 House of Commons |
Session 2006 - 07 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Sustainable Communities |
Sustainable Communities Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Chris
Shaw, Committee
Clerk
†
attended the Committee
Public Bill CommitteeWednesday 9 May 2007(Morning)[John Cummings in the Chair]Sustainable Communities Bill10
am
Resolved,
That
remaining proceedings on the Bill be taken in the following order:
Clauses 2 and 3; Clauses 5 to 13; the Schedule; new Clauses; new
Schedules; remaining proceedings on the
Bill.
—[Mr.
Hurd.]
<++++>
Clause 2Plan
published by the Secretary of
State
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
‘(1)
The Secretary of State shall, within six months of the passing of this
Act, consult all principal councils in accordance with this
section—
(a) on the
matters set out in the Schedule to this Act, which specifies matters
which affect the sustainability of local communities,
and
(b) on any other matters
which in the opinion of the Secretary of State affect the
sustainability of local
communities.
Consultation under
this subsection shall be by notice in writing (“a consultation
notice”).
(2) The
Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, require the consultation
under subsection (1) to be carried out by the Local Government
Association.
(3) Arrangements
made under subsection (2)
may—
(a) require the
Local Government Association to comply with the requirements of this
section relating to consultation by the Secretary of State,
and
(b) contain provisions not
specified in this section provided they do not conflict with any
requirement of this Act.
(4) A
district council or county borough council shall, within six weeks of
the date it receives a consultation notice, send a copy of the notice
to all parish or community councils in its
area.
(5) Subject to section 3,
any principal council may, in response to a consultation notice make
recommendations to the Secretary of State for measures which the
council reasonably believes would promote the sustainability of local
communities in its area.
(6) Any
recommendation under subsection (5) must be made by a council within a
period of nine months of the date on which it received the consultation
notice.
(7) The Secretary of
State must co-operate with the Local Government Association in drawing
up an action plan to promote the sustainability of local communities
which shall—
(a) be based
primarily on those recommendations that have been identified by the
Association as having cross-party support;
and
(b) include such other
recommendations made by principal councils as the Secretary of State
thinks fit.
(8) Before drawing
up the action plan, the Secretary of State must—
(a) consolidate the recommendations or
arrange for the Local Government Association to consolidate them;
and
(b) obtain from the Local
Government
Association—
(i) their
views as to the order in which the recommendations should be
implemented,
(ii) a list of
those recommendations which in the opinion of the Association should be
given the greatest priority,
and
(iii) a separate list of
those which received cross-party support in the
Association.
(9) Before drawing
up the action plan, the Secretary of State shall consider the views of
the Local Government Association and shall determine which
recommendations are not appropriate to be implemented immediately or at
all, on the grounds
that—
(a) the direct or
indirect costs likely to be involved in their immediate implementation
are excessive, or
(b) their
implementation in whole or in part is likely to conflict, to a
significant extent, with a specific government
objective.
(10) The Secretary of
State shall lay the action plan before each House of Parliament for
approval by each House.
(11) The
Secretary of State shall have a duty to implement the action plan and
for that purpose shall keep under review the progress made from time to
time in the implementation of the action
plan.
(12) The Secretary of
State shall ensure that every regional office of government cooperates
with principal councils and panels established under section 3(1)(a)
for the relevant region in the promotion of the sustainability of local
communities.
(13) The Secretary
of State shall in each Session of Parliament beginning after the
enactment of this act lay an annual report before each House of
Parliament containing the action plan, if completed, and detailing the
progress made to the date of the report in producing the action plan if
not completed, and in implementing the recommendations contained in the
action plan in pursuance of subsection
(7).
(14) The Secretary of State
shall be taken not to have complied with subsection (10) unless the
plan is approved by resolution of each House of
Parliament.’.
Mr.
Nick Hurd (Ruislip-Northwood) (Con): May I be the
first to welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Cummings? You are our
third Chairman and, I trust, the
last.
I
want to propose new clause 2, but first it might be beneficial for the
Committee to revisit some of the objectives and key principles
underlining old clause 2. It required the Government to produce a
long-term national action plan to combat the real social problems
associated with community decline, which were well aired on Second
Reading. The clause is non-prescriptive about what should be in the
national action plan, but it makes it clear that it must have a
difference and be a genuinely bottom-up action plan driven by
recommendations of local communities. While emphasising that principle,
we were going very much with the grain of the Government’s
rhetoric about
devolution.
There is
no shortage of helpful quotes from past and future leaders of the
Labour party and the Government in support of the principle. The
Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has
said:
“Most of
the solutions will be rooted in local
communities.”
The
Minister has
said:
“It is
for local people and their elected representatives to determine how
best to ensure that their community is sustainable and
thriving”.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer is on
record as saying that people and communities must now take power from
the state and that
that
“means a reinvention
of the way we
govern”.
The
proposals in clause 2 go very much with the grain of the
Government’s policy. It was specific in setting out some
mechanics for that local engagement, because we felt that the outside
world viewing the Bill—we are very aware of how much interest
there is outside the House—wants comfort that the talk about
local engagement and community involvement is actually real and backed
up with some mechanics to give it
credibility.
The
original clause framed the deliberations of the Secretary of State by
requiring him or her to have regard to the list
of
“indicators set out in
the Schedule”
on page 8
of the Bill. There was a presumption that the Secretary of State would
include in the plan the recommendations submitted by councils, unless
she felt that they were incompatible with the objectives or that they
were unnecessary for the promotion of the sustainability of local
communities. That was the original clause, and I have referred to some
of the key principles and philosophy driving
it.
The
Government signalled quickly in both the debate and subsequent
negotiations that their problems with the Bill centred around their
concerns about the workability of the process that we had set out and
the freedom of manoeuvre for a Secretary of State trying to implement
national policy, as well as managing the process of devolution. Those
reservations were expressed, although it was extremely disappointing
for most members of the Committee that, when it came to showing their
hand, the Government’s first set of amendments were clearly
wrecking in
nature.
Mr.
Hurd:
I am not one to disagree with the Minister. It was a
disappointing start but, in tabling new clause 2, we have tried to be
constructive and respond to those concerns. New clause 2 is softer in
terms of timetable, but firm in the requirement on the Secretary of
State to get the ball rolling on the consultation process some six
months after the Bill is passed. It introduces the concept of the Local
Government Association operating as a conduit or a filter to help the
Secretary of State and her Department to consolidate and prioritise
some of the recommendations coming from the local authorities that are
prepared to participate in the process. The new clause imposes on the
Secretary of State a duty to co-operate with the LGA. We feel that that
requirement strikes the right balance and follows the grain of
initiatives and language in the chain of devolution that is gradually
being stitched together by the Government in their own
legislation.
We have
limited the presumption on the Secretary of State to include in the
national action plan recommendations that come through the LGA with
cross-party support. The new clause gives the Secretary of State more
helpful opt-outs when it comes to dismissing recommendations on the
grounds of excessive cost or conflict with specific Government policy.
The new clause
finishes with some robust language on the need to maintain
accountability to Parliament both in the national action plan and, more
critically, in its implementation. Those provisions are the drivers of
the new clause 2, which we hope to debate this morning.
I want to
make a passing reference to the Government’s second response to
clause 2, which I believe is called new clause 4. The response is
disappointing, because it shows that the Government still want to be
able to do what they like, when they like. That will be unacceptable to
the supporters of the Bill. There is no timetable in the
Government’s proposal. Instead of a clear and positive signal
about the potential role of the LGA as the most logical conduit to
convey recommendations to the Department, we get this very vague and
sinister concept of “the selector”. Perhaps in deference
to the Minister’s well known enjoyment of 1980s pop music, we
will get another band from that era called “The
Selector”. We do not know who or what it is—it is a
completely nebulous concept. All reference to the schedule of
indicators that I referred to earlier has been removed, and there is no
clarity in the selector’s terms of reference. Instead of
imposing a duty to co-operate on the Secretary of State, there is
merely a requirement to consult with the selector. Effectively, the
Secretary of State will be free to take any decision that they like at
any time of their
choosing.
All
provisions in relation to accountability to Parliament have been
removed. That is a disappointing response from the Government, who have
said that they want to work with us to construct a Bill that works and
put it on the statute book. I hope that the Minister in his response
will take a more constructive tone. I feel that we are on the same
dance floor, but possibly at other ends of it. We have done our best to
change the music and change the lighting, but we are not dancing as
closely as we would like. I hope that the Minister’s remarks
will bring us a little closer on the dance
floor.
Mr.
David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op): It is delightful to serve
under you, Mr. Cummings. You are our third Chairman. The
Bill is becoming a bit like “War and Peace” in the sense
that we think that we know where we are going, but an awful lot of
pages remain unturned. I hope that we make some progress today because
some of us have a life, and we may have to move on to other things in
due course.
I hope
that the Minister recognises that this is a sensible way forward. If he
has problems with any aspects of clause 2, it would be good to hear
them. Unless we get the new clauses into the Bill, we will have just a
skeleton. There seems to be unanimity that the Bill is a good thing and
everyone wants to move it forward, but we have to be certain what we
are moving forward and we have to know what guidance will be given to
people who try to make sense of the Bill, which involves not only the
people who write the Bill but those who try to implement it.
At the moment the Committee has
a lot of good intentions and a lot of good will, but progress is slow.
Keeping to the music idiom, the whole point of the Bill is to try to
eliminate “Ghost Town” Britain, which was a rather good
song by “The Specials”. It came from a different era. I
hope that we move the Bill on in this era rather than the next,
although it seems that time is slipping away.
I will be
ruled out of order if I do not get a move on. New clause 2 is the crux
of the Bill. It tries to lay down how we make the changes that we want
to make. There may be issues about exactly how this will work and, sad
though it may seem, the people who will try to implement this Bill will
not sit down and look at every last word of it. They will look at the
intentions behind it and at the powers that they will now be given to
be able to make a difference. That is why it is so important that we
get on with this, and I hope that today we can push on with new clauses
2 and 3 and replace the existing clauses. We accept that they were not
as well worded as they might have been and that the intentions were not
as clear as they should have been.
I listened to what the hon.
Gentleman said, and I think that he
has—[
Interruption.
] I am out of time
already. He has tabled the new clauses with every good intention. This
is a mushy compromise, and a lot of work has gone on behind the scenes,
but that does not mean that it is a bad thing, because the key is what
people read into it. If we can get unanimity, it can make a difference.
I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I hope that we
can now move forward with this, because there is a restlessness in the
Committee to get on to the later clauses, which may not be as easy as I
expected them to
be.
Mr.
Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD): I am equally delighted
to be serving under your chairmanship, Mr. Cummings, and to
get to my feet to speak about the Bill. Until now, proceedings have
been curtailed in order to move us forward. I want to say how pleased I
am that we are discussing the clause which lies at the heart of what
the Bill can do. It gives local authorities and local communities the
power to put forward simple measures that could make a real difference
to their area, which is the most powerful concept within the
Bill.
There are a few
changes that could be made in regulation which would not be applicable
across the entire country. They would not make sense in all areas of
the country. An example from my own area is the problems caused by the
proliferation of second homes and their impact on coastal communities.
In a meeting that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Andrew
George) and I had with the Minister’s colleague on that issue,
we suggested some proposals that we think could help to address those
problems. Indeed, they were proposals supported by Elinor Goodman in
the report by her Affordable Rural Housing Commission.
It was clear
that that matter is not necessarily at the top of the housing agenda
for the Government, who have to consider things across the whole
country. They may be looking at different priorities in terms of
increasing numbers of new affordable housing units across the board and
so on. However, if through this Bill local authorities in areas where
the proliferation of second homes is a problem can come forward with
such proposals and show how small changes in planning regulations or
whatever could effect change, it will make it easier for the
Government. That is not something that they have to bring forward in
separate legislation, and it can be dealt with under the provisions of
this Bill. That is why I am delighted that the matter is being
discussed today, and I hope that the Minister will accept the new
clause in that
light.
10.15
am
Clive
Efford (Eltham) (Lab): You are the third Chairman on the
Committee, Mr. Cummings, and I fear that you will not be the
last. I have to express some frustration and slight confusion, because
at every Committee sitting there seems to be a consensus among all
Committee members, including the Minister and his Parliamentary Private
Secretary, who, it should be recognised, have been very supportive and
helpful. However, I am slightly frustrated and bemused that after our
sittings we go away to what used to be called smoke-filled
rooms—although I am sure that there is now a smoking ban to
prevent that—and what emerges does not particularly correspond
with the consensus that was reached by the elected element in the
process. I wonder where the road block is that causes
that.
I
note that some hon. Members have referred to bands of their youth. One
of the bands of my own youth was “Humble Pie”, and many a
brain cell was smashed out of my head while I rocked to the talents of
that band when I was young. It might be about time that some of the
advisers to the non-elected element in the process ate a bit of humble
pie and accepted that, if there is a consensus among the elected
element that element should be listened to. If we continue taking steps
forwards and backwards, the whole process will take on another
dimension in which the principle that elected members should determine
the outcome—a principle to which we should adhere
strongly—becomes critical. I too want to get my life back again
and return to my other duties as an MP, but I am determined to keep
turning up at the Committee to make sure that the Bill is delivered in
the form that hon. Members really want, even if it means a war of
attrition.
Elements in
new clause 2 are commendable, and would set a framework in which local
authorities could work more closely with our local communities. I can
think of a number of bodies in my constituency that are already working
on behalf of the local community and would engage very neatly with the
proposed process. They would dovetail with it well, and benefit from
it, and local government and public service delivery, too, would
benefit from the proposed network of co-operation, consultation and
development. It is time to start working on the basis of the consensus
that exists in the Committee and make some progress, and I commend new
clause 2 to other hon. Members.
Mr.
Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con): I first of all echo the
comments of Labour Members that we should move on, although they have
said it so eloquently that I need not go further. However, I want to
add a point for the Minister to consider. Although I believe
that clause 5 is the centrepiece of the Bill, clause 2 is
important as well. The Minister has spoken eloquently in my hearing
about the need for a shift to a bottom-up rather than a top-down
approach, and we can achieve what the hon. Member for Stroud described
as soggy
compromises.
Mr.
Letwin:
I am sorry—mushy. We are all in the mood
for that, and it is fine; the wording can change in all sorts of ways.
However, what has actually happened
in the drafting of new clause 4 is that bottom-up has become top-down,
and that really will not do. We can have all sorts of compromises, but
we cannot have one that ends up with the reverse of what we are trying
to achieve. That is not a compromise; it is a backwards
move.
I would like to
take one element that makes that point very clear. I suspect that, in a
moment, the Minister will explain to us why the LGA is not the ideal
conduit for assimilating this information and bringing it to the
Department. I suspect that the Minister will explain that the LGA
cannot be required to do things; it is not a body that is under the
control of the Department. That is perfectly true; it is not. However,
that is the whole point—it is not under the control of the
Department. It is bottom-up. The LGA is ultimately controlled by its
members.
I can
completely understand how, sitting in an office in Whitehall, officials
have looked with dismay at this proposition and said to themselves,
“We cannot allow the Minister to get into such dangerous
territory. Let us protect him. Let us assemble the howitzers, the gun
placements and the tanks that are necessary to ensure that he does not
compromise his power in this way. Heaven forfend.” I understand
the motive. I can gesture towards all the manifold ghastly consequences
that the officials predict if somebody else is actually allowed to do
something that could subsequently induce a Minister, on some appalling
timetable, to do something that somebody else wanted, instead of what
he or she wanted. I can see that the whole formation of our great civil
service training militates against such a conception. Incidentally, I
know that deeply because my wife is a senior civil servant—I
understand these things.
However, the Bill is about
undoing and changing that mentality. Therefore, I urge the Minister to
pluck up his courage, consider himself as a politician and as a Member
of Parliament and not as a denizen of a large aspect of the
Kremlin—much as he may admire the Kremlin. In the end, there are
greater things in Britain than Kremlinology.
If the Minister plucks up his
courage, we will be able to achieve a compromise, because as my hon.
Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood said, with his typical
eloquence, everything that we are trying to do is in tune with the
declared intentions of the Government. So the test for the
Minister—this is the point that I want to leave him
with—is whether those declared intentions are real. If they are,
they will translate into a compromise that we can all accept. If they
do not translate into such a compromise, they are not real and they are
just rhetoric. I am sure that that is not the position that the
Minister wants to be in.
Julia
Goldsworthy (Falmouth and Camborne) (LD): I will be brief.
It is clear that there is widespread consensus here. As the example
that my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall gave about second
homes shows, these issues are not necessarily ones with a massive
political drive behind them; they are just problems that communities
are encountering, and there is cross-party consensus about how we need
to resolve them. There is just a problem concerning the mechanism for
doing so.
Other hon.
Members have referred to drawing inspiration from particular songs or
bands. Perhaps
because I am a little younger than some other hon. Members, what springs
to my mind is a Spice Girls song, “Wannabe”, which was
their first single. In the song, they say what they want—what
they “really, really want”. For the Spice Girls, what
they want might be to “zigazig ha”, but for local
communities it is not to “zigazig ha” but to achieve some
straightforward solutions, which should not necessarily be party
political ones.
That
is why the LGA is a really interesting organisation to take this matter
forward, not least because it has been incredibly helpful in giving
perspectives on how it thinks the Bill will operate at a local level,
and in giving advice on how those mechanisms should work. It has done
so on an entirely consensual, cross-party basis. Given that
contribution, it seems entirely sensible to give the LGA the task of
rolling out the consultation process that new clause 2 would
establish.
We have
had very useful meetings with the LGA. If I was to highlight anything
from new clause 2, it would be subsection (7), which
says:
“The
Secretary of State must co-operate with the Local Government
Association in drawing up an action plan to promote the sustainability
of local communities”.
It
must be based on
“recommendations that have been
identified by the Association as having cross-party support;
and...include such other recommendations made by principal
councils”.
That measure
would differentiate such consultation from the usual consultation by
creating a duty to co-operate and try to come to some solution. We have
not seen that in any of the Government amendments. It is the key thing
that makes our amendment
different.
Although it
might be slightly uncomfortable for the Secretary of State—it
raises the issue of letting go, as the right hon. Member for West
Dorset said—it is not actually that new. There are precedents.
Other bodies have the sense of a duty to co-operate. We have seen it in
the Government themselves in the Local Government and Public
Involvement in Health Bill. Clause 82 requires councils to co-operate
with a large number of bodies when setting local targets. If local
government bodies can be required to do that, why cannot that principle
be consistently applied in clause 2 of this Bill to require the
Secretary of State to co-operate with other bodies in delivering what
they feel they need? That seems to make sense. I am sure that we will
hear the Minister’s perspective.
As for the language used by
Ministers and the Secretary of State, the Minister himself
said:
“We
firmly believe that it is for local people and their elected
representatives to determine how best to ensure that their community is
sustainable and thriving”,
and that is what the new clause would
allow. The Secretary of State herself said
that
“most of the
solutions will be rooted in local
communities”,
and we have
heard what the Chancellor said. If that is what the Government say, we
need a mechanism to deliver it, and that is what new clause 2 would do.
It is based on consensus and would deliver what local people feel they
need to make their communities more
sustainable.
Mr.
Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley) (Lab): Obviously, the Minister is
aware of the feeling in all parties today, and we keep hearing that he
will take it on board. We hear a lot of fine words, but we want to see
some action and some endorsement of what is being said. The time has
come to get off the fence, or he will be known as a mugwump—a
person who will sit on the fence all day. We have got to get him off
that fence, haven’t we? Is he really hoping that there will be a
reshuffle and that he will not have to take the Bill through if he
holds out long enough?
I hope that the Minister is not
thinking that, because we want to adopt new clause 2. We want to try to
empower local people and make a difference to their lives. Is that so
bad? I do not think so, and I am sure that he does not. Will he please
get off the fence and work with us all, so that we can move on with
unanimity in the
Committee?
Mr.
Woolas:
I am delving deep into my Lancastrian background
for the definition of “mugwump”.
[
Interruption.
]
We have inspiration in some
advice. I always wanted to be a panellist on “Call My
Bluff”. I shall not read this out; it relates to the
schedule.
Mr.
Cummings, it is a delight to welcome you to the Chair. It has been said
that you are the third Chair, and we welcome you. I enjoy serving under
you, and I hope and expect that we can make progress. A number of
accusations have been made about the Government’s stance, and I
shall give the Committee some reassurances and pointers to the fact
that I believe that the Government collectively, and I myself, are
engaging constructively with the Bill and its objectives. I shall try
to answer some of the scepticisms regarding the
Bill.
The hon. Member
for Ruislip-Northwood, whose Bill it is, should be commended for
tabling the new clauses and moving the process forward. I am grateful
to him for his constructive approach. He referred to the Local
Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill, which is before the
House, and the local government White Paper. He suggested that I am
stitching together a devolutionary regime; I believe that I am
embroidering a devolutionary regime. I am not stitching anything
together.
10.30
am
The
Government policy is laid out clearly in the Government party
manifesto, although I suspect that it is not often read. The financial
and statutory framework that we are creating better to empower local
communities is a serious and substantial part of Government strategy.
In pushing forward that strategy, we have been careful to build
consensus inside, as well as with, the Local Government Association. It
is important, as the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Falmouth
and Camborne have said, for the LGA to engage as “the
selector”, the body to take forward proposals on a consensual
basis, which I support. I should like to explain to the Committee how
we can achieve that desirable objective and to point out some of the
problems, which are not insurmountable, with new clause
2.
My
hon. Friend the Member for Stroud has described the new clause as
“a mushy compromise”. I do not think that it is a mushy
compromise; we are engaged in a pragmatic process, and I regret that
Committee members may feel that progress is slow. There are a number of
reasons why that appears to be the case. I suspect that the feeling is
partly because, as a private Member’s Bill Committee, we meet
weekly, rather than twice a week, because we are on a timetable
dictated by parliamentary process. In bringing forward proposals, the
Government are rightly obliged consult not only across Government and
in parliamentary counsel, but outside Government. We are consulting on
proposals that are not of the Government’s making, although that
is not to say that we do not support the objectives. As a Government,
we cannot go to the LGA and say, “We have decided that we are
going to do this to you.” We have to consult the
LGA.
The
hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne said that at the end of the day,
the Government can make requirements. However, Parliament makes
requirements, and the Government can make requirements only with
Parliament’s mandate, so there is an onus on members of the
Committee to ensure that the legislation is workable—I know that
the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood and the backers of the Bill want
that to be the case. I face two difficulties outside the normal
legislative process by Government proposal. First, I am obliged to take
forward the proposals made by members of the Committee and to subject
them to the tests that are rightly required. Secondly, I must ensure,
with the advice of officials and parliamentary counsel, that those
proposals are consistent and
workable.
I regret the
impression—my hon. Friend the. Member for Chorley put this most
bluntly, as is his Lancastrian wont—that I am hanging on for a
reshuffle, because the thought had never occurred to me. I am
determined, as is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, to
ensure that we get a Sustainable Communities Bill and a statutory
framework in place whatever happens in the next six or seven weeks. My
intention is to use the timetable that my right hon. Friend has
outlined for positive implementation, not delay. I assure my hon.
Friend the Member for Chorley of that, and I shall give him evidence of
it.
My hon. Friend the
Member for Eltham referred to “Humble Pie”. As I approach
middle age, I am more with the “Humble Pie” than
“The Spice Girls”. Some would unkindly say that I am not
approaching middle age, but that I am well into it. I want to speak up
on behalf of my officials, who have given advice and guidance.
Officials in government work to Government policies, which is their job
and constitutional duty. They are not allowed to speak for themselves,
and they advise on how policy objectives can be achieved. However,
there are strictures on that. Good legislation must be consistent, and
hon. Members should bear in mind that bad legislation can be and is
challenged by judicial review. The Government, in my Department, are
currently defending a judicial review over the process of local
authority reorganisation, about which I am not allowed to speak for
fear of prejudicing that legal action. However, legislation that is not
consistent is challenged, and people who wish to see the implementation
of a sustainable communities strategy, policies and legislation need to
ensure that such legislation is
robust.
Mr.
Woolas:
May I make a point in defence of the process? If I
am advised that legislation is not consistent
and would be subject to challenge, irrespective of
whether it is line with Government policy, but especially if it is so,
I am obliged to bring that to the attention of the Committee. I believe
that new clause 4, to which the right hon. Gentleman has
referred—
Mr.
Letwin:
Who does the Minister think is going to challenge
new clause 2, if it appears on the statute
book?
Mr.
Woolas:
My experience of Government, limited though it is,
and of pressure group work, which is more extensive, is that if
something can be challenged in this country, it will be. We live in a
country where judicial reviews are frequent and where legal challenges
come forward from all quarters. Local authorities that do not like
Government policies and processes often take judicial review. Four
local authorities are currently challenging the local authority
business growth initiatives, even though those authorities are
supportive of the principles behind them. The democratic process has
pushed them into that action.
Mr.
Woolas:
I see that the right hon. Gentleman is not
satisfied with the response, so I give way
again.
Mr.
Letwin:
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way
again. It is important to tease out this point. There is no provision
in English law for challenge by judicial review of statute. The only
party that can be challenged is the Government in acting under statute.
In order to mount such a challenge, the litigant would have to show
either that it was, in the Wednesbury sense, unreasonable, or that the
Government had acted ultra vires. Such a party would have to have a
locus. I cannot see here either the grounds on which the Minister could
be expected to be acting unreasonably, or the grounds on which he could
be acting ultra vires, because new clause 2 gives him the vires. I
cannot see who would have a locus that would want to mount a challenge
in the first place. The Minister is on a hiding to nothing with his
argument.
Mr.
Woolas:
I am not going to be tempted into legal debate
with the right hon. Gentleman. That is a trap that he is setting for
me, and I am not going to walk into it. However, what I can tell the
Committee is that if a law is not drafted coherently and
consistently—consistent within its own proposals—that
will be an argument used by lawyers who launch judicial reviews on
behalf of interested parties. There is a list as long as an arm of such
challenges to the law. The right hon. Gentleman is feigning puzzlement,
but it is an argument that he has used on the Floor of the House in
opposition to Government Bills that he has found inconsistent. He has
argued that we need to save us from ourselves by not putting forward
inconsistent legislation. It is tautological that it is desirable, from
the point of the view of the objectives of the Bill, that a Bill should
be consistent.
Let me move
on, because I shall meet the second point made by the hon. Member for
Ruislip-Northwood, which was crucial to his argument. The right hon.
Member for West Dorset said that I would argue that the Government
could not possibly have the LGA
telling us what to do and that, as a voluntary body,
it should not be included in legislation. That is not the
Government’s view. We recognise the LGA as the legitimate
representative body of local councils in this country. It has been a
real success in the past 10 years, as Lord Best’s review found,
and I was involved in its creation and have argued for it. More
importantly, I believe that the inclusion of the LGA as the
conduit—new clause 4 describes it as “the
selector”—is desirable for a number of reasons. First,
the LGA is credible to local councils. Secondly, it has a constitution
and standing orders that allow consensus to be reached from different
points of view—the LGA has an independent grouping as well as
those from the mainstream political parties. It has the ability to
reach the consensus that the hon. Gentleman desires, and I agree that
such a consensus might help to avoid the dangers outlined by the hon.
Member for Falmouth and Camborne.
The argument made by the right
hon. Member for West Dorset, who said that I do not wish to see the LGA
in the legislation, is not correct. However, we cannot legislate to
instruct a voluntary body, which is why my preference, as outlined in
new clause 4, would be to ensure that the LGA is “the
selector”. That would ensure that it has the enhanced
credibility that it might need in the years ahead as it does its work,
and we can do that using the regulation under the new
clause.
I have not as
yet engaged in formal consultation with the LGA as to its attitude on
the matter, but I have engaged in informal consultation. That initial
and unofficial consultation is supportive. However, we will need to
engage with the LGA to ensure that it is comfortable with the
process.
Mr.
Letwin:
It is obviously constructive that the Minister has
said that the person described in subsection (2)(a) of new clause 4
would in practice be the LGA. Presumably, he would be willing to accept
amendments to new clause 4 that made it clear that “a person
who”—that should be
“whom”—
“the
Secretary of State thinks represents the interests of principal
councils”
is so defined
as to make it improper for the Secretary of State to appoint somebody
such as, say, the Minister.
The
Chairman:
Order. New clause 4 has not been selected.
However, in order to assist the Committee, I am prepared to allow a
small amount of latitude this morning in permitting references to new
clause 4 on the understanding that I do not anticipate permitting
further debate on it when the time comes for taking decisions on new
clauses.
Mr.
Letwin:
That is the judgment of Solomon, if I may say so.
I hope that we follow your guidance, Mr. Cummings, because
it makes sense to discuss these things together rather than debate them
a second time
later.
The
important point is that it is about providing a level of assurance that
prevents the drafting allowing a Secretary of State to define away the
whole purpose of the new clause by appointing somebody who
manifestly does not represent local authorities, but who instead
represents the Government. That is our concern on this issue. If we
could achieve a change to such an effect, it might smooth over the
problem.
10.45
am
Mr.
Woolas:
Thank you, Mr. Cummings. I will
reserve my conclusion on whether it is the judgment of Solomon until we
come to that point, when I fear that I may wish to say something that
you will not allow, Mr. Cummings, for understandable
reasons.
The answer to
the right hon. Gentleman’s question is yes. I agree with him,
and so do the Government. There is a very important reason for that.
The Government are trying to develop a social consensus to replace the
failed corporatism of the past, which was based on a tripartite model,
particularly in relation to industry and employment, in which the right
relationship between trade unions, employee representatives and
businesses was struck by problems. It is revealing, and curious that in
this country social consensus has never included the local council side
of the equation. There has never been a social contract as there is in
other European countries—although one could argue that in
Germany we foisted it on them in the post-war settlement. In France,
however, it developed from about 218 years of social
history.
I strongly
believe that this Bill and the measures that the Government propose can
help to establish the idea that national Governments and the state
should build local representatives into the body politic and the social
consensus. At a philosophical level, that is what we are trying to do.
It is for that reason, as well as for pragmatic reasons, that the Local
Government Association is included. I want to ensure that LGA
membership is as strong as it can be in all areas, and on that basis, I
vigorously challenge those within my party who question membership of
the LGA.
I want to put
some more meat on the bones, because I can see scepticism rising in the
minds of hon. Members, especially on the Government side of the
Committee. New clause 4(4)(a) states that regulations
may
“authorise the person
appointed under subsection 2(a)(the ‘selector’) to
specify steps to be taken by a principal
council”.
The provision
refers to matters specified in the schedule. I intend to ensure that
following discussion with the LGA, the regulation would allow for the
process that the Committee clearly wants to be expressed in that
format. I was conscious of that point when drafting the
proposal.
Julia
Goldsworthy:
I am reassured by the Minister’s
comments about how new clause 4 will enable the Local Government
Association to contribute. My concern is that new clause 4 does not
contain a duty to co-operate, which is a critical part of new clause 2.
Can the Minister assure me that the presumption is that there will be
an attempt to seek consensus and to implement the recommendations of
the body, which we assume will be the Local Government
Association?
Mr.
Woolas:
It might be useful now to respond to the point
made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall, who gave the good example
of second homes in his constituency—there are other such
examples throughout the country. Yesterday, I met Charnwood district
council, the local Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for
Loughborough (Mr. Reed), and representatives of
Loughborough’s residents’ association and student
body to discuss the student accommodation problems and the impact that
they have on the community. Both the church and the school have closed
down, and the nature of the area has changed. The students are not to
blame—a few have given the rest of them a bad name.
On behalf of
the residents, the council is asking the Government to change
definitions on housing in multiple occupancy. Whether that is required
or whether the necessary powers already exist is one of the matters
waiting in my in-tray. The situation in Loughborough is a good example
of an important point: the change that is required to help to sustain
that community has no relevance whatsoever to, for example, the good
people of Oldham—it will do in future, when we get our
university, thanks to this Government. Any decision that is taken will
affect not only Loughborough, as there could be unintended
consequences—such as changes to housing in multiple occupancy or
second homes, which the hon. Member for North Cornwall mentioned, that
would have an adverse effect—or deliberate abuse. The right
balance has to be
struck.
My
conclusion is the same as that of the hon. Member for North Cornwall. A
process should be set out that in many ways copies the community call
for action model that is in the Local Government and Public Involvement
in Health Bill and the Criminal Law (Amendment) (Protection of
Property) Bill in relation to community police. That allows the citizen
to insist that his or her elected local councillor undertake a process
that triggers actions by scrutiny committees and public bodies covered
by the duty to co-operate. It is entirely consistent that local
authorities—and any partners that they have that deliver
services and policies—should be able to trigger a process with
the Government. That is entirely reasonable, because it helps with
re-engagement. In that regard, it is clear that just as the elected
local councillor should be “the selector” at local level,
so the local council and the Local Government Association should be at
national
level.
Mr.
Rogerson:
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way.
Although I might want to take issue with some of his earlier comments
about judicial review, and with the musical metaphor that we have been
extending, I am a fan of the late, great McKinley Morganfield, whom
others might remember as Muddy Waters. I feel that the Minister might
have been seeking to muddy the waters a little on that issue. I am
reassured that he has said that different communities have different
problems and that through this Bill we can seek solutions to each of
them. He has said that he wishes to embroider something, and it looks
as though we might be moving towards a patchwork, which is what
communities around the country will want.
Mr.
Woolas:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having
introduced some class into our musical
analogies—[Interruption.] I do not wish to denigrate
“Humble Pie”, but I cannot recall any of its
records.
The hon.
Gentleman tabled new clause 2. I have described some of the problems
that I have with it, but let me respond to his points. He is concerned
that there is no timetable in the alternative proposal. I am more than
happy to have a timetable. It would be desirable to discuss that with
the LGA, but let me give the reassurance that, of course, it would be
sensible to have
one. The community call for action has a timetable
that is introduced through the guidance and procedures, so that makes
sense.
I hope that I
have reassured the Committee on the point about the LGA and why I have
a problem with its inclusion in the Bill but none at all with its being
in practice “the selector”. In fact, it is difficult to
think of another person or body to undertake the role, particularly
given the point about
consensus.
Mr.
Hurd:
I thank the Minister for the frank way in which he
set out some of the Government’s difficulties with new clause 2.
He has talked about his concern about leaving the Government open to
charges of inconsistency and incoherence and therefore vulnerable to
judicial review, but does he agree that the more detail that is in the
Bill, and the more explicit and clearer we are in communicating what we
intend, the less vulnerable we will be to such charges? To argue the
opposite position to the one that he is putting, the more we put in
regulation, the more we expose ourselves to charges of
incoherence.
Mr.
Woolas:
Such things are a matter of balance, and
consistency of legislation is desirable. The intent of Parliament is
what matters ultimately; that is the test. Committee members are
expressing the intent of Parliament. I simply seek quickly to guide us
through the next six to eight weeks to ensure that we have our
legislation in place. It is a question of balance. The substantial
point is that one cannot legislate for a voluntary body. It is much
better to do so by setting out the process, defining the objectives and
then using the regulations and the schedule, referred to in subsection
(4)(a) of new clause 4, as the way
forward.
Mr.
Hurd:
Can we be clear that the Minister intends to return
to the definitions in new clause 4 to see whether they can be tightened
up and to make it clear that the Secretary of State is required to
choose a body that is representative of local
councils?
Mr.
Woolas:
Yes. The objective is to ensure that no other body
or persons could be appointed. I wish this to be a helpful link with
the LGA, with which we have regular meetings. My right hon. Friend the
Deputy Prime Minister established the central local partnership, which
meets regularly to discuss matters not only to do with local councils,
but to do with many policies and
services.
The hon.
Gentleman and the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne have mentioned
the duty to co-operate, which is a reasonable point. It is for
Parliament to place that duty, not the Government, which is why I
sought that measure through the Local Government and Public Involvement
in Health Bill, clause 82 of which places a duty to co-operate on named
authorities in setting goals for the local area agreement on the
spending of public money in the area. It is intended that they will
agree, but the duty does not require them to do so—it requires
them to co-operate in setting that target. Such a duty would require
ourselves and the LGA to work towards those goals in the same way.
There is a good symmetry in what is being
proposed.
Mr.
Letwin:
We are glad that we seem to have established that
when the new version of new clause 4 returns to the Committee, it will
contain a tighter definition of the person who is to be the selector.
Does the Minister intend his remarks to convey that when the new clause
returns, it will also contain a duty for the Government to co-operate
with that person, thereby reinstating the idea that is present in
new clause 2, but currently omitted from new clause 4? Does he
intend new clause 4, on its return, to contain a timetable? If those
three things can be achieved, we do not need to detain the Committee
much further with argument, because we would then have consensus. None
of us wishes to stick by the drafting of new clause 2. We want only to
achieve these three points: clarity that the LGA, or whatever it is at
any given time, will be the representative body that everyone
recognises; clarity that the Bill includes a timetable; and clarity
that there is a duty to co-operate. Once we have those three things, we
will have a workable new clause
2.
11
am
Mr.
Woolas:
I am conscious of what hon. Members said in their
opening remarks. I do not want to place myself in a position of giving
commitments on which I cannot deliver as a result of either legal
advice or my need to consult colleagues. I do not want to give a false
impression or to be accused of doing so.
I can say on the record to the
right hon. Gentleman that a timetable and a duty to co-operate are
desirable. Whether that will be achieved—with your permission,
Mr. Cummings, as you provide the strictures on the
debate—through a new clause, in the schedule or by regulation, I
do not know, but I can give right hon. Gentleman the commitment that he
seeks. That seems perfectly sensible. To give more reassurance, a
reading of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill
and the debates in that Bill Committee will show that that Bill has the
same policy objectives as this one. As I have said in previous
sittings, the Government see this Bill as a strengthening supplement to
the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill and the
local government White Paper, rather than as isolated legislation. In
that regard, there was cross-party consensus on the duty to involve in
clauses 82 and 102—I will correct that if the clause numbers
have changed—of the Local Government and Public Involvement in
Health Bill, which represented a desirable
change.
Jim
Cousins (Newcastle upon Tyne, Central) (Lab): My hon.
Friend will be aware of how some of the proposals in the Local
Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill are already being
taken up. The Liberal Democrat-controlled council in Newcastle proposes
to use that Bill to create a city region executive of
executives—a cabal of cabals—rather than to devolve as
the Minister would have hoped. Would not new clause 2 provide him with
a mechanism to ensure proper democratic dealings in
neighbourhoods?
Mr.
Woolas:
First, to clarify my last point, I am informed
that it is clause 108 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in
Health Bill that creates the duty to
involve.
I am grateful
to my hon. Friend for his intervention. The example of the multi-area
agreements that are being developed in the Tyne and Wear region
illustrates the core of the dilemma. Should the Government in future
use powers to compel a form of governance in a local area? Is not that
centralisation? I may not like what the Newcastle leaders are doing,
but they are doing it, so what do I do? Do I tell them that they cannot
do it?
Mr.
Woolas:
I think that my hon. Friend will like my next
sentence, if he did not like my minor premise. My conclusion is that
the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill and this
Bill, including new clause 2, are intended to say that if communities
are to be sustainable in the way that is now defined, devolution must
not stop at local authority level but must be passed down to
communities, to neighbourhoods, to community groups and so
on.
The caveat
that the Government place on that is that the locally elected
councillor, not the council, is the ultimate arbitrator. He is the
conduit. If a local authority and its partners are not engaging in
consultation in the way that clause 108 and the back-up schedules
describe, which new clause 2 describes imperfectly and new clause 4
describes nearly perfectly, we would have legitimate levers and powers
to say that the actions in the example that my hon. Friend has given
are not acceptable. That is not devolution from Whitehall to city hall,
but centralisation from community to city hall, which is the opposite
of what everyone intends.
The difficulty, like the
argument about subsidiarity, is that there is always disagreement about
the level at which a decision should be taken. The knowing smile from
the right hon. Member for West Dorset reminds me of his point on Second
Reading that money is power and it is where the money is that counts.
The framework that I am trying to set up is designed to ensure that the
desirable objective is
realised.
Jim
Cousins:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I am warming
to the second part of his answer—not that I want to put him off
by that. I sometimes have that effect. The guidance suggested in new
clause 2 could provide a meaningful code of conduct to which the Local
Government Association would sign up and it would provide the very
framework of guidance that could deliver true devolution to
neighbourhoods.
Mr.
Woolas:
I certainly agree that that is desirable and that
it is the intent. I want to see myself and I want the Committee to see
me not as someone who is putting objections in the way of the
proposals, but as someone who is trying to help to get them
implemented. That is what I am genuinely trying to do. My hon. Friend
the Member for Chorley is reserving judgment—the jury is out. He
is waiting to see what happens. That is his job. I do not criticise him
for that.
Let me try to
make some progress. The fundamental intention of the clause is to
ensure that central Government are responsive to local authorities and
the people they represent and take action to help them to promote the
sustainability of their local community. There is agreement that that
is what we are trying to achieve. We are debating how that is done. It
is obvious, and there is consensus in the Committee, that there should
be a transparent and accountable mechanism by which recommendations for
action are brought to the Secretary of State in the first instance. The
Secretary of State would have to consider each selected proposal and
make a response in public. The intent would clearly be to identify good
ideas and for the Secretary of State to take them forward. That again
is what we have agreed and what new clause 4 does. The mechanism
reflects the strong consensus that has built up around the idea of
strong and prosperous communities.
During the
Bill’s passage through Committee in this House at least, there
has been strong consensus on that approach. That consensus is developed
through a new settlement between central and local
government—one built on the recognition that it is local people
and their representatives who are best placed to decide what they need
to promote the sustainability of their communities. The example has
been given of second homes in north Cornwall. The Government believe
that it is right to be flexible and to empower support for local
government in the new relationship. That is the reason for the
central-local partnership, which I hope will continue and grow. It is
why we have established the local government sounding board to help to
implement the White Paper, and why we enjoy such a strong day-to-day
relationship with the Local Government
Association.
I do not
want to go through my list of difficulties with the original clause 2;
I give the Committee notice of my intention to withdraw the brutal
wrecking amendment that I tabled at the beginning. It is always better
to start here and end up there than to start there. For the benefit of
Hansard, that is a negotiating tactic from when I worked in
trade
unions.
Mr.
Woolas:
Step back and look at the membership of this
Committee, Mr. Cummings. If I can achieve a consensus, I
shall be very proud of
it.
Mr.
Woolas:
If I am still here, as my hon. Friend kindly says.
My real fear is promotion. I can imagine what Committee members might
say then.
It is my
intention not to move Government amendments Nos. 6 to 15 when we get to
them. The proposed mechanisms, as I hope I have made clear, were
unworkable, and I have given reasons why. New clause 2 also describes
the process by which the Secretary of State would be required to
publish a 10-year action plan to promote the sustainability of local
communities. In the original clause 2, any individual group or council
could make any recommendation and, subject to some limited exceptions,
the Secretary of State would have had a duty to implement it.
New clause 2 is in line with
Government policy. It gives the Secretary of State a duty to establish
a transparent and accountable mechanism, which I have said is
desirable. The Secretary of State would be required to consider
proposals from principal councils selected by the LGA, but not to
implement all of them. That is an important change, and I am grateful
to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood for
it.
I do not think
that my difficulties with new clause 2 are insurmountable. I hope that
I have convinced the Committee of that and that I will have the
opportunity to develop the arguments about the how rather than the why
of my proposals during debate on new clause 4. I hope that we
can move forward and that hon. Members will accept that progress has
been made in this Committee. We have agreed clauses in previous
sittings, and I hope that we can do so in this
one.
11.15
am
Mr.
Hurd:
I thank the Minister again for his frank and
constructive response. I am sure that he picked up on concerns
expressed by colleagues on the Government Benches about how his good
words might be lost in translation when the amendments are drafted. I
hope that he will take the time to ensure that they comply with his
words before they are
tabled.
Before the
Minister winds up his remarks, I would like to draw out his views on
provisions at the end of new clause 2 and the need for greater
accountability to Parliament in preparing the action plan and reporting
regularly on its implementation. I mention also the duty on local
Government offices to co-operate. Effectively, his new clause 4 ignores
all of those provisions. Given the emphasis that he placed on the need
for transparency and accountability, what are his views on ensuring
that the national action plan is debated in this place with the full
involvement of Members of Parliament, and on the Secretary of State
having an ongoing duty to report to the House on its
implementation?
Mr.
Woolas:
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about
co-operation. The Government have given powers of well-being to local
authorities. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn
and St. Pancras referred to that in a previous
sitting.
On
accountability, Parliament is the ultimate arbitrator—and quite
right too. The Government’s mindset is that we are the champions
of a sustainable communities strategy. We build that into our policies.
My Department’s slogan relates to it. We are delighted that
others share that strategy. The first debates on sustainable
communities in this place were met with mockery, particularly, I think,
from the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames). A
definition of sustainable communities was requested and then mocked.
The Government are therefore delighted that the whole of the body
politic has now accepted the idea of sustainable communities, which is
why I say that if I can build a consensus in Committee and the House, I
shall retire with a great achievement under my
belt.
The
hon. Gentleman made a specific point—he wants the action plan to
be brought before Parliament. I can see why that would be desirable. It
is important that citizens and communities see that Government, whether
local or national, are responding to what is happening.
Clearly, if action is not taken in the way requested, there must be a
good reason. The recent lesson from the e-petitions proved that. There
is a danger that the search for new mechanisms with which to engage
people and boost democracy might result in further disillusionment
because processes are set up but action is not forthcoming. If action
cannot be forthcoming, it is important that good reasons be given. The
public understand that and, I believe, must be trusted with those
arguments and information. If there are financial implications, or if a
proposal is contrary to more desirable objectives, let us say
so.
It is important
that we have that process of accountability. Parliament must have the
right to question the action plan and to ask why some decisions have
not been implemented but others have. However, that process is
difficult to provide for in legislation—the right hon. Member
for West Dorset shakes his head before I have finished. He keeps
drawing conclusions displaying that his attitude borders on scepticism
or cynicism. I was going to go on to say that it is important that the
reasons should be set out and that Parliament should have the
opportunity for scrutiny—however, it is difficult to include
those matters in legislation, given nature of the process of
considering a private Member’s Bill, which is inevitable and
understandable. The Government respond to proposals in that process,
rather than bring them forward.
I wish that
there had been five parliamentary days this week, because I would have
had more time to table alternative proposals, which, I believe, with
more discussion, would have been acceptable to the Bill’s
backers on both sides of the Committee. That would include making clear
our wish that Parliament should have the opportunity to hold to account
those responsible for the proposals. That will strengthen the
partnership with the Local Government Association and make real the
social consensus that I have talked about.
Given the desirable caveat, to
which we have all agreed, that the proposals should be a matter of
consensus within the LGA, there is nothing for any Government to fear
in considering the matter. As for the caveat about expenditure, perhaps
I may refer to one real example with reference to the process of
consultation implied in new clause 2. Under the new burdens procedure,
and with consultation across Government about cost, I have been given
the figure of £42 million, which is a huge sum of money. I do
not commit the Government to spending it at this point, but I think
that it would be money well spent. Nevertheless, I should have
difficulty going to Saddleworth parish council and justifying an extra
expenditure of £42 million to implement new clause 2. I am not
making a debating point, but simply pointing out that that is my advice
about the new burdens implication. We all vote for new burdens when
proposals are made. It is only when the money to support our own
proposals is not there that we do not like the new burdens
procedures.
To return
to the point that I was making, accountability to Parliament is
desirable, and I shall seek to meet the relevant objectives as we
proceed.
Mr.
Letwin:
I want to make three points only. First, I am
delighted to hear that he will try to find a way to restore
accountability to Parliament. We regard that as
not merely useful, but necessary, because in the structure of what is
proposed the Government are given the power to make the relevant
decision in an untrammelled way. That has to be so. Therefore the only
measure that can be included in the Bill to constrain the
Government’s ability to ignore the process and make a mockery of
it is their duty to account to Parliament, which will impress on the
ministerial mind, and hence on the official mind behind it, the need to
take some action to avoid embarrassment in the House. That is the
mechanism; it is an essential part of the
process.
My
second point is that the Minister, whose hesitation about making
commitments without consulting his colleagues I understand, was
nevertheless coy about whether the points about timetabling and the
duty to co-operate would be in the Bill, in the schedule or in
regulations. I do not care whether they would be in the clauses or the
schedule, because it would amount to the same thing, but it would not
do for them to be in regulations, because we all know, first, that
regulations get, if that, a 90-minute
debate—
Mr.
Letwin:
I am so sorry, Mr. Cummings. To
conclude, if the points are set out in regulations, that will not
do.
Mr.
Woolas:
I agree that provisions on accountability to
Parliament are necessary and not just desirable. To counter some of the
right hon. Gentleman’s scepticism, let me say that the
Government are accountable to Parliament anyway for their actions. My
Department published a detailed annual report on how we had been
implementing our sustainable communities strategy. To bring a partisan
point into the proceedings and perhaps break the consensus, the
considered, comprehensive and intellectual response from the
Conservative party to our showing accountability by publishing our
annual report was to call it “Prezza’s disaster”.
I hope that the accountability to Parliament is reciprocated.
[Interruption.] It was many years ago.
I am indeed being coy on the
right hon. Gentleman’s second point.
It being twenty-five minutes
past Eleven o’clock,
The
Chairman
adjourned the
Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing
Order.
Adjourned till this day at
Two
o’clock.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2007 | Prepared 10 May 2007 |
