| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. Whitehead: Hon. Members have been a little kind about amendments Nos. 29, 30 and 33, which give an interesting insight into the mind of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and, to some extent, that of the previous Government. It appears that he wants to nail everything down and have everything precisely defined but, as in the famous parable of the sorcerer's apprentice, everything goes haywire when one examines the detail.
As the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) pointed out, the amendments would leave the words
Amendment No. 30 would have subsection (2)(b) refer to
Presumably, then, the local chamber of commerce, the Confederation of British Industry, the Federation of Small Businesses, the local ironmongers and anyone else who could claim to have elected anyone to anything should be exhaustively consulted. That is a nice ideal picture, but in my experience of local government the reality of the proper exercise of consultation has always been that people who appear to be representative of the various groups are invited to take part.
It would be perverse if, under subsection (3), the chamber of commerce, with its elected officers, did not appear to the authority to be representative. The local authority would be in some trouble if it did not accept that a local chamber of commerce was representative, but by trying to nail everything down exactly, the amendments would achieve precisely the opposite of what was in the mind of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, although, as I systematically fail to read his mind, perhaps that was not his intention after all.
It is interesting to note the boundaries of what the right hon. Gentleman thinks is appropriate. He does not appear to be interested in consumers, who are the subject of subsection (2)(c) and (d). Under the amendments, anybody could represent himself and no one would have to be elected. As amendment No. 33 would delete subsection (3), anyone could turn up and say whatever they wanted. The same applies to any amenity society or local group interested in the parks and commons, the old town or local history.
In the amendments, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has given us a little cameo of what happened under the previous Government, who tried to nail everything down so that authorities could not move at all, with such toxic side effects that relations between central Government and local authorities were widely poisoned.
The clause is designed to inject some flexibility into the relationship between the local authority and the groups representing those who pay the local taxes, which should properly be consulted about what the authority does. If the authority acts responsibly, that should be the end of the matter. It is a sad reflection on the quality of the Opposition's attempts to amend the Bill that the amendments, if accepted, would completely reverse that intention.
Ms Armstrong:
As my hon. Friend the Memberfor Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) said, all the amendments would narrow the issue of best value. I appreciate the fact that the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) moved the amendment in a probing manner, and I intend to respond in that spirit.
On amendments Nos. 50 and 51, we have consistently said that the duty of best value needs to tackle both the cost and the quality of public service provision. The amendments are clearly designed to improve auditability
but they seem to betray a fixation with cost to the detriment of other equally relevant considerations, such as quality.
I understand that Opposition Members might want to base the duty on value for money, given the Audit Commission's skill in assessing it, as has been demonstrated over recent years, but value for money is not in itself as easily demonstrated as continuous improvement against consistently set performance indicators. The question is begged, value for whom? Simple, measurable improvement is what local people expect and is the yardstick against which best value should be judged. Alongside that will go what local people are prepared to pay.
Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 betray a narrow focus because they are couched in terms of services, not functions, as the clause currently provides. We have deliberately chosen to define the duty of best value in those terms, as the definition of functions goes far wider than that implied by the use of the word "services". It means that internal support functions, not normally delivered to the public, but nevertheless part of the overall cost of functions, and a contributory factor in their efficiency, will be subject to the duty of best value.
The amendments would run the risk of removing such functions from the scope of the duty altogether and recreating the "us and them" mentality in authorities that so bedevilled compulsory competitive tendering. The duty of best value will very often be measured against the quality and cost of front-line services, but the way in which it is defined in the clause allows us also to consider internal functions and the manner in which an authority is managed generally. That is the best and most comprehensive way in which to ensure that authorities improve their performance and make themselves more responsive to their community generally. I hope that the amendments will not be pressed to a vote.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Test dealt effectively with the problems arising from amendments Nos. 29, 30 and 33, I will not dwell on them, especially as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is not here.
I ask Opposition Members to consider carefully what the amendments would mean. Do they seriously believe that an authority that is already demonstrating a high level of effectiveness in a function, based on a comparison with others, should not be able in the future to concentrate its efforts on delivering a similar level of performance in the economy with which it delivers that function? We seek to maintain flexibility so that councils can make sensible decisions that arise from the information they get from performance reviews and audit reports about what they do reasonably well and what they might improve. We expect them to pay particular attention to areas that could be improved. That is common sense and, on reflection, I am sure that Opposition Members would agree.
Opposition Members seem to forget that we are dealing with many different authorities of different types. We want to celebrate those differences. None of them is likely to have exactly the same priorities and none of them will start from exactly the same level of performance. It is nonsense to expect that they would wish to adopt exactly the same approach to improving economy, efficiency and effectiveness, and nor should they be made to do so. The amendments would impose uniformity across the board and would remove local flexibility at a stroke. They fly in the face of what the duty of best value is designed to be about, which is making best value authorities more accountable to their communities. They are restrictive and rigid in the same way that CCT was and I urge Opposition Members to withdraw them.
Mr. Lansley:
I raised one particular question that the Minister has not addressed--what do the Government believe is the best mechanism for best value authorities to consult representatives of non-domestic rate payers?
Ms Armstrong:
The White Paper makes that clear. We have set out ideas for consultation on the non-domestic rate that are not simply mechanical but which obtain the support of the business community. We want to lock that community into a process that it feels gives it real consultation. Local authorities have a statutory duty to consult on their budgets. In some, the process works well and the business community is satisfied. However, in too many authorities, that is not the case. We want a clear process to be adopted in every area so that the business community is part of determining the process and agreement is achieved between the social partners--business and the local authority--about the precise mechanism to be employed. I hope that the Opposition will not feel the need to press the amendments to a Division.
Mr. Jenkin:
I feel like Hamlet trying to persuade Polonius that a cloud has adopted a particular shape. I am pleased that we have had this debate, because we have exposed this part of the Bill as packaging and little more. I hope that the Minister will consider what she has said. She said that amendment No. 57 would remove flexibility at a stroke and destroy the accountability at the heart of the Bill. That is the most ridiculous language to use about three lines of text. She said that the amendments were strict and rigid.
"in respect of the authority"
in subsection (2)(a) of clause 3, so the people referred to must be the councillors, and not other people as suggested by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who has put a kind and sweeping interpretation on the intentions of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst.
"elected representatives of persons liable to pay non-domestic rates in respect of any area"
24 Mar 1999 : Column 456
but since the provision requiring that the local authority takes account of
would be deleted by amendment No. 33, the authority would appear to have to consult anyone who pays non-domestic rates and is elected in any capacity whatever.
"persons who appear to the authority to be representative of that group"
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |