Localism Bill

My Lords, I shall speak also to the other amendments in this group. Amendment 33 sits alongside Amendment 85. I will revert to those amendments shortly. Amendments 59 to 62 inclusive seek to make the provisions of proposed new Section 9HF more acceptable. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee described the provisions in their current form as an inappropriate delegation of legislative power. We agree. New Section 9HF enables the Secretary of State by affirmative procedure to enable or require, "““a … local authority operating a mayor and cabinet executive to confer a local public service function of any person or body on its elected mayor””," and to transfer a local public service function from any person or body to the elected mayor. Local public service function is widely defined, and public service is defined as a service provided to the public or a section of the public that is provided either under statutory authority or that is wholly or partly funded by central and local government. As the Delegated Powers Committee points out, this is a remarkably wide power and could cover many activities carried out in the voluntary sector, as well as other public services such as those provided by the NHS, the police and other elected authorities. For example, what is done by a local charity—perhaps a housing charity, supported by Supporting People funding—would come within the definitions here. It could also include the functions of integrated transport authorities which we have just discussed and on which an amendment focused. The amendments press on three areas. Amendments 59 and 60 seek to include in the circumstances in which such powers operate a leader and executive model of governance as well as a mayor and executive model. I acknowledge that further consequential amendments relating to the transfer of functions would be needed, for example, to new Section 9HF(1)(b)—I say this before the noble Lord, Lord True, gets to it. Incidentally, in talking of transfers of functions, I do not see any tax provisions relating to these transfers. Of course, a whole raft of tax provisions, particularly referring to transfers in London, were introduced at the Bill’s final stages in the other place, so I have a query about whether something is due in respect of them. Amendment 61 constrains the Secretary of State’s powers and prohibits the modification and disapplication of current or future legislation and Amendment 62 is an attempt to deal with both process and criteria. They would require consultation with affected persons. It would also be incumbent on the Secretary of State to set out why the use of these powers would result in an improvement to the existing arrangements. There would also be a requirement to explain how the transferred functions would be carried out in an efficient, transparent and accountable way. Frankly, even these safeguards are probably not strong enough, particularly in the light of the Delegated Powers Committee’s report. Perhaps in the mean time the Minister can tell us why these powers operate only when the governance arrangements involve a mayor. What would the situation be should an authority with a major revert to a leader and executive model? Is this a one-way transfer? Indeed, in what circumstances is it envisaged that these very strong powers would be used? There is no requirement in the Bill for the transfer of property rights to be paid for on some market-value basis. What can the Minister tell us about how that might proceed? What is the intent? New Section 9HF(6)(a) refers to the transfer of property rights and liabilities which could not otherwise be transferred. Can the Minister tell us what type of restrictions on transfers it is expected could be overridden by these powers? Will he also deal with the point raised by the Delegated Powers Committee concerning the disapplication of the hybrid instrument procedure? Paragraph 29 of its 15th report of the 2010-12 Session states: "““Given the lack of any statutory requirement to consult before making an order under section 9HF, the Committee is concerned that the disapplication of the hybrid instruments procedure—and thereby the opportunity to petition Parliament—leaves inadequate means to ensure private or local interests are taken into account when the power is exercised””." How does the Minister respond to those comments? Finally, Amendments 33 and 85 would add to the Local Government Act 2000 a new Part 1B, which would make additional specific provision for when the Secretary of State is contemplating the transfer of a local public service function from an integrated transport authority. The provision would require that there be a consultation involving all district councils in the integrated transport area as well as the relevant ITA. It would also require the Secretary of State, following that consultation, to make a judgment about how a proposed transfer would improve the effectiveness and efficiency of transport in the area. In essence, the amendments are a particularised version of what is proposed under Amendment 62. The more we examine the powers of the Secretary of State under new Section 9HF, the more concerned we become. I hope the Government will be able to respond positively on some of these points and, in particular, will say how they propose to meet the criticisms by the Delegated Powers Committee. I beg to move.