---

Column 890

place and that people interested in the legislation will be allowed information about and involvement in any procedure established under part II of the Bill.

The new clause states :

"Before making any order under section 17 (1) below, the Secretary of State shall by a date not later than two months before the laying of any such order--

(a) publish any relevant recommendations of the Commission". That means that the people who could be affected by the commission's recommendations should be made fully aware of any effects that the recommendations may have.

8.30 pm

If we are to be fully democratic in our approach to the reorganisation of local government, everyone involved must have the right to know about the changes. They are entitled to make comments and recommendations. The Secretary of State should ensure that people interested in the review are able to comment on the recommendations that affect them. The Secretary of State should also publish a statement of his response to the commission's recommendations. There must be a full public relations exercise so that the commission's recommendations are made fully available.

We have outlined in detail, in Committee and to some extent in the House today, how the public could be involved in the commission's recommendations. They could be involved in questions of boundaries, local representation, housing or other services. We therefore believe that those people should have the opportunity to comment on the report. When the Secretary of State considers the representations and publishes his report, that should also be made available to those involved.

That policy should apply not only to local government customers, but to people involved in local government. If we are to be fair and honest with all the people who could be involved, ensuring that information is made available to them is of paramount importance. If there is any reason why the public should not be informed of the commission's work and decisions, and the recommendations of the Secretary of State, the Minister should spell that out to the House. If there is no reason why people should not be advised or have the opportunity to make observations and comments on the response of the Secretary of State, the new clause should be accepted today. We have tabled the new clause as we consider that it is constructive and will strengthen the Bill. Although we do not agree with many aspects of the Bill, we believe that it should be strengthened in this way. It is against that backcloth that I commend the new clause for consideration by the House, and ask the House to accept it.

Mr. Portillo : I have no particular disagreement with the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) about the desirability of publicity being given to the recommendations made by the local government commission, but I think that the new clause is unnecessary. He should consider clause 15 of the Bill.

Clause 15(1) provides that people who may be interested in the review should be informed of the review's existence. Clause 15(2) provides that steps should be taken to inform people who have an interest of the fact that the commission is conducting a review and the period in which representations may be made. Clause 15(3) states that the

---

Column 891

local government commission is bound to take into account any representations, to prepare draft recommendations and to deposit those

"recommendations at the principal office of any principal council appearing to that Commission to be likely to be affected by them ; and take into consideration any representations made to that Commission".

Under clause 15(4) the local government commission is obliged to submit to the Secretary of State a report and to

"take such steps as it considers sufficient to secure that persons who may be interested in the recommendations are informed of them." Clause 15(5) contains a requirement that copies of any draft recommendations should be

"deposited at the principal office of a principal council" and should be kept available for inspection so that representations in respect of them can be made. Clause 15(7) states that

"The Secretary of State may give directions as to the exercise by the Local Government Commission of any functions under"

clause 15.

Therefore, the process that we foresee is that the commission will start a review with publicity and consultation to take into account the representations received in drawing up draft recommendations. The public should be consulted on the draft recommendations and account should be taken of those representations when preparing the final recommendations. The final representations should be submitted to the Secretary of State and there should be a further opportunity for the public to comment, this time to the Secretary of State, before he makes an order and brings it to Parliament to give effect to the commission's recommendations.

Therefore, there are ample opportunities for publicity to be given to the commission's work and to the report laid before the Secretary of State, and for representations to be made to the Secretary of State himself.

We intend to issue procedural guidance to organisations that could be consulted at each stage, as well as a general requirement that the commission should make the existence of the review made known widely and should consider all the views that come forward, whether solicited or not.

Mr. Eddie Loyden (Liverpool, Garston) : When ensuring that people have access to information, will the Minister take into account people with specific difficulties such as the blind and the deaf? Will he oblige local authorities to make sure that people with disabilities have access to the information to which, as citizens, they are entitled?

Mr. Portillo : I am sure that the hon. Gentleman followed our deliberations in Committee carefully, when we discussed an amendment to that effect. I hope that the local government commission will make information available on request in the form described by the hon. Gentleman. I am reluctant to make it an obligation on the local government commission that it should automatically produce material, not least because the various forms in which it may be published are different for people with different disabilities, but I shall ask the local government commission to bear in mind the needs of people who are partially sighted or blind, and people with other disabilities or language difficulties who might otherwise be denied access to the important information.

---

Column 892

I must correct myself : our debate in Committee was not on the local government commission, but on a different part of the Bill. However, it was related to the same subject and my response is generally the same. I think that the information should be considered carefully by the local government commission if a request is made. It would not be right to demand of the local government commission that it automatically produces its recommendations in various forms. The guidance that the Government will issue will also stress the importance of gauging the views of people living in the district, and others who might be affected, and will set out ways of achieving that.

I have no particular disagreement with the view of the hon. Member for Normanton that it is important at every stage to publicise recommendations and that people's views should be taken into account. There will, of course, be bodies that it will be considered right for the commission to consult ; it will also be considered right for it to take into account representations made by anyone, regardless of whether that person has been invited to make representations. Now that I have explained to the hon. Gentleman how clause 15 will operate, and given him an indication of the way in which I intend the procedural guidance to be drafted, I hope that he will see fit to withdraw the motion.

Mr. O'Brien : Clearly, as the Minister says, there is not much to divide us on the issue. However, clause 15 does not deal with the points that are giving rise to concern--hence new clause 6. Under clause 15,

"the Local Government Commission shall take into consideration any representations made to it within the period mentioned in subsection (1)(c) or (2)(c) above draft recommendations and take such steps as it considers sufficient to secure that persons who may be interested in the recommendations are informed of them and of the period within which recommendations with respect to them may be made".

We are saying that, in the interests of greater public awareness, the recommendations should be published and made public--that they should be deposited in the library or in some other public office. We ask not only for the commission's recommendations to be made available to those involved and to the wider public, but for the Secretary of State's response to those recommendations to be publicised. Clause 15 makes no such provision. Subsection (7) provides :

"The Secretary of State may give directions as to the exercise by the Local Government Commission of any functions under this section ; and such directions may require that Commission to have regard to any guidance given by the Secretary of State as respects matters to be taken into account."

We do not think that that is sufficient assurance that the information will be made available. We want firmer provisions to be included in the Bill, and we are disappointed to learn that the Government cannot accept our proposal.

The issue should be given further consideration. People need to be fully informed of both the commission's decisions and the Secretary of State's response. Although, as I have said, our positions do not differ greatly, I ask the Minister to think carefully about the matter.

Mr. Portillo : Let me make two points. First, I assure the hon. Gentleman that--as with local government boundary decisions now--there will always be a period after the Secretary of State receives a report during which he can

---

Column 893

receive public comments that may be submitted to him. The second, obvious point is that the Secretary of State must bring an order to Parliament in regard to structural changes ; such orders will be subject to affirmative resolution. The final decision must be taken in Parliament.

Mr. O'Brien : That demonstrates again that there is not a great deal between our thinking and that of the Minister. Both sides accept the importance of the availability of public information about any recommendation from the commission, and about the Secretary of State's response. We merely ask for a public information exercise to be undertaken, both in the House and outside. If the Minister gives further consideration to the principles and the merits of the new clause, I am sure that he could respond more fully.

Although I do not intend to press the motion to a Division, I feel that we should be able to return to the new clause if necessary. Question put and negatived.

New clause 10

Public involvement in delivery of local services

.--(1) The Audit Commission and the Scottish Accounts Commission shall, before issuing directions under this Part, have regard to the need for involving the public in setting and monitoring standards of performance.

(2) The Secretary of State, in making any order under this Part relating to competitive tendering, shall ensure that any directions contained in the Order shall take into account the importance of involving the public in any decision making.'.-- [Mr. Bellotti.] Brought up, and read the First time.

8.45 pm

Mr. Bellotti : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause goes to the crux of local service provision. It is really a question of whether we believe that central Government should direct local services, or whether we should now take the opportunity of putting local people--the local electorate--back in charge of those services.

In a sense, this is about whether the people should be the final arbiter in regard to how services are delivered and monitored. In our view, it is not for a commission or for the Secretary of State to dictate to local authorities how their services should be delivered. Of course, both the commission and the Secretary of State will have important roles in providing advice, information and guidelines on good practice, but neither should be the final arbiter.

The commission could have a role in encouraging the development of a new form of local government structure. The Secretary of State can encourage local authorities to go for competitive tendering to obtain quality at an affordable cost. There are advantages, however, in making the people the final arbiter again--in ensuring that the public not only understand the services that are provided, but are consulted fully about their quality.

Many local authorities already test public opinion about the delivery of services in their area. Richmond council, for example, regularly runs surveys to determine whether local people consider the quality of service

---

Column 894

important. Recently, Tower Hamlets council conducted a referendum on what the local poll tax level should be. It received a 28 per cent. return of questionnaires, and 45 per cent. of respondents opted for the highest of four offered poll tax levels--which showed, I think, that local people wanted a high-quality service and were prepared to pay for it, but it also showed that they were prepared to enter into a dialogue with the local authority about what they thought of the services provided. I might add that the survey was carried out at mininum cost and has provided the council with useful information. The choice is this : should there be central guidelines and blueprints, or should local people be left to enjoy services and then comment on them in a way which could lead to improvements? The question whether the Secretary of State should have power to dictate to councils about compulsory competitive tendering is at the core of the current arrangements, but I propose to change that by putting the people back in power. If a local authority and the public are satisfied with the cost and quality of an in-house service, why should the local authority be forced to put that service out to the private sector? If local people are happy and are prepared to pay, central Government should not interfere.

It is also important that, if a tender is undertaken, some customer reaction is obtained. After all, anyone can put a service out to tender at the lowest possible cost, but no one may be pleased with the way in which the service is delivered. According to recent statistics, 28 per cent. of people in the Dorset county council area are unhappy with the services delivered by that council. If more than one in four people who live in the Dorset county council area are unhappy with the services delivered, it says something about those services. Changes ought to be made.

The new clause is about turning the Bill into one which puts local people back in charge. I hope that I have said enough to enable the Minister to tell me why he wants central Government to be put in the driving seat and why he does not intend to allow local people to take decisions which affect their local communities.

Mr. Portillo : I shall try to emulate the commendable brevity of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti). However, the way that he has drafted new clause 10 shows that he has misunderstood the Government's intentions. The first part of it calls upon the Audit Commission and the Scottish Accounts Commission to have regard to the need, before issuing directions, to involve the public in setting and monitoring standards of performance. However, we do not propose that the Audit Commission and the Scottish Accounts Commission shall set standards. What we are asking them to do is to provide objective measurements by which all local authorities can measure the standards that they have set and the service that they are providing to the electors.

It is absolutely central to our proposals that the public will be able to make judgments as to whether they are satisfied with the services that their local authorities are providing for them. Their local authorities will account to them for the standards of service that they are delivering, measured objectively. They will use measurements that are common to all other local authorities. It will be possible, therefore, for people to make comparisons between what the local authority promised and what it has delivered, and also between what one local authority delivers and what another local authority delivers. It will all be measured in

---

Column 895

exactly the same terms. The first part of new clause 10 shows that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood our intentions. What we intend puts the public very much in the driving seat. It provides the public with the information, objectively derived, that they need in order to be able to judge their council.

The second part of the proposal in new clause 10 once again shows that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the position. In setting out the specification for anything that is to be the subject of competitive tendering, it is for the local authority to determine for itself the standard at which it wishes its services to be delivered. The local authority should be concerned if subsequently it finds that people are not satisfied with the services delivered. That could only be for one of two reasons : either the specification was wrong, in terms of what local people expected, or the tenderer had under-performed against the specification. If the tenderer has under-performed against the specification, because he is working under contract to the local authority it has redress against the contractor--a redress that it would not normally have against a directly employed labour force operating outside the competitive tendering process.

I have no quarrel with the hon. Gentleman that local people should be able democratically to deliver their judgment about the standard of service that the local authority delivers, whether or not it be a service for which there has been competitive tendering. However, local authorities will have a greater opportunity both to set the specification and to call a contractor to book where the compulsory competitive tendering process has been gone through than would otherwise be the case.

Mr. Bellotti : We debated this subject fairly fully in Committee, when I put forward a range of opportunities by means of which local authorities could consult people and identify customer care. Having listened to the Minister's reply, I do not think that he has moved any further forward since the Committee debate. It is a little late to suggest that a local authority will have redress if a contract is not fulfilled. At the point of redress, local people will have lost the service that they were supposedly going to get. It will be a little late for the local authority to reinstate services that the tenderer failed to deliver.

Before a local authority considers awarding another contract to a private tenderer who was awarded a contract for which there ought to be redress and under which the contract has not been delivered to the standard required, it ought to think carefully about what it is doing. The contractor will have clearly demonstrated that he is unable to deliver a service to a certain level of quality. That argument was put forward throughout the whole of the Committee proceedings. It was clear there that cost is the Government's first concern and that quality comes second. In my view, quality is as important as cost. I would not consider awarding anybody a contract if that person had not fulfilled a previous contract to the necessary level of quality.

For those reasons, it appears that the Minister has not moved any further forward since Committee. I believe that the Government are not putting people and quality of service first but are following a cost-led policy. I therefore intend to press the new clause to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time :

The House divided : Ayes 119, Noes 241.

---

Column 896

Division No. 96] [8.56 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

Allen, Graham

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Ashton, Joe

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Barron, Kevin

Beckett, Margaret

Bellotti, David

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

Benton, Joseph

Bermingham, Gerald

Bidwell, Sydney

Blunkett, David

Boyes, Roland

Bradley, Keith

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Caborn, Richard

Callaghan, Jim

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Canavan, Dennis

Carr, Michael

Cartwright, John

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Cohen, Harry

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Cryer, Bob

Darling, Alistair

Dixon, Don

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Eadie, Alexander

Edwards, Huw

Fatchett, Derek

Faulds, Andrew

Fearn, Ronald

Flannery, Martin

Flynn, Paul

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Foulkes, George

Fraser, John

Fyfe, Maria

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Golding, Mrs Llin

Gould, Bryan

Grocott, Bruce

Hardy, Peter

Harman, Ms Harriet

Haynes, Frank

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Home Robertson, John

Hood, Jimmy

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Howells, Geraint

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Hoyle, Doug

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Illsley, Eric

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Kennedy, Charles

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Lamond, James

Leadbitter, Ted

Lewis, Terry

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Loyden, Eddie

McAllion, John

McAvoy, Thomas

McCartney, Ian

McLeish, Henry

McNamara, Kevin

Madden, Max

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Martlew, Eric

Meacher, Michael

Meale, Alan

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Morgan, Rhodri

Morley, Elliot

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Mullin, Chris

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

O'Brien, William

O'Hara, Edward

Patchett, Terry

Prescott, John

Primarolo, Dawn

Radice, Giles

Randall, Stuart

Rooney, Terence

Sedgemore, Brian

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Short, Clare

Skinner, Dennis

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Spearing, Nigel

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Steinberg, Gerry

Stephen, Nicol

Stott, Roger

Strang, Gavin

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Turner, Dennis

Vaz, Keith

Walley, Joan

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Winnick, David

Wray, Jimmy

Tellers for the Ayes :

Mr. Archy Kirkwood and

Mr. James Wallace.

NOES

Aitken, Jonathan

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Amess, David

Amos, Alan

Arbuthnot, James

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Aspinwall, Jack

Atkinson, David

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Baldry, Tony

Batiste, Spencer

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Bellingham, Henry

Bendall, Vivian

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Benyon, W.

Bevan, David Gilroy

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Body, Sir Richard

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Boswell, Tim

Bottomley, Peter

Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

---