Again, I am grateful to my noble friend for introducing another range of political realities. He is right. We are introducing these ranges for a four-year term precisely to address the constant turbulence and change in the present system. Amendments Nos. 173 to 176 would effectively remove that four-year term. It goes very much to the heart of what we are trying to do. Amendments Nos. 177 to 182 would remove the provisions which allow an elected leader of an authority operating the leader and cabinet executive and partial-council elections to continue as leader until their term of office as a councillor ends. In sum, the effect of Amendments Nos. 173 to 182 would be that usually the leader would serve only a single year before facing re-election at each annual meeting.
I do not have to say that we are opposed to this, but I want to call in evidence the Local Government Association, which made it absolutely clear in the Closer to People and Places report, which we stated in the White Paper that we would look to build on. The report recommended shifting responsibility to council leaders and strengthening visible local accountability. It recommended, "““the appointment of a leader for the full term of the council, coupled with a maximum number of terms to encourage development and succession, but also the clear expectation that personal accountability means just that in the event of serious underperformance””."
That is a very strong statement from a representative body for local government about why it wants these changes. That is underpinned by our research on leadership, which reflects the importance of stability and the fact that stable leadership is seen as producing better performance and greater citizen engagement. This provision is an important development for local government.
The noble Lord said that this may be acceptable and bring something to the four-year term when whole council elections take place. That means that the leader will be in office for the four years that coincide with the council’s four-year term. We said on Second Reading that we were in favour of whole council elections, but much of the debate has turned on what happens in areas that retain partial council elections. We have provided for this as well because we recognise the political realities.
New Section 44E provides for the normal term of office of the leader of a council which is subject to election by halves and thirds. It states that, unless removed from office, the leader’s term of office should end on the day of the annual meeting following the day on which he would normally have retired as councillor. That means that his term of office may be less than four years, depending on how long he had been in post as leader. That allows for the political reality of the situation as well as an additional element of stability. It will prevent the leader constantly having to seek re-election and look over his shoulder. The noble Lord referred to the difficulties that leaders face when they have to do that.
These days we need council leaders to take hard and strategic decisions on behalf of their local area as a whole. The amendments would do no more than retain the existing difficulties and obstructions which stop that strategic power being employed.
The provision of four-year terms and stronger leadership will go alongside stronger accountability and overview. It does not say that the council leader cannot be removed through the normal procedure of a vote of no confidence. That is provided for in many individual council constitutions. Nor does it necessarily undermine the situation that could arise. I understand that in councils with no overall control the situation is more complicated, but the council elects the leader and it is entirely open to it to appoint a Cabinet across the parties. That is a familiar animal. When the provisions are in place, coalition discussions could support and accommodate these changes, which would provide stability.
We believe that the four-year term introduces a real element of progress. We are supported in that view by the Local Government Association. I hope that I have persuaded the noble Lord of that.
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Andrews
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 11 July 2007.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
693 c1446-8 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:25:51 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_409950
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_409950
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_409950