of public policy. A number of them are listed in the proposed new schedule that is the subject of the second amendment in this group. They cover such areas of law as part of the Childcare Act, the Child Poverty Act, the Care Standards Act, disabled persons regulations, carers legislation, parts of the Mental Health Act, the Community Care Act and the Environment Act. The list includes an Act in relation to which I will not declare an interest: the Prevention of Damages by Pests Act. It is a formidable list of legislative requirements that can, simply by order, be revoked. That raises a significant question about the role of the Executive. It is not clear whether Clause 5(1) requires any such changes to be made by affirmative resolution. Certainly that was the view of the Delegated Powers Committee. Other provisions in the clause are subject to affirmative resolution, or would be subject to it. The noble Baroness indicated in Committee that that was probably the case, and it would appear so. However, it does not necessarily seem to be the case in relation to Clause 5(1). Perhaps the noble Baroness will comment on that. Even so, the clause gives very extensive power to the Secretary of State to deal, either by order or perhaps even without the authority of the usual procedure involving statutory instruments and resolutions of both Houses, with significant primary legislation. That does not appear to the Opposition to be an appropriate use of ministerial powers. Dispensing powers have occasionally caused problems in our country's history. I recall that they probably led to the plight that James II faced, because he sought to use dispensing powers to relieve Catholics of their obligations under the Test Acts. It was probably a laudable objective, but certainly was regarded as constitutionally very troublesome and played no small part in his loss of the throne. I am not suggesting that the noble Baroness will be out of a job, let alone that her superiors in the department will be out of a job—much though that might be desirable, except of course in her case. Nevertheless, it is a serious principle that dispensing legislation of this kind should not invest such wide powers in the Secretary of State. The amendment that I am moving would restrict that. Changes in relation to other matters in the Bill that are less controversial would have to be made by statutory instrument and approved by both Houses in what I trust will be regarded as the normal way. As I indicated at the outset, the Government's intentions are laudable. In dealing with the next amendment, I will point to provisions that run counter to those laudable aims. Genuine concern about the provisions has been expressed by a wide range of organisations. I hope that the Minister will think again about the necessity of proceeding in particular with Clause 5(1) in the way that the Bill currently provides. We are meeting her tomorrow. There may be an opportunity to take these matters further. I hope that we will have some indication that the Government will be willing to move. There is one other aspect of the clause that perhaps is worth mentioning. In a debate in the other place, the Select Committee looking at the Bill considered the general powers of competence and suggested that the Government should consult others, including the Local Government Association, to exemplify ways in which the general powers would go beyond current powers to promote the social, environmental and economic well-being of an area. Perhaps the noble Baroness will enlighten us on whether and to what extent such discussions have taken place, and whether she has a battery of examples to display to noble Lords. It would be helpful in the context of discussion of these matters for her to give an indication of where the thinking and development of firmer propositions in that respect have been taken so far. In the light of that, I beg to move.