---

Local Transport Bill [HL]

My Lords, first I will deal with the fears raised by my noble friend Lord Rosser about the gerrymandering of the membership of an ITA by means of the granting of voting rights on an inappropriate basis to non-elected members. The Government moved Amendment No. 166 to ensure that the political balance rules that apply under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 cannot be amended or disapplied by supplementary provision in an order under Part 5. Section 15 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 sets out the principles by which appointments to bodies such as ITAs are to be governed. Among other things, the effect of this is that when political composition of the representative councils on a relevant local authority body changes, for example at a local election, the duty on those authorities is to review the membership as soon as is practicable thereafter to ensure that the principles of political balance are correctly maintained. In addition, Clause 89 allows the Secretary of State to issue guidance on, among other things, the carrying out of governance reviews and the membership and constitutional arrangements for ITAs. A draft of this guidance was issued in December 2007 and is currently being revised. We intend to use the guidance to underline a series of principles in relation to the appointment and granting of voting rights to non-elected members of ITAs, which meet the concerns raised by noble Lords. These include, first, that where persons other than elected members have been appointed to an ITA, the elected members of that ITA should review periodically whether and on what issues the non-elected members are entitled to vote. This would apply most obviously where there have been changes to the elected membership of an ITA after local council elections. Secondly, voting rights for non-elected members can be withdrawn in appropriate circumstances as well as granted. Thirdly, any limitations on the right of appointed members of an ITA to vote and the circumstances in which the entitlement to vote might come to an end should be clearly set out in any resolution giving them an entitlement to vote. In response to my noble friend Lord Rosser, I stress that the elected members of an ITA can revisit an earlier decision of theirs to grant voting rights to one or more non-elected members. That is clearly supported by Section 12 of the Interpretation Act 1978 which makes it clear in relation to powers conferred on bodies through legislation that, "““it is implied, unless the contrary intention appears, that the power may be exercised … from time to time as occasion requires””." The clear implication is that the power for an ITA itself to confer voting rights on non-elected members is not a one-off power that, once exercised, cannot be amended or reversed. I think that meets my noble friend’s concerns on the status of non-elected members and any voting rights which may be conferred on them. In response to the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, on the hybridity procedures, I believe I set out the fullest possible explanation about why we regard these proposals as necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, wished to be satisfied that there were good precedents for what we are doing and that we had adequate processes of consultation in place. I can reassure him on both points. The Bill already provides that there should be detailed scrutiny, both at local and national level, before any orders are made in respect of an ITA. We shall be issuing guidance on the type of consultation that will be required. The Secretary of State will have full regard to the quality and outcome of a local consultation before making any orders at national level and, of course, if proper consultation and reasonable decision-making are not observed, either at local or national level, proposals and draft orders could be subject to judicial review. That is an elaborate and very thorough process of consultation, which I believe meets the full, legitimate expectations that one can have of the decision-making process set out by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. On the precedents, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, did not answer the points I made. There are clear precedents for this action, not only in the recent past but in the very recent past, in the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, in the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, both of which have provisions which are almost identical to the provisions we are proposing in the Bill, and in the Local Government Act 1992, in respect of orders to change local authority boundaries and establish new authorities, a situation very similar to that in which we envisage proposals being brought forward in respect of ITAs. Not only are those precedents, but they are precedents of proposals which were not opposed by either of the other parties. There is a good and, to my mind, sufficient reason for bringing this proposal to the House: we do not regard it as reasonable and over and above the extensive consultation requirements before orders in respect of an ITA can be made at national and local level, that there should be a further process which could be gone through in this House. That would only duplicate previous consultation processes, delay the decision-making process and, crucially, make it less likely that proposals in respect of ITAs will come forward in the first place, which is the very purpose that this Bill seeks to serve and which, I believe, has widespread support across the House. On Question, Motion agreed to.