| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir Paul Beresford: The Minister has partly dealt with the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for
Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) was trying to make about flexibility; but, having asked for a committee, we should perhaps also ask for a specific example. In fact, I can give an example. Let us assume that an incompetent authority such as Islington is being inspected for best value, and that--as has happened in the past, before the invention of best value--there is a sudden outcry about a paedophile ring in homes run by social services. Where will flexibility come in? Who will lead? How will the process be integrated? Who will respond? Will the Secretary of State make the ultimate decision about whether to reshuffle the order?
Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman has given an excellent example of why the Bill is necessary.
Sir Paul Beresford: I was trying to be helpful.
Mr. Jones: I know. The hon. Gentleman was helpful in Committee from time to time--and I must take the word of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), who said in Committee that he wished to be constructive, and to see best value working for the maximum benefit of local authority services. No doubt we shall see more of that constructive approach this evening.
Mr. Clive Efford (Eltham): I tabled an amendment on the subject dealt with in Amendment No. 20, but it was not selected for today's debate. However, I should like to draw a comparison between my amendment and Government amendment No. 20--which recognises that local authorities do not operate in a vacuum, but that they have to work with other agencies. I have been attempting to improve the performance of best value authorities, in energy efficiency, by improving their relationships with the Housing Corporation and--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not in order to refer to an amendment that has not been selected.
Mr. Jones: Nevertheless, my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) can be assured that the Government support his Energy Conservation (Housing) Bill and his Energy Efficiency Bill. However, we cannot debate that in our consideration of the Local Government Bill.
The Government have provided the Audit Commission with the power to inspect best value authorities. It is important that, when appropriate, those authorities are able to utilise the best expert advice. Amendment No. 20 will facilitate such an approach. It will allow, for example, the Housing Corporation in England, at the request of the Audit Commission, to provide advice and assistance to
the commission in relation to the commission's best value functions. In Wales, the Secretary of State performs the functions of the Housing Corporation, and he will be able to provide similar advice and assistance to the commission. That will, when appropriate, enable the commission to supplement its own expertise and knowledge of the housing functions with advice and support from the corporation.
Mr. Curry:
Will the Minister give way?
There is, however, no question of Housing Corporation staff being involved in the conduct of inspections, which will remain the function of the Audit Commission. The amendment also makes proper provision for the Housing Corporation to be remunerated for any advice and assistance that it provides.
Mr. Curry:
Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Jones:
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to take an active part in the debate, and, later in the debate, he will have an opportunity to speak to the amendments.
Mr. Jones:
No, I shall not give way now. In my brief speech on this group of amendments, I have already given way twice to the right hon. Gentleman.
Amendment No. 20 will provide the Audit Commission with added flexibility in the manner in which it exercises its best value functions, with particular regard to the housing function.
Amendments Nos. 21 to 23 are designed primarily to improve the Bill's drafting, and to ensure that the general provisions in clause 24 properly reflect the powers of guidance afforded to the Secretary of State elsewhere in part I of the Bill. That guidance will not always be aimed directly at best value authorities. In certain cases, although dealing with the application of best value to those authorities, the guidance will be aimed at others. An example of that is the Secretary of State's guidance power provided in clause 10, which is a power to issue guidance to the Audit Commission on the way in which it inspects best value authorities. It is an example of guidance that will be issued in respect of best value authorities, rather than to them. The guidance powers provided in new clause 4, on collaboration between inspectorates, is a further example of how the power may be used.
Amendments Nos. 21 to 23 will improve the Bill's drafting and ensure that the scope for guidance, as stated in clause 24, properly reflects the powers of guidance provided elsewhere in the Bill.
I therefore beg to move the amendments.
Mr. Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks):
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister said that he begged to move the amendments. I do not think that he can move them now.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. Technically speaking, that is correct; the Minister had only to move new clause 4. However, he is still speaking to the amendments, so I am sure that it was only a slip of the tongue.
Mr. Jones:
My apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
We believe that there is a wider public interest in allowing the commission to publish best value information. The amendment would achieve that.
Government amendment No. 24 is designed to ensure that the approach to consultation on guidance is consistent throughout the Bill, regardless of the subject matter that it deals with or the status of the bodies to which it is addressed. Clause 24(2)(c) already provides that before issuing guidance to best value authorities, the Secretary of State or the Assembly must consult them or persons appearing to represent them. Subsection (3) makes similar provisions for consultation with the Audit Commission before guidance is issued in respect of its inspection functions.
Amendment No. 24 is consistent with such an approach. It provides that when the Secretary of State or the Assembly uses the guidance powers under new clause 4 in respect of securing co-ordination of different kinds of inspection, they are to be under a duty to consult first with the persons or bodies that carry out those functions. The amendment gives inspectorate bodies an opportunity to make representations about statutory guidance and its contents before it is issued, similar to that enjoyed by best value authorities.
In Committee, the Government explained in detail their approach to the commencement of the various provisions that introduce elements of the best value framework. Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 25 are technical amendments to ensure that the clauses that were added in Committee are taken into account.
The inspection of services provided by best value authorities is one of the key ways in which the authorities will receive feedback on their performance and in which central Government will be able to monitor the application of the policy. The Bill gives the Audit Commission the power to set a scale of fees for inspection, but to provide flexibility we shall need to pay the commission grants from central funds. The split between grants and fees, like the overall cost, is still under discussion with the commission. Amendment No. 12 makes such payments possible, ensuring that inspection can go ahead.
Sir Paul Beresford:
I want to focus briefly on amendment No. 95. As ever, we have tabled it in a helpful frame of mind. I did not realise how helpful we were going to have to be when we recognised the extrapolations governing expenditure under the Bill.
The first half of the Bill is the sweetness and sugar for local authorities. However, the more I looked at the Bill, the more concerned I became--and so did many local authorities--about the expenditure that they were going to pick up. We referred to the problem at length in Committee and deep concerns were expressed. Some of those concerns were supposed to be alleviated by what was new clause 5 and is now clause 12, to which the amendment applies.
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) questioned the Minister, the answers were muddled and disconcerting. This evening's debate has enlarged the possibilities. When we were
debating the money resolution, the Minister said that she had no idea of the expenditure or the balance between money given by central Government to the Audit Commission and fees charged to local authorities.Local authorities are not sure how much of the Bill they are going to have to pay for.
Having listened to the Minister's comments on the new clauses and amendments, I am even more concerned, because it looks as though there will be an army of individuals so large that it will cause a bump on the unemployment statistics. I have visions of local authority inspectors, co-ordinators and specialists in the housing commission dotted throughout the country, all of whom will have to be paid. If I were a finance director or the chairman of a local authority finance committee, I would be very concerned about that.
Clause 12 says that there will be a scale of fees for inspection. That seems well and good as far as it goes, but the commission may decide to set that scale of fees to one side, or to increase the fees or decrease them. All local authorities would be delighted if the fees were reduced, but they could go up. In Westminster and many other local authorities, the auditor, on behalf of the Audit Commission, has imposed substantial fees without any check--up to £3 million or £4 million.
Clause 12(4) says:
I raised the issue in Committee, but we have heard nothing about how the expenditure will be held down. We were not told in Committee whether subsection (4) applied to subsection (3). My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon went to great lengths to ascertain whether the Government had any idea about that and whether there would be an opportunity to restrict the open cheque book approach given to the commission. The answer was so inadequate that I was reminded of an Australian phrase--the Minister did not know whether he was Arthur or Martha on the issue.
We have got no further forward. The Government new clauses and amendments have not helped. I hope that the Government are going to rely on amendment No. 95, which would restrict the ability of the commission to top-load the costs to local authorities. As a ballpark figure, I have suggested an upper ceiling of 10 per cent. Without such a hold on expenditure, it will be open to the commission to go way beyond that. The fees will be unpredictable and could be applied retrospectively. The size of the fees could be exceptionally damaging to small local authorities.
The latter half of the Bill also includes two forms of capping: broad capping and specific capping, which can be subjective.
6 pm
Yesterday, we debated a Liberal Democrat motion on council tax increases. The Minister of State spent a considerable time talking about percentage increases, but she presented her case in a fallacious way. If subjective capping can be applied to a small local authority on the basis of large percentage increases, the scale of fees could get out of hand. I know that it is hypothetical and perhaps greatly exaggerated, but the potential exists. Under the Bill--and particularly clause 12--there is no ceiling.
I hope that the Government accept that amendment No. 95 was tabled in a helpful manner. If the Minister is not prepared to accept it, will he explain in his reply to the debate how he intends to alter the Bill--perhaps in another place--so that there will be a ceiling?
"Before prescribing a scale of fees under this section the Commission shall consult--
That is a figleaf gesture towards local authorities. The commission will think about the issue, but there is no hold over it. When we were debating the money resolution I asked the Minister whether there was a ceiling. We heard some nice phrases, but she said that she could not give us any idea of the total costs. The same applies in this case. We have no idea whether there is a ceiling on the scale of fees for inspections under clause 10.
(a) the Secretary of State, and
(b) persons appearing to the Commission to represent best value authorities."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |