Clause
167
Exercise
of functions under section 166:
records
Amendments
made: No. 213, in clause 167, page 119, line 32, leave out
‘100C’ and insert
‘100E’.
No.
214, in
clause 167, page 119, line 33, leave
out ‘100CA’ and insert
‘100EA’.
No.
215, in
clause 167, page 120, line 5, leave
out ‘100CA(2)’ and insert
‘100EA(2)’.
No.
216, in
clause 167, page 120, line 5, at
end insert—
‘( ) In section
41 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976
(c. 57) (evidence of resolutions and minutes of proceedings
etc)—
(a) in subsection
(2A)(a), after “that authority,” insert “or a
member of that
executive”;
(b) in
subsection (2A)(b), after “as the case may be,” insert
“by the member of that executive
or”;
(c) after
subsection (2A)
insert—
“(2B)
Subsection (2C) applies to a record
if—
(a) it records a
decision made or action taken by a member of a local authority or of a
precursor of a local authority in exercise of a function of the
authority or precursor by virtue of arrangements made under section 166
of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007,
and
(b) it is required to be
made by regulations under section 100EA of the Local Government Act
1972.
(2C) If a document which
purports to be a copy of a record to which this subsection applies
bears a certificate—
(a)
purporting to be signed
by—
(i) the proper
officer of the local authority,
or
(ii) a person authorised in
that behalf by that officer or by the local authority,
and
(b) stating that the
decision was made or the action was taken by the member of the local
authority on the date specified in the
certificate,
the document shall
be evidence in any proceedings of the matters stated in the certificate
and of the terms of the decision, or nature of the action, in
question.”’.—[Angela E.
Smith.]
Clause
167, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
168
Amendments
relating to capital finance and accounting
practices
9.45
am
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Robert Syms (Poole) (Con): The clause seems restrictive
about what a local authority can do. Proposed new section 21(1A) of the
Local Government Act 2003
states:
“The
Secretary of State may issue guidance about the accounting practices to
be followed by a local authority, in particular with respect to the
charging of expenditure to a revenue
account.”
I am interested
to know the reason for the change to the 2003 Act. Will the Minister
explain it? It need not be a long
explanation.
The
Minister for Local Government (Mr. Phil
Woolas):
Good morning, Mr. Benton. I will
endeavour to explain the reason briefly, although I think that the hon.
Gentleman recognises that it is sometimes difficult to be brief about
local government finance and, in particular, capital
financing.
If you will
allow me to do so, Mr. Benton, it may be helpful for me to
take the opportunity to draw to hon. Members’ attention the
letter that I wrote to you and the other members of the Committee,
enclosing information on the amendments that will be introduced on
Report to limit the scope of the Secretary of State’s power to
direct proposals for unitary authorities. I gave that commitment and I
wanted to record that I have fulfilled
it.
Michael
Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con): He is buying
time.
Mr.
Woolas:
No, I am not buying time. I have the explanation
and I am fulfilling the obligation that I gave to the Committee in
putting it on the record, following the agreement with the Local
Government
Association.
The
answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Poole is that the
clause, as he will see, contains three separate provisions, all
relating to part 1 of the 2003 Act. Hon. Members will recall that that
legislation was used to bring in the prudential capital finance system,
which allows local authorities to borrow to pay for capital projects
without Government consent, so long as they can afford to service the
debt from their own resources. That system has been widely recognised
in local government as a success. My hon. Friend the Member for
Plymouth, Devonport will remember it well. It has been one of the major
changes in local government
finance.
Clause 168(1)
is needed because the new capital finance legislation replaced earlier
statutory provisions. The latter are referred to in subsequent pieces
of legislation that remain in force, but all those references were
rendered obsolete by the 2003 Act, which is a common result of new
laws. As is usual, the 2003 Act contained a power enabling the
cross-references to be
updated by secondary legislation, and in 2003 such an order was made,
containing all the consequential amendments that were then thought
necessary. The need
for further such changes has recently been identified and it is
possible to deliver them through this Bill, which is why I have
included clause 168(1). As the hon. Member for Poole will know, it
amends section 74 of the Housing Act 1988, which provides for the
transfer of local authority housing to housing action trusts. In
dealing with payments between the parties, it relies on terms used in
the former local government capital finance legislation. Those
provisions now need to be expressed in the terminology of the 2003
Act.
That means that
this is a tidying-up clause, because we did not spot the need for the
changes last time. In fact, that is slightly unfair to my team. This is
a consequence of terminology. We are bringing up to date matters that
have been referred to before. I hope that the explanation is
satisfactory and if I were to say that my speaking note goes on for
another seven pages, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would consider
that.
Mr.
Syms:
I am sorry I
asked— [Laughter.]
Mr.
Woolas:
I have been learning that all night. It took me to
about midnight to get to that
one.
Question put
and agreed
to.
Clause 168
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
169
Contracting
out
Mr.
Woolas:
I beg to move amendment No. 235, in clause 169,
page 121, line 36, at end
insert—
‘(oa) an authority
established by an order under section (implementation of proposals by
order) of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act
2007 (joint waste
authorities);’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: Government new clause 26— Proposals for joint waste
authorities in
England.
Government
new clause
27—Consultation.
Government
new clause 28—Implementation of proposals by
order.
Government
new clause 29—Membership of joint waste
authorities.
Government
new clause 30—Consequential
amendments.
Government
new clause 31—Joint waste authorities in
Wales.
Government
new clause
32—Interpretation.
Government
amendments Nos. 236, 237, 239, 242, 244 and
246.
Mr.
Woolas:
I have long believed that any Bill passing through
the House should have a final schedule to be known as the schedule for
common sense. These proposals are common sense, long overdue, have been
requested by local authorities and they will improve service delivery
and save the taxpayer money.
I am grateful to you,
Mr. Benton, for allowing me to table these amendments. In
all honesty, if I had had time, I would have included them in the
published Bill. However, because of time pressure and the desire to get
things, I wanted to wait but I am glad that I have been able to
introduce the amendments in
Committee.
Waste is
one of the top pressures on council tax. The increase in waste, as a
result of a more prosperous and changing society, is one of the main
inflationary pressures on local government, as identified by the joint
work that we have done with the Local Government Association. I have
been pressed on this point by the Association of District Treasurers
for many months and, indeed, years.
These new clauses allow
districts and counties to enter into joint arrangements for the
collection and disposal of waste. London boroughs already do this
between them, by joining up—of course, London boroughs have the
waste and recycling responsibility—into four London waste
authorities. Metropolitan authorities have the opportunity, and the
largest waste authority in the country is the Greater Manchester waste
authority, which involves 10 local authorities working together to
achieve efficiencies in procurement and
savings.
Michael
Fabricant:
Two or three years ago, Lichfield district
council was top. I am not talking about the parish being the largest
parish in the country—I was slapped down and told it was
Weston-super-Mare—but I do know that Lichfield district was the
best recycler in the country. It has been held back, to some degree, by
liaison with Staffordshire county council. This measure will help us go
from second place, which is where I think we are, back up to first
place.
Mr.
Woolas:
I was with David Smith, the leader of Lichfield
district council yesterday afternoon.
[
Interruption.
] Indeed, he is a Conservative who
chairs the West Midlands Local Government Association very ably. I can
confirm that what the hon. Member for Lichfield says is true. I can
also confirm from my conversations with the leader that the mace is
safe; the hon. Gentleman need not worry, but he makes a good
point.
Lichfield has
done very well but, broadly speaking, the authority areas that recycle
the most are the better-off areas. That is true irrespective of the
political persuasion of the council. The districts have been asking to
be able to work with counties for some time. We had a group report from
the high-performing local authorities, of which I believe Lichfield was
a member. These are the three-star and improving and four-star councils
that group together to advise the Government on how to make
improvements in these matters. Their report, in support of this
proposal, identified efficiency gains of approximately £150
million that would result simply from knocking down this legislative
barrier to being able to set up joint working authorities.
The
separation of decision-making powers and funding streams into two-tier
areas inhibits the efficiency of the waste management function.
Additionally, not all local authorities have the optimum size to
deliver the efficiencies. It has long been the case that the argument
for unitary authorities has rested on the example of districts
collecting
rubbish and counties disposing of it. As part of our permissive regime,
we are trying to encourage joint working as well as considering unitary
proposals.
Tom
Levitt (High Peak) (Lab): If the measure is likely to
enable Lichfield to improve its performance, will it also help the
Liberal-Conservative controlled High Peak council to rise from near the
bottom of the recycling
league?
Mr.
Woolas:
I expect that it will, and I expect that if I
answered to the contrary, I would get a steaming letter from my hon.
Friend. He is right. We are trying to facilitate better working
together across boundaries and between tiers of government. The
financial pressures on waste and recycling identified by the councils
result from the huge need for capital investment in recycling and other
measures identified by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs strategy document. Not all of that, incidentally, should or
will fall on local authorities. However, it is the local
authorities’ responsibility. There are significant financial
reasons why the proposal is
beneficial.
Mr.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con): As in so many other matters
during this part of the debate, I rise to highlight the merits of
Shropshire as a pathfinder in many areas of local government. We are a
four-star county council, and we have established with the district
councils a Shropshire waste partnership, which began its deliberations
some six years ago. Had the legislation existed at the time to
facilitate what is proposed in the clauses, it would not have taken the
districts and county six years to achieve joined-up waste collection
and disposal, which is due to come into force at the end of this
year.
I support the
Government’s objective but, contrary to the Minister’s
point a moment ago that the measure is necessary to demonstrate the
importance of unitary as an appropriate model, we in Shropshire have
secured agreement between the two
tiers—
The
Chairman:
Order. I am sorry, but this is becoming a
lengthy intervention. It is beginning to sound more like a
contribution.
Mr.
Woolas:
My argument is not an argument for unitary. My
point was that the desirability of bringing together collection and
disposal has been used as an argument for unitary. It is the most
common argument. Because the Government have a genuinely permissive
approach, it makes sense if we are not imposing unitary
authorities—and the hon. Gentleman knows that we are
not—to facilitate better joint working between districts and
counties, particularly where they have asked for it. The head of steam
behind the measure is very strong indeed. Ken Thornber, leader of
Hampshire county council, made strong representations with his
districts on that point, as have other county local
authorities.
New clause 27
will introduce a requirement on local waste authorities to consult
relevant electors and other interested persons in their area on a draft
of their proposal. New clause 28 will allow the Secretary of State to
implement proposals for joint waste authorities.
New clause 29 provides the
requirements for membership of joint waste authorities. Only members of
the constituent local waste authorities will be able to be members of
joint waste authorities. A newspaper headline on the proposal in the
Daily Mail, instead of describing it as a common-sense measure,
said something like “Blair to chop elected authorities of
rubbish responsibility”, implying that we were establishing a
quango that would not be accountable. Of course, the waste authorities,
like existing waste authorities, will be led by elected members, albeit
elected members from different areas. Perhaps the journalist had had a
heavy lunch and was looking for some knocking copy. I assure Committee
members that only members of the constituent local waste authorities
can be members of that new joint waste
authority.
10
am
If
the proposals are accepted, we would require a number of consequential
amendments to be made to ensure that joint waste authorities are
considered as the relevant authority for specific functions in the Bill
and in other legislation. Those changes are set out in new clause 30
and amendments Nos. 235 to 237 and No. 242.
Robert
Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): As the Minister
knows, the London borough of Bromley has a good record on recycling and
is top of the league in London, particularly if garden waste is
excluded. Perhaps the Minister could introduce a clause to enable West
Ham United to get up the league table. That is a tall order, but I was
hoping that he would work on
it.
My specific point
relates to an issue that I mentioned during the evidence hearings. Will
there be anything to prevent local authorities in different counties
from forming a joint waste authority? One can think of circumstances,
albeit unusual ones, in some of the big conurbations where it may make
economic and environmental sense for people to combine across county
boundaries. That is not how we tend to think in local government terms,
but it may be sensible. I should like reassurance that, if there is
agreement among all the authorities, there would be nothing to inhibit
them from doing
so.
Mr.
Woolas:
The Government have issued guidance to Alan
Curbishley, the manager of West Ham, advising him to use a mobile phone
when driving, because I have been told that that is the only way he
will get three points. I apologise, Mr. Benton, because I
should have declared an interest as a Manchester United season ticket
holder. We tried to assist West Ham’s negotiations with the
Olympic delivery body to ensure that the club was able to move into a
new stadium. My rationale was that it would then compete more with
Chelsea and Arsenal, which would benefit Manchester
United.
The answer to
the hon. Gentleman’s question is a big and desirable yes.
Authorities are already coming together through contracting
arrangements. For example, the Park Royal industrial estate in
north-west London—the largest in western Europe—spans the
boundaries of three London boroughs and has contracting arrangements
for shared waste disposal and recycling. I mentioned previously other
examples of districts, particularly in rural county areas, coming
together to co-operate on revenue and benefits. On the hon.
Gentleman’s point about the waste authority, there is a case for
what he suggests—either on the edge of a conurbation with a
rural area or between districts spanning county
boundaries. Authorities
that do not share a geographical boundary are increasingly coming
together, where it makes sense for them to work together, in respect of
expertise, geography, or for other reasons. For example, Tameside
metropolitan borough council, a four-star council, and Camden council
in London co-operate on processing housing benefit claims for Camden
residents. Unison’s claim for London weighting for employers in
Tameside was one of the most innovative that I have seen. The hon.
Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is right. Such joint working,
leading to efficiencies, breaks down barriers, stops local authority
boundaries being the be-all and end-all, and allows change through a
commissioning regime that will allow savings to be made. It is
ridiculous that there are different arrangements for the procurement of
vehicles, and so on, when the taxpayer can benefit from better working
together.
The answer
to the hon. Gentleman’s question is yes and I am grateful to him
for giving me the opportunity to put my
case.
Alistair
Burt (North-East Bedfordshire) (Con): With his joke, the
Minister made an early bid for the champagne moment of the day. We
welcomed the joke—it was very well put. I wondered whether he
would follow it up with further knowledge of West Ham and the great
Bobby Zamora, and repeat the well known chant, “When the
ball’s in the goal, it’s not Shearer or Cole; it’s
Zamora.” [
Laughter.
] That was perhaps a
lame effort by me to steal the champagne moment of the day, but we will
come back to that later. [
Interruption.
] One just
knows certain things about football. But I am from Bury—I am a
Reds and Shakers
fan.
My purpose in
rising is to welcome the new clauses. Conservatives have been pressing
the case to allow such
co-operation.
Andrew
Stunell:
I want the Committee to be aware that Stockport
County have broken a 119-year-old league record for winning matches and
not conceding goals. I would not want the moment to pass, as football
teams seem to be the flavour of the
moment.
The
Chairman:
Order. We should move away from football soon.
Each party has had a little go, but it might be as well to return to
the amendment under
discussion.
Alistair
Burt:
We shall not try your patience any further,
Mr. Benton, on such a lovely morning.
My party welcomes the new
clause. Indeed, we have been pressing for some time for the
introduction of such a measure. We appreciate that it is permissive and
that it allows authorities the opportunity and option to work together,
which is exactly the right thing to
do.
I thank the Local
Government Association for its briefing. We appreciate its work in
informing the Committee and keeping us up to speed through its
briefings. I wish to raise a couple of points that it made and get the
Minister’s comments on them. The LGA states that it
is “not convinced that it
is necessary for the bill to provide the Secretary of State with powers
to dissolve Joint Waste
Authorities.”
It said
that it would seek a brief explanation
“of the circumstances in which the
Secretary of State might take such
action”
and use such
powers. It
states:
“The
LGA is keen that the final drafting of the bill puts local authorities
firmly in the driving seat when a proposal for a Joint Waste Authority
is formulated. Central government must not be prescriptive in making
modifications and we would like assurance that any duty to consult is
proportionate.”
I would
be grateful if the Minister would briefly tackle those two points, if
he
can.
While
the Minister is finding the information, I would add that he was right
to say that waste is a significant and growing factor for local
authorities and their budgets to deal with. Many councils make the
point that increased duties are placed on them by the Government, but
that it is sometimes difficult for them to find resources to meet
ever-more onerous requirements. There plainly is complete
complementarity of interest between the Government and local
authorities in doing their best on this score. I would like to
congratulate Bedfordshire county council, which has made significant
efforts to improve its recycling position. Its committee, under the
leadership of Councillor Tom Wootton, has done very
well.
Tom
Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD): The hon. Gentleman
refers to councils’ recycling. Would he join me in
congratulating the Conservatives on Sutton council on deposing their
deputy leader because he did not find time to recycle at all? Is that
something that the hon. Gentleman would recommend other local
authorities
do?
Alistair
Burt:
The hon. Gentleman is tempting me not to a champagne
moment but to a suicidal moment in welcoming the deposing of any
Conservative council on any council. On this occasion, my briefing is
not sufficiently extensive for me to give him an adequate response. He
has put the matter on the record in his own way, and we should be
content to leave it at
that.
Just to
reiterate, Conservative Members are pleased with the new clauses, and
we hope that, where it is appropriate and where it would be effective,
joint waste authorities come into
being.
Andrew
Stunell:
We, too, welcome the provisions and the way in
which they have been introduced. In responding to the hon. Member for
North-East Bedfordshire, however, could the Minister tell us whether
the Secretary of State’s residual powers, which the LGA has
queried, are a response to the situation in Greater Manchester? For a
number of years, it was a matter of great frustration that the waste
authority’s constituent councils were required to reach a
unanimous decision to change the charging regime. It was widely
recognised that the regime operated contrary to public policy in that
it charged those who
recycled most, rather than those who recycled least. That has now been
put right, but there was a logjam in the decision-taking process, and I
should be very satisfied if the Minister could reassure me that the
power that he holds, to which the LGA objects, would prevent such a
logjam in future.
Mr.
Woolas:
On that last point, I shall need to write to the
hon. Gentleman. I agree with what he says. As he knows, my council is
the secretariat for the Greater Manchester waste authority,
and—it is surprising what one learns as a local MP—the
procurement contract into which it is entering is the largest public
sector contract in Europe. It relates to rubbish, bins, collection and
recycling and is hugely important to the public and the taxpayer. If I
may, therefore, I shall give him the details that he needs in a letter
because I do not know the answer to his question.
I think, however, that I can go
some way towards addressing hon. Members’ other questions. On
modification, a proposal made to the Secretary of State that might
require minor alteration would be fettered because the Secretary of
State could not create a joint waste authority for an area that was
different from the area specified in the proposal or establish a joint
waste authority to discharge functions that were not specified in the
proposal.
On
abolition, new waste authorities might be created through the
amalgamation of waste authorities that had come forward under the new
proposal. If three districts came together across county boundaries, as
the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst suggested, and the new
authority was a success and wanted to expand, it would need to make a
new proposal, and the old one would need to be abolished. In
exceptional circumstances, an authority might simply have imploded and
might not be working, and its poor performance would mean that it would
have to be got rid off and that new arrangements would have to be put
in place. The provisions are intended as a backstop should an authority
seriously fail. Those are the circumstances that are envisaged under
the new arrangements, and I hope that that answers the point in the LGA
briefing.
Amendment agreed
to.
Clause
169, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
