Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

---

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairmen: † Mr. Joe Benton , Mr. Christopher Chope

† Blackman-Woods, Dr. Roberta (City of Durham) (Lab)

† Brake, Tom (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)

† Brown, Lyn (West Ham) (Lab)

† Burrowes, Mr. David (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)

† Burt, Alistair (North-East Bedfordshire) (Con)

† Dunne, Mr. Philip (Ludlow) (Con)

† Fabricant, Michael (Lichfield) (Con)

† Gwynne, Andrew (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)

† Hall, Patrick (Bedford) (Lab)

† Levitt, Tom (High Peak) (Lab)

† Neill, Robert (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)

Pugh, Dr. John (Southport) (LD)

† Seabeck, Alison (Plymouth, Devonport) (Lab)

† Shaw, Jonathan (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)

† Smith, Angela E. (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government)

Soulsby, Sir Peter (Leicester, South) (Lab)

† Stunell, Andrew (Hazel Grove) (LD)

† Syms, Mr. Robert (Poole) (Con)

† Turner, Mr. Neil (Wigan) (Lab)

† Waltho, Lynda (Stourbridge) (Lab)

† Woolas, Mr. Phil (Minister for Local Government)

John Benger, Alan Sandall, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Column number: 575

Public Bill Committee

Thursday 8 March 2007

(Morning)

[Mr. Joe Benton in the Chair]

Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

Further written evidence to be reported to the House

LGPI 17 Committee on Standards in Public Life

9.30 am

Clause 165 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 14

Powers of National Assembly for Wales

Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD): I beg to move amendment No. 212, in schedule 14, page 166, line 44, at end insert—

‘Matter 12.6

Provision for and in connection with methods of election and electoral arrangements.’.

Welcome back, Mr. Benton. I shall be brief because we have to make a lot of progress today.

The schedule relates to the powers devolved to the National Assembly for Wales and on pages 165 and 166 of the Bill is a list of additional powers and changes to powers. The amendment would add an additional power transferred to the National Assembly for Wales that relates to the delegation of methods of election and electoral arrangements for local government in Wales. At the moment, the Assembly and the Administration in Wales are competent to propose changes, but they have to be signed off here at the Westminster Parliament. Bearing in mind the huge surge of democracy that took place in this building last night, I hope that the Government see fit, particularly remembering the devolutionary words of the Ministers in this Committee, to agree that the amendment should be added to the list of powers, thus giving the Administration and the Assembly in Wales the competence to make the same changes that have been made in Scotland and which would be very much of a piece with the devolutionary atmosphere in the Bill.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Angela E. Smith): It is good to see you back in the Chair, Mr. Benton, this fine morning. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for tabling the amendment. It is interesting how the word “devolution” is sometimes bandied around in Committee and the different interpretations that are given to it.

The amendment would enable the Assembly Government to bring forward proposals for the

Column number: 576

National Assembly to legislate on methods of election and electoral arrangements for local government in Wales. The UK Government are committed to using UK Bills to confer new powers on the National Assembly if it is appropriate to do so. The Assembly Government have asked that we take the opportunity of this Bill to bring forward proposals in respect of local government in Wales, but they have not sought the power that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove has asked us to give. Devolution is a matter that the Assembly Government should raise first. It would not be right for the Committee to propose something that has not been requested by the Assembly Government. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Andrew Stunell: On the grounds that we live to fight another day, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 14 agreed to.

Clause 166

Exercise of functions by local councillors in England

Andrew Stunell: I beg to move amendment No. 178, in clause 166, page 118, line 36, leave out ‘senior executive member’ and insert ‘whole council’.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment

No. 179, in clause 166, page 118, line 36, after ‘arrangements’, insert

‘by majority resolution of the whole council’.

Andrew Stunell: The amendment relates to who should be authorised to delegate power to ward councillors. Should it be a senior executive member as the Bill states at present or should it be the result of a decision made by the whole council as set out in the amendment? Given the power as it is, senior executive members might be a lot more reluctant to devolve power than the council collectively and, in fact, the Government’s wishes might be frustrated. There would be more flexibility and more devolution if the matter were for discussion and decision by the whole council.

I am sure that all members of the Committee understand the realities of power and local government. In 80 or 90 per cent. of all decisions, it is likely that the council will follow the wishes and direction of the executive members. However, it seems proper for the council as a whole to have the opportunity to override an executive who are excessively centralist or unwilling to release power or to devolve decision making. The Minister has just said that devolution can be used in many ways. Obviously that is true, but the amendment is about ensuring that there is internal devolution or broader democratic oversight of the devolution inside councils. I hope that the Under-Secretary will feel minded to accept our amendment.

Column number: 577

Angela E. Smith: I hate to disappoint the hon. Gentleman twice in one day, but I may have to do so. I hope that when I explain the reasons why, he will be happy to withdraw his amendment.

In speaking to the amendment, it may aid the Committee if I also say something about what the clause does. At this point, I would like to talk about what we are considering and explain what is intended by the empowerment of councillors for which the Bill provides.

Clause 166 is part of a strategy we have discussed many times during the course of the Bill. It enables councillors to be more visible to the electorate and to act more visibly. As we have discussed before, it is about being champions of the local community—front-line councillors who take the opportunity to effect positive change in their areas. The clause as it stands allows local authorities to empower individual members to discharge functions on behalf of the authority, but only to the extent that they relate to their own ward or division. It will be the job of the authority, discharged either by a senior executive member or, where appropriate, the full council, to determine the scope of the delegations. The arrangement to which the clause refers covers the methods to be used by councillors in exercising the empowerment that they are given by the authorities, as well as the scope. The clause provides for the Secretary of State to exclude specified categories of function by order and to limit the manner or the circumstances in which local authority arrangements can apply. Hon. Members will accept that there are many local authority functions that would be quite inappropriate to delegate to individual councillors.

We are talking about relatively straightforward issues. The proposal for the Secretary of State to limit by order is a significant constraint on the innovation. We need to work very closely with the Local Government Association and others to define it. We need to consult widely on laying an order before Parliament before coming to a final decision. Hon. Members will be aware that the clause dovetails with clause 92. It enables councillors to discuss matters themselves in the community concerned. It would be inappropriate and a waste of council resources always to refer such matters to overview and scrutiny.

Reading through yesterday’s edition of my local paper, I found an example which, I think the Committee would agree, would be a matter for a councillor with those powers. An 81-year-old lady living in Noak Bridge in Basildon had an intruder in her sheltered accommodation home. She asked the council to fit locks on the windows. The council’s response was, “We have not got the money for the locks, it is not in the budget. However, if you buy them yourself we will fit them.” That is an example of a situation in which a local councillor, using a small delegated budget, could buy the locks and arrange for them to be fitted without going through overview and scrutiny. The power is therefore limited. We expect that most authorities will want to make such arrangements themselves. Although it is a relatively minor power, it has major significance to the constituent who is on the receiving end of that support from the local councillor—or lack of support from their council. The

Column number: 578

power is a backstop—an extra provision to help local residents in a situation in which local council services have not worked well.

Another example is fly-tipping. A local resident has made repeated calls to a council to clean up an area that has been repeatedly fly-tipped. A local councillor, however, might be able to move things along more quickly, or start again through the official channels if they were not able to get action from the council. The first step would be for the council to speak to the service provider. When that does not work, there has to an additional recourse in which a councillor—many hon. Members on the Committee have been councillors themselves—can cut through the bureaucracy and get something done much more quickly. However, it is not for the Government to tell local authorities what those arrangements should be. In the two examples I gave, a small budget might be made available to councillors for a function, or a councillor might be given the opportunity, in limited circumstances, to place priority orders for the work of council contractors. Again, that will be for individual authorities to decide.

It is worth saying that it is not the Government’s intention to try to force front-line councillors into an executive role that they do not want.

Andrew Stunell: Perhaps the key comes in the Under-Secretary’s last phrase. I do not disagree with what she said about the desirability of local councillors having the opportunity to intervene in the direct way she describes, but the amendments are not about that; they are about the inhibitions that can be placed on such interventions, and whether a councillor’s budget and the decision to devolve will be at the behest of an executive member or of the whole council. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will address that issue.

Angela E. Smith: Patience is a virtue—I was coming to that in my very next sentence, but I thought it was worth setting out exactly what the clause seeks to do. With his experience of local government, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that in 2000, the separation of executive and front-line councillors was defined by legislation. The legislation provided that most council decisions were taken by a small number of highly visible, high-profile councillors—the executive or cabinet, as those groups were called in some areas. That made it easier for the public to identify clearly the councillors responsible for decision making. Council executives make the majority of day-to-day decisions—any function of the authority is the responsibility of the executive unless specified otherwise by regulations. Certain council functions are not under the direct authority of the executive, as specified by regulations. For example, decisions on development control and licensing are both functions for which a full council committee is responsible, and a full council makes budget decisions.

Under clause 40, when a function is an executive function, the executive can confer or delegate it to an individual councillor. When a function is a function of a committee or a full council, it will be for those bodies to delegate. It does not seem right for a body that does not have a responsibility for a function to delegate it to someone else. Clause 166 will allow the executive or the authority, depending on which of those has the

Column number: 579

responsibility for the function concerned, to empower an individual councillor. Although devolved powers are important, we would not want powers such as the budget, which is a function of an entire council, to be placed with an individual councillor. I hope that that explanation satisfies the hon. Gentleman—I can see him pondering it now—and that he will withdraw the amendments.

Andrew Stunell: It is always disappointing to get a rebuff and I have had two in 10 minutes from the Under-Secretary. I understand the point she made, but I cannot say that I am satisfied. Nevertheless, I beg to ask leave the withdraw the amendment.

Amendment withdrawn.

Clause 166 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

---

Prepared 9 March 2007