Clause
79
Application
of Chapter: partner
authorities
Tom
Brake:
I beg to move amendment No. 49, in
clause 79, page 53, leave out line 4 and
insert—
‘(i) an NHS Trust or
a Foundation Trust either commissioning or providing services to
residents of some or all of the
area;’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 88, in
clause 79, page 53, line 4, at
end insert—
‘( ) any
individuals or groups of individuals or body, including any NHS
organisation, providing general medical
services’.
No.
65, in
clause 79, page 53, line 10, at
end insert—
‘(m) NHS
Foundation Trusts and Health
Trusts;
(n) the Mayor of
London;
(o) Transport for
London.’.
No.
117, in
clause 79, page 53, line 10, at
end insert—
‘(m) the
Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government;
(n) the Secretary
of State for Education and
Skills;
(o) the Secretary of
State for Trade and
Industry;
(p) the Secretary of
State for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs;
(q) the Secretary of
State for the Home
Department;
(r) registered
social landlords;
(s) public
utilities;
(t) the Royal
Mail’.
No.
136, in
clause 79, page 53, line 10, at
end insert—
‘(m) Regional
Offender Managers,
(n)
Probation Trusts and providers of probation
services,
(o) Network
Rail,
(p) the Housing
Corporation and English
Partnerships,
(q) the Forestry
Commission,
(r) the National
Forest Company,
(s) Regional
Lottery
Boards.’.
Tom
Brake:
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair,
Mr. Benton. We now come to the meat of part 5, which will
allow local councils to deliver the strong and prosperous communities
that the Government, the official Opposition and my party want to see.
Local area agreements and the extent to which they can bind in and
integrate the activities of partners will ensure delivery. We support
fully the concept of local area agreements and allowing local
authorities working with their partners to set priorities for an
area.
I shall not,
however, use the phrase “place shape”. It is something
that I cannot stomach; it is far too new Labour for me. It is also a
phrase that the public may not necessarily understand. Setting
priorities is what the provision and local area agreements are about.
That will be achieved by local improvement targets which, for the
purposes of this afternoon, I shall abbreviate to LIT—not to be
confused with local income tax, a very good alternative to the council
tax
system. However, although I might be tempted to engage the Government in
a long debate about that alternative form of paying for local services,
I understand that here is neither the time nor the place to do
so. The purpose of
local improvement targets under the Bill is to improve economic, social
or environmental well-being in a particular area. That will be
achievable only when local authorities can undertake that role
effectively, working with relevant partners. That is where the Bill is
defective. It is appropriate to highlight some of the partners who will
be missing from the table, unless the Government change the
Bill.
That brings me
to amendment No. 49 and NHS or foundation trusts. I accept the
arguments put forward by the NHS Confederation that primary care trusts
commission health services from NHS acute or foundation trusts, and
that it will be the body that will hold those trusts to account for the
services that they deliver. I disagree with the confederation’s
view that, by including NHS or foundation trusts as a partner, it will
create partnerships with no purpose. The confederation says that the
key is to get the right people in the
room.
There will be
occasions when those from NHS and foundation trusts are the right
people to get in the room. I am sorry to say that often the NHS
partners are the most reluctant to get into the room. In the past few
months, I have been conducting research among local authorities and
know that one of the impacts of the financial pressures on NHS trusts
means that they are scaling back their involvement and partnerships.
They are not putting in the resources or the time to get people round
the table, so it is a serious omission that NHS and foundation trusts
are not included in the
Bill.
Clearly,
the PCTs can use their contracts and will do so to ensure that the NHS
and foundation trusts deliver in respect of health, but what about
other matters in which the local authority might want to engage a local
NHS trust—a large employer and generator of traffic—as a
partner around the table? Let us consider traffic congestion. St.
Helier hospital in my constituency is a large employer; it generates
lots of vehicle movement. The local authority has an interesting scheme
under way at present to reduce people’s use of private cars and
make them aware of public transport alternatives. To what extent will a
primary care trust be able to negotiate with an acute trust about
engaging it in the process of reducing traffic congestion in and around
the borough? The answer is not at
all.
All members of
the Committee can think of other cases—whether skills or
employment—when we might want to involve partners directly and
for them to include NHS and foundation trusts. I shall listen with
great interest to the reasons why such a provision has been omitted
from the list, but it will require a convincing explanation for us not
to pursue the matter if not today through a Division, but at a later
stage.
3
pm
Amendment No.
88, tabled by the official Opposition, is in the same ballpark in what
it seeks to achieve—more effective engagement with NHS partners
than currently exists. Amendment No. 65
touches on the NHS, but it also includes the Mayor and Transport for
London. On amendment
No. 117, I am sure that the Minister agrees with the LGA that the
success of local area agreements, as well as depending on partners such
as the NHS whose engagement we want, depends on central
Government’s willingness to play a full role. Surely central
Government’s role should not be simply to approve LAAs, but to
engage heavily in the process and to show that they are a willing
partner. For instance, if a local improvement target will address
social disorder and antisocial behaviour in an area, there are clearly
circumstances in which the local authority will want the Home Office to
be engaged in the process. A local authority seeking with its partners
to introduce targets on climate change, particularly a local authority
in a coastal area, will want to engage the Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs in the process. For that reason, we have
suggested in amendment No. 117 additional partners whom we believe
should be around the table to discuss local area agreements and targets
with local authorities and other
partners.
Patrick
Hall:
The list goes on and on, but I should like to ask
the hon. Gentleman, and perhaps the Government, why educational
establishments—for example, local schools and sixth-form
colleges—have not been included, because they have an important
impact on the nature of any
area.
Tom
Brake:
The hon. Gentleman has made a valid point. If I
concede one flaw in our amendments, and only one, it is that the moment
a list is deployed, it is easy to identify other things that should
have been included. He has a strong case, and he may want to consider
tabling his own amendment to ensure that educational bodies are
represented as partners, just as we are seeking to ensure that DEFRA,
the Home Office and so on are included. The Government, Departments and
regional offices need to be engaged in the process, which is what we
want amendment No. 117 to achieve.
Amendment No. 136 could perhaps
have been incorporated with No. 117. I am afraid that it is a further
list of additional organisations that could be sought as partners
around a table. I am not suggesting that all the partners should be
present at each and every single meeting to define the local area
agreement—this Room would not be sufficient for all of them, and
I am sure that local council offices would struggle to provide the
necessary tea and biscuits—but there will be cases in which they
should be engaged.
I
shall give a couple more examples in relation to amendment No. 136. I
suspect that every hon. Member here who has part of the rail network
running through their constituency has at some point torn out their
hair about Network Rail’s lack of involvement in problems there.
I shall draw attention to one particular issue. Let us take the London
borough of Sutton as an example, and let us say that it launched an
initiative to tidy up Wallington town centre. At the very heart of
Wallington is Wallington station. Every single person who arrives in
Wallington by train and who walks into the town centre, and every
person who leaves the town centre to catch a train, must walk under a
bridge
maintained by Network Rail. What they will see if they follow that
particular route—many of my constituents, particularly those
with children, now avoid it—is a large number of dead pigeons
caught in a wire mesh. Many of my constituents will not walk that route
with their children, because their children do not want to see dead
pigeons, or pigeons on their way out, caught by the wire
mesh. Has it been
possible to get Network Rail engaged in sorting out that problem over
the past five years? Certainly not. The problem has nothing to do with
Network Rail. It is Network Rail’s bridge, but it is not its
problem. I do not know whose problem it is, but it is certainly not
Network Rail’s. Clearly, we need the organisation to be engaged
in the process. We will not improve our town centre—I think that
this will be true of many town centres—until that particular
problem is sorted out. I want to see Network Rail as a partner in this
process.
Probation
trusts, which the Government will introduce in the Offender Management
Bill, appear to be another serious omission from the list. As the hon.
Member for Bedford has said, there is a problem with identifying a
whole series of organisations that one would seek to involve as
partners, but there are some significant omissions that the Government
should consider incorporating in the Bill. That opportunity does not
come up very frequently. Therefore, rather than waiting for the
Government to realise that the omission was more serious than they had
anticipated, I hope that members of the Committee will agree that now
is the right time to address the issue. That would give us a situation
in which local authorities can deliver real local area agreements with
real power and work effectively with all of the partners that need to
be engaged in the process to make a real change to a local
community—I am not going to use the phrase “place
shape”—and to improve an area in a way in which local
residents want. I will listen carefully to the Minister’s
response. I hope that he can give a convincing explanation why so many
significant partners have been omitted from the
list.
Mr.
Robert Syms (Poole) (Con): I agree with much of what the
hon. Gentleman has said. In my experience, local government and other
organisations are always full of lawyers. Looking at the list, which is
growing, one can see a lot more work for lawyers coming out of the
Bill. Amendment No. 88 is in line with what the hon. Member for
Carshalton and Wallington has said about the national health service.
It might be appropriate for primary care trusts to be listed, but there
are some very big hospitals in boroughs and council areas that also
have a big impact. Even if one is not talking specifically about health
issues, there is a load of related issues that might exercise a local
council—for example, thousands of people working in a hospital
might need housing and car-parking arrangements. Also, local buses are
routed and timed to deal with patients and those who work in hospitals.
Therefore, a whole range of issues could impact very heavily on the
community. We feel that there should be a mechanism allowing
authorities and boroughs to have more of an agreement and dialogue with
those particular
organisations.
As the
hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington has discussed Network
Rail—I have some sympathy for
anyone who has Network Rail going through their constituency—I
wondered about airports and ports. I have a port in my constituency in
Poole. Heathrow has a pretty big impact on west London. The issues
there include the possibility of extra terminals, where the traffic
goes, who is travelling there and what impact that has. Some
organisations on the list have less of an impact than very large
airports, even small airports in rural areas can have a
disproportionate effect on a particular
community. We want the
Minister to justify why the organisations listed under paragraphs (a)
to (i) are necessary, why other organisations are excluded and whether
or not the Government are happy that the drafting of the Bill is right.
It seems to me that we have a very extensive list, but there are some
very big gaps that will make governance at a local level rather more
difficult because the list excludes some very big players in local
communities.
Mr.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con): First, I support the comments
made by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole on clause 49. To give the
Under-Secretary an illustration why “Primary Care Trust”
might be an insufficiently broad descriptor of what she is trying to
get at, in my constituency we are debating a situation where the
primary provider of community health care is likely to become a
not-for-profit trust, which will be outside the primary care
trust’s direct management and control. If we are looking to
involve the providers of medical services, the Liberal Democrat
amendment helps to capture the thrust of what the Government are
getting at, as does our
amendment.
Secondly,
picking up on the comments made by the hon. Member for Carshalton and
Wallington on transport authorities, he may have a problem with dead
pigeons in an urban area, but in a rural area we have problems with
other forms of wildlife that affect the transport thoroughfares,
particularly dead badgers, which may be receptacles for bovine
tuberculosis.
Tom
Brake:
In urban areas, there is a problem with pheasants
jamming the brakes on trains, so even in such areas wildlife is a big
issue.
Mr.
Dunne:
I fully accept that wildlife affects urban areas as
much as rural areas. Of course, the fox springs to mind as being as
much of a pest in urban areas—often more so—than in rural
areas, where it now lives free of its
predator.
The Highways
Agency should be included in the list, but it has not been mentioned
yet in any amendment. If the Bill is trying to get to transport
providers, will the Under-Secretary consider including the Highways
Agency as well as Network
Rail?
Andrew
Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab): I want to go into a bit
more depth on a number of matters that have been touched on. I have
much sympathy with adding to the list of partner authorities, because
there is a danger that if we do not do so we will lose accountability
and lose the involvement of some of the partners, not necessarily
including the national organisations and quangos as part of the local
area agreement. However, there is a danger of producing an
almost endless list. If it is not going to be done
in that way, we need a mechanism in place to bring other organisations
and bodies formally into the
process.
Over the past
few decades, a plethora of organisations, although not necessarily the
national organisations and quangos, have been involved at the local
level. Thinking locally, many local authorities have moved towards care
home trusts, sports trusts and housing action trusts—building
companies that have taken over the responsibilities of the former
direct service organisations—and so on. The list is almost as
endless as the one in respect of the other suggestions. There is a
danger that if we do not involve more formally some of those
organisations, we will end up with a loophole further down the
line.
The bodies that
I have referred to are often solely funded by local authorities and
often provide a service solely on behalf of the local
authority—quite frequently in buildings still owned by
it—yet legally and constitutionally they are completely separate
from local authorities and are not, for example, covered by a range of
regulations that would apply to them were the relevant services still
offered in-house. We will possibly debate that in more detail when
discussing chapter 2 and the enhanced scrutiny and the access to
information from partner authorities. Chapter 2 and clause 49 are
linked, because the former states that the partner authorities that are
listed have to provide the information. If those organisations are not
listed, a mechanism is needed to include them somewhere else. I have a
number of concerns, and I will go into more detail when we debate the
clause on access to
information.
If there
is a breakdown in the relationship between the local authority and the
arm’s length organisation—or, in many cases, the
completely independent organisation—the local area agreement is
not well served and there needs to be a formal mechanism that brings
the parties together to talk. I am thinking in particular of
housing.
3.15
pm
It is fortunate
that there is a good housing trust in my constituency—New
Charter Housing Trust in Tameside—as well as an arm’s
length management organisation in Stockport, both of which work well.
However, now that the council has a statutory responsibility for
housing without necessarily having the housing stock, there is the
danger of a serious breakdown.
Tom
Brake:
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is already
evidence of a breakdown in the relationship between local authorities
and the NHS, because the NHS is under financial pressure? We need to
ensure through this Bill that such financial pressures do not lead to
the breakdown in relationships that he seeks to
prevent.
Andrew
Gwynne:
I absolutely agree. It is the case not just for
the NHS and for housing trusts but potentially for all organisations
that are arm’s length, quasi-independent of the local
authorities or totally independent of local authorities. That is why we
need to tighten up this part of the Bill. I hope that the
Minister can assure us that there will be local mechanisms to bring in
those other organisations.
I am sure that those
relationships will remain strong in Tameside, an authority with four
stars, in the top category and showing strong improvement. It is the
only such authority in Greater Manchester or in the north-west—I
wish that my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan were here to listen to
this. However, we need to legislate for areas that do not show the same
responsibility in keeping partners
together.
Alison
Seabeck (Plymouth, Devonport) (Lab): I will be brief, and
will focus on whether housing associations should be involved in local
area agreements. We have heard all the arguments. There is a strong
case for social landlords to be included. I cannot vote for amendment
No. 136, because I am not sure what is meant by the duty on the Housing
Corporation, and whether that is the right wording. Housing
associations play an increasingly important role in our communities.
They are not just providers of what was, in some cases, council-managed
property, but they are also partners in the delivery of a range of
services, most of which are in the public sector and are mentioned in
the Bill. They are essential partners in tackling antisocial behaviour
and their lettings policies can be crucial to community cohesion. It
therefore does not make sense not to allow them to be party to, or to
scrutinise, LAAs—not least because the Government’s
clearly stated position on the housing role of local authorities is
that they should operate strategically. This is a missed opportunity
and I find the two positions a little illogical.
We have heard a lot of good
examples, and I shall not go into them further. My hon. Friend the
Member for Denton and Reddish, for instance, spoke strongly here and on
Second Reading about sports trusts. I hope that the Minister will
consider the suggested additions, particularly on the role of
registered social landlords and NHS foundation hospital
trusts.
Patrick
Hall:
I just want to reinforce the point that I made in an
intervention about the list going on and on. If we are to think
carefully about the organisations that, at their best, make a positive
contribution to community life, then schools, colleges and universities
must be included. The best of them do not live in ivory towers
operating in isolation; they are engaged in the life of their area. The
university of Bedfordshire has taken very positive initiatives in
relation to the economic development of the county as well as of the
town. Wherever there are such organisations and institutions, there is
a need to welcome the work that they already do and to engage them in
the formal process.
Also, I cannot see in the Bill
a reference to what we debated this morning, which was town and parish
councils. Indeed, I mentioned urban community councils as well. Not to
include those organisations formally would send a negative signal.
These are organisations in which people have usually been elected, and
even if people have been co-opted or appointed, at least they are
showing that they wish to be engaged in improving community life. To
exclude them would be a mistake, so I hope that my hon. Friend the
Minister will consider the matter.
Mr.
Woolas:
I am grateful to hon. Members who have, on the
whole, spoken about their desire to extend the number of
bodies—public and, in some cases, non-public
bodies—rather than question the premise of the policy, which is
to include a duty to co-operate across the partners as defined. That
shows me that there is a consensus for this approach; it is nice to be
discussing just the boundaries of the approach. We can take some
comfort from that.
As
I said before, the clause sets out the list of public bodies and
persons that will be partner authorities for the purposes of this
chapter. The list will ensure that all the relevant public bodies
involved in delivering services in a particular area will be committed
to co-operating with the previously mentioned responsible authorities,
as defined in clause 78, and also with each other in determining
targets when local area agreements and the community
strategies—the formal documents adopted by local
authorities—are being prepared.
The list of partner authorities
includes bodies that deliver services at the local level. To give some
obvious examples, they include the police authority, the primary care
trust and the jobcentre. There are also overarching
bodies—commonly national bodies with regional
structures—such as Sport England, which is very important in
many community strategies, and the Health and Safety Executive. Those
organisations have a regional or local presence and are able to engage
in the setting of targets and the shaping of wider
priorities.
Of
course, this list of bodies is not immune to change. Other bodies whose
functions are relevant to the clauses in this chapter may come into
existence, so it may become necessary to change the list from time to
time. To that end, there is included—as Members will have
noted—an order-making power that provides that the Secretary of
State may amend the list of bodies and persons after consulting the
appropriate representatives of local government. That is in clause
79(6). The Secretary of State would have to consult Parliament with
regard to making any such additions to the
list.
Mr.
Dunne:
Is not one of the great problems with the clause
that although the Minister is constantly reminding the Committee of the
Government’s desire to devolve decisions down to local
authorities, on an issue about which each local authority is best
placed to determine who it should consult in order to engage in a local
area agreement, the Secretary of State will determine which are the
right parties, and a laborious procedure will have to be gone through
by each participating principal council to secure such consent from the
Secretary of State? Surely, that is the wrong way
round.
Mr.
Woolas:
The Government’s policy and intention is to
meet the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. The power that the
Secretary of State will have to add bodies to the list will be a power
to enable devolution, so that local government can work with those
partner bodies in the local area in the consultation over the local
area agreement, the setting of targets and the delivery of services.
What I am simply saying is that there may be bodies that do not exist
at the moment, or that may carry out functions that are not being
undertaken by existing bodies, whose inclusion would make the list more
relevant. Therefore, the idea of giving to the Secretary of State the
power to extend the list meets the objective that the hon. Gentleman
has described.
Mr.
Burrowes:
I understand the Minister when he discusses the
intentions that we all agree on. Would it not be better, however, to
have a wider definition of partner authorities, rather than having to
find office holders and then laboriously extend the provisions? For
example, it might be appropriate in principle for members of the
voluntary sector, which has not been mentioned, to be included in
partnership authorities. Will the Minister confirm
that?
Mr.
Woolas:
I shall respond to the specifics of the speech
made by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington and then come to
the point made by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate. In general,
one is talking about public bodies, not about private companies or
voluntary sector bodies, although they have important roles,
particularly in contracting and commissioning, where they are very
relevant. Later in the Bill, of course, we will come to the workings of
local strategic partnerships.
Given the efforts that the
Government and the Local Government Association made to build a
consensus on this approach, I am very encouraged by the fact that we
are debating the number of bodies that should be included. I have a wry
smile at the irony of hon. Members calling for private companies and
voluntary bodies to be included in the plans. One cannot be too
dictatorial about such matters. However, as Lady Thatcher once said,
“It’s a funny old
world.”
I shall
respond—sometimes positively—to points made by hon.
Members. Adding schools to the list of partner authorities would compel
the responsible local authority to co-operate with all the schools in
its area when preparing or revising the draft local area agreement or
community strategy. I suppose that co-operation works both ways, but I
remind hon. Members that, as they will know from their constituencies,
some local authorities have well over 300 schools operating in their
area, many of which are small primary schools with limited capacity to
contribute meaningfully to strategic objectives. To place all of them
under a duty to co-operate would add significantly to the bureaucracy
in the schools and local
authorities.
Mr.
Woolas:
I shall not give way yet because I suspect that
the hon. Gentleman will like my next
point.
We believe also
that the proposal is unnecessary because schools are already covered by
the key partnerships in the local authority target-setting process. The
18 statutory education performance targets, which will form part of
every local area agreement, are built on the statutory targets set each
year by local authority maintained schools. Alongside the 35 or so
suite of packages, on which the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire
has tabled an
amendment, there is the 18 or so suite of targets for schools’
educational functions. We believe that that is the best way in which to
address the point that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington
made.
Tom
Brake:
That point was not made by me, but by the hon.
Member for Bedford—a Member from the Minister’s own side.
However, is the legislation not defective if the inclusion of schools
in the list would require a local authority to engage each organisation
in discussions, negotiations and consultations? Should that not be
approached on a case-by-case basis, rather than by saying, “If
you have 300 schools, you must consult them
all”?
Mr.
Woolas:
I apologise to the hon. Gentleman and to my hon.
Friend the Member for Bedford, who, of course, made the point about
schools. That would be the case if, as in most authorities, including
mine, there was generally a co-operative climate or culture. However,
as ever when legislating, one must try to predict circumstances in
which the norm would not be the case. That is my
concern.
3.30
pm
Of course,
schools can, and do, engage in local partnership arrangements through
the children’s trusts, which I believe is a proportionate and
sensible approach. The Children Act 2004 set out that procedure. We
want all local authorities to look at the needs and wishes of parents
of pupils in their area and include in their planning the full role of
schools in delivering these objectives.
To that end, the children and
young people’s plan provides a single overarching strategic plan
for all services that affect children and young people in the locality.
All local authorities must have such a plan except four-star
authorities such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and
Reddish. They are excluded from this obligation as part of the
incentivisation to good performance, which is a policy that has been
generally welcomed. Section 38 of the Education and Inspections Act
2006, which hon. Members will remember voting for, places a duty on
school governing bodies to have regard to that plan. I am not trying to
create a superstructure with a detailed plan that would be too heavy
and too intrusive, but to provide a strategic framework through
statutory duty within the local area agreement and local strategic
partnership plan.
Furthermore, the 2006 Act also
places a duty on schools to promote the well-being of their pupils and
to promote community cohesion, a point that the hon. Member for Bromley
and Chislehurst made earlier. Schools are included within that point
and, goodness knows, that is important. There is no implication that
schools can opt out of any “place-making activities”.
That is what it says in my brief although I rather agree with the hon.
Member for Carshalton and Wallington about that. If he can suggest an
alternative phrase, I should be grateful for a postcard. It was Sir
Michael Lyons who coined the phrase and, as we know, one does not have
to accept all the recommendations from independent
commissions.
It may be helpful if I briefly
mention universities and further education colleges because
universities could well be very useful partners in local area groups,
particularly in areas where student accommodation is changing the
nature of the community. Hon. Members will know the types of
communities that I am talking about. Further education colleges are
already represented by the inclusion of the Learning and Skills Council
as a statutory partner. The university bodies present a different case
because they are independent bodies established by charter. A better
solution is to encourage responsible local authorities to consult such
other bodies as they consider appropriate when drafting local area
agreements and community strategies. We will seek to indicate through
the statutory guidance that this could and may involve universities
where appropriate. I can think of a number of examples where it would
be
appropriate.
Tom
Brake:
Clearly I welcome the fact that he will ensure that
such bodies are consulted. But consulting a university is one thing,
ensuring that it responds in terms of the transport implications and
the impact on housing in an area is a completely different
matter.
Mr.
Woolas:
The hon. Gentleman has a point about housing in
particular. I visited Loughborough recently where there was a
conference of local authorities hosted by Nottingham on the whole issue
of housing and students. The obligation on the local authority to
consult the university is important, but there are two points to bear
in mind. First, this is not the be-all and end-all of existing
requirements to involve and consult. This is putting a statutory duty
on specified bodies, and universities present a particular challenge. I
agree with him about housing. There may be local transport implications
if there are large numbers of students, even though, oddly enough, some
of them are now well off enough to have cars. That is why the Bill
provides for universities to have the facility to enter into local area
agreements, rather than compelling them to do
so.
The
argument that has been put to me by vice-chancellors is that
universities in some cases have national and international strategic
objectives. It might be appropriate to cover certain of their
functional areas—the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington
mentioned transport and housing. However, our wider objective is to
deal with those partners that help to deliver local authority services.
It is a point that I have thought long and hard about,
however.
The issue of
how to involve the voluntary and community sectors, and indeed the
commercial sector, is crucial. Those sectors are not designated partner
authorities, because they are independent, and one cannot responsibly
ask Parliament to bring independent private bodies under the control of
statutory bodies. That would be Stalinist, and it would not work.
Nevertheless, it is important that organisations in each of the
voluntary, community and business sectors are involved in setting
priorities and in the day-to-day working of delivery.
It would be impossible to name
each and every relevant body, and it would be inappropriate to impose
the new duties on them. However, the Bill provides for responsible
authorities—“responsible” in the legal sense of
clause 78—to
consult
“such other
persons as appear to it to be appropriate”
when preparing the local
area agreements and the community strategies. The Government’s
decision to enter into statutory guidance on the matter reflects the
fact that although such bodies are not statutory or public-sector
bodies, they are important. That has been part of the dialogue between
the Government and the voluntary sector, through the office of the
third sector in the Cabinet Office and through the compact arrangement.
My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak is chair of the Community
Development Foundation and I believe that, among his other activities,
he has been extensively involved with this issue.
The arguments apply equally to
the business sector. It is crucial that business and commerce are
involved not just in the request for delivery of the desirable goals,
but in the design of those goals, not least because of the other
benefits that can derive from business involvement in shaping
strategies and services. As we ask local authorities to take on more
responsibility for economic regeneration and economic leadership, we
are genuinely trying to create a partnership for each area that
includes those
organisations.
The
statutory guidance that will follow enactment of the Bill will stress
that organisations in each of the voluntary, community and business
sectors must be involved in the process. How that happens it a matter
for the local area. That it should be done will be a matter of
statutory guidance, however. It will also be possible for bodies in
those sectors to agree to help to deliver particular targets on a
voluntary basis. I refer the Committee to subsections (1)(c)
and (3) of clause
80.
The amendments in
the group have been moved with good intent, within the
framework of the Government’s policy. I am advised that
amendment No. 49 would have the consequence—unintended, I
assume—of removing primary care trusts. I make that observation
for the benefit of the Committee, although it is not my argument
against the amendment.
On the positive side,
amendments Nos. 49 and 65 seek to add NHS trusts and NHS foundation
trusts to the list of partner authorities. The involvement of those
bodies in local area agreement processes is clearly desirable, but it
is made difficult by the fact that some trusts provide regional and
national services. That is the other side of the coin to the point made
by the hon. Member for
Poole.
Let me explain
my thinking. Great Ormond Street, for example, delivers specialist
services on a national basis. There could and would be confusion as to
which local authorities and local authority services it should
co-operate with. Great Ormond Street patients come from all over the
country, and I imagine from all over the world, so such an amendment
could mean that it would have to be consulted on and co-operate in the
preparation of local area agreement targets. That is a technical point
and not my main point, but it is important not to impose unduly on such
trusts.
The
Government, however, recognise the importance of NHS trusts and
foundation trusts and it is our intention, following representations
and comments, to name them in the Bill in such a way as to avoid the
Great Ormond Street problem but to include them as partner authorities.
I hope that the Committee will welcome that commitment. As late as
yesterday, the Association of Directors of Social Services was making
a similar point, given the importance of NHS trusts and foundation
trusts. [
Interruption.
] Does my hon. Friend the
Member for Bedford wish to
intervene?
Patrick
Hall:
I was building up to intervene, but not on the NHS.
Now that I am on my feet, I shall say that I was hoping that my hon.
Friend would not forget my point about parish and town councils and why
they should not be partner authorities. He has not come to that
yet.
Mr.
Woolas:
I give way to the hon. Member for Carshalton and
Wallington.
Tom
Brake:
On the Great Ormond Street problem, we would
clearly not want the local area agreement to require Great Ormond
Street to address issues that are about its national or international
profile. Can the Minister clarify whether the amendment that he intends
to table, or the guidance or whatever, will ensure that the
implications of such a hospital on traffic, employment and so on are
covered?
Mr.
Woolas:
That is what we are trying to do—it is the
central point. We do not want to involve specialist care units for
babies who are seriously ill, but we do want to involve the hospital in
matters relevant to the local
area.
Amendment
No. 65 would add the Mayor of London and Transport for London to the
list of partner authorities. The Greater London authority is of course
already represented in the list by three of its functional
bodies—the Metropolitan Police, the London Fire and Emergency
Planning Authority and the London Development Agency. I intend to add a
fourth, Transport for London, by amendment following consultations and
representations. It is more appropriate to name the GLA’s
delivery bodies than the Mayor himself, because they can agree and
deliver local area agreement targets, a function that the Mayor does
not have. I hope that hon. Members will accept that the Mayor and his
office are subject to an accountability structure through the London
assembly, as we have heard.
Similarly, there is an argument
against parishes and community councils being added to the list. It
would make the list of partners to be brought around a table very long.
To give one example, North Yorkshire has 588 parish councils and the
constituency of Bassetlaw has 88. That is a pragmatic point, although
we will be signalling in the guidance the importance of involving
parishes. Parish plans, which are important in the delivery of services
to local areas, will of course be linked to local authorities’
community strategies. There are therefore two arguments on parishes:
one pragmatic and the other asking to whom they are accountable.
Ultimately one cannot supplant their accountability to the electorate
with targets, even if they were agreed
on.
3.45
pm
Amendment No.
88 would add to the list of partner authorities any individuals or
bodies that provide general medical services. It is not entirely
certain and
would be difficult to define in law what effects the wording would have,
but it appears that it would include general practitioners. It might
also include those providing medical services in acute trusts. To
include such a broad group would make the process unworkable. It makes
more sense to focus on primary care trusts, which commission both
primary services and the hospital-based
NHS.
Tom
Brake:
The Minister is being very helpful in outlining how
he will address the issue of NHS trusts. It is welcome. Will he
clarify, now or later, whether independent treatment centres would be
included under the
amendment?
Mr.
Woolas:
The crucial point is that the process of
commissioning services would include the obligation to work toward the
targets. To that extent, the amendment would apply in such an instance.
The argument is similar to the one about registered social landlords,
to which I am about to
come.
Amendment
No. 117 would add to the list of partner authorities the Secretaries of
State for Communities and Local Government, Education and Skills, Trade
and Industry, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Home
Department. I am compelled to point out that in law there is only one
Secretary of State, so the Bill’s definition of the Secretary of
State includes them all. It is an important point in the policy, and
one that local government fears. It is suspicious or anxious that
somehow the agreement is with my Department and not with central
Government as a whole. Local area agreements are made with central
Government, and indeed signed by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury
and numerous Secretaries of State. I hope that I have answered the hon.
Gentleman’s
question.
Amendment
No. 117 would add registered social landlords to the list. Although I
recognise their important role, I do not agree that they should be
added to the list of partner authorities. First, they are not public
bodies. They can be charities, limited companies or industrial and
provident societies. I have sought to avoid naming such organisations
in the clauses for the reasons that I gave to the hon. Member for
Enfield, Southgate. Secondly, it would not be appropriate to place
registered social landlords under the duties, as they are not tied to
any particular geographical area. For example, one RSL is based in
Sheffield yet owns properties all over the country. In such
circumstances, it would be unclear to a local authority which RSL to
consult. I recognise that that is a technical and pragmatic point, but
I shall come to a larger policy point.
The Government-commissioned
Cave review, due to report in April, is examining the whole regulatory
framework for social housing, including registered social landlords.
Having discussed the matter across Government, we have decided that it
would be premature to name RSLs in the Bill, as their remit and status
may be subject to change. As we have said, the Bill provides for the
possibility of adding to the list of partner authorities, and we might
be able to do so later. I emphasise that there is no intention one way
or the other at this stage; I mention it merely as a possibility. Also,
the Government have recently merged the
Housing Corporation with English Partnerships, which is covered in the
list of bodies. Hon.
Members asked about the Highways Agency. I point the Committee to
clause 79(3)(g)(ii) and (iii), which deal with the Secretary of
State’s exercise of the functions. The Highways Agency does not
operate legally as a separate entity. Its duties are performed on
behalf of the Secretary of State, so it is included in the list of
partner authorities. I think that constituency Members of Parliament,
as well as local authorities, will welcome
that.
Tom
Brake:
On the subject of transport—the Minister
might have been about to come to it—Network Rail has been
mentioned. I know that there is a long, heated argument about the
precise status of Network Rail and whether it is part of the state, but
I hope that the Minister will set out his position on the
company.
Mr.
Woolas:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me that
opportunity. There is a good reason why we cannot accept the inclusion
of Network Rail as a partner authority: it is a private company that is
limited by guarantee and therefore has its own regulatory and
target-setting framework. He might argue that it should not be a
private limited company, but that issue is not within the scope of the
Bill and I shall not be drawn on it. I am sure that you would not allow
us to discuss that anyway, Mr.
Benton.
Network Rail
is subject to a licence that is enforced by the Office of Rail
Regulation, which sets the targets for Network Rail. The ORR is an
independent regulator and Network Rail would therefore be unable to
fulfil a duty of co-operation to agree to targets in a local area
agreement. Transport functions that are carried out by responsible
authorities, whether passenger transport authorities or the transport
authority functions within local councils, would be subject to that
duty of co-operation. The Bill is intended to define the boundaries
between national and local in the way that the Sustainable Communities
Bill is intended to, but I believe that this Bill does so more
successfully. I hope that that answers that question about this
important
clause.
Tom
Brake:
It is rare at the Committee stage for Opposition
Members to feel that the Government have made a significant concession.
The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), who speaks for the
official Opposition on housing matters, bemoaned the fact that, as a
Member of Parliament, he could not show his mother any achievements of
changing the Government’s legislation. I think that people will
feel envious that today, the official Opposition and the Liberal
Democrats have secured from the Minister an important undertaking in
relation to NHS trusts, which is extremely welcome.
I am not sure that the Minister
has convinced Members on either side of the Committee about his reasons
for opting for a list approach to identify partners, rather than a much
more flexible approach. In years to come, we will visit the Secretary
of State many times to add names to or remove names from that
list.
Mr.
Woolas:
That is an important point. The reason for such an
approach is to empower local authorities. I want the list on the face
of the Bill so that it is known that the public authorities concerned
have a duty to co-operate in the meeting of targets in their areas. I
would rather have a debate between central and local government about
who should be on or off that list than about whether there should be a
list. There is an alternative option, as the hon. Gentleman explained,
but I think that my approach is more likely to help local authorities
succeed in fulfilling the
aim.
Tom
Brake:
I hope that the Minister is right; no doubt, time
will tell. He has made some significant pronouncements today about
areas of the Bill that he intends to amend in ways that I think would
improve it.
Opposition Members,
joined by three Back Benchers on the Minister’s side, have
expressed some strong reservations. We might defeat the Government and
blot forever the careers of those three Government Back Benchers if we
were to press the amendments to a Division, but I think that it is
appropriate to return to the issue at a later date. I beg to ask leave
to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Question
proposed,
That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Andrew
Stunell:
I wish to say a few words about the clause and
the direction of travel. It is entitled “Application of Chapter:
partner authorities”, and I wish to draw to the
Committee’s attention what is self-evident: that by far and away
the most significant and biggest partner of local government is
national Government. The Secretary of State—I am sorry, I mean
the Minister; I got a little ahead of his promotion schedule
there—referred to Secretaries of State and said that, of course,
there is only one Secretary of State. I guess the collective noun for
Secretaries of State is Government. That emphasises the point that it
is a relationship—hopefully a partnership—between central
Government and local government that is at the core of delivering
services and ensuring that democracy works well. It is certainly the
Liberal Democrats’ view that that partnership should be seen to
be and should actually be a partnership of equals, where there are
clear boundaries on the responsibilities and the rights to interfere,
to directand to innovate, and where both local government and
national Government are seen as having a separate and legitimate
constitutional existence.
I draw the Minister’s
attention to the European charter of local self-government, which sets
out some of the constraints that a national Government should have in
mind when they are in, or developing, a partnership with local
government. Is the Minister satisfied that, in the light of the clause
in particular and the Bill as a whole, he will be in a position to say
that the Government are compliant with that charter? If so, will he
move towards seeing the UK ratify that
charter?
My colleagues
and I attempted to table a new clause that would have made more
explicit the need for that partnership arrangement to be formal, and to
establish a concordat between national and local government. We were
unable to do that because it was outside the scope of the Bill.
However, I would like to hear from
the Minister whether, on behalf of the Secretary of State, he would
undertake to initiate a dialogue with local government, so that we
could lead a move towards a situation where that ratification could
take place and we could see in place a concordat that clearly sets out
the relevant powers and responsibilities of the two tiers of
government, local and national. Underlying many of the debates
that we have had so far—and many of the debates that lie ahead
on the Bill—are the problems, the difficulties, the suspicion
and the mistrust between the two layers. The Government do not trust
local government and, let us be blunt, local government often does not
trust national Government. Perhaps both have some right on their side,
but surely we should be working to draw together a stronger partnership
of equals. I hope that the Minister can respond positively to
developing that over the coming
years.
Mr.
Woolas:
Perhaps I should respond in some more detail
outside the Committee to the important point that the hon. Gentleman
makes. Perhaps he could table a written question in order to give the
Government the opportunity to answer. It is relevant to the Committee
that we have that dialogue, as he will know, with the Local Government
Association through various structures, and the UK representatives of
local government in that dialogue tend, in my experience, genuinely to
act in the country’s interest rather than in a partisan way.
That is to be welcomed.
I hope that, notwithstanding
the point that the hon. Gentleman has just made, that I have convinced
the Committee that the intention behind the clause is precisely to
achieve the sort of co-operation that we need. I do not agree with the
hon. Gentleman that central Government do not trust local government,
and local government does not trust central Government. That is the
impression that is given sometimes, but on the whole local government
is a partner in the governance of the country and we need it to be
so.
Question put
and agreed
to.
Clause 79
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 80
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
81
Duty
to prepare and submit draft of a local area
agreement
4
pm
Alistair
Burt:
I beg to move amendment No. 126, in
clause 81, page 54, line 40, after
‘authority’,
insert—
‘( ) other
non-statutory partners to the Local Area
Agreement’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 127, in clause 86, page 57, line 9, after
‘authority’,
insert—
‘( ) other
non-statutory partners to the Local Area
Agreement’.
Alistair
Burt:
The amendment gives us an opportunity to talk about
the importance of the voluntary sector and the involvement of
non-statutory
partners. The voluntary and independent sectors are important in the
future of local
government.
I have the
honour to sit with the hon. Member for High Peak on the Commission on
the Future of Volunteering, which was set up last year by Volunteering
England, under the leadership of Baroness Neuberger. We are conducting
a review of what is currently happening in volunteering around the
country and hope to make recommendations in future about how
volunteering can be spread even further throughout society and be made
most effective.
On
talking to groups that involve volunteers, one cannot doubt that their
engagement as service providers throughout the community and the
increasing reliance of local authorities and other statutory
authorities on volunteers is a key issue for them. Most volunteers, who
come into organisations to be useful and to provide something for
society, are only too pleased to work hand in hand with the statutory
authorities that need them. Equally, however, they do not want that
enthusiasm to be drowned out in the process of making contracts and
find their determination to work being channelled in such a way that
they are not necessarily volunteering on their own behalf, but feel
more that they are being asked to follow somebody else’s agenda,
which detracts from the spirit that brought them into volunteering. I
say that simply to illustrate how important their commitment and
involvement is. The amendments are designed to give them statutory
recognition in a way that the clause does not quite
do.
The clause is
permissive. It allows, in subsection (2)(a)(ii), for the responsible
local authority to
consult
“such other
persons as appear to it to be
appropriate”,
as opposed
to “each partner authority”, with which it must consult.
That provision would cover bringing on board those in voluntary
organisations and others. However, the amendment states that where such
people have been engaged as partners, they should have a status beyond
that of any others and should not be brought along as an
afterthought.
Mr.
Woolas:
Is the hon. Gentleman talking about individual
voluntary sector organisations, umbrella associations of voluntary
organisations, or
both?
Alistair
Burt:
I am talking specifically about those who have been
engaged as partners within an area agreement, so that will vary
according to what the agreement is. I am trying to ensure that, when
consultation is taking place, the involvement of those people will not
simply depend on whether the authority considers them to be
“appropriate”, but will be mandatory because of what they
are doing and how they are working with a local
authority.
Let me
expand on the role of the voluntary sector, because it is important to
put in on the record. I thank the National Council for Voluntary
Organisations for the briefing that it provided for Committee members,
to which I am referring. In its main briefing, when referring to the
whole background to the Bill, it states:
“The future of
local government is a key issue for the voluntary and community sector.
The sector is particularly keen
to see modernisation and change in partnership working, scrutiny and
accountability, best value, community governance and capacity building
support for the VCS...Voluntary and community organisations interact
with local authorities and other statutory organisations in numerous
ways and at numerous levels, playing three very important
roles...they provide information and give advice to individuals or
communities; they enable people’s voices to be heard, by
supporting and encouraging people and communities or by acting as
advocates (very often for marginalised groups who may not have any
other way of being heard) and they provide activities and
services.” I am
particularly concerned with that third
element.
It would be
appropriate for the Government to recognise the involvement of the
sector in providing services by following it through under the
amendment. Voluntary and community organisations need to be involved in
the local area agreement process from the outset and enabled to engage
fully with the agreement process, setting targets and discussing
funding. It is important to recognise that, for many voluntary and
community organisations, risks are inherent in the LAA approach.
Whereas good local authorities will make use of the freedoms and
flexibilities to determine their own priorities in partnership with a
broad range of local stakeholders, others will take the opportunity to
pull back all control to themselves. If local partnerships are to be
benefit from the sector’s expertise and insight into such
issues, there must be support, including some financial support, to
facilitate the sector’s
engagement.
Alison
Seabeck:
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s
points—indeed, I made some of them myself on Second Reading.
However, the voluntary sector is a complex beast. Some voluntary sector
organisations are engaged in partnerships and deliver services, while
others work within the community but none the less regard themselves as
partners. I am not sure how the amendment can differentiate clearly or
whether the requirement should be in the Bill or be covered by
guidance.
Alistair
Burt:
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s point. When
voluntary organisations are involved formally in partnerships, they
ought to be statutory consultees. When they are not formally involved
and are fulfilling the role that she mentioned, they are properly
covered by subsection
(2)(a)(ii).
Alison
Seabeck:
The hon. Gentleman will be aware from his
experience that voluntary organisations move in and out of
partnerships, according to what is available and other factors. Is
there enough flexibility to accommodate that
movement?
Alistair
Burt:
Again, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making a
fair point. The problems of voluntary organisations and their
contractual arrangements, and how difficult it sometimes is,
particularly as they come to an end of a contract, to know whether it
will continue and whether they will survive, are a wholly different
debate.
I maintain
that the position is clear. When voluntary organisations are involved
in a partnership, they should have the opportunity statutorily to be
joined with other partner authorities and be a key part of the
consultation process. I appreciate that they are included elsewhere in
the Bill, but I want to put on record their opportunity to take that
chance and be consulted in a particular
way. I have explained
the purpose of the amendment, but I think that all of us would pay
tribute to the work done by voluntary organisations and their
tremendous provision of services. If those reading and following the
proceedings of the Committee wish to give evidence to the Commission on
the Future of Volunteering, I ask them please to take the opportunity
to go to the appropriate website. The commission offers them a
tremendous chance to get on the record their views on where they think
volunteering is going and to talk about some of the difficulties they
encounter. The intention behind the commission is that it should
benefit everyone by creating better and stronger partnerships in the
future. I should be grateful if the Minister would recognise the
strength of the amendments and give them a fair
wind.
Tom
Levitt:
It is indeed a pleasure to follow my fellow member
of the Commission on the Future of Volunteering. I am happy to endorse
in principle pretty well everything that he said, especially asking
people not only to visit the website, but the consultation events, some
of which both he and I will be chairing throughout the country during
the next few
months.
As well as
being chairman of the Community Development Foundation, which is a
Government appointment, I chair the all-party parliamentary group on
the community and voluntary sector, the administration of which is
provided by the NCVO, which provided us with the briefing on the
amendment. The NCVO also provided a rather excellent gala dinner last
night, which is perhaps why I was a little subdued this
morning.
The NCVO
strongly supports the thrust of the amendment, and quite rightly so. I
am very sympathetic myself. I hope that the Ministers will go away and
think about the implications of the amendment and some of the strong
points that the hon. Gentleman has just made, and then come back with
an amendment that encapsulates rather better the arrangements for those
voluntary sector organisations that are partners in the delivery of
services and in local agreements of one form or another. I believe that
local strategic partnerships and local area agreements are going to
become very much more important, with an ever greater role for the
voluntary sector as formal members of those
organisations.
Healthy
communities, which is what the Bill is all about, are those where the
third sector is active and involved. It is involved in three ways:
delivering services; representing people through processes of
consultation; and, on a 24-hour-a-day basis, serving the communities in
other ways. Communities themselves often give birth to those
organisations, particularly in what we now call the community sector,
as opposed to the more vertical silos of the old idea of the voluntary
sector. In my constituency there are some smashing examples of
voluntary sector organisations engaging with the formal partners in
service delivery in many different ways.
The community in Gamesley,
which is among the 10 per cent. most deprived wards in the
country, has a
wonderful infrastructure, with public and voluntary sector partners
operating in many different ways. I was very pleased when
£250,000 of lottery money for community development was awarded
to the ward just before Christmas. High Peak Community Housing is the
arm’s length management organisation serving the Gamesley
community; the ALMO management board, which in effect consists of
volunteers, is chaired by the former chair of the Gamesley residents
association. I was very impressed when High Peak Community Housing was
represented at a local voluntary sector forum, which I organised with
my hon. Friend the Minister for the Third Sector in my constituency
just a couple of weeks
ago. I contrast that
with what I overhead at a conference on local strategic partnerships
about 18 months ago. Two councillors, who did not know each other
previously, were talking. One said to the other, “I don’t
know who these voluntary sector people think they are. Don’t
they realise that we are the elected people around here? It is our
responsibility to deliver services.” The other replied,
“We don’t have that problem with voluntary sector people
on our LSP. We don’t have voluntary sector people on our
LSP.” Both those attitudes and experiences will, I hope, be
things of the past, because of the extra qualities and value that can
be obtained for services through working in partnership with the
community and voluntary
sector.
High
Peak borough council is acknowledged as a beacon council for
partnership working and, in that sense, the league tables published by
the Audit Commission, which have already been mentioned a couple of
times today, are perhaps a little remiss. Although they look at a
number of important ways of assessing the performance of local
councils, they do not take partnership working into account. I hope
that we can add the way in which councils engage with partners to those
league tables of achievements. Indeed, my local strategic partnership
has for much of its life been chaired by a voluntary sector
representative, partly because there are two local
authorities—district councils—involved. Therefore, the
voluntary sector representative held the balance, rather than one or
other of the local authorities taking
control.
4.15
pm
Good councils
and good councillors see a strong voluntary sector, and a strong
community sector, as an opportunity and not as a threat. That concept
is shared across the House—I am sure that the hon. Member for
North-East Bedfordshire would agree with it. That is why he feels that
the amendment is necessary, and it is a matter on which I agree in
principle.
Local
strategic partnerships have got to include the third sector. It is now,
and will be in the future, an essential dimension for them to have, not
least because the voluntary sector will be a key provider of services,
and that will present challenges to the sector and to partners. I
digress by saying that there are issues about local area agreements
that will have to be addressed—perhaps in the Bill or in other
legislation. There are fears in the sector that smaller providers of
services will get pushed out of the procurement process by the bigger
boys—those who can perhaps deliver a county-wide service. There
may be an organisation that delivers a county-wide service in the next
county.
There has to be a continuing
role for local service delivery and local partners. That is why I hope
that the Minister will give some consideration to making local area
agreements the norm for the contractual basis of service delivery by
partners such as those in the voluntary sector. Putting local area
agreements on to a stronger statutory basis, as is called for in the
LGA’s briefing, would be valuable and is well worth considering.
The way in which local area agreements and local strategic partnerships
function should be subject to the local authority scrutiny process more
formally than perhaps they are.
While I am speaking to
amendment No. 126, I will draw to the attention of the Minister the
briefing given by the English National Parks Authorities Association.
The matter is not related to the discussion about the voluntary sector,
and perhaps discussion of it might more properly belong in a clause
stand part debate, but national parks authorities could well be covered
by the text of the amendment. I hope that, if necessary, we can build
in to the provisions the idea of ensuring that the development and
management plans drawn up by national park authorities are not
challenged or undermined by decisions taken in the consultation
processes. There are national parks in both the Minister’s
constituency and in mine, and he will recognise that nothing in the
Bill should undermine how national parks principles are
adopted.
I have some
questions to put to the Minister. Will he ensure that national park
management plans are fully respected and not undermined by the process?
Will he put consultation with the community and voluntary sector on
some form or other of a statutory basis, although not necessarily
conforming to the wording of the amendment? Will he look at the issue
of whether LSPs and LAAs are included in scrutiny procedures? Will he
look at the pros and cons of having LAAs as the basic unit of delivery,
and therefore of procurement?
We are yet to see what guidance
comes out in relation to clause 81, and what regulations are presented
in respect of it, and we will not see them in Committee. Nevertheless,
the Minister’s words will be in Hansard and I hope that
the powerful words spoken by the hon. Member for North-East
Bedfordshire, and my own modest contribution, will enable the Minister
to go away and think carefully about the matter and that perhaps the
hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment in favour of finding
something about which we can all agree.
Mr.
Woolas:
Let me try to explain to the Committee the
Government’s routeway of meeting the objectives that my hon.
Friend the Member for High Peak and the hon. Member for North-East
Bedfordshire have set. There are three main problems in addressing the
issue. First, the voluntary and community sector, and the business
sector, are not statutory bodies, so one has to take a different
approach to them. Secondly, as constituency Members of Parliament know,
the size and scope of voluntary bodies vary enormously, ranging from
one or two people undertaking worthwhile causes in localised
geographical areas to big organisations such as Age Concern, which in
my constituency delivers more than half the social services for the
elderly on behalf of the public.
The third
problem can be summed up as, “You can lead a horse to water but
you can’t make it drink.” Some local authorities
unfortunately display the attitude that my hon. Friend the Member for
High Peak outlined: they see the voluntary and community sector and the
business sector as a nuisance or a fly in the ointment, because they
believe that they are not accountable as councils are and that they are
sometimes the awkward squad. Sometimes organisations in those sectors
are the awkward squad because the voluntary, charitable sector has an
advocacy role, as well as that of service delivery. Hon. Members will
recall that the Charities Act 2006 grappled with that
problem.
If
Mr. Chope were here, I am sure that he would back me up when
I say that Local Government Ministers spend half their time listening
to the voluntary sector’s complaints about councils and the
other half listening to the councils’ complaints about the
voluntary sector. That is the negative side.
The positive side is that we
cannot deliver our agenda in local communities without the voluntary
sector. We cannot involve people, or consult them, or reconnect people
with policy, let alone politics, without the voluntary sector. We
cannot get the innovation, the focus, the flexibility or, crucially,
the trust of the public without the voluntary sector facilitating the
relationship.
What is
the Government’s routeway through the Bill? I refer hon. Members
to the clauses on local area agreements and to future clauses on
overview and scrutiny, on best value and on the duty to involve and
consult, which is directly relevant outside the framework of the duty
to co-operate with
partners.
The
amendments would require the local authority when it is preparing its
local area agreement or a revision to consult non-statutory local area
agreement partners. Clauses 81 and 86 provide for the local authority
to consult
“such other
persons as appear to it to be
appropriate”
when
preparing a draft local area agreement or a revision proposal. Using
those provisions, we would expect local authorities to consult relevant
non-statutory organisations and persons. In other words, that part of
the Bill puts the onus on the local authority, or gives it the option,
to consult, in a way that it sees fit, the non-statutory sector; but
that does not satisfy the demand of the hon. Member for North-East
Bedfordshire who wants to be able to say that it should have to do so.
I believe my routeway does what he wants while avoiding the pitfalls
that relate to the fact that these are non-statutory
bodies.
Tom
Levitt:
I am grateful for the Minister’s
clarification and for referring the Committee to clause 86.
Will there be a mechanism by which a voluntary sector organisation that
believes that it is an appropriate consultee can insist on, or at least
appeal against, a decision that is taken not to include it in the
consultation?
Mr.
Woolas:
The problem with having experts on Committees is
that they ask expert questions. My answer is that I think such an
organisation can already do so, but I will check on it.
I will finish my point, which I
hope will satisfy my hon. Friend. What is different, and what is
changing—I completely agree with the hon. Member for North-East
Bedfordshire—is that the voluntary and community sector should
be part of the LSP. Indeed, it must be part of the LSP under the
guidance that results from this Bill. That is an important policy
development, which the Government have discussed with colleagues in the
Cabinet Office and the third sector. The LSP is subject to overview and
scrutiny, and the LSP consultation that we held earlier this year and
last year welcomed the proposal. There was strong support for the idea
that the voluntary and community sector should be part of the
LSP—it was stronger than I expected, given my scepticism, which
I indicated to the Committee before.
It might benefit the Committee
if I report that independent evaluation of existing LAAs shows that the
voluntary and community sector’s role in an LAA is increasing.
That is to be welcomed, and we need to build on it. What will that mean
for partners who are not named as service providers and community
representatives? The answer is that the LSP must represent the full
range of service providers as well as the local community. It is
critical that non-statutory organisations, including voluntary
community groups and businesses, are part of the LSP and, consequently,
part of the process for determining targets—either as members of
the LSP or of its thematic partnerships, or engaging by other
routes.
Another
important point, which, I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend the Member
for High Peak, confirms that my guesstimate was correct, is that if the
body were relevant to the local authority, the local authority would
have to consult or risk the consultation being invalid. In other words,
it must act reasonably. If the body were to say that it had a right to
be consulted and had not been—that is, to show that the local
authority had acted unreasonably—it could challenge
it.
I can go further;
that is why I asked the question of the hon. Member for North-East
Bedfordshire. In practice, it is often the case that the VCS is
understandably and rightly represented by an association of voluntary
bodies within the local area, an umbrella group that acts as a service
provider to the voluntary sector and as an advocate for it—a
channel. We have to ask, therefore, whether we could establish a
process for duly constituted and recognised associations to be included
as statutory partners. We would still have the problem that they would
not be statutory bodies. Therefore, my intention is that such bodies
should be included within the statutory guidelines. Indeed—if
you will allow me to stray from the amendment just on this point,
Mr. Benton—as part of the Government’s wider
community cohesion strategy, which is outlined in chapter 6 of the
local government White Paper, we state our intention to build the
capacity of the VCS in each area through such a provision.
By including the necessity in
the LSP, by including the overall duty to consult and involve, and by
including in the statutory guidance the role that the VCS should play,
we believe that we can build on what is already happening, and I can
avoid the problems that I would have had in this Committee had I named
the VCS and the business sector as statutory bodies. I note
that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South, who is a former
council leader, and others here who have experience were nodding in
recognition of that point. I hope that that addresses the
issue that the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire raises in his
amendment, but I accept that the full picture will not be clear until
we have debated further clauses, so I ask for his indulgence in that
regard.
4.30pm
Tom
Levitt:
Will my hon. Friend address the matter of not
undermining national park
values?
Mr.
Woolas:
I do apologise to my hon. Friend. I missed that
point in my efforts to explain the voluntary and community sector
issue. He and I share a boundary and share a national park and he knows
of the importance of this issue. The national parks are named; they are
a statutory body; they are a partner in this process that we have
described; and they are local authorities. So the answer to the
question is yes.
Alistair
Burt:
I appreciate the Minister’s remarks. As usual
he has taken the matter genuinely and seriously. We look forward to the
explanations on the rest of the Bill and the statutory guidance that
the Under-Secretary mentioned may well do the trick. We will talk
further with the NCVO and others, but I hope that we will find a way
through to deliver what it is looking for. I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Mr.
Syms:
I beg to move amendment No. 89, in
clause 81, page 55, line 3, after
‘being’,
insert—
‘( ) the interests
of the commissioners of general medical
services;
( ) any guidance
issued by the Director of Public
Health;
( ) any guidance issued
by the Chief Medical
Officer;’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to consider
amendment No. 90, in clause 81, page 55, line 11, after
‘authorities)’, insert
‘the Director of Public
Health, the Chief Medical
Officer’.
Mr.
Syms:
These amendments pick up the theme of proper
consultation. The reference to the director of public health and the
chief medical officer could be described as the dead turkey part of the
Bill. I should be interested to learn why these amendments are totally
misguided. Perhaps the Minister will give us the benefit of his
advice.
Mr.
Woolas:
The effect of amendment No. 89 would be that the
local authority would have to have regard to the interests of the
commissioners of general medical services, to any guidance issued by
the director of public health and to any guidance issued by the chief
medical officer when it is preparing its local area agreement. The
effect of amendment No. 90 would be that the Secretary of State, before
issuing his guidance, would have to consult the director of public
health and the chief medical officer rather than just
“such representatives of local
government (including representatives of partner authorities) and such
other persons (if any) as he considers
appropriate.”
There
is already a link in this Bill between the persons named in the
amendment and the process of negotiating local area agreements. Primary
care trusts are commissioners of general medical services and they must
themselves have regard to guidance issued by the director of public
health and the chief medical officer. Primary care trusts are included
in the list of partner authorities in clause 79(2)(i), and clause
81(2)(b) states that a responsible local authority must co-operate with
each partner authority.
It will therefore be through
the primary care trust, as the commissioner of general medical
services, and its negotiations with responsible local authorities and
other partners, that any guidance issued by the directors of public
health and the chief medical officer will be taken into account when
targets relating to health matters are being negotiated. That model
fits in with our devolutionary approach because it works through the
PCTs.
The serious
point is that the goals and the targets of the general medical services
and the director of public health are very important to local
authorities in working for their communities. We are talking here about
longevity, heart and lung disease and ensuring that all the partners
move towards promoting good health. It strikes at the heart of why
partnership is important. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford
pointed out, the activities of a school through the provision of meals,
fruit, exercise and sports can have a huge impact. It can have a bigger
impact on public health in the long run than the direct work of the
acute services in the hospital, for example.
The hon. Member for Poole makes
a valid point, but we believe that we can cover it through the primary
care trust, which now has 80 per cent. coterminosity in this country
due to the sensible reorganisation of the health services that we
undertook in consultation with the Department of Health before the
framework was put into place. That is the answer to the
question.
Mr.
Syms:
I thank the Minister for his answer. Having
reflected carefully on what he said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Alistair
Burt:
I beg to move amendment No. 67, in
clause 81, page 55, line 4, at
end insert—
‘(iii) the
comprehensive area assessment which shall be phased in to coincide with
the commencement date for Chapter 1 of this
Act’.
The
amendment takes us in a slightly different direction. It deals with the
comprehensive area assessment, its timing and the need to phase it in
as soon as possible. With the transition in local area agreements
expected to begin in April 2008, it is most disappointing that the
supporting comprehensive area assessment system for measuring progress
is not due to be introduced until April 2009.
To deliver, the local area
agreement must be, as promised, streamlined and less bureaucratic. We
believe that running an old-style, heavy-handed performance framework
alongside the new approach will be cumbersome and could inhibit
success. We therefore agree with the LGA that there would be a
significant advantage to introducing the mutually reinforcing elements
of the new framework at the same time. The LGA is happy to work with
Government and the regulators to ensure that time scales are met, and
hopes that the Ministers will reconsider the
measures.
I
spoke today to Steve Bundred of the Audit Commission. He is not
particularly keen on the amendment, as he believes that there is a good
reason for the separation of the two elements. I am not
convinced—I think that the LGA makes a reasonable
case—but it is an area of dispute, and I put it on record to be
fair. It was good to meet Steve Bundred to discuss
it.
The LGA’s
point is straightforward. It is always difficult to operate two
systems. It believes that there would be an advantage in bringing the
date forward, and I tabled the amendment to test the Minister’s
thinking. Does he think that further negotiations on the matter might
be the way forward, rather than drawing a line under it
now?
Tom
Brake:
I rise briefly to say that I think that the
amendment is sensible if there is an opportunity to synchronise the two
elements. As the LGA, the representative body of the councils
responsible for delivering it, supports the amendment, I shall listen
carefully to the Minister. If he does not believe that it is a sensible
way forward, what explanation can he
give?
Mr.
Woolas:
I am grateful to the hon. Member for North-East
Bedfordshire for moving the amendment, because it gives me the
opportunity to do exactly what he invited me to do. The
Government’s attitude is that if we could do what he wants, we
would. Our reasoning is that 1 April 2008 is an important beginning
point for local government in the new framework that the Bill will
introduce if it is agreed by Parliament. It will be the beginning of
the three-year financial settlement and of the new, so-called refreshed
local area agreements, and will herald the beginning of the new
performance assessment framework, to which we shall come.
The amendment’s effect
of bringing the date forward would mean that a comprehensive area
assessment would have to be phased to coincide with the coming into
force of the local area agreement clauses, which is fixed in clause 175
for two months after Royal Assent. The Audit Commission will be working
with other inspectorates in the next two years to develop a detailed
methodology for the comprehensive area assessment so that it can be
introduced by 2009. The comprehensive area assessment is a crucial
piece of local evidence—we shall come to debate that matter. In
essence, it will judge the whole place—the whole town, city or
county—as well as the institution. It will consider the range of
partners and service delivery and the outcome from the citizen’s
point of view, and will make for interesting reading when it is
published.
The
hon. Gentleman accepts the Audit Commission’s robustness and
independence. He does not need to say so; I know that he does. The
commission was established in 1981 as part of the package to bear down
on local government’s alleged profligacy with public money. I
am keen to ensure that its core function is re-emphasised. Its main job
is to keep the books balanced, and to ensure that expenditure is
controlled properly and value for money is delivered. That will work
towards the introduction of the new regime. I have stated that it would
be better if we could have started the data collection from 1 April
2008, but I am advised that that is not possible, and it would be wrong
to force such a change. Having said that, I believe that I have
honestly and fairly answered the hon. Gentleman’s question about
our
attitude.
Alistair
Burt:
I am grateful to the Minister. I think that local
authorities will be disappointed, but I take the point that he
genuinely believes that it is not physically possible to do what he and
the local authorities want to do. If that is the case, nothing more
needs to be said, beyond congratulating Bedfordshire county council on
its fine performance in the comprehensive performance assessment today.
It moved up a level and has been deemed to be improving well. I wanted
to put that on the record, but have not had a chance to do so until
now.
Tom
Brake:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way because
it gives me an opportunity to commend Sutton council, which achieved a
four-star
rating.
Alistair
Burt:
Are there any other takers for this
opportunity?
Alistair
Burt:
Perhaps it would be in order if hon. Members found
their own way to put their comments on the record.
We take the Minister’s
point—the change cannot physically be made. I therefore beg to
ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
81 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clauses
82 and 83 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
