 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
(Afternoon)
[John Cummings in the Chair]Sustainable Communities BillClause 2Plan
published by Secretary of
State
Question
proposed [this day], That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
2
pm
Question
again
proposed.
‘(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 implementthe
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.’.
The
Minister for Local Government (Mr. Phil
Woolas):
Thank you, for your chairmanship this morning,
Mr. Cummings. I picked up over lunch that it was very much
appreciated by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.
Just as I was
concluding my remarks in the stand part debate on clause 2, the right
hon. Member for West Dorset sought clarification as to our attitude on
three points: the timetable, the appointment of the selector and the
parliamentary procedure on accountability.
In principle,
I have no difficulty about requiring the Secretary of State to invite
proposals from principal councils by a particular date. However, I have
two riders. As I said, we need to consult on the implementation of the
process, not only because that is required under new clause 4(3), but
because we need to consult the Local Government Association about
taking on the role of the selector. Given the need to consult, I am
concerned to avoid the imposition on the Secretary of State of a duty
that she is unable to fulfil at this point. I am happy to consider that
further. One possibility would be to enable the Secretary of State to
commence the provisions of the Bill by order. In that way, she would
not commence a duty until she had the relevant powers. The right hon.
Gentleman suggested in the margins of the Committee that the wording
“she thinks” introduces subjectivity. I am more than
happy to consider the proposal to remove that subjectivity so as to
give the Committee the reassurance that it needs.
Concerns were expressed this
morning about the apparent latitude that new clause 4(2) would give the
Secretary of State when appointing the selector. That
subsection was drafted with the LGA in mind for the
role, and that is why it is worded in that way. That is what the
words
“who must be a
person who the Secretary of State thinks represents the interests of
principal councils”
were
intended to emphasise. There is particular concern about the
phrase
“who the Secretary
of State thinks”
and I am
happy to think about that.
There was also concern this
morning about the absence of any reference to parliamentary procedure
in relation to the Secretary of State’s decisions. I entirely
agree with the principle that Parliament must be kept fully involved
and informed. However, in reality the types of action that councils are
likely to propose are changes to the amount or allocation of funding or
to legislation, both primary and secondary. Those are matters on which
the Secretary of State requires discretion. It would be odd for the
Secretary of State to be required to promote legislation with which she
did not agree. Those are also matters that would be debated by
Parliament in any event. I am concerned about creating a rigid system,
which might not make the best use of Parliament’s time. I am
happy to debate the Secretary of State’s decisions in
Parliament, but we need to leave discretion with her about the content
of her decision. As I said, many of the actions undertaken by the
Secretary of State will be subject to the scrutiny of Parliament in any
event.
Finally, it
might be worth considering the possibility of legal challenges, a point
that I raised which was picked up by hon. Members. Under new clause
2(9), it seems that the Secretary of State’s ability to reject
recommendations or delay their implementation is restricted where the
costs of implementation are excessive or implementation
is
“likely to conflict,
to a significant extent, with a specific government
objective.”
If that is
the correct interpretation of new clause 2, we believe that there is a
risk that a person aggrieved by the Secretary of State’s use of
that power would be able to challenge the Secretary of State’s
action plan, which would not benefit
anyone.
It is also
worth making the point that what we are after in this Committee is
clear and workable legislation, in particular legislation in which the
roles of the Secretary of State and the selector are clear. That is
what I am trying to achieve. I hope that that is constructive, and I
hope that with your help, Mr. Cummings, we can move forward.
I am grateful to Committee members for giving me time to explain the
Government’s point of
view.
Mr.
Nick Hurd (Ruislip-Northwood) (Con): I thank the Minister
again for taking the time to place his position on the record. He has
been extremely constructive today. I think that the distance between us
on the dance floor has narrowed, but I shall press him on another
point. I hear what he says about the timetable and the difficulties of
imposing a duty on the Secretary of State before consultation has
concluded, but we look forward to seeing a specific proposal from him.
The Government should have an obligation to get the ball rolling
according to a specific timetable following the passing of the Bill
into law.
On the
definition, I think that the Minister has taken on board the point made
by my right hon. Friend the
Member for West Dorset and will consider the feasibility of removing
from new clause 4(2) the
words
“must be a person
who the Secretary of State thinks
represents”
and replacing
them with “must represent”, to reduce the scope for
misinterpretation.
I
think that I understood what the Minister said about accountability,
although my digestive system was focused on lunch rather than his
words, but I fail to understand what is so complicated about the
concept of the Secretary of State laying the national action plan
before each House of Parliament and undertaking to publish an annual
report on the progress of implementation. I cannot think of a simpler
concept, and I am still struggling to understand the reasons for the
Minister’s reservations, other than the time-honoured tradition
of trying to preserve maximum flexibility for Ministers. I ask him to
reconsider.
I was
generally encouraged by what the Minister said, but I was more troubled
by the fact that he was vague to the point of obtuseness about whether
he was prepared to agree to the concept of a duty of co-operation
between the Secretary of State and the selector, as we have come to
know that person. I might not have been paying as much attention as I
should have, but it is a fundamental concept. From the terms of new
clause 4, it is clear that the Government want to move from a duty to
consult to the more distant duty to co-operate, as in the terms of new
clause 2, tabled by me and the hon. Members for Falmouth and Camborne
and for Stroud. I encourage the Minister to respond to that specific
point.
Mr.
Woolas:
On the duty to co-operate, I repeat what I said
earlier. There is a good symmetry between the proposals in the Local
Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill regarding co-operation
between local partners and the process undertaken through the call for
action and other measures, particularly the performance regime and the
duty to co-operate in setting those targets. There is a parallel
between that and the responsibilities of the selector and the Secretary
of State, bearing it in mind that, in legalese, when we refer to the
Secretary of State, we refer to the Government collectively—to
Secretaries of State. That is an important point, although it is
probably more important from my point of view than that of the hon.
Gentleman.
I accept
the point about co-operation, and I have clarified the definition of
“co-operation”. Ultimately, in lay persons’ terms,
you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.
However, we are creating a statutory framework whereby the process
locks in the partnership between the selector and the Secretary of
State and builds on the existing informal, voluntary mechanisms of the
central-local partnership. I look forward to the discussions with Lord
Bruce-Lockhart and his colleagues at the LGA, should they be willing,
as I expect they will, to engage in this process. I hope that that
gives the hon. Gentleman some
satisfaction.
Mr.
Hurd:
Up to a point. The campaign for plain English, which
has been well represented in this Committee, would struggle with that
response. Is the Minister prepared to build in a duty for the Secretary
of State and the selector to co-operate?
Mr.
Woolas:
I thought that I had answered in the affirmative.
I am sorry if I have failed to qualify in terms of plain English. Once
again, I am not trying to be awkward. I am trying to help the
Committee. One must not raise too many expectations about the duty to
co-operate
Mr.
Woolas:
It is a future “but”. There is a
“but” in the sense that the duty to co-operate does not
compel a course of action. That is the only caveat to my answer in
plain English, which is
yes.
Mr.
Hurd:
I thank the Minister for that response, because he
knows that this is an important point for the Committee and supporters
of the Bill. As I tried to explain in speaking to our new clause, I
feel that the Bill’s supporters have moved a long way from our
original position, in terms of what we expect to be required of the
Secretary of State, to one that shows greater understanding of the need
for some flexibility for him or her. If the Minister is saying that he
is not prepared to move beyond a duty to consult, that would cause
problems for the Committee. However, if he is going to return to the
Committee with an amendment that uses the words “duty to
co-operate”, that will be acceptable. It would not be good
enough to stick with
“a
duty to consult”,
but I
am sure that Committee members will correct me if that view is
misguided.
Question
put and
negatived.
Clause
2 disagreed
to.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2007 | Prepared 10 May 2007 |