Localism Bill

My Lords, we now move on to Chapter 3 of Part 4 of the Bill, excitingly titled ““Community Right To Challenge””. I have seven more amendments in this group, along with my noble friend Lord Tope, and there are a couple from the Labour Party. These are the first of a series of amendments on this community right to challenge part of the Bill which I am moving on behalf of the Liberal Democrats on the basis of the criterion which the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, put forward at Second Reading—workability. This is a completely new idea and a completely new set of provisions. It is extremely important that, when they leave this House, they leave in a workable condition. They may already be in a workable condition, or they may not. Our job is to make sure they are, whether or not they require changes. The basic principle—in rather obscure language, I have to say—is that, "““a relevant authority must consider an expression of interest””" if submitted by a relevant body that is interested in, "““providing or assisting in providing a relevant service””." I have to say that back in Colne this is not the language people use and, no doubt, when the community right to challenge gets down to the grass roots, people will have a plainer English explanation of what it is all about. The relevant authority is, as set out, a principal local authority in England, or a body set out in Clause 68(2)(d), which reads, "““such other person or body carrying on functions of a public nature as the Secretary of State may specify by regulations””." Here we have more mysterious regulations specifying mysterious people. Before the Bill leaves this House we need to know who these people are, at the very least. A ““relevant body”” is defined as, "““a voluntary or community body … a body of persons or a trust which is established for charitable purposes only … a parish council … two or more employees of that authority””—" in other words, two or more employees of the council whose services are being challenged— "““or … such other person or body as may be specified by the Secretary of State by regulations””." It is not a surprise to find that there, since it is what we find everywhere in the Bill, but, again, we need to know what it means. A ““relevant service”” which is being challenged on the relevant authority by the relevant body is, "““a service provided by or on behalf of that authority in the exercise of any of its functions, other than”” …" and ““other than”” is, effectively, a service that the Secretary of State makes regulations saying shall not be subject to the challenge. Yet again, we have a power to the Secretary of State that we need to understand. This, in many ways, is the nub of the problem. This is framework legislation, skeletal legislation, and there is a huge amount down to regulations. It might seem boring to keep saying this, but in every part of the Bill this seems to be the fundamental problem. What we have here is a new idea—what I would describe as a spiffing wheeze—that has been dreamt up by the Government. It has actually been dreamt up by the Conservative part of the Government and I do not complain about that; a coalition is a coalition of two parties and each party has a right to bring its own spiffing wheezes to the table. We have to find out how this is to be done as I do not think that we are being told that at the moment. I would like all these specific powers for the Secretary of State to be removed, or at least a lot of them. Is there any hope that we are going to see draft copies of the regulations before the Bill leaves this House? We do not have them for Committee stage. Will we have them by Report? If we do not have them by then, I can see that there might be a certain amount of bother in the House. That is all I that I really want to say about this. I have some more notes but they just repeat what I have said, so I will not say it again. The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, is going to express shock and surprise that I have not said it three times.