| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir Paul Beresford: To be helpful to the Minister, my speech will give him time to work out how to respond to the outrageous accusation clearly spelled out by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride). That councillor's actions are merely a classic example of the sort of behaviour that we remember from many previous occasions and have come to expect.
The amendments are wonderful amendments to an amazing clause. They give huge powers to the Secretary of State, especially amendments Nos. 3 to 5. Any regulation that the Secretary of State likes, he can add to, and any he does not like, he can remove--there is no democracy and no discussion. In Committee, the clause was referred to as the "trust me" clause, and its provisions would suit Ministers if there was a slack local council or a trade unionist who needed to be pleased.
We have heard brave words about how the amendments would enable the Secretary of State to intervene, and the Municipal Journal headline reads, "Intervention 'will be kept to a minimum'" Failures triggering the provisions of amendments Nos. 3 to 5 fall into two groups. The first is "Failures of process", which we are told are unlikely to trigger intervention; the second group is "Failures of substance", which we are told are more likely to trigger intervention.
Under "Failures of process" is listed first:
Under "Failures of substance", we find first:
Amendment No. 6 appears to be a reshuffle of the original amendment, but the original concern stands. We expect Royal Assent on this Bill in August 1999 and the Bill should come into force in autumn 2000, but many local authorities are way behind in preparing for best value. They have mixed reasons for that--some are waiting for Government guidance. We need to recognise that it will be at least five years--2005--before the best value programme is fully up and running and we can expect to see any results from it. Meanwhile, there is a great clamour to get rid of CCT, which goes on 2 January 2000, five years before the best value results can be expected. To the recipients of services and to those who pay for them, those could be five years of heavy damage.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst):
Order. It would be appropriate if the Minister asked for the leave of the House before replying to the debate.
Mr. Jones:
I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate.
The hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) entertained the Committee with several speeches, but, as far as this Bill is concerned, he appears to be stuck in a rather schizophrenic state. From his experience in local government, he gives many reasons why local authorities, all carefully chosen to be Labour authorities, did not perform adequately or efficiently. Those comments are balanced by attacks on the Bill for placing too onerous a responsibility on local authorities to perform to standards of efficiency and service that central Government may lay down.
At least the Liberal Democrats are consistent. The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) expressed the well-rehearsed argument that there was no reason why the amendment should impose an extra requirement, because the only thing needed to ensure that local government is efficient, effective and incorrupt is the ability of local electors to throw out offending councils at election time. That argument has been used consistently throughout our deliberations on this Bill and others, but if we accept it--[Interruption.]
The hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) says that that argument has the merit of democracy, but I shall not embarrass him and bore the House by detailing the many occasions on which Conservative Governments
interfered in, and attacked, local government. Suffice it to say that, now that they are in opposition, the Conservatives continue to attack local government. However, they cannot have it both ways. At least the Liberal Democrats are consistent--wrong, but consistent, and there is merit in consistency. I put it to the hon. Member for Witney that there is nothing but hypocrisy in his arguments--he cannot have it both ways.
The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) appears to have confused the Bill before the House today, which deals with best value, with a Bill that is to be introduced in the next parliamentary Session, which will deal with ethics in government. In any case, the case that she describes is one that would come before a court. It is not a matter for discussion in the context of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Witney asked why the word "any" was used instead of "such" in amendment No. 4. The word "such" would be used in a clause with more than one provision, but if it stands alone, "any" is better drafting. It is simply a drafting point, and there is no other significance.
Subsection 5B specifies the nature of the regulations. Again, it is very narrow in scope. The regulations can modify existing legislation, but they will operate only in circumstances in which the Secretary of State wishes to exercise an existing function concurrently with a best value function of the authority.
I shall clarify further why those provisions are needed, by providing an example of the circumstances in which they might be used. The example that the Government provided in another place concerned the Secretary of State's role when exercising a planning function on behalf of an authority. Were he to intervene to take over a planning function, decisions on planning applications would thereafter be made in his name. In the event of planning permission being refused, the applicant would have his usual right of appeal, but that is a right of appeal to the Secretary of State.
I am sure that the House would agree that it would be undesirable for the Secretary of State to determine appeals against his own refusals of planning permission. The new subsection that we are introducing would allow for regulations to be made to make alternative arrangements to deal with the fact that the Secretary of State had taken a decision that was now subject to appeal, and the regulations would be written to ensure that they were consistent with the Secretary of State's role as the planning authority. Similar provisions would need to be made to allow the Secretary of State, for example, to continue to call in controversial planning applications.
Where the regulations proposed are in force, the Secretary of State will still be able to use his call-in power. Those planning applications that he would want to
call in, had the regulations not been in force, would still be subject to a process that is likely to involve a public local inquiry. For cases dealt with in that way, there would not be a right of appeal to the Secretary of State; this is the position now for all cases that are called in. The right to seek judicial review in the courts is still available, of course, and would not be fettered by the proposed regulations.
Amendment No. 6 does not reduce the Assembly's powers, as was rather unbelievably claimed. It never did have the power to act in respect of police and fire authorities. The amendment simply ensures that police and fire authorities in Wales can be treated in the same way as in England.
"a failure to consider competition".
That is the crux of getting a decent value-for-money, best-value services, but it is out of the window. Next, we find "a failure to consult", but that could be avoided pretty easily, with a couple of sweeps of the local wards to make sure everything sounds all right. Then, we have
"a failure to set performance targets".
I can understand why local authorities might not meet that requirement, especially as they are still awaiting Government guidance on some of those matters. Finally, we have
"a failure to publish benchmarking data."
Given the struggle of some of the inner London Labour authorities to find benches, let along benchmarks, one would hardly be surprised if they failed to meet that requirement.
"a failure to meet any single national performance standard".
As we feared, the Secretary of State can choose selectively to pick on any local authority that is not in favour that month. A second failure of substance is
"persistently high costs not warranted by service excellence or need".
I can think of innumerable Labour local authorities, especially in London, that fail by that standard. Next, we find
"a failure to improve standards".
The difficulty with that is that, in some areas, it might be impossible to do so. Take ground maintenance: a dry summer means that grass cutting is kept to a minimum, but a wet summer means that the contractor or the in-house team will struggle to keep up, with the result that the local authority is held to have failed to improve standards. Finally, under "Failures of substance", we find
"a failure to act on critical inspection reports".
26 Jul 1999 : Column 81
One of the difficulties with that is that, every so often, there is what one might call an oddball inspector. That provision might mean that a local authority got into distinct difficulties merely because the Secretary of State chose to accept the report of a single oddball inspector.
My greatest concern about the amendments is that they would allow soft joint ventures, local authority company guarantees and even municipal trading. At no stage in proceedings on the Bill have Ministers made it clear that municipal trading will be outlawed. That causes me great concern because, if that matter is not dealt with, we shall have returned to the position of the late 1970s. Compulsory competitive tendering brought local authorities back into line. Many Conservative Members feel that best value is the next logical step from CCT but, the more I listen to the Minister, the greater my doubts about that.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |