| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Forth: I hoped that my hon. Friend would specify circumstances in which the Secretary of State's powers might not be exercised in the way described by the new clause. I readily follow the logic behind "in the event of this, that and the other", but I want to know in what circumstances my hon. Friend imagines the wording of the new clause would be invoked.
For what it is worth, I have always assumed that the Secretary of State would be anxious to use the new powers in the Bill. I think that my hon. Friend said earlier that there were 28, but no doubt more will come. The new clause, however, suggests that the Secretary of State may not use those powers. I find that intriguing: in what circumstances might the Secretary of State not use them?
Mr. Jenkin:
My right hon. Friend has asked a key question. We were constantly assured that the reserve powers in clause 14 would be fallback powers, to be used only in extremis, and that the very existence of the best value process would cause sweetness and light to break out in local authorities, so that the Secretary of State would not be required to intervene. It is possible that the drafting is too broad in respect of some of the powers specified in the new clause, but the key point is this: when an authority is essentially well behaved and is applying the principles of best value through self-discipline in conjunction with the monitoring of the Audit Commission, surely it is entirely reasonable for the other powers that the Secretary of State has over the local authority to expire, returning to the authority the powers that we want authorities to have.
I remind the House that the objective of the time-limiting of capping powers was discussed in Committee. Indeed, I believe that a member of the Minister's party tabled an amendment proposing that the capping powers should expire in 2005.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The debate is not about capping powers. The hon. Gentleman must refer specifically to new clause 5.
Mr. Jenkin:
I may be under a misapprehension in regard to the drafting of my own new clause, but it states that, in the event of the powers in the first part of the Bill's not being exercised,
Mr. Oliver Letwin (West Dorset):
I have been puzzling over how my hon. Friend has come up with this construction, but I think that I am at last beginning to understand. Is he arguing that, under new clause 5, if the Secretary of State has not exercised his powers in relation to best value over three years, all the powers in the Act, including the power to cap, will fall away?
Mr. Jenkin:
That is exactly it. I am sorry that I have not made myself as clear as I could have.
Mr. Letwin:
In that case, the new clause is vastly better and more powerful than many of us thought. [Interruption.] Judging by the chuntering of Labour Front Benchers, it is much more powerful than the Government themselves understood.
Mr. Jenkin:
The purpose of the new clause is to provide for circumstances in which the panoply of powers will begin to fall away from Government, allowing local authorities more autonomy and more control over their affairs. We thought that the Government believed in that when they were in opposition. I have here a number of early-day motions signed by hon. Members who are now in government, expressing such sentiments.
Mr. Letwin:
Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the new clause obviously vastly improves the situation for which the Bill provides, it might improve the situation further if the falling away of powers under clause29--the capping powers--occurred if they had not been exercised for three years, regardless of what had happened to the best value powers?
Mr. Jenkin:
I certainly accept that there are alternative ways of sunsetting the provisions, but the purpose of linking the sunsetting of the capping and tax limitation powers and the best value powers in relation to the exercise of the best value powers is this. If an authority is achieving best value to the extent that the Secretary of State need not exercise his best value powers, the result
Mr. Letwin:
I think that I am beginning to understand my hon. Friend's deep logic--[Interruption.] I mean that entirely seriously. He seems to be saying that, under clause 29, it would be impossible for the Secretary of State to devise appropriate principles for the invocation of capping if he had not already determined that a local authority had failed to achieve best value.
Mr. Jenkin:
If the local authority had failed to achieve best value, the powers in the Bill would remain intact. I suspect that the Secretary of State would continue to exercise his powers with regard to best value, and would therefore keep alive the other powers in the Bill.
If best value is truly intended to work, it will presumably become less and less necessary for Ministers to intervene. If we are to believe that best value will work, as the Government say, the intervention powers in the best value part of the Bill should be used less and less often, and it should be possible to relieve authorities of their burdens. We must believe that the Government do not want to cap authorities, and do not want to have their powers in perpetuity, because of what they used to say when in opposition.
I am holding a copy of early-day motion 73, dated 5 June 1997, which states:
History is rich with such examples. Another early-day motion demanded
Jackie Ballard:
The hon. Gentleman is giving the House a fascinating history lesson. I should be grateful if he would add to it by reminding us of who introduced capping powers.
Mr. Jenkin:
I do not think that that is in dispute. Some people do not seem to understand that the Conservative party lost the general election, and that Conservative Members are now doing what we were overwhelmingly elected to do--to oppose. When one loses an election, it is a time to reassess one's policies. The Government seem to have been elected and, immediately, changed their mind about some of the fundamental issues on local authorities.
Sir Paul Beresford:
The hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) neglected to set the scene in which capping was introduced, or to describe the effects that had to be achieved in trying to inhibit the behaviour of many local authorities. The previous Labour Government were themselves starting to take the same action. The hon. Lady has been praising some Liberal Democrat-controlled local authorities, in which I can appreciate why there may be some feeling against capping.
Mr. Jenkin:
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The history of local government is the history of circumstances dictating ever more control over local authorities. However, now that the atmosphere in local government is changing, and the hard left has been defeated, there is an opportunity to consider alternatives.
Perhaps the most enlightening early-day motion I have is one that calls for
We know that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment fought a bitter battle in Cabinet to try and stop implementation of council tax benefit limitation. One should therefore have thought that the Government would look favourably on an amendment such as new clause 5--which would provide an opportunity to sunset unattractive powers that no hon. Member truly wants to exercise over
local authorities, and that are in the Bill of necessity, not desire--to provide a sensible and structured way in which such powers might gradually be reduced.
In a letter of 14 January 1999 to the Minister for Local Government and Housing, the chairman of the Local Government Association, Councillor Sir Jeremy Beecham said:
"the powers in this Act shall only be exercised"
subject to an overriding order. That is intended to include capping powers and council tax limitation powers in the whole Act. To that extent, this is about providing sunsetting for capping powers, council tax limitation powers and all the other powers in the Bill.
8.15 pm
"That this House believes that local decision-making should be less constrained by central Government and also more accountable to local people; therefore considers it unacceptable to continue the practice of capping local authority expenditure so as to deny local discretion."
If I go back a little further in history, I find early-day motion 327, dated 9 December 1996, stating that its signatories condemn
"the imposition through capping of expenditure cuts"
in local authorities. The motion was signed by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale)--who is in the Chamber--and by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), who is now a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Department of Trade and Industry.
"that the Government ends its policy of capping local authorities".
It was signed by the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson); by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), who is now a Government Whip; by the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney); by the Under-Secretary of
State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Mansfield--again--and even by the Secretary of State for Wales.
"abolition of capping as undemocratic".
It was signed by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment; again by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Mansfield--his name appears regularly in such motions; and by the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning. The list goes on. Another motion calls for the Government
"to abandon the use of standard spending assessments in determining their arbitrary capping limits."
The same argument applies to the Government's proposals in the Bill on council tax benefit limitation powers. Early-day motion 544, dated 2 December 1997, was signed by no fewer than 100 Labour Members, criticising the Government for their provisions on housing benefit in the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. However, the Government are now applying, in their council tax limitation, exactly the same principles used in the earlier legislation. A few brave souls signed early-day motion 182, which criticises the Government for going down that road.
"The Association also considers that the reserve capping powers should be time-limited, ending after, say five years, by which time the other aspects of the reform agenda should be in place."
The right hon. Lady has repeatedly said that the entire purpose of best value and of the Government's--as they call it--reform and modernisation of local government is to provide an opportunity to give more responsibility back to local authorities. Our new clause 5 would give real life to the Government's supposed commitments to local democracy, autonomy and control.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |