| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Shaun Woodward (Witney): I am delighted to respond to the amendments and even more delighted to see almost as many Ministers as Government Back Benchers. I cannot think why they need to demonstrate their performance today, but I suspect the fact that they keep their pagers on will reveal to the House what is in store.
We do not intend to delay the House long, but we have some questions. The Minister described the amendments as technical, tidying-up amendments. We want to test what he means by "technical". By and large, when Ministers say amendments are "technical", they are centralising measures that grab power for the Secretary of State wherever possible.
The amendments are described as technical, but they increase the centralising powers of the Secretary of State's Department. We should not be surprised because the Green Paper stressed that best value was designed to bring about "cultural change", and the Government's 1997 manifesto said:
Lords amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are in one sense strictly technical, so my questions seek clarification. On Report in another place, the Minister, Lord Whitty, remarked:
Lords amendment No. 5 extends the powers of the Secretary of State. The Minister was at pains to say that the amendments do not extend his power, but it is nonsense to suggest that. Even a cursory glance at this amendment reveals that it does. It creates a new regulatory power and puts it into the hands of the Secretary of State. Lord Whitty said that its use would be "exceedingly rare" in any circumstances, but it is a far-reaching provision which gives the Secretary of State the power to disapply or modify an enactment that confers a function on him in respect of a function of a best value authority.
Mr. Tony McWalter (Hemel Hempstead):
Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that it would be better to leave such a function in the hands of a failing or lamentably inefficient authority than for someone to come in and recognise the importance of getting it discharged efficiently?
Mr. Woodward:
The difference between the Opposition and the Government is that the Conservatives believe in local democracy; the electorate can always get rid of councillors--as the Government found out in this year's local elections when they began rapidly to lose seats throughout the country. The hon. Gentleman should realise that the Conservatives do not believe in centralising power; the Government believe in centralising power--giving more and more power to the Secretary of State and taking it away from local authorities.
Sir Paul Beresford:
Does my hon. Friend agree that the boot is on the other foot? The intervention by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) referred to the Minister stepping in. There is a great deal of flag waving for that, but the headline in the Municipal Journal is
Mr. Woodward:
As always, the Deputy Prime Minister is all over the shop--or all over the train perhaps, as we have begun to see. He has a disastrous disintegrating transport policy, as well as disintegrating local authority power.
The amendment gives no small power; once again, it is a Henry VIII measure. Secondary legislation will be used, so we have concerns about the amendment--in the context of the centralisation of power to the Secretary of State. Once again, our questions to the Minister are principally about the times when that power would be exercised. It is not good enough for the Minister simply to say that it would be used only in exceptional circumstances. It is in exceptional circumstances that power is abused. It is incumbent on the Minister to explain to the House the precise circumstances in which that power would be used.
The Government should tell us why they are introducing the amendment at such a late stage, if they believe that the matter was such an important part of the Bill all along. The Minister should give the House examples in which the Secretary of State's powers under clause 14(5) would be exercised. Today, the Minister has not justified why there should be such a right of recourse to the Secretary of State and why the Government are unable to trust local democracy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley(Sir P. Beresford) has already expressed some concerns about amendment No. 6 which he may wish to adumbrate. The amendment empowers the Secretary of State to order the early commencement of provisions relating to police and fire authorities in Wales. Ordinary commencement is 12 months after the passing of the Bill. Unamended, clause 28 gave the power to the National Assembly for Wales; amended, it shifts the power to order early commencement of
Why has the Minister done that? On what occasions would that measure be used? As Lord Whitty said, in another place--[Interruption.] The Ministers on the Treasury Bench are chatting among themselves; they do not want to listen to what their noble Friend said. However, it might be as well if they listened. Lord Whitty said that the measure would allow early commencement
Mr. Sanders:
The fundamental question has remained unanswered in Committee and in the other place, although perhaps we shall receive a glint of light this evening: what are the exceptional circumstances? Secretaries of State already have powers to intervene in local government--for example, in a social services department. If there is any hint of abuse in a placement, the Secretary of State can intervene. In a failing school, the Secretary of State can intervene. Powers of intervention exist. Why is there a need for additional powers?
Miss Julie Kirkbride (Bromsgrove):
I should be interested in the answer to a more specific question about the Secretary of State's new powers in the measure. What are the Secretary of State's powers to intervene in local government procedures when the contracting-out arrangements--or non-contracting-out arrangements--are being changed? I have in mind a specific example from my constituency, where confidential council records were abused.
Bearing in mind that such records might end up in the hands of third parties under the new contracting arrangements, I want to know what action the Secretary
of State would take if, for example, a situation arose similar to the one in which we were left in Bromsgrove during the local government election campaign. During the campaign, information was targeted on various named individuals who were eligible for free bus passes. Their names were held in confidence by the local council, but the individuals were specifically targeted, by name, address and a code marking used by the council. They were sent Labour party political propaganda that suggested--from records that should not have been available to the party--that, if the Conservative party were to win in Bromsgrove on 6 May, we would abolish free bus passes. The House will be pleased to hear that we have not done so. What action would the Secretary of State be prepared to take if information was abused in that way?
It transpired that the person responsible for that act was Councillor Peter McDonald, who is now the leader of the Labour opposition on Bromsgrove district council--I am pleased that he is in opposition. The chief executive of the council has given me clarification that those letters were sent and that Councillor Peter McDonald was in possession of the records. The chief executive told me that he had handed a copy of those sensitive records to Councillor McDonald.
When we took up the matter after an article about the abuse of that information had appeared in The Birmingham Post, the chief executive told me
The letter continued:
"The basic framework . . . of local service provision must be for central government."
The amendments show the Government grabbing whatever power they can.
"the wording of the new provision remains identical to the original."--[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 June 1999; Vol. 602, c. 514.]
If so, perhaps the Minister can explain why the words have to be changed. Can he confirm that that interpretation is correct? As he said, clause 14(2)(d) permits the Secretary of State to direct an authority
"to take such other action as in the Secretary of State's opinion is necessary and expedient".
Crucially, the amendment would permit the Secretary of State to direct an authority to take not "such" but "any" action that he considered necessary or expedient. What is the difference between "such" and "any"? If "any" is the same as "such", why did the word have to be changed? In what circumstances would the Secretary of State take "any" action and what would such action be?
"Intervention 'will be kept to a minimum'".
In other words, the Minister will probably not step in anyway.
"sections 15 to 17 or section 26",
and the new section on housing benefit and council tax benefit to the Secretary of State. The amendment reduces the commencement order powers of the National Assembly and gives them to the Secretary of State.
"where it is sensible or helpful to do so".--[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 June 1999; Vol. 602, c. 514.]
Will the Minister tell the House what "sensible" and "helpful" mean in that case, so that we can understand the purpose and meaning of the legislation, instead of the obfuscatory way in which he has delivered the amendments to us today?
"it would seem reasonable to assume that the information used to 'target' the Labour Party literature was largely based on information obtained from Council sources.
His letter continued:
"It is fair to point out that Mr Fisher"--
one of the council officials--
"initially declined to provide such information and, as a result, was subject to considerable 'pressure' from Councillor McDonald. In eventually yielding to that pressure Mr Fisher told Councillor McDonald of his reservations in supplying the information and indicated that under no circumstances should the data be used for Party political purposes. He also advised Councillor McDonald that before using the information for any purpose he should discuss the situation with myself"--
that is, the chief executive.
"Councillor McDonald chose to ignore this and has never discussed the information, or its use, with me.
The letter then goes on to justify the actions of the council officer who handed over the information.
In retrospect, and assuming that the Labour Party are unable to offer an alternative version of events, it would appear that Mr Fisher's trust in Councillor McDonald was misplaced."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |