Clause
141
Matters
referred to monitoring
officers
Amendment
made: No. 191, in clause 141, page 100, line 26, leave out
‘and (3)’ and insert ‘, (1A) and (3) to
(5)’.—[Mr.
Woolas.]
Clause
141, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 142
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
143
Consultation
with
ombudsmen
Amendment
made: No. 192, in clause 143, page 101, leave out lines 32 and 33
and insert—
‘(2) In section
67 of that Act (consultation with ombudsmen), in each of subsections
(2) and (2A)—’.—[Mr.
Woolas.]
Clause
143, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clauses
144 to 148 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
149
Politically
restricted posts: grant and supervision of
exemptions
Mr.
Woolas:
I beg to move amendment No. 193, in
clause 149, page 107, line 24, at
end insert—
‘( ) A standards
committee must when determining for the purposes of subsection (3) or
(4) whether or not the duties of a post fall within section 2(3) have
regard to any general advice given by the Secretary of State under
section
3B.’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: Government amendmentNo.
194.
Government new
clause 18—Politically restricted posts: consequential
amendments.
Government
amendment No.
195.
Mr.
Woolas:
I ought briefly to explain the amendments for the
benefit of the Committee. They supplement the provisions already in the
Bill that put in place the new regime for handling politically
restricted posts in English local authorities. The new regime is also
intended to be
devolutionary.
Our
proposal is to abolish the national independent adjudicator, as has
been discussed. I made the point that the board runs the service
whereas the adjudicator is the person who considers serious
allegations. We are devolving the responsibilities in question to each
local authority’s independently chaired committee. They include
the responsibility to manage and maintain a list of posts designated as
politically restricted and tomake determinations on
applications for posts to be
exempted from that list. That will fulfil our
commitment made, as hon. Members will know, inthe December
2005 discussion group, which was the subject of one of the lunchtime
reading documents of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove. I hope that I
have got there
first. The amendments
will enable decisions on political restrictions to be made by local
standards committees and allow those committees to have access to
advicein undertaking their roles. Taken together, they will
provide for the Secretary of State to issue advice to assist standards
committees in making their decisions. That will replace the current
arrangement whereby the independent adjudicator issues such
advice.
Andrew
Stunell:
The Minister said that the amendments will allow
the committees to take advice, and then he explained that that advice
would come from the Secretary of State. Can he say something about the
strength of that advice and what obligation there will be on the
committees to have regard to it, implement it or whatever the other
legalistic words are? In other words, how much freedom will they have
to take a decision in defiance of the Secretary of
State?
Mr.
Woolas:
The measure is devolutionary, and the obligation
will be to have regard to the advice. The matter has come about because
if the national adjudicator is abolished, it must be replaced. In the
spirit of decisions being taken locally, I am trying to ensure that
committees will have regard to the advice. Of course there is limited
room for a committee to operate in respect of politically restricted
posts, but it seems to me common sense to allow some leeway. The idea
is that the Secretary of State’s advice will have to be given
regard to by the local committee. Sorry, Mr.
Benton—that was an intervention, was it
not?
The
Chairman
indicated
assent—
Before issuing advice, the
Secretary of State will be required to consult relevant organisations
and representative bodies. Standards committees will be required to
have regard to any advice that is issued in that way. If that point is
accepted, we shall make consequential amendments arising from the
Bill’s provisions on political arrangements to ensure that the
new arrangements will be consistent with existing legislation. I
commend the amendments to the
Committee.
Amendment
agreed
to.
3.30
pm
Amendment
made: No. 194, in clause 149, page 108, line 5, at end
insert—
‘3B General advice
as to politically restricted posts:
England
(1) The Secretary of
State may in relation to England give such general advice with respect
to the determination of questions arising by virtue of section 2(3) as
he considers appropriate.
(2)
Before giving general advice under this section the Secretary of State
must consult such representatives of local government and such
organisations appearing to him to represent employees in local
government as he considers
appropriate.”’.—[Mr.
Woolas.]
Clause 149, as amended,
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
150
Political
assistants’
pay
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Woolas:
Never has so much time and effort been taken by
political activists in this country over one simple clause as it has
been over clause 150 of this Bill. It relates to political
assistants’ pay and has been the subject of intense lobbying in
the past. I found myself in the unusual position 10 years ago of
representing political assistants, and it is a delight in regard of
that history to bring the clause to the House. It will be even more of
a delight for me as the Minister for Local Government for the clause to
be accepted. I plead with the Committee not to oppose
it.
Andrew
Stunell:
It is just as well that the doctrine of
predetermination does not apply to Members of
Parliament.
Mr.
Woolas:
It does, but there is cross-party support for the
clause. If members of the Committee are interested, I shall explain
what it does. It amends section 9 of the Local Government and Housing
Act 1989 to enable the Secretary of State, in making an order under
that section, to specify the maximum pay that political assistants are
to receive, by reference to a point on a relevant pay scale. It gives
the political assistant the advantage of being linked to a point on a
pay scale rather than to a whim. It also means that the Secretary of
State does not determine the pay rate of political assistants in
councils throughout the country, which has been the case indirectly
until
now.
Mr.
Dunne:
Will the Minister clarify whether my reading of the
clause is at fault? It suggests to me that it provides a fog over the
pay of political assistants rather than the transparency that his
opening remarks suggested was the Government’s aim. By referring
to points rather than amounts, surely the system would make it even
more difficult for those who are interested in establishing how much
political assistants actually
earn.
Mr.
Woolas:
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point,
but the clause will not do that. At the moment, the Secretary of State
is required to lay a new order each time the maximum rate of pay for
political assistants is to be uprated. Their pay was essentially frozen
for several years. It was illegal for councils to increase the pay of
political assistants unless the Secretary of State introduced an order,
which would have meant that, say, the pay of the political assistant to
the leader of Birmingham council would be determined by my right hon.
Friend the Deputy Prime Minister or the current Secretary of State. The
system was very bureaucratic. It meant that we were being asked to
determine someone’s pay, which we did not consider was the right
way round.
Under the
clause, the maximum pay of political assistants will be linked to a
point on the local government pay scale. That will allow any increases
in that pay point as a result of increases to the scale to be automatic
for the political assistant. The council will determine where on the
pay scale the political assistant should be appointed, and any
subsequent increases will be within the general rules and linked to the
scale.
Mr.
Dunne:
I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation.
It is helpful. Does that mean that the scale itself will be published
and available for public
disclosure?
Mr.
Woolas:
Indeed it does. Some local councils make different
provisions for pay scales that aresubject to discussions and
agreements between local government employers and trade union
representatives, often over and above those provisions. That
information is public. Similarly, it is not often known that a Member
of Parliament’s pay, as discussed by the Senior Salaries Review
Body, is linked to the pay of the superintendent or deputy head teacher
of a large secondary school. One would not know that from the press
coverage, but I take this opportunity to put it on
record.
Mr.
Burrowes:
I rise to make the point that the
Minister’s work load and mailbag for the provisions would have
been lessened if many authorities had followed the model in Enfield,
where we have nothad political assistants since the
Conservative administration came to office. We have three stars for
improvements made for the taxpayers of Enfield, who have not had the
burden of political assistants imposed on them. We do not seem to have
lost anything from it in terms of improvement. I am not sure whether
the Minister is aware how many other authorities have followed
Enfield’s good
example.
Mr.
Woolas:
I am completely lost as to whetherthis is
a speech, an intervention or the reply to an intervention, but I
seriously advise the hon. Gentleman not to go down that route, in light
of the political composition of political assistants. Although he makes
a point on behalf of his authority, I shall not write to the
Conservative leader of Birmingham to point out the issue that the hon.
Gentleman raised. That would be a cheap party political point, and I
would not make one in this Committee unless urged strongly to do so by
my hon.
Friends.
Andrew
Stunell:
For the avoidance of doubt, and despite my
earlier intervention, I must make it clear that the Liberal Democrats
support the clause. There are a number of serious anomalies in the way
that the existing legislation applies, with the question as to whether
somebody is or is not deemed to be a political assistant somewhat in
doubt. It is not in doubt in individual cases, but different
determinations have been made in different authorities, leaving some
people at a serious disadvantage. The clause is to be
welcomed.
Mr.
Woolas:
I thank the hon. Gentleman, and I concur. The
cross-party representations that I received confirm that. The situation
has also had the undesirable effect of placing policy officers, who are
officials and sometimes administrative staff, in a difficult position.
A council leader may be the leader of
an organisation with hundreds of millions of pounds
of expenditure and a wide range of responsibilities. If, in practice,
councils have not been appointing political assistants—despite
the fact that they previously did so with all-party
agreement—but have relied on policy officers, who are council
officials, it has placed those people in a difficult situation. That
was part of my reasoning for introducing the clause. I thank the hon.
Gentleman for his support, and I assure Conservative Members that
Conservative council leaders’ political assistants support it as
well.
Question put
and agreed
to.
Clause 150
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
151
Establishment
of the
Tribunal
Andrew
Stunell:
I beg to move amendment No. 125, in
clause 151, page 108, line 23, leave
out ‘abolished’ and insert
‘to be amalgamated such that each
new tribunal exercises jurisdiction over cases arising within each
Government Standard Economic
Region.’.
The
amendment is designed to test exactly what the Minister is up to in the
clause. At the moment the valuation tribunals throughout England are
many and have the advantage of local knowledge and local experience.
The proposal is for a single valuation tribunal for England. Our
amendment says, “Hang on a minute, if we are going to bring them
together, let’s have one for each region of the country.”
For thesake of simplicity, we have suggested one for each
Government region. I want the Minister to say exactly what he is doing
and why he is doing
it.
As it happens, not
only was my lunch time disrupted, but my late-night reading last night
was disrupted, because I received a communication from the Council of
Valuation Tribunal Members for England. I presume that the Minister has
also seen that document, which sets out a large range of possible
changes to the Bill that that body would like to see and that it says
would lead to amendments to the Local Government Act 2003 that would
make the situation better. I should like to know whether he has seen
what that body is saying and whether he accepts its line of
reasoning.
The purpose
of my amendment is to test the Minister on what we are doing and why we
are doing it. It would be of further benefit if he responded to some of
the criticisms and suggestions made by the Council of Valuation
Tribunal Members. It is fair to say that valuation tribunals do not
appear very often on the political radar of Members of Parliament, but
we might enter into a whole new realm if we ever get around to the
revaluation of council tax and various other things. The tribunals
could suddenly become much more important. It is therefore appropriate
for the Secretary of State to give good justification for what, on the
face of it, appears to be anything but a devolutionary
measure—if the Government get rid of individual tribunals around
England and consolidates them into one
body.
I look forward to
hearing the Minister’s reasoning and to his evaluation of the
critique provided by the Council of Valuation Tribunal Members in its
submission to Committee members.
Mr.
Woolas:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for tabling
the amendment. The clause has been long awaited by the service and the
people who serve in it. I shall use this opportunity to explain the
Government’s
thinking.
The hon.
Gentleman is right to say that the work of valuation tribunals rarely
appears on a Member of Parliament’s radar screen. That indicates
that they are doing a good job. The Government’s view is that
they do a good job, which prompts the question, “Why are you
changing them?” I want to explain why. Conservative Members, if
they are true to their philosophy, would object to change for
change’s sake—although not all Conservative Members would
do so, of course. We are adopting a devolutionary approach, consistent
with the Government’s wider policy on tribunals, which ensures
their independence and—I was going to say
“modernise”, but I suspect that Conservative
Members’ ears would prick up and it would prompt them to oppose
me, so let me say instead, “To bring them more up to
date”.
At the
moment, there are 56 tribunals in England, with chairs and presidents
nominated from their local areas, and with members who serve on them.
We should be grateful to them. They do not often get the headlines, and
we might ask how much work they do in light of the fact that there has
not been a valuation of domestic properties since 1991-92. Of course,
they also deal with appeals on new houses; anomalies resulting from
cases in which houses have been wrongly valued or in which that has
been alleged; and non-domestic rates.
3.45
pm
There is a
revaluation of non-domestic rates every five years, and one took place
two years ago. Those have nothing to do with the future of domestic
property revaluations; members of the valuation tribunal services get
on and do their jobs. The Government’s policy on tribunals in
general is to bring them under the remit of the judicial appointments
process, so that they are independent and seen to be
independent.
The hon.
Gentleman asks whether this is not a centralising measure, given that
there are 56 local tribunals at the moment. It is not our intention,
nor will it be the consequence of this proposal, that those local
tribunals will cease to sit. There will still be local tribunals. They
are needed in order to give the public confidence, to bring local
knowledge to the job and for the sake of administrative efficiency. At
the moment, the Valuation Tribunal Service, the national body, services
the tribunals but does not take judicial or quasi-judicial decisions
relating to valuations—that is the work of the tribunals, and
that will remain the case. That is the crucial point and answers the
hon. Gentleman’s question.
Clause 151 establishes a
valuation tribunal for England by giving effect to schedule 12 to the
Bill. It also abolishes the separate legal entity of the 56 valuation
tribunals that were created by the Local Government Finance Act 1988
and provides for the transfer of the jurisdiction of those tribunals to
the valuation tribunal for England. Schedule 12 amends schedule 11 to
the 1988 Act.
The Government’s view is
that it is not sustainableto continue with 56 separately
constituted valuation tribunals in England, and that variations from
modern tribunal practice in place in the valuation tribunals must be
addressed. Importantly, that view found support in the consultation
that we undertook. Although it has been the cause of some
contentionin the valuation tribunal world, the consultation
supported these moves, the responses to which emphasise that the local
culture of the valuation tribunals should be preserved, as the hon.
Gentleman suggested. That is why we have designed the framework for the
VTS in the way that we have.
The Government’s aim in
bringing forward these legislative amendments is to provide for good
tribunal practice and to encourage the efficient and effective running
of the valuation tribunals for the user and all interested parties
while continuing to sustain their judicial independence. I must
emphasise that it is not our intention, in making these changes, to
lose the local connection, nor do we believe that implementing the
proposals would alter or affect the local nature of the service
provided.
Andrew
Stunell:
This is another instance in which what the Bill
says is not what the Minister is tellingus. Let us take the
valuation service for Greater Manchester. Is he telling us that it will
still have the same chairs, the same participants and the same office
structure? What will be the difference between where we are now and
where we are going to be? Although we are making a change, he is
painting a picture as though we will see no change if we take Greater
Manchester as our
example.
Mr.
Woolas:
Of course, the remit and the administration of the
tribunals have evolved in recent years in any event. A number of
administrative centres have come together to ensure greater efficiency
and,in administrative terms, I see this measure as a
consequence of that move. It is not efficient to have 56 different
administrative centres, let alone tribunals.
In the case of Manchester,
tribunals made up of Manchester members will sit and consider decisions
that relate to the area, so the local nature of tribunals will not be
lost. What will change is that the single legal entity of a national
valuation tribunal for England will have at its head a person appointed
by the Commission for Judicial Appointments through the Secretary of
State for Constitutional Affairs, as is the case for other tribunals.
The employment tribunals that sit in Manchester and are made up of
Manchester people to discuss Manchester cases are part of a national
tribunal service, albeit locally implemented. We are putting forward
the proposals to bring about a greater guarantee of judicial
independence, a more sensible arrangement of administration and a
greater chance of consistency. The measures were contained in policy
documents and, I think, in the manifesto, and they were supported on
the whole, although not unanimously, by the consultation.
The hon. Gentleman might ask why
the Department for Communities and Local Government
willmaintain its role as the sponsoring Department of the
valuation tribunal, rather than the Department for Constitutional
Affairs taking it on. The answer is that I
wish to pursue an evolutionary approach. I do not want to create
unnecessary turmoil or turbulence within the service; there is no point
in fixing something that ain’t broke. In making my improvements,
I am taking a gradual, Fabian-like approach. I hope that hon. Members
will support the
proposal. On the
amendments, I mentioned that there are56 separate tribunals.
By establishing a single tribunal for England with a national
president, we seek to provide judicial independence. We envisage that
that will result—this comes out of conversations with the
service as constituted—in the creation of a regional dimension,
to go along with the local dimension that exists at the moment. We do
not think that to prescribe what that structure should be is the
correct approach, although we envisage that, in practice, that which
the hon. Gentleman seeks will be implemented. The consultation
underlined to many tribunal members the importance of preserving the
local culture of the valuation tribunals. The policy that we have put
in place will preserve
it.
Andrew
Stunell:
I shall probably need carefully to look at
Hansard, but I think that I heard the Minister say that the
practical outcome of the reorganisation that he proposes will probably
be that there will be regional units or sub-units of the
administration. Was that the point that he made or did I misunderstand
him?
Mr.
Woolas:
That is, indeed, what the hon. Gentleman heard.
There are already sub-regional arrangements between the tribunals. One
has to maintain the judicial independence of the tribunal members,
particularly the chair, so that decisions are taken free from the
administration of the tribunals. There is a members’ committee,
which operates on a national basis, outside the formal constitution of
the Valuation Tribunal
Service.
It is
envisaged that, in order to best service the tribunals at a local
level, the office servicing it will not be a national, but a regional
or, often in practice, a sub-regional one. Greater Manchester is a case
in point—there is a tribunal service for Manchester south and
for Manchester north. It is envisaged and expected that that will be
the case. That is the advice of Anne Galbraith, the chair of the
Valuation Tribunal Service, and of her board. Although I agree with the
intention of the amendment, I object to it because I do not think that
we should prescribe in the Bill in advance of the creation of the
tribunal.
Leaving aside
the question of whether the structure of the regions is suitable, I do
not think that it is appropriate to set out in the legislation the
internal structure of the VTE. Organisational arrangements will be
first and foremost matters for the president of the single tribunal,
who will, of course, be appointed through the independent judicial
process. It would be contradictory to suggest that the head of the
organisation should be independent, but to tell him how he should do
his job.
I hope that I
can reassure the hon. Gentlemanby, again, emphasising that our
view was supportedby the responses to the proposals set out in
the consultation document entitled, “Valuation Tribunals:
Modernisation and Reorganisation”—not a title picked
during my tenure, but we know what it means. As I said, those responses
were generally positive about the proposals for the creation of a
single tribunal for England and of the new position of VTE president to
be appointed through that judicial process. The consultation also
received support for the idea of vice-presidents in order to maintain
communication between the national tribunal for England and the local
tribunals that, in practice, do all the work. Again, I commend that
policy to the Committee. We received support during the
consultation that took place in the summer of 2006. Some 80 per cent.
of responses to the consultation came from tribunal members. I
emphasise to the Committee that the proposal for the creation of a
single valuation tribunal for England, with a national president
supported by a number of vice-presidents, received widespread support.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider withdrawing the amendment on the
grounds that it would prescribe in advance what an independent
president might want. I assure him on his point about the local nature
and, more importantly, on the judicial independence of the valuation
tribunal for
England.
Andrew
Stunell:
I thank the Minister again for a very measured
presentation of his case. It would appear that I shall get what I want
by default. I will have a couple of points to make during the clause
stand part debate so as to put further matters on the record. 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 shall not detain the Committee for long. I
referred before to a briefing provided to the Committee by the
Valuation Tribunal Service. Bearing in mind the reference that the
Minister made to its chairman, Anne Galbraith, I thought that I should
draw the Committee’s attention to its briefing which says that
she has stated on several occasions that she considers the appropriate
sections of the existing Act,—that is the Local Government Act
2003—to be flawed but neither she nor the Department has
attempted to rectify the problem as it would require primary
legislation. The new Bill offers that opportunity. The briefing goes on
to say:
“The
present Bill should change the composition of the VTS board by removing
judicial members and replacing them, if that is considered necessary,
with persons of administrative
experience.”
Can the
Minister tell us whether he has had the opportunity to consider the
briefing that has been provided, what his analysis of that briefing is
and whether he will give consideration to the matters raised there
about the necessity for further adjustments to this clause at some
later stage to take account of their
concerns.
4
pm
Mr.
Woolas:
I have not had sight of the particular document to
which the hon. Gentleman refers. I amof course familiar with
many of the issues that have been raised and I think the points reflect
a very
understandable anxiety among members of tribunals who hold their
independence, quite rightly, very preciously. The members of the
tribunals are asked to take decisions about people’s level of
council tax and the placing of the council tax band. That is an
important decision and the tribunal members do take that independence
very seriously indeed.
As the hon. Gentleman has said,
reflecting the views in the document, the Valuation Tribunal Service is
there to facilitate the running of the tribunals. The idea of the
president being appointed through the Judicial Appointments Commission
would be that we had somebody of high standing who would have
experience of the administrative functions of an organisation and the
areas of decisions of the tribunal service itself. That president would
be subject to appointment through recommendation of the Judicial
Appointments Commission, subject to the ratification of the Secretary
of State for Constitutional Affairs. Indeed, ratification by the Lord
Chancellor is the correct procedure.
My dealings with the tribunal
service have not been as high on the political barometer as the
political assistants pay issue has—in fact, it has been in the
bottom decile compared with that issue—but it is nevertheless a
serious issue that is subject to much intense debate. I would certainly
want to ensure that the model that would be created would serve for the
purposes of ensuring that
independence.
Andrew
Stunell:
Given all the matters that are making blips on
the Minister’s radar screen, it is quite understandable that
this one has not. However, I would appreciate it if he could take the
time to catch up with this particular bit of
paperwork.
I understand
that this particular council of tribunal members, if my briefing is
correct, currently represents two thirds of the presidents of the
existing tribunals. Clearly it is a body that has measured its words
carefully, and if it is appropriate for further adjustments to be made
I would ask the Minister to give the Committee an assurance that he has
not closed his mind to that possibility when he has had the opportunity
to digest its
words.
Mr.
Woolas:
I am more than happy to do that. The members
committee has indeed a judge as its chair to advise and help them. My
officials have met with that person and I have received representations
over the years on these matters. I understand there is currently a
request for a meeting with me on these matters. I undertake to follow
the course of action that the hon. Gentleman has urged on me.
I give the hon. Gentleman
further reassurance by pointing out to him that many of the members of
the tribunals are prominent councillors of all political persuasions. I
have been surprised to learn just how many councillors are on the
tribunals. They bring with them knowledge and expertise. These are not
just the warm words of a Minister in a Committee giving an undertaking
on behalf of his officials who will, as ever, diligently carry out the
work; it is something that comes not on the political radar screen but
on the policy radar screen.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause 151
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
12 agreed
to.
Clause 152
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
