Localism Bill

I have this somewhere. Sorry, my Lords, I got a bit carried away with the previous amendment and stopped sorting my papers out. I shall speak also to my five other amendments in this group. There is also a Labour amendment in the group. Amendment 133ZD follows a pattern of debate and amendments on this chapter in that it tries to give local authorities more freedom to make their own choices and attempts to minimise constraint by the Secretary of State. It would give local authorities the choice whether or not to respond to an expression of interest with a procurement exercise. We discussed this in some detail in our debates on amendments before the dinner hour, so I will not go into that in any more detail now. This is an area that I think we will want to come back to in later discussions. The reason for Amendment 133ZF, which refers to Clause 70(6) and (7), is to try to find out what they mean. Subsection (6) reads: "““A relevant authority must, in carrying out the exercise referred to in subsection (2), consider how it might promote or improve the social, economic or environmental well-being of the authority’s area by means of that exercise””." This is a welcome provision, because it suggests that, as part of dealing with the expression of interest that comes in, the social, economic and environmental well-being of the authority’s area has to be looked at. I assume that when it says ““the authority’s area””, it also means the specific part of the authority’s area that the expression of interest refers to. It would be interesting to have a comment on that. Subsection (7) then says: "““Subsection (6) applies only so far as is consistent with the law applying to the awarding of contracts for the provision on behalf of the authority of the relevant service in question””." This is simply an amendment to probe what that means in practice. I understand what it means on paper, but in reality what balance will be given when an authority is considering how to deal with a particular expression of interest, and particularly with the procurement exercise? If what really applies is the lawyers coming along and saying, ““This is how this authority awards contracts, and this is how it has to be done””, the reference to social, economic and environmental well-being may not actually mean very much. Or does it mean that the authority’s rules on the awarding of contracts—its financial regulations and so on—can be changed in order to give more weight to the kind of things that we talked about earlier, such as community involvement and the enhancement of particular areas, even if that is not the cheapest way? Amendment 133ZG would insert a new provision, which reads: "““Any contract or other agreement that the relevant authority enters into under the provisions of this section shall be time-limited””." This might happen automatically, but it would be interesting to hear the Minister say what the Government’s view is. Does this hand over a local service for ever, or is it the normal sort of contract that a local authority would have with an outside contractor to provide a service, which would be time-limited to five or 10 years, or whatever it might be? Amendment 133ZH would add four more provisions. The first is: "““Any contract or other agreement that the relevant authority enters into under the provisions of this section may be subject to such arrangements for supervision, monitoring and assessment as the relevant authority thinks are necessary””." Is it a question of handing a service over to someone in the community, or an organisation comes in and takes advantage of the procurement exercise, who is then responsible for it lock, stock and barrel, or does the council still have a residual responsibility? Will it be treated like a normal council contract—for example, a contract for refuse collections and recycling—or is it something different? Will there be a lighter touch in supervision? Will there be any supervision whatever? If it is something that the council has a duty to do by law, and there is no supervision, how does that tie in with the council’s duty? The second provision the amendment would add is that, "““Any contract or other agreement that the relevant authority enters into under the provisions of this section may be subject to stipulations about the minimum level of services that must be provided and standards relating to their provision””." This is the same kind of argument. It is the kind of thing that would happen automatically with a normal council contract. Does it apply in this case? If it does not, what guarantees are there that a proper service will be provided in future? The third proposed subsection states: "““Each such contract may contain provisions relating to the action that may be taken by the relevant authority if a stipulated level or standard of service is not provided””—" in other words, if people are not providing the service that they said they would provide when they made the expression of interest and when the procurement exercise took place. If they do not provide the service, what happens? Is the council responsible for stepping in and doing something about it, or does it just hold its hands in the air and say, ““That’s tough, that’s the way it is””? The amendment further states: "““Such provisions may include a procedure by which the relevant authority may take over the provision of the relevant service itself””." In other words, if the provider is not performing adequately, can the council move in in default, as it can with a normal contract, and take over the service, or is it lost for ever once it is out in the community, even if it is no good? Amendment 133ZJ would apply the provisions of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, usually known as TUPE. Clearly, if it is a question of looking after a pocket park at the end of a street, that can simply be transferred to a community group such as the parish council. However, if these provisions were used to transfer a refuse collection service, TUPE provisions would normally apply. Do they apply in the case of transfers under this legislation? The final amendment in the group, Amendment 133ZM, is headed ““Application of duties””. It seeks to investigate whether the Equality Act 2010 will apply in respect of the provision of a relevant service under the Bill. Will it be deemed to apply to the relevant body when that body is providing the service? If all you are doing is looking after a pocket park at a very local level, common sense suggests that the Act will not apply, but if you are transferring a service that involves employing people and providing a significant service such as social services to people, does the equality legislation still apply to those services, some of which might well be duties on the local authority that are being carried out by someone else? I beg to move.