Clause
84
Designated
targets
Mr.
Syms:
I beg to move amendment No. 109, in
clause 84, page 56, line 1, at
end insert—
‘( ) The number
of targets designated under subsections (1) and (2) shall not exceed 35
at any one
time.’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 110, in clause 84, page 56,line 4, at end
add—
‘( ) For the purposes
of this Act “designated target” means a national target
for economic, social or environmental improvement such as the Secretary
of State may by regulation
define.’.
Mr.
Syms:
We now come on to targets. I think that we all
welcome the approach of reducing the number of targets that local
government must meet. In the past, central Government have always
expected far too much from local government and, indeed, added a lot of
costs to it by imposing
targets.
We all know
that in politics it is terribly easy to keep adding targets—to
have a degree of target inflation. By limiting them to a specific
number, the Government would have to knock a target out when they want
to add another one. A core number of targets would therefore be
maintained, which would set a higher and tougher test for those faced
by local government and mean that we do not get a drift of more and
more targets adding more and more bureaucracy. If the thrust of the
Bill is devolutionary, we need to limit the burden on local government.
Amendment No. 109 would help by insisting on a limit to the number of
targets approved in the Government’s proposed arrangements. I
could go on for a lot longer, but the hour is late, and I would be
interested to hear the Government’s response to my
amendment.
4.45
pm
Mr.
Woolas:
The hon. Gentleman has raised an important
issue—one that the Local Government Association has raised with
the Government. I cannot remember whether it did so in the
evidence-gathering session, but it certainly did so before
that.
The
Government’s intention is that there should be some 200 common
measurements—national indicators, in the jargon. I shall not
mention the 18 education targets that were mentioned by the hon. Member
for Bedford. Of the 200, there should be some 35 that are agreed by the
local authority, its partners, and the Government. The 35 could be
different in different areas, of course. That is the important point.
It is the way to meet the paradox, faced by all Governments, of equity
and a postcode lottery on the one hand and devolution on the other,
while maintaining the right of an elected Government, and
indeed—I would argue—the right of Parliament, to outline
the minimum goals.
Why
not include particular targets explicitly in the Bill? I want to try to
convince the hon. Member for Poole of the Government’s rationale
for not doing so. The Government do not apologise for the number of
targets that local government faces. The figure of between 600 and
1,200 sounds huge, although it is less so when one considers the vast
range of services that local authorities provide. Nevertheless, it is a
huge number, and local authorities report that it is
over-burdensome.
I
find it ironic that hon. Members—from both sides of the House,
but especially from the Opposition side—pray in evidence the
comprehensive performance assessment star rating, given that is
produced by the very performance review that is sometimes criticised.
Such is the way of the world, however. I shall not go into detail about
the own local authority, but it is doing
well.
We believe that
a figure of approximately 35 is sensible for the number of shared
targets. That figure has not been plucked out of the air; it has been
taken from a consideration of the nature of the indicators, and from
discussion. The figure is better dealt with in
guidance, however. To set the upper limit at 35 would not take account
of the 18 statutory early years and educational attainment targets to
which the Government are committed. In the White Paper, we stated that
LAAs would need to contain those targets in addition to the
approximately 35 nationally negotiated targets. Clause 81 provides that
responsible authorities should agree the local improvement targets in
co-operation with partner authorities. The amendment would make the
same provision. The targets will then be submitted for approval by the
Secretary of State. Thereafter, if individual targets are of key
national interest, they will be designated as provided for in clause
84. The effect of designation would be that such targets could not be
altered without the approval of the Secretary of State, given that they
are of key national interest.
To set out the definition of a
designated target in regulations would substantially reduce the level
of discretion for agreement of targets that would be available to
responsible authorities and their partners. If we used regulations to
define such targets—an area economic well-being target for
reduction of unemployment, for example—those targets would then
be designated in all local area agreements for England. However, it
might not be appropriate for such a target to be so designated; there
might be more important targets in a particular
area.
The alternative
would be that the Secretary of State would have to define from the
outset, in regulations, exactly the sort of targets that would be
designated in each area. That would be unworkable, and would lead to
prescription from the centre. The regulations would inevitably be
unable to cover every target that would be likely to be designated for
a certain area. That would lead in turn to a real risk of the Secretary
of State being unable, because it was not in the regulations, to
designate a target that appeared in the LAA—despite he or she
otherwise wishing to designate it. Incidentally, it is on that point
that I think that the Sustainable Communities Bill gets things
absolutely the wrong way round; unintentionally, it gives power of veto
to the Secretary of State.
The consequence of all that is
that putting into the Bill the figure of 35 would jeopardise a local
authority’s ability to have the flexibility to set targets that
were suitable for its area. I use the example of unemployment
deliberately. If one were to say that Surrey, for example, should have
to focus on an unemployment target and that Easington should not, most
Members would reasonably say that that should not be the priority;
there may also be examples the other way round. The effect of the
amendment would be to take away that
flexibility.
Putting a
number in the Bill in the way that the hon. Gentleman described would
be giving in to a temptation to obtain temporary reassurance. This
legislation should be sustainable and long-lasting, and it may be that
there is reason why one would want to have a different figure or
figures, which were higher or lower.
I hope that I am not one of
those Ministers who says, “Trust me and trust my
successors,” because we
will be putting into guidance the objective of setting out the number of
targets that we wish to see achieved. In truth, because we are working
on the 200 indicators, it is premature to specify a figure, which is
why the Secretary of State and I say about 35, because, in all honesty,
we do not know as yet whether it will be
35.
Mr.
Syms:
I thank the Minister for that explanation. I will
have to read what he said carefully in the Official Report and
reflect on some of the comments that he made. I thought that he was
honest about the fact that the figure might be 38 or 39, or 33; it will
vary, depending on what is determined. This is a matter that we may
return to on Report. With that in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw
the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
84 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Alistair
Burt:
I beg to move amendment No. 72, in
clause 85, page 56, line 27, leave
out from ‘(6)’ to end of line
28.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 76, in
clause 86, page 56, line 42, leave
out paragraph (c).
No.
78, in
clause 86, page 57, line 5, leave
out paragraph (b).
No.
80, in
clause 86, page 57, line 12, leave
out
‘or additional local
improvement
targets’.
No.
82, in
clause 86, page 57, line 20, leave
out
‘or additional local
improvement
targets’.
Alistair
Burt:
The amendments largely follow the pattern of the
discussion that we have just had, in relation to targets and everything
else, so I will not overdo them.
Despite the Minister’s
continual protestations that this is a mass devolutionary Bill, the
equivalent of the tennis court oath for his Government, we remain
concerned that there is some resistance outside. I would like to quote
from a commentary that I found from Pinsent Masons, the
solicitors’ firm that produced a comprehensive note on the Bill,
which it entitled “Local Government Bill - A Night At The Local
Government Opera”. It is written in a jaunty style throughout,
and the fact that anyone can make fun of these provisions shows a
degree of imagination not normally associated with property
lawyers.
I welcome
the contribution of the author, Mr. Nicholas Dobson, who is
the national head of local government law at Pinsent Masons. I have
read his submission carefully and he makes some cogent arguments about
a variety of amendments, some of which we have incorporated into our
thinking. His style is to be commended, but in relation to these
targets and agreements, I merely quote his conclusion:
“When the Bill was
published
LGC”—
the Local
Government
Chronicle—
“reported
that ‘Local government minister Phil Woolas has insisted the
government has made good on its devolution rhetoric by legislating for
stronger
councils.’”
Mr.
Dobson
concludes:
“Nevertheless
the LAA provisions”—
the local area agreement
provisions—
“do
look very much more like firm central
control.”
We would simply
submit that, in relation to targets and everything to do with them,
that argument is reinforced, hence our interest in removing the powers
of Government to add extra targets and to try to get more leeway in the
Bill to remove targets.
We have had that discussion and
remain of the view that there is too much central control and too many
centralising targets. Until we actually see how area agreements operate
and whether the Secretary of State continues to seek to impose her will
on local authorities by having too much control over local targets with
a national flavour, we will not be sure whether the Minister’s
rhetoric is being delivered on the ground. We wait to see.
In the Sustainable Communities
Bill the Minister wants the veto power of the Secretary of State
removed. I am sure that I could have a word with my hon. Friend the
Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd), who is promoting
that Bill, and ask him whether that power can be taken away. Perhaps
the Minister’s concerns about this Bill doing things the other
way around will then be assuaged, further encouraging him to accept our
suggestion. That is all that I wish to say on the amendments, as they
follow the debate that we have just
had.
Mr.
Woolas:
Were the hon. Gentleman to do that regarding the
private Member’s Bill, that would take away one of my concerns.
I do not want the Committee to think that the removal of that single
concern would be the only change necessary. The direction of travel of
that Bill, of course, is in line with this
one.
In light of the
manner and tone in which the amendment was moved, perhaps I should
emphasis that the Government have not stated that every area must have
the same number of targets. They might be different in different areas.
We envisage that examples of targets being changed by revision, using
the powers that we are asking for in the Bill, will be exceptional. For
example, if there were a national terrorist alert the Secretary of
State might choose to direct a responsible local authority to prepare
and submit a revision proposal, and he might issue guidance on the type
of new targets to be included in it. One can imagine that that might
well be the case for some of our major local authorities. Once the
Secretary of State had approved that proposal, he or she would be able
to designate any new target relating to security. By contrast, if local
targets were added simply by agreement between the parties under
subsection (6), they could not be designated in that manner. It would
not be appropriate in the circumstances in my example for a national
priority target to be treated as a purely local one.
On that difference between
local targets and those that could be designated, when hon. Members
think the process through they will find that their anxieties cannot be
realised. The process has yet to be tested and there will be a learning
curve for local authorities and Government offices and Ministers, but
the amendment would change the process substantially, to the detriment
of the flexibility of local targets. That is why it says on my piece of
paper here, “Resist.”
Alistair
Burt:
I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
85 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
86
Designated
targets: revision
proposals
Dr.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab): I beg to
move amendment No. 116, in
clause 86, page 57, line 10, at
end insert—
‘(iii) Members
of Parliament for the
area.’.
The
key point of the amendment is to explore whether it would be possible
to put in the Bill an opportunity for Members of Parliament to be
involved in the revision of local area agreements or refer matters to
overview and scrutiny committees.
We must not fall into the trap
of believing that local authorities uniformly welcome attention from
MPs on their operation, effectiveness and service delivery. I should
say in passing that I have an excellent relationship with the
four-star, and improving well, Durham county council, but I recognise
that that is not always the case. In any case, we should not rely on
individual good will to secure a role for Members of
Parliament.
I should
be grateful if the Minister would consider whether a formal mechanism
is needed to ensure that Members can not only get involved in the
revision of local area agreements but refer matters affecting their
constituents to the overview and scrutiny
panels.
5
pm
Mr.
Woolas:
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for City of
Durham for raising this important matter. The role of Members of
Parliament in this process has been debated and is rising up the policy
agenda. Indeed, two local strategic partnerships in England are chaired
by MPs and many others involve their MPs, formally and informally.
However, as my hon. Friend recognised, MPs fall into a unique position.
I always believe that, outside this place, we have influence but not
power and that, inside it, we have one 650th of power, although
somebody once said that there is a first among equals—but I am
not going there.
Our
unique status as legislators and MPs bears on the attitude to the
amendment. Members of Parliament have experience both of the issues
faced by local people and an understanding of the key national
priorities. The Bill does not preclude any involvement for hon. Members
in their localities’ local area agreement. I expect that MPs
will have a significant influence in the establishment of the 35 or so
targets for their areas. Members of Parliament are, perhaps, unique in
having an overview of the whole place, not of an individual
institution, which is the important thing that we bring to the
table.
The amendment
would introduce a formal role, laid in statute, for MPs in the LAA
process with the effect that, when a responsible authority prepared a
revision proposal, it would have to consult the MPs for the area
covered by the LAA, as well as consulting each partner authority and
such other persons as appear to it to be
appropriate. We should not accept hon. Members being
placed in a position where they must be consulted by their local
authorities every time a revision proposal is being prepared. That is
not in the spirit of the Bill. The decision about whether to consult
MPs should be left, at that level of the process, to the discretion of
the responsible authority and its elected members. It would not always
be practical for MPs to be consulted, because MPs and their local
elected members may not take the same position on local and national
issues. I can give
some backing to my hon. Friend on the revision proposals, which require
the approval of the Secretary of State, thereby ensuring that a
mechanism is already in place to ensure that the national perspective
is represented. In addition, the Secretary of State is accountable to
Parliament through the processes available to MPs, including the normal
questioning, tabling motions and the rights and privileges that we
have. That power
exists.
The decision
about whether to place the MP in a formal consultation role would
change the relationship between the statutory bodies and ourselves.
People in future might wish to go that way. The process that the Bill
sets in place gives greater strategic powers to local authorities and
their areas and, inevitably, challenges the roles of the MP, the
back-bench councillor and the executive member. To include a Member of
Parliament in a statutory consultation at this stage would create not
just policy difficulties, but legal difficulties, given that we are the
legislators that ultimately hold to account the local area agreements.
My hon. Friend might find herself inadvertently in a worse position
than she intended.
The policy of
the Government and my Department is that, irrespective of party
political persuasions, Members of Parliament should be involved, both
formally and informally, with local authorities and other statutory
bodies. That is part of our democracy. Most authorities and statutory
bodies accept that that is quite right and proper. Indeed, good
authorities welcome such involvement and recognise that, even when the
relationship between the Member of Parliament and the local authority
is fraught, it is part and parcel of our democracy, and that we should
approach that fairly. I take very seriously indeed—as does the
Secretary of State—any example of a local authority that does
not facilitate the full involvement of its Member of Parliament in
policy decisions. That is not a partisan point, but a point made on
behalf of
Parliament.
Dr.
Blackman-Woods:
I thank the Minister for that
response. I will not press the amendment to a vote at present. What I
am trying to achieve is that, somewhere in the Bill, there will be a
steer to local authorities that they should, as a matter of good
practice, involve Members of Parliament in advising the local area
agreement and in providing an overview of scrutiny. I should be very
grateful if that issue could be looked at further. However, I beg to
ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
86 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clauses
87 to 91 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
