| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire): I am not entirely clear on the matter, not having had the benefit of participating directly in the debates in Committee. However, as I understand it, the Association of Police Authorities took the view that it would be better if the best value aspects of police authorities' role were assessed by the Audit Commission rather than by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. The Minister seemed to be saying that the Government are proposing that HMIC should undertake the best value scrutiny of police authorities. Did I misunderstand him, or is he saying that the Association of Police Authorities is happy with all the provisions, including the one with which he is now dealing?
Mr. Meale: The hon. Gentleman is right to mention that point. However, I am assured that I was right in what I said about the consultation process. Possibly the advice and information that he has received was misjudged.
Amendment No. 26 would have the effect of subjecting all the functions of the Greater London authority to the general duty of best value, and not only those corporate functions exercised through the mayor.
In Committee, we discussed at some length application to the Greater London authority of the duty of best value. Indeed, amendment No. 26 is identical to an amendment that was considered in Committee--as the Official Report will show, at columns 31-34 of the Standing Committee debates. Nevertheless, I appreciate that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)--who is not in the Chamber--was not a member of the Committee that considered this Bill. I am therefore prepared to explain--if not to him, to his colleagues--why the Bill was drafted as was. Subsequently--if the right hon. Gentleman comes into the Chamber by the end of the debate--I hope that he will not press his amendment.
As I have said before, the Government believe that the Greater London authority should be subjected to the duty of best value. However, the way in which that duty is applied to the authority will have to be flexibly drawn to take account of the different ways in which the GLA itself exercises its functions and its relationship with the four functional bodies that will deliver the main Londonwide services--the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, Transport for London, the London Development Agency and the Metropolitan Police Authority.
Our approach to creating a duty of best value for the GLA takes specific account of the range of different responsibilities that will exist between its constituent parts, and will ensure, as far as possible, that accountability for delivering best value will be attached to the bodies that are responsible for performing its various functions.
Mr. Swayne:
I was not a member of the Standing Committee. I am also not sure that I am following the Minister's logic. Although he is stressing the importance of flexibility in dealing with the Greater London authority, he seemed to rule out such flexibility earlier in the debate, when he dismissed the flexibility that would have been afforded to police authorities by amendment No. 55.
Mr. Meale:
I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no question of our using the Bill to allow the GLA to usurp the functions of any other body when it does not have a statutory basis for doing so. I assure him also that, if he will allow me to finish my speech, I shall answer any questions that he might have on our approach to the amendments. He will have clarity.
A simple application of the duty of best value to the GLA corporately--which is what amendment No. 26 seems to be seeking to achieve--would prevent the objectives that I have described from being achieved satisfactorily. If the application of the duty of best value were not clearly specified, we should run the risk of blurred lines of accountability. The Bill as currently drafted will give us the ability to identify clearly the roles of the mayor, the assembly and the functional bodies. A simple corporate application of the duty would not allow us to do so, and would detract from the transparency that we wish to create.
I hope that that has clarified for the Opposition the position regarding the GLA, and that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst will agree not to press amendment No. 26--if he arrives in the Chamber in time to do so.
Mr. Burstow:
Although the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is not in the Chamber, I have raised the same issue as it affects the GLA. I am not the right hon. Gentleman's keeper and cannot account for his absence, but believe that it is an important issue, which my hon. Friends also have raised and are still concerned about.
Mr. Jenkin:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Burstow:
I am intervening on the Minister; it would be very difficult to take a further intervention.
Will the confusion on the Government's proposals on local government more generally and on executive mayors require future amendments to the legislation?
Ms Armstrong:
That is not in the Bill.
Mr. Meale:
The simple answer to that--as my right hon. Friend the Minister is saying--is that the Bill does not deal with those proposals, which will be debated when they are proposed.
Amendment No. 27 would require the Secretary of State to consult relevant bodies before making an order disapplying a best-value duty in specified authorities.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst for his apparent concern over the way in which the power to disapply a best value duty might be exercised by the Secretary of State. His amendment has at least given the Government an opportunity to state our views. He will be aware--as he has followed the debate in Committee--that we recognise that the duty of best value could be onerous if applied in full to smaller town and parish councils. In recognition of that possibility, clause 2(5) will allow us to vary the duty as appropriate. If he gets around to listening to me, I should like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), who led for the Opposition in Committee. In particular, he emphasised the need for a more sensible approach to town and parish councils.
We also recognise the need for proper scrutiny of the exercise of the power. That is why clause 2(6) requires an order made under this provision to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses of Parliament.
I am sure that I do not need to remind Opposition Members that it is simply a matter of good government to ensure that the views of interested parties are taken on board before proceeding with legislation. My Department has already had discussions with representatives of town and parish councils, as well as the Audit Commission, about the application of best value to those authorities.
I am sure that Opposition Members cannot seriously believe that the Government would be so neglectful as to submit an order for parliamentary approval without first having had regard to the views of interested parties.
Amendment No. 27 would require the Secretary of State only to consult relevant bodies and not to have regard to their views. It would not guarantee the quality, depth or extent of that consultation. Indeed, for the purposes of the amendment, consultation could be so meagre as to be worthless. Therefore, if the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst gets here on time, I shall ask him not to press the amendment.
Mr. Hayes:
I shall not delay the House long, but I should like to pick up a couple of the points that the Minister made. He claimed that the tripartite system for the governance of the police remained intact. The tripartite system is essentially a separation of powers. Historically, the arrangements for accountability and inspection have similarly been separate. Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary has typically dealt with managing, inspecting and holding to account the operational functions of the police force. The notion that it will now have power to inspect police authorities is certainly contentious. As my hon. Friend the Member for
Mr. Meale:
I should like to make two points. First, on the different views on the matter, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have expressed the views that resulted from consultations conducted by officials in the Department. Secondly, I did not give the hon. Gentleman a complete answer on the effect of performance indicators on the style of policing. I understand his concern, bearing in mind his many years of involvement in these matters. Local authorities and police authorities will be free to put the national indicators into a local context. Auditors and inspectors will take full account of that.
"The Association is vigorously opposed to the proposal that HMIC, the professional adviser to the Home Secretary, should play any part in inspecting how police authorities go about fulfilling their best value duties."
So at the very least there is some doubt as to the position of the APA. It may have changed its mind following further discussion. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |