 House of Commons |
Session 2006 - 07 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill |
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:John
Benger, Christopher Shaw Committee
Clerks
†
attended the Committee
Public Bill CommitteeThursday 22 February 2007(Morning)[Mr. Christopher Chope in the Chair]Local Government and Public Involvement in Health BillFurther written evidence to be reported to the House.LGPI 13 National
Association of Local
Councils
Clause 58Community
governance
reviews
9.30
am
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Alistair
Burt (North-East Bedfordshire) (Con): Good morning,
Mr. Chope. It is nice to see you in your place. We shall
welcome your
deliberations.
I wish
to raise a couple of issues and cover a few points about the parishes
that we did not have time to discuss at our previous sitting. Parishes
are the real backbone of community involvement in the rural districts
that make up so much of our country. Those of us who have spent most of
our lives in urban areas and are relatively new to parishes certainly
appreciate their
work.
In previous
sittings, I have touched on the growing bureaucracy that surrounds
parish councils and on my appreciation of their concern about how their
role is perceived and defined. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be
allowed to interpret the clause reasonably generously so as to cover
the community governance provisions of the next two or three clauses. I
should like to know her intentions behind the power that will be given
to principal councils to organise the community governance
review.
What do the
Government expect to be reviewed? Will parish councils that are not
working effectively be under threat? There are two concerns about the
community governance proposals in the Bill, and the first has to do
with the provision to allow petitions from people who think that their
area might need a parish council. Asking principal councils to consider
whether the parishes in their area are working effectively could
threaten those councils that think they are working straightforwardly
and effectively but are doing so more quietly than the Government
expect.
Let me expand
on those two points. If new parishes are to be created, are the
Government satisfied that the capacity is there to take on the role of
parish councils in some new areas? In urban areas, the tradition and
structure of involvement in local communities may not exist in the same
way that it does in rural communities,
where parish structure has been part of the landscape for a long time.
For example, it is not strictly accurate to say that an estate with
3,000 people living on it is equivalent to a small village of 2,500 or
3,000 people.
People
can live on an estate with a relaxed sense of community; in fact, their
sense of community may apply to a council or geographical area that is
larger than their immediate surroundings. A hamlet of fewer than 100
people can have a strong individual identity quite different from what
might be found in a group of 100 people living in an urban area. If
urban parishes are to be created as a result of the proposals and
petitions, is the Under-Secretary confident that there is enough
capacity, that training and resources will be available, and that
mistakes will not be
made?
The second worry
is whether parishes are being overloaded and given too many things to
do—a question that we touched on the other day, when we debated
their being given the chance to promote the power of well-being. At the
weekend, I attended a meeting attended by representatives from two
thirds of my parish councils. We covered several matters, but two or
three things in particular irked the people who were at the
meeting.
For
example, people felt that their voices about what matters to them were
not being listened to. We discussed planning and, although there is a
statutory right of consultation, in too many cases people have become
very wary of the whole concept of consultation. To them, the
consultation often seems like an exercise being carried out by a
principal council or authority: opinions are collected, but there is no
real intention to act on the information gathered. When the expectation
of local involvement is raised but not fulfilled, the danger is that
people are not encouraged to stay involved or to continue making a
contribution. The people to whom I spoke were concerned that there was
more bureaucracy and more things that they had to
do.
The implications
of the Standards Board that was introduced some years ago are probably
well known to the Under-Secretary. My own sense is that all the fuss
that was raised among the parishes that I have contact with seems to
have settled down, and that the board is no longer such an
issue.
There was real
concern, however, that if new powers were taken on to promote
well-being, the councils would find it difficult to bring in new people
to handle the extra duties. They already find it hard to get people
involved. Councils are concerned that, if they do not opt to promote a
power of well-being, they will be seen by the powers that govern them
as not willing to be involved in their communities. That might expose
them to charges that they are not doing their job, with the result that
a community governance review organised by their principal council
could appear threatening.
In other words, I want to know
whether the Government desire parish councils to do certain things,
fulfil certain standards and perform a certain amount of work. If a
council does not do all that, will the Government feel that it is not
doing its job and that it is time for it to
go?
If so, I think
that that would be a failure to understand the purpose of parish
councils, what they do in their local communities and how they go about
it. The concern is that the continual audit, and the
inspection and review some years ago that revealed a certain number of
silent parish councils, disturbed the sense that councils were masters
of their own destiny and could look after things in their own way,
provided that they fulfilled basic statutory requirements and were
doing the job that their local parish constituents wanted them to do.
Fulfilling those requirements, rather than responding to more rules and
regulations from above, should be the most important thing that they
do.
Those are the
concerns I wanted to put on the record. I pay tribute to those who work
in our parish council, and to its clerks. Clerks often cover a number
of different parish councils: their ability to keep the councillors and
chairs up to speed with changes in legislation and responsibilities is
formidable, and we pay tribute to them and to all the parish
councillors who work so hard.
I would like to know what is
behind the Government’s thinking on the community governance
reviews. Is there anything that parish councils should be aware of? If
petitions are raised for new parish councils to be created in urban
areas, what guarantee will be given that support and resources will be
available to assist
them?
Patrick
Hall (Bedford) (Lab): The hon. Gentleman is reviewing a
possible gradation of parish councils in the context of the debate.
Within that spectrum, would he care to speculate or comment on the role
of urban community councils, which do not have the power to raise a
local rate, for example, but none the less exist? There are two such
councils in Bedford. They are part of the range of local community
representation that exists in the
UK.
Alistair
Burt:
Parish councils are wary about raising more money.
That issue came up the other day when we were discussing the power to
promote well-being. Councils will not be given any new resources to do
that, but will have to raise the money themselves. Raising money
locally is never an easy job. Again, councils were concerned that they
would be given new powers but no new resources, and that then people
would say, “Why are you not doing anything?” No one wants
to contribute and no one wants to cough up extra
taxes.
I am not sure
whether urban community councils want the power to raise money. I can
understand why they would be hesitant. Any group, such as a residents
association or neighbourhood association, that provides a collective
view and an opportunity for people to engage beyond the confines of
their own houses and take part in community life is good
news.
It
is very important that urban community councils are established, and
that they thrive. We must always ensure that there is something
reasonable and meaningful for people to do. Again, I urge that
community councils and other bodies that are statutory consultees
should be able to see that that consultation really matters, that what
they have to say about something is noticed, and that things change as
a result. It is clear, however, that they are important and that they
have a role.
Having
said that, it has happened that community groups have been set up and
have then handled money poorly, with the result that problems have
arisen.
Therefore, we need to be sure that there is leadership capacity, and
that resources are available for training to improve it and to ensure
that people are able to handle money safely. In that way, people will
be able to handle their responsibilities
effectively.
Those are
the issues that I wish to tease out with the Under-Secretary, and I
hope that she will be good enough to respond and give us a sense of the
meaning of clause 58 and the associated
clauses.
Mr.
Robert Syms (Poole) (Con): I have just a couple of
questions. Will the Under-Secretary confirm that where urban parishes
are set up they will have a precepting power? If that is the case, will
the current arrangements—with no capping on parish
councils—continue?
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government (Angela E. Smith):
I am grateful to the hon.
Member for North-East Bedfordshire for his comments on parish councils.
We touched on some of the issues the other evening, and his comments go
to the crux of community governance matters. I think that I shall be
able to reassure
him.
The clause deals
with the means by which a principal council can initiate a community
governance review. Either local electors in an area can petition for
the principal council to conduct a review, or the council can decide to
undertake a review at any time on its own initiative. That will enable
local authorities to take decisions on the community governance
arrangements in their area, following a review that they will be able
to initiate.
A
community governance review can apply to the whole of a local authority
area, or to part of that area. Currently, local authorities conduct
parish reviews, but the Secretary of State or the Electoral Commission
take the decisions on implementation. Under the existing arrangements,
petitions can be raised for the creation of parishes, but local
authorities have to pass those petitions on to the Secretary of State.
A crucial aspect of the Bill is that it devolves these decision-making
powers to local authorities, so that the Secretary of State will no
longer make the decision. Essentially, reviews will operate as they do
already, but the final decision will be taken by local authorities
rather than the Secretary of State. That is quite right, and it is
truly devolutionary.
For the purposes of the
provisions on community governance reviews, the local authorities that
will be designated as principal councils will be district
councils—both metropolitan and non-metropolitan, unitary county
councils and, as a further step, London borough councils. The White
Paper said that the Government were committed to giving communities in
London the same rights to have a parish council as the rest of the
country.
The question
has been raised in our debate as to whether it will be more difficult
to have parish councils in urban areas. There are already such parish
councils, and there is no evidence that they are not as welcome or
effective as others. The Government do not believe it right that London
alone should be denied the opportunity to have parish councils, if
areas of London so wish. The choice will remain with the area.
Is
it more difficult to have parish councils in urban areas? The way to
identify the community will be by way of the parish, the community or
the neighbourhood, although the position might be different from that
in rural areas. The general rule will be to decide matters on the basis
of the smallest area that reflects community identity and community
interests, but the area should also be viable as an administrative
unit. If both those criteria are followed, the position will be the
same as that for rural areas, though there might be a different shape
from rural areas. For instance, the parish council area could be based
on the boundaries of a housing estate rather than on those of the town
in which the estate lies. It will be up to local people to make a case
to the principal council that the area is an appropriate and viable one
for a parish council. It will be a local
decision.
Michael
Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con): I am following the
Under-Secretary’s remarks with interest. I believe that
Lichfield city council is the largest parish
council—
Michael
Fabricant:
My hon. Friend says that it is not. The council
has always told me otherwise. Hon. Members will recall that it is the
one with two
maces.
9.45
am
Let me ask a question. Smaller
rural councils sometimes have problems finding councillors, and
councillors are sometimes co-opted because they are unable to stand for
election. Does the Under-Secretary not think that there could be a
problem? If, for example, an estate in London were to have a parish
council as she described, it could be taken over by just a few people,
resulting in a general lack of interest. How can we get people
involved? Her idea is good in principle, but in practice, how can it
involve people and get them to stand for such
councils?
Angela
E. Smith:
The issue that the hon. Gentleman raises cuts
across every parish council in the country. It is not peculiar to
London. For his information, the largest parish council in the country
is Weston-super-Mare, and I regret that it is not Lichfield. I am sure
that he will do his best to find one in Lichfield, but
Weston-super-Mare has the largest parish
council.
Involving
people in parish councils is an issue that cuts across many areas. What
we are discussing in the measures before us—for example, the
power of well-being if councils achieve certain criteria—will
encourage people to be more involved and play a role in their
community. However, we must be aware that parish councils are an
important part of community life. They are very important in rural
areas and some urban areas, and London should be no different. I do not
see the particular problem that the hon. Gentleman
raises, but there are checks and balances in how the local authority
will decide whether to give permission to go ahead with a parish
council. Of course, we have had to take such issues into account. It is
necessary to consider whether there is a community requirement and
support for a parish
council.
Robert
Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): On the legislation
and guidance for local councils in dealing with petitions for
councillors, does the Under-Secretary remember that that point was
raised on Second Reading? I think that the Secretary of State, or
perhaps it was another colleague, responded to questions on particular
concerns—not unique to London but raised by London
councils—about ensuring that councils can resist petitions in
circumstances where there is a risk of damage to community cohesion
through hijacking. When are we likely to see the guidance and the
tightening-up of the
provisions?
Angela
E. Smith:
We will get the guidance to the hon. Gentleman
as soon as possible, but I assure him that it will contain a commitment
to community cohesion. That issue was raised in the evidence sessions.
We are going a little wider than the clause, Mr. Chope, but
I hope that you will indulge me, because this debate covers a group of
clauses that hang together on a number of
issues.
The Government
have made a strong commitment on the importance of community cohesion
and must be covered in the guidance. That will not apply just to the
sort of extremist groups mentioned in evidence; it could also apply to
a group that wants to remove itself from the community as a whole. That
would be community segregation, and we want to see community
cohesion.
I am
instantly inspired to give the hon. Gentleman a better time scale. We
should have a draft of the guidance by around April, but I can give him
a commitment that community cohesion will be covered in it. He raised
an important
point.
Other important
points had to do with how small parishes would cope with the work they
have, and what we will do to direct what work parishes should do. That
is difficult for the Government to direct, because parishes vary
enormously in size, from Weston-super-Mare to a parish council of just
a few people or to Lichfield—we are having a Bedford moment with
Lichfield today. I do not think that it is appropriate for the
Government to direct exactly what a parish council should do; that is a
matter for the parish council. In terms of resources, the parish
council, with the support of its community, will raise a precept for
the duties that it thinks it should undertake. That is appropriate
within the
community.
The hon.
Member for North-East Bedfordshire also raised the issue of
bureaucracy. He was correct to raise it, and I take it on board. He
will note that the White Paper and the Bill contain no new duties to
increase bureaucracy. In fact, we have resisted involving parish
councils in the local area agreements, although they will obviously
have regard to parish council plans. Parish councils are not named in
LAAs precisely because we do not want to be overly bureaucratic or
to
put overly onerous duties on them. That would be inappropriate. However,
they will play an increasingly important role in the life of the
community.
Mr.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con): I am somewhat reassured by
what the Under-Secretary says, but could she clarify something? It is
clear that the measure is intended to devolve power to principal
councils, and, as a localiser and not the centraliser she has accused
me of being, I welcome that. However, I am concerned that some councils
might seek to use those powers to impose a standard obligation upon
areas where there are small parishes. Such small areas might just have
parish meetings and not parish councils. The obligation might be that
the area under the control of the council has a set-up of parish
councils, and parish meetings are abolished for the administrative
convenience of the district council. Will that be permitted under the
arrangements?
I am
also concerned that the community governance review will give to
principal councils the authority to impose obligations other than those
prescribed in these clauses for the sizing of parish councils and the
grouping of areas. For example, will a principal council be allowed to
impose an obligation for parish meetings to have a parish clerk in
order to make contact more convenient for the principal
council?
Angela
E. Smith:
I give an absolute reassurance to the hon.
Gentleman that that is not the case. It will not be for the principal
council to place an obligation on the parish council.
On the point made about a
review, there are very limited circumstances in which one would be
initiated by the principal council. For example, it may be that
residential properties have been built over existing parish boundaries
and that a street or area straddles a parish boundary, so that people
in the same residential street are represented in different parishes.
In such circumstances, it would be appropriate for the principal
council to initiate a review, but generally it would be for local
members themselves to petition.
The hon. Member for Poole made
a point about precepting. It will be open to parish councils to precept
in their area as it is now. There are no plans to cap local precepts.
That matter will be revisited if a problem is perceived, and if
representations are made to the Government about, say, excessive rate
precepting by parish councils. We may look at the matter again, but
there are currently no plans to do
so.
The issue of the
Standards Board was raised, and of whether being subject to it would be
over-onerous to parish councils. When the issue was first raised four
years ago, there was an outcry. It was said that subjecting parish
councils to the Standards Board was over-onerous, that it was like
using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and that it would deter people
from becoming involved in parish councils. However, it has not had that
impact; it has ensured that members of the public are aware of the
propriety of local parish councillors. The fact that it has not been a
problem for parish councils is testimony to the work of parish
councillors themselves.
Andrew
Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD): I was trying to follow that
point. I was under the impression that the Standards Board believed
that it had been completely overloaded by frivolous complaints in
relation to parish councils. The Under-Secretary seems to be
contradicting that impression.
Angela
E. Smith:
I am not aware that there have been complaints
from parish councils. I was making the point that suggestions were made
four years ago that making parish councils subject to the Standards
Board would impact on them, and that they would have greater difficulty
finding candidates. There is no evidence that the Standards Board has
put anybody off putting themselves forward as a candidate for a parish
council.
Mr.
Dunne:
Does the Under-Secretary recognise that although a
number of parish councils may not themselves have complained to the
Standards Board, the volume of its work arising from frivolous or
vexatious complaints made by parish councillors has exploded? Does she
also recognise that a large number of parish councillors who were
councillors prior to the introduction of the Standards Board have
resigned, and that that is the reason why there are not a large number
of people putting themselves forward for election in several areas,
including some areas in my
constituency?
Angela
E. Smith:
I find the hon. Gentleman’s comments
quite surprising. My understanding is that there has not been a flood
of complaints from parish councils to the Standards Board. There may
have been some complaints as is appropriate when there are issues to
address. However, there has been no flood of complaints. There is a
difficulty in finding enough candidates in some areas to stand for
election to parish councils, but there is no evidence that that is a
direct result of the involvement of the Standards Board. I find it
difficult to believe that parish councillors have resigned because they
were subject to the Standards Board. Councillors that I know—I
am sure that other hon. Members are aware of similar
examples—appreciate the role of the Standards Board. Its
presence is not a deterrent to councillors; it is for their protection.
The board judges issues of propriety, so I do not accept the hon.
Gentleman’s point.
Andrew
Stunell:
Perhaps this matter will be discussed when we get
to the clauses dealing with the Standards Board, and I do not want to
extend the point too far. However, will the Under-Secretary look
carefully at the reports prepared by the Standards Board over the years
about the proportion of complaints that it has received from parish
councils, against the proportion from principal councils? Will she
acknowledge that more complaints have gone to the Standards Board in
relation to one parish council covering one third of one of the 21
wards in Stockport than in the whole
borough?
Angela
E. Smith:
I would not want to give the impression that
there have been no complaints about parish councillors to the Standards
Board. The point that I am trying to make—perhaps very badly,
which is
why there are so many interventions—is that there is no evidence
that the board has had an impact on the number of people putting
themselves forward to be parish councillors. I should like to emphasise
that. My point, in case I have confused the Committee somewhat or have
not put things clearly enough, is that there is no evidence that the
board as it applies to parish councils, as it was said when it was
established four years ago, would impact on the number of people coming
forward. It has not done
so.
We have had a
useful discussion about issues relating not just to the community
governance petition, but to community governance as a whole. I move
that the clause stands part of the
Bill.
Question put
and agreed
to.
Clause 58
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 59
to 62 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2007 | Prepared 23 February 2007 |