Schedule
Indicators
Mr.
Woolas:
I beg to move amendment No. 35, in schedule,
page 8, line 3, leave out
‘indicators referred to in section 2’ and
insert
‘matters referred
to in section [Proposals by principal
councils]’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: New clause 7— Action
plans
—
‘(1) The Secretary of State shall, as soon as
is practicable, 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.
(2) Before
consulting principal councils, the Secretary of State
must—
(a) subject to
paragraph (b) appoint a person to be his advisor (“the
advisor”) for the purposes of this
Act.
(b) request the Local
Government Association to be the advisor but, if that body declines,
appoint such other person or persons who must be persons who represent
the interests of principal
councils.
(3) The advisor must
consider the responses to the consultation pursuant to subsection (1)
and draw up a list of proposals contained in those responses which in
the advisor’s
opinion—
(a) should be
given the greatest priority,
and
(b) have cross-party
support.
(4) The Secretary of
State must, subject to subsection (5), cooperate with the advisor in
drawing up an action plan to promote the sustainability of local
communities which
shall—
(a) be based
primarily on those proposals that have been identified by the advisor
as requiring the greatest priority and having cross-party support;
and
(b) include such other
recommendations made by principal councils as the Secretary of State
thinks fit.
(5) The Secretary
of State may determine which proposals 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 implementation,
or
(b) their implementation in
whole or in part is likely to conflict, to a significant extent, with a
specific government
objective.
(6) The Secretary of
State shall, no later than 18 monthsafter the commencement of
the consultation pursuant to subsection (1), lay the action plan before
each House of Parliament for approval by each
House.
(7) The Secretary of
State must—
(a)
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; and
(b) consider any
opinions of the advisor on progress
made.
(8) The Secretary of
State shall ensure that every regional office of government cooperates
with principal councils and panels established under section 3(1A) for
the relevant region in the promotion of the sustainability of local
communities.
(9) 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).’.
Government
new clause 5—Proposals by principal
councils—
‘(1) The
Secretary of State must invite principal councils to make proposals
which they consider would contribute to promoting the sustainability of
local communities.
(2) Before
inviting proposals, the Secretary of State must appoint a person (the
“selector”) to consider the proposals and draw up a
short-list of proposals for consideration by the
Secretary of State, in accordance with regulations
under section [Proposals by principal councils:
regulations].
(3) The selector must be a person who represents the
interests of principal
councils.
(4) On receiving the
short-list from the selector, the Secretary of State
must—
(a) decide which,
if any, of the proposals on the short-list should be implemented,
and
(b) give reasons for the
decision.
(5) Before
taking a decision under subsection (4) the Secretary of State must
consult the selector and try to reach
agreement.’.
Government
new clause 6—Short-listing of proposals:
regulations—
‘(1) The
Secretary of State must make regulations about the procedure to be
followed in relation to proposals under section [Proposals by principal
councils].
(2) Before making
regulations the Secretary of State must
consult—
(a) the
selector, and
(b) such other
persons, who the Secretary of State thinks represent the interests of
principal councils, as the Secretary of State thinks
fit.
(3) Regulations may, in
particular—
(a) specify,
or authorise the selector to specify, steps to be taken by a principal
council before making proposals (including, in
particular, a requirement for a principal council to have regard to the
matters specified in the
Schedule);
(b) specify steps to
be taken by the selector in considering the proposals and drawing up a
short-list;
(c) specify
criteria to be applied by the selector in drawing up a
short-list;
(d) specify a
maximum number of proposals to be included in a
short-list;
(e) require the
selector to prepare, and give to the Secretary of State, a report on
the proposals;
(f) specify the
form of, and the information to be included in, a report under
paragraph (e).
(4) Regulations
must—
(a) require a
principal council, if it has not already done so, to consult
representatives of local persons before making any proposal under
section [Proposals by principal
councils],
(b) require a
principal council to try to reach agreement with
representatives of local persons about proposals,
and
(c) require a principal
council to have regard to any guidance issued under subsection
(5).
(5) The Secretary of State
may issue guidance to principal councils about making proposals, which
may in particular include guidance about consulting representatives of
local persons.
(6) Before
issuing or revising guidance under subsection (5) the Secretary of
State must consult—
(a)
principal councils, or
(b)
persons who the Secretary of State thinks represent the interests of
principal councils.
(7) In this
section—
“local
person” means, in relation to a proposal by a principal council
under section [Proposals by principal councils], a person who is likely
to be affected by, or interested in, the
proposal;
“representative”
means, in relation to local persons, a person who appears to the
principal council to be representative of the local
persons.
(8) Regulations under
this section—
(a) must
be made by statutory instrument,
and
(b)
are subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House
of Parliament.’.
Government amendment No. 45, in
title, line 1, leave out from ‘provision’ to
‘and’ in line 8 and insert
‘about promoting the
sustainability of local
communities;’.
Amendment
No. 46, in title, line 6, leave out ‘upon
request’.
Amendment
No. 47, in title, line 6, leave out ‘produce local
spending plans’ and
insert
‘make
recommendations regarding local spending
reports’.
Amendment
No. 48, in title, line 7, leave out
‘approve and implement those
plans’
and
insert
‘publish reasons
for decisions relating to local spending
reports’.
Mr.
Woolas:
Let me explain—I hope that it will be
helpful for the Committee. Having rapidly moved through the clauses, we
now move to the schedule. New clause 7, which has been tabled by the
hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood, is to replace the existing clause 2,
and is countered by Government new clause 5. New clause 6, confusingly,
would replace new clause 3. That is an inevitable consequence of the
way we are proceeding on this matter. I am grateful to you,
Mr. Cummings, for allowing such a
debate.
Mr.
Letwin:
Just to save later confusion, I think that the
Minister used the wrong words. He said that new clause 6 would replace
new clause 3. I think that he meant to say that it would replace the
original clause 3.
Mr.
Woolas:
I am very grateful. It is confusing, because there
is a difference between new clause 6 and the sixth new clause. That is
the source of the confusion, which may be inevitable with a small Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman is correct. The difficulty that we have here
is new clause 7. Mr. Cummings, are you permitting debate on
that at this
point?
The
Chairman:
Yes, it is in this
group.
Mr.
Woolas:
Thank you. It may therefore be helpful if I allow
the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood to put the arguments for new
clause 7. I realise that that is an unconventional way of conducting a
debate, but it may be helpful for us to do that, if he is in
agreement.
Mr.
Hurd:
Yes, indeed. I had no wine at lunch, but I must say
that I rise with a sense of giddiness at the pace at which we are now
cantering through the Bill.
We have a
reservation about Government amendment No. 35, because as I understand
it, although we do not oppose the change in wording, a link is made
tonew clause 6, which we do not accept. I support new clause
7, which I tabled along with the hon. Members for Stroud and for
Falmouth and Camborne. In our view it is a slimline and less
prescriptive version of our earlier new clause 2. Just to remind the
Committee of the narrative of the Bill, as we have been jumping around
a little, new clause 2 was the part that drew out the mechanics for the
formulation and delivery of a national action plan to counter the
problem of community decline, which is the driving force of the
Bill.
I would like to
go through the main points of detail. I believe that the differences
between ourselves and the
Government are not ones of principle, nor are they necessarily ones of
substance, but they are worth airing, just to ensure that we have some
consensus and the two versions can be reconciled. Our version of new clause 7
starts with the now familiar issue of the timetable. We have softened
our approach by requiring that the
“Secretary of State
shall, as soon as is practicable, consult all principal councils in
accordance with this
section”.
New clause 2
required that to happen within six months, so I think that we have
taken a more practical approach. We much prefer the word
“consult” tothe term “to invite
proposals”—I think that that isthe term in the
Government’s new clause—and the Minister understands that
the word “consult” has a stronger force and a clearer
sense of definition in law than what is in the Government’s
proposals. We therefore remain firm on that point.
New clause 7 would refine the
provisions of new clause 2 by introducing sensible mechanics for the
appointment of the Local Government Association as the selector or
“the advisor”—various expressions have been used.
We understand the role of the LGA tobe that of a filter,
consolidating and prioritising the recommendations that come from the
front line. In the last sitting, the Minister expressed reservations
about the Government requiring anything of the LGA because of its
status, which I think the Committee understood. The provisions satisfy
us that there could be no confusion about which body is favoured to
fill this space and, I think, meet the Minister’s concern about
appearing to require nothing of the
LGA.
New clause 7(4)
would insist on a duty of co-operation between the Secretary of State
and“the advisor”—the LGA, we hope. The
Government’s approach is to try to stay with the language of
consultation. We have insisted that the duty to co-operate should
cascade down the chain of decision making: the Secretary of State would
have a duty to co-operate with the LGA, which would have a duty to
co-operate with local authorities, which in turn would have a duty to
co-operate with the panels and the mechanics of local engagement. We
feel that that duty should be a consistent theme through the
chain.
In new clause
7(5) we have set out the opt-outs for the Secretary of State—we
are sensitive to concernsin the Department regarding a
Secretary of State’s freedom of manoeuvre. Those opt-outs are
clearly linked to any proposals that involve extra money or conflict
with the national Government’s policy objectives. It is worth
emphasising that subsection (8) would require the Secretary of State to
ensure that each
“regional office of
government cooperates with principal councils and
panels”
in the
process.
The Minister
understands that the driving force behind the Bill and the priority of
its sponsors is to make it clear to its audience and the people whom it
will affect, that this is a different process from the normal one. Our
concern about the Government’s proposal in new clause 5 is that
it reads much like a standard consultation. I do not know what other
Committee members’ experiences are, but in my constituency
certainly, the words “public consultation”
and “sham” have become inextricably linked—there is
very little confidence in the traditional process of
consultation.
Nia
Griffith:
How is it that in the wording of new clause 7,
we have the term “consult all principal councils”, but
clearly in new clause 5 we have the idea that the principal councils
make the proposals? As I understand it, new clause 5 is much stronger
in giving a bottom-up approach than new clause 7. Why does the hon.
Gentleman think that new clause 7 removes the fuzz, and the bad
reputation that the word “consult” has, better than new
clause
5?
2.45
pm
Mr.
Hurd:
I have a lot of sympathy with the sentiment behind
that intervention. I think that the answer lies in how tight the
definitions are legally—for example, in a case in which somebody
feels that the consultation has not been adequate. In such a case, it
would be easier to define “consultation”. It is stronger
and would give more comfort than a simple invitation to make
proposals.
Julia
Goldsworthy:
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is the
words before “make proposals” that are the problem? If we
want a bottom-up approach, the fact that
the
“Secretary of State
must invite”
those
proposals causes a problem. It seems to be in the power of the
Secretary of State to invite them. I understand the point made by the
hon. Member for Llanelli, but do not think that either new clause is
better at dealing with the
issue.
Mr.
Hurd:
That intervention is extremely helpful. I am not
sure that this is the most important issue that we will deliberate on,
because our intention here is clear. I have been advised that
“consult” is a stronger expression and is preferable
because it lends itself to explicit
definition.
My main
point is that the desire of the Bill’s sponsors, and its many
supporters out there, is for a national action plan to address the
social problems associated with community decline. However, there
cannot be just a standard consultation exercise. The driving force
behind the Bill is the fact that local opinion is what counts on
decisions that affect local communities and their future health and
sustainability; local people know best. There is a desire for, and
there must be seen to be, a genuinely bottom-up process to formulate
the national action
plan.
The core
elements of new clause 7 are certainly an improvement on old clause 2.
We feel that the new clause would send a stronger signal to the system
that this is not just a standard consultation exercise,
butthat there is a genuine desire for bottom-up local
engagement that will make the national plan as
effective as
possible.
Nia
Griffith:
I will speak about the comparisons between new
clauses 7 and 5. Importantly, we are all trying to pull in the same
direction and we should focus on what is comparable between the two and
how much
overlap there is. I am extremely lucky in coming
from Wales, where we have a closer relationship with the Assembly
Government than is possible for a wider community such as
England.
I have some
concerns. New clause 5 is explicit in saying that the selector should
be on the side of the principal council and it therefore represents the
bottom-up view. I am not convinced that, under new clause 7, the
LGA’s representation would necessarily put the views of the
principal council—it might, but it might not. I suggest,
therefore, that new clause 5 would give more strength to local councils
and local communities than new clause 7. I ask the Committee carefully
to consider the comparison between the two new clauses and which would
be the more
effective.
Julia
Goldsworthy:
As the Minister did not oppose the amended
clause 3, I hope that he will not press new clause 6. The debate on
this group is therefore largely about whether the existing clause 2
should be replaced by new clause 7, which I tabled with the hon.
Members for Ruislip-Northwood and for Stroud, or by new clause 5, which
stands in the name of the
Minister.
There are
not many differences between the two proposals. Often, the difference
is purely in the language used—for example, whether we should
“invite proposals” or “consult”. The
language is also different, although the sentiment is the same, on the
issue of whether there should be an “advisor” or a
“selector”.I think that “selector”
is a bit cumbersome, but ultimately we are trying to achieve the same
thing. When drafting new clause 7, we tried to use the language that
would be most straightforward and easy to
understand.
There are
two areas in which I think that the two new clauses differ, on which I
will seek assurances from the Minister. One of the first key issues
concerned the timetable. New clause 7 clearly sets out a time scale for
the consultation and how the Department should respond annually to
explain progress against the proposals that come forward. That is not
present in new clause 5, but it is in new clause 7. I would appreciate
the Minister’s comments on the process that we have talked about
this morning, which is about ensuring that we can tangibly feel that
the issues that have been raised have been responded to, but not just
hoofed into the long grass. I seek his reassurance on
that.
The second key
issue is the fact that new clause 5(5) concerns whether the Secretary
of State must consult, or co-operate. We have had a long debate on
other clauses about the language that compels people to co-operate.
That has been accepted in earlier clauses, so I hope that the Minister
would be able reassure us that the Secretary of State would be prepared
to take on the duty to co-operate that we have discussed at such great
length in respect of local authorities. If he can tell us that
amendments will be tabled and accepted to change that fundamental
sense, we will perhaps be reassured. There are two key issues: time
scale and co-operation, rather than consultation. If we can deal with
them, we will feel a lot happier about new clause
5.
Mr.
David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op): Much has been said, so I
do not need to repeat it. Let us start from where we agree. Old clause
2 is overly
bureaucratic, and is clearly in need of being
re-written. That is what the two approaches are trying to do. To be
honest, there is obviously common ground here, so I hope that we do not
make a meal of this; we should get it sorted on Report.
However, I want make a narrow
point. I do not like the notion of a selector. To me, a selector means
something sporting, or someone who is not involved in the field of
play, but comes from outside and starts making decisions that may or
may not take account of those who are involved in the discussion. I
prefer the word “advisor”, because clearly, an advisor is
there to make representations and recommendations, and to be part of
the discussion. It is a very narrow point, but if we were to go out to
communities and say that the eventual delineation and arbitration of
what may go forward in terms of their sustainable community plan is
going to be overseen by a selector, they would be somewhat nervous and
would probably not engage. I hope that we can agree, if nothing else,
that “advisor” is a more appropriate term, given that it
is the same person, perhaps doing the same thing. However, as always in
life, titles mean something.
Mr.
Hollobone:
To me, the main point of difference between new
clause 7 and new clause 5 is that the words “action plan”
do not appear in new clause 5. However, in new clause 7, they appear
seven times. Given that a large part of the meat of the Bill is about
drawing up an action plan and implementing it,new clause 7
addresses that need far better than the wording in the Government
amendment, which refers to proposals being invited from principal
councils.
It has been
said that new clause 5 offers more encouragement to the bottom-up
proposals from local authorities to the Government. I would be amazed
if that were the case given that the promoter of the Bill wants very
much to ensure that that happens. New clause 7 would offer greater
reassurance that that will be encouraged and implemented than
Government new clause 5.
Mr.
Letwin:
I wonder whether there is a route through this
matter. If we take new clause 5 as the Minister’s starting
point, from our point of view there seem to be two very serious
deficiencies in its drafting. However, I suspect that he may not be
unwilling to change them, so let me try to persuade him. I do not think
that subsections (1), (2) and (3) of new clause
5—
Jim
Cousins (Newcastle upon Tyne, Central) (Lab): On a point
of order, Mr. Cummings. Although I appreciate that there is
a need for some discussion between those on the two Front Benches, it
would be nice if the rest of us also felt that we were part of those
discussions. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could address his remarks
as much to the Committee as to the
Minister.
The
Chairman:
I call Mr. Letwin to
respond.
Mr.
Letwin:
I apologise, Mr. Cummings. I
havea terrible habit of mumbling anyway, and I was mumbling
towards the Minister. I do not know whether members of the Committee
agree, but I do not
think that subsections (1), (2) and (3) of new clause 5 cause any
difficulty for those of us who are otherwise in favour of new clause 7.
The bits that cause difficulty are subsections (4) and (5) and, in
particular, two narrow but vital points, one in each of those two
subsections. Unlike new clause 7, subsection (4) does not mandate any
action on the part of the Minister, and my hon. Friend the Member for
Kettering and the hon. Member for Stroud, in different ways, drew
attention to that. There is no mention of an action plan, and under
subsection (4) the Secretary of State does not actually have to do
anything. He could simply sit there and not decide to do
anything.
Mr.
Woolas:
Or decide not to do
something.
Mr.
Letwin:
Yes, or positively decide not to do something. I
am not trying to draft proposals in Committee, but if the Minister were
to undertake to come back with a version of subsection (4) which
mandated the Secretary of State to draw up an action plan based on
those proposals on the short-list that he deemed should be implemented,
or something of that sort, we would be eight-tenths of the way towards
solving the first of the
problems.
The
problem in subsection (5), which was also alluded to by other members
of the Committee, is that there is a duty to consult but not to
co-operate with the selector. I know that the hon. Member for Stroud
has an aesthetic objection to the term “selector”, which
I share, but we would not want the Bill to founder on that ground, so
let us forget it for a moment. The Minister came a long way towards us
in subsection (3) by making it clear without naming the Local
Government Association that it was, de facto, the Local Government
Association, and we can live with that.
The problem
is that under subsection (5) the Secretary of State does not have to
co-operate with the LGA, merely to consult it and that is a big
difference. If he had to co-operate with it, broadly we would have a
version of new clause 5 under which he had to draw up an action plan in
co-operation with the LGA. If we strip it right down, that is what new
clause 7 is all about.
I do not know how those who
tabled new clause 7 would feel about it, but I think
there may be a possibility of withdrawing new clause 7 and new clause
5. The Minister could then table a version of new clause 5 on Report
that looked awfully like new clause 5 as drafted but with the two vital
changes of a mandated action plan and a duty of co-operation. I do not
know whether that route is
feasible.
The
Chairman:
I call Mr.
Woolas.
3
pm
Mr.
Woolas:
Thank you, Mr. Cummings, for calling me
to speak while I am deliberating. The process is a helpful
one.
Perhaps I should
set out the arguments on amendment No. 35 and on new clauses 5 and 6,
now that we have heard the debate on new clause 7. Amendment No. 35 is
related to new clause 6. It would simply remove the words
“indicators referred to in section
2”
and replace them with
a reference to “matters referred to” in the section
dealing with proposals by principal councils. I tabled it as a
clarification in defining terms, in order that there would not be
confusion with the national indicator set that is being developed as
part of the work programme related to the local government White Paper
and the Bill that will
follow.
I remind hon.
Members that new clause 5 is a proposed replacement for new clause 2,
as indeed is new clause 7. Obviously I shall not speak at length about
the intent of new clause 5, because I believe that the Committee is in
agreement on it. However, let me record why I think that new clause 5
as drafted is a good and effective mechanism that meets the
Bill’s
intent.
New clause 5
requires the Secretary of State to invite principal councils to make
proposals that they consider would contribute to promoting the
sustainability of local communities. Before inviting proposals, the
Secretary of State must appoint a person—the selector—to
consider the proposals and to draw up a shortlist for consideration by
the Secretary of Statein accordance with regulations under
proposed new clause
6.
As I have already
said, the selector must be someone who represents the interests of
principal councils. Clearly, that is the Local Government
Association.On receiving the shortlist, the Secretary of State
must decide which, if any, of the proposals should be implemented, and
give reasons for the decision. Before making a decision, the Secretary
of State must consult the selector and try to reach agreement—a
point to which the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne
referred.
I am aware
of the reasons why some Committee members might feel that new clause 5
falls short of the aspirations behind the Bill. I personally do not
believe that it does, although I do not want to be heavy-handed about
it. Nevertheless, I shall put on record my reasons for that
belief.
The hon.
Member for Ruislip-Northwood proposes to require the Secretary of State
to produce an action plan that would be laid before each of the Houses
of Parliament—both initially, and thereafter annually. Under new
clause 5, the Secretary of State will respond publicly to every
proposal that is made, and therefore progress will be regularly
updated. That is a flexible statement of the action that the Secretary
of State intends to take in response to proposals.
I know that, when I use the
word “flexible”, the hon. Member for Falmouth and
Camborne will rise and seek to intervene, because she believes that
flexibility will be my excuse for ducking out of a commitment to
prepare an annual report. What I am actually saying, however, is that
it might be desirable to make reports more frequently than on an annual
basis.
Julia
Goldsworthy:
It is not a question of the regularity of
reporting. The point is that I cannot see anything in new clause 5 that
indicates that the response from the Secretary of State must be in
public.
Mr.
Woolas:
The Secretary of State’s responses are in
public; the hon. Lady must trust me on that. When we are in government
we do not respond to colleagues; we respond to Parliament and to the
press as well.
However, I take her point; she wants reassurance that the process will
be public and transparent.
Mr.
Hollobone:
I am following the Minister’s
explanation closely. Before he moves on too far, can he advise the
Committee why new clause 5(1) states that the Secretary of
State
“must invite
principal councils to make
proposals”?
Surely it
should state that the Secretary of State “shall consult all
principal
councils”.
Mr.
Woolas:
That is a fair question. The phrase “must
invite principal councils” is an imperative. What I am seeking
to avoid is a situation in which the legislation compels the principal
council to act. In my view, Parliament can impose a duty on the
Secretary of State but, in this process, not on the principal council.
By saying “she or he must invite the councils”, it gives
the council the flexibility to say, “We do not wish to make any
proposals.” If one were to do it the other way round and insert
“may consult”, the Secretary of State may decide not to
do so. It is, of course, still open to principal councils to make
proposals. If the proposal is in response to an invitation that the
Secretary of State must make, that defines the process and obliges the
Government to follow procedures.
Let me stray on one thing,
Mr. Cummings. There is a huge debate raging in the country
about the invitation to propose for unitary authorities. That was an
invitation to propose; it was not a compulsion to propose. Within the
framework of that consultation, it is triggered by the Secretary of
State’s invitation. The idea behind that wording is to allow
Parliament to compel the Secretary of State rather than to allow a
flexible consultation with councils. The hon. Gentleman has picked up
on the crucial wording; he has a tendency to do
so.
The action plan
being laid before Parliament each year is an important point. Under new
clause 5, all decisions will be made public and any decisions requiring
parliamentary scrutiny will be considered by Parliament. The Secretary
of State will be held to account for her actions in meeting the
requirements of the Bill and for the much wider range of actions that
she takes to promote the sustainability of local communities. The
Secretary of State is bound to act by the Bill, and her
actions—for example, decisions on spending and the making of any
legislation—will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. I believe
that there is little to be gained by creating an extra parliamentary
process.
I have
already covered the point about a dutyto co-operate during our
discussions on the original clause 3. To reiterate, we discussed the
duty to co-operate at length at that time. I explained the meaning and
intent of the duty that is placed on named authorities in clause 82 of
the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill.
The drafting of new clause 6,
and of new clause 5, is intended to meet this intent in the most
appropriate way. One cannot have a one-sided duty to co-operate; named
parties must co-operate with each other, and they have to co-operate on
something or to do something. That is a helpful point from the intent
of the Bill.
Hon. Members would like all
duties in this clause to be subject to a timetable specified in the
Bill. As I have said, it is desirable to act soon, and the Government
has, I believe, demonstrated that it is committed to achieving progress
through the Bill. However, the detailed implementation of all duties is
subject to consultation, and rightly so. Including timetables in the
Bill may create duties that are impossible to comply with. In addition,
having a duty to do something by a specific date could also have the
unintended effect of making the duty a one-off
exercise.
I have said
that new clause 5 is related to newclause 6. I am not saying
that I intend to push this, but I would like to explain my thinking.
New clause 6 is a replacement for the existing clause 3. It requires
the Secretary of State to make regulations about the procedure to be
followed in relation to proposals under the Government’s
proposed new clause 5—so the jigsaw puzzle is coming
together.
Before
making the regulations, the Secretary of State must consult the
selector, the LGA, and such other persons as she thinks represent the
interests of principal councils. The regulations may specify
stepsto be taken by a principal council before making
proposals, including a requirement for a principal council to have
regard to the matters specified in the schedule. Secondly, they may
specify steps to be taken by the selector in considering the proposals
and drawing up a shortlist. Thirdly, they may specify criteria to be
applied by the selector in drawing up a shortlist. Fourthly, they may
specify a maximum number of proposals to be included in a shortlist and
require the selector to prepare and give to the Secretary of State a
report on the proposals. Lastly, they may specify the form of, and
information to be included in, the report.
The regulations, on the other
hand, must require a principal council, if it has not already done so,
to consult representatives of local people before making any proposal.
The principal council is required to tryto reach agreement
with those representatives about proposals and to have regard to any
guidance issued. That is an important point, because the Committee was
unanimous in wanting statutory guidance to ensure that there would be
proper consultation and
involvement.
The
Secretary of State may issue guidance to principal councils about
making proposals, which may include the guidance about consulting
representatives of local persons that we have discussed before. Before
issuing or revising guidance, the Secretary of State must consult
principal councils or, again, persons who the Secretary of State
considers represent the interests of principal councils. In other
words, we would not be able to issue statutory guidance on how to
consult without having first consulted the people whom we were going to
compel to consult. That might sound like a pedantic point, but let me
reassure the Committee—I am sure that if the right hon. Member
for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who did my job
previously, were here, he would back me up—that such procedures
are subject to detailed examination and sometimes to legal challenge
should they not be followed. There iscase law precedent on the
definition of consultation
and the timetables and methods that are required. [Interruption.]
I can see that the Committee wants me to move on, but it is
important to put these matters on the record and I am going as fast as
I can. We think that
it is right to achieve these matters through regulations and guidance
and that the Secretary of State is required to consult widely, because
there has not been an opportunity to involve principal councils and
those representing their interests in our deliberations. That is not a
criticism but a statement of obvious fact. However, the councils are in
the best position to know what will work best.
I understand that there are a
number of areas in which the Committee might feel that my proposals
fall short of their desired position. I have already explained the
meaning and the intent of the duty to co-operate that is placed on
named authorities in clause 82 of the local government Bill. The
drafting of new clauses 5 and 6 is intended to reflect that intent in
the most appropriate way, namely by requiring the council and the
Secretary of State to try to reach agreement with, respectively, local
representatives and the selector. I should stress that that is a
far-reaching duty. It carries more meaning and goes further than the
wording proposed by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood. There cannot
be a one-sided duty to co-operate. Named parties must co-operate with
each other, and they have to co-operate on something or in doing
something. This is a strong measure that meets the aspirations of hon.
Members on both sides of the Committee.
If I could just repeat the
specific reference to disadvantaged groups, I fully agree that
councilsshould make every effort to empower and engage
disadvantaged groups. I have explained that this is the intent of
clause 108 of the local government Bill and of the wider range of
measures that we are putting into place. I have also said that we fully
intend to cover this issue in the statutory guidance that will
accompanythe
Bill.
3.15
pm
Referring to
disadvantaged groups on the face of the Bill would have an unintended
adverse impact on clause 108 of the local government Bill. I am keen to
avoid that, which the hon. Member for Kettering will recognise as he
has been following the debate. Amendment No. 33 requires principal
councils to set up residents panels. New clause 6 requires principal
councils, if they have not already done so, to consult representatives
of local people before making any proposal. The difference is simply
the word “panel”. Let me explain why new clause 6 does
not include specific reference to a panel.
First, the effect of the
requirement in new clause 6 is broadly equivalent to that of amendment
No. 33. The term “panel” has very little meaning. For
example, how many people should sit on it? The Opposition raised this
question when we debated the public involvement in health parts of the
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill. Should it be
the same number in all places? Should the panel meet to make decisions?
How should panels take decisions? Those are not insurmountable
problems, and they are fairly
small and technical. I am simply putting on record the sorts of
questions that the Government would have to
answer. Secondly,
making specific reference to panels inthe Sustainable
Communities Bill could have an unintended adverse consequence on clause
108 of the local government Bill. As I have said, our proposed new
clause 6 includes a guidance-making power, and I am happy that the
guidance that will accompany this Bill should include reference to
panels.
The hon.
Member for Ruislip-Northwood proposes that if a council fails in its
duty to involve its citizens effectively, then citizens should be able
to seek redress through the Secretary of State. There are a number of
mechanisms in existence and planned in the local government Bill, such
as the community call for action, which provide redress short of legal
challenge or direct referral to the Secretary of State. Ultimately if
the Secretary of State is satisfied that an authority is failing to
meet its duty to involve local representatives her intervention powers
under section 15 of the Local Government Act 1999 could
apply.
Before
exercising such powers, however, the Secretary of State would generally
expect to work with the authority to give it an opportunity to address
the issues before taking such action. If, following that opportunity,
the Secretary of State was still of the view that the authority was
failing to meet its duty she would need to be able to present clear
evidence to support that view. Taken as a whole, I think that those
powers are sufficient and, in particular, I do not believe it is
appropriate to involve the Secretary of State every time an individual
feels their council has not acted
appropriately.
I
understand that the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood would like to
require principal councils to consider parish plans and to involve
parish and community councils. Again, I agree that this would be
desirable. In practice it will, of course, happen. Thereis a
danger that it would be too restricting and prescriptive to make this a
requirement on the face of the Bill. One of the big areas that we have
debated is the voluntary sector involvement and the requirement
for principal councils to include voluntary
organisations among the bodies that they must consult. Again, that is
desirable and it is the consequence of the local government Bill, and
section 108 in particular. In practice, councils do involve voluntary
organisations. There is a range of activities to build voluntary and
community sector involvement and empowerment.
I do not propose to describe
the difficulties that I have with new clause 7 because I have achieved
my objective in putting on the record the Government’s proposals
with regard to new clauses 5 and 6.
Mr.
Drew:
This is to prove that my hon. Friend is still
alive.
Jim
Cousins:
I am not sure that what I am about to do provides
any great evidence one way or the otheron that, but let us be
optimistic. Before the Minister concludes—the power of prayer in
these matters should never be underestimated—could he indicate
his
reaction to the suggestion made by the right hon. Member for West Dorset
about the withdrawal of both new clause 5 and new clause 7, and the
preparation of some symbiosis of the
two?
Mr.
Woolas:
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s frustration.
I am conscious that at some future date, most probably on 15 June, I am
going to have to explain the Government’s position to the House.
If I can refer to the Hansard of this Committee then
Iwill be grateful—one has to think ahead in these
circumstances. In short, it will be better if I bore the pants off my
hon. Friends for 20 minutes today—with all respect and deference
to the experience that we have here—than if I bore the pants off
the whole Housein a few weeks’ time. I have now put on
record the Government’s position.
It is desirable that the
Committee should report back to the House with a Bill. I should prefer
to report back with an imperfect Bill than with no Bill at all. I agree
with the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne that we need a clause 5.
It would be acceptable to withdraw new clause 5 and new clause 7 and
come back—albeit that that is not for me to say, because this is
a private Member’s Bill. However, I do want a Bill to go to the
House, and I think that the Committee would agree with
me.
Mr.
Drew:
Just so that I am absolutely clear—if
everybody else is, I apologise if I have been dozing on the Back
Benches—we seem to be unanimous in wanting to get rid of
existing clause 2. We seem to have some agreement that there is a
middle way between the Government’s new clauses 5 and 6, and new
clause 7. My only problem is that there has to be something in the Bill
about action planning. When we discuss it on Report there may be some
who—notwithstanding their willingness to go all the way through
Hansard to look at the pearls of wisdom that have come from the
Minister—are surprised that the basis of the Bill is not as
clear as it might be.
I would welcome the
Minister’s clarification as to what he would accept, going
forward to Report, even though we know that we will improve the Bill on
Report.
Mr.
Woolas:
I have indicated that I am content not to
move the motion on new clause 5. The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood
has tabled new clause 7, so it is up to him to decide what to do with
that. My plea to the Committee is that we should have, if not a
comprehensive package, then a coherent one to put to the House. I hope
that I have made it clear that I do not believe that any points of
principle are causing a problem. I have explained at some
length—some would say at too great a length—the technical
problems that we have with new clause
7.
Mr.
Drew:
To be absolutely clear, is the Minister still going
to move the motion on new clause
6?
Mr.
Drew:
That is being withdrawn, so we are now debating
whether new clause 7 should stand part ofthe
Bill.
Mr.
Woolas:
To help my hon. Friend, new clause 6 is dependent
on other matters. What matters here is new clause 7 and new clause 5.
We need a clause; I would prefer it to be new clause 5, and the hon.
Member for Ruislip-Northwood would prefer new clause 7. I said that I
am happy not to press new clause 5 to a Division, and I put my
arguments forward in the best way I could and as comprehensively as
possible. I will leave it to the Committee to decide how to
proceed.
Mr.
Hurd:
I thank the Minister for the way in which he has
conducted the debate. He clearly had some things to get off his chest
and I hope that he feels better for it. I said that the differences
were not major ones, but we have two different versions of a clause and
we have to decide which one to proceed
with.
My right hon.
Friend the Member for West Dorset highlighted our two major concerns
about Government new clause 5: the failure to include a duty to
co-operate and a national action plan, a point also raised by my hon.
Friend the Member for Kettering. Government new
clause 5 creates a framework whereby the Secretary of State must
respond to a series of proposals coming from the front line, but with
no timetable attached to that we are worried that there is a
possibility that it could be a rather fragmented, scatter-gun approach.
The desire and responsibility need to be drawn together into a coherent
national action plan. Those are the two key deficiencies of new clause
5.
As the Minister
said, new clause 6 is linked to new clause 5 and contains the added
complication that there is an overlap between new clause 6 and our
earlier deliberations on clause 3. The balance of judgment is that we
should accept the Minister’s offer not to press Government new
clauses 5 and 6 and proceed to a decision on new clause 7, with a clear
message to the Minister that our minds are open to amending it on
Report. It is clear from this helpful debate that our views are pretty
close.
The
Chairman:
Does the Minister wish to press amendment No.
35?
Mr.
Woolas:
Amendment No. 35 relates to my new clauses, so I
think I should not press it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Mr.
Drew:
I beg to move amendment No. 21, in
schedule, page 8, line 30, after
‘Act,’, insert
‘including new arrangements for
the provision of affordable
housing,’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 36, in schedule, page 8, line 36, at end insert
‘legal
services,’.
Mr.
Drew:
I shall be brief—I am not putting anything on
the record.
This is a simple amendment to a
planning subsection to add affordable housing to the matters that any
group considering the sustainability of their area should bear in mind.
No area can be sustainable if it is impossible for people to live
there. Anyone who represents a constituency like mine—several
members of the Committee represent areas that are not
dissimilar—knows that the biggest single dividing factor in
whether a community is sustainable is the inability of certain types of
people to live in those communities, usually because they are excluded
by their inability to buy, rent or even to live with others in the area
because of the lack of
accommodation.
In
adding the amendment, I had hoped to be far more radical and to go into
all sorts of ideas about community land trusts, only to find that no
such idea exists in law. Therefore, the next time Ron Bailey has
nothing better to do, he can bring forward a wonderful Bill on
community land trusts for number one so that we can put it in law. That
is notwithstanding what we can do here.
I want communities to engender
their own solutions. They have to be responsible for the people who
live there and for those who would like to live there. The wording of
the amendment is very simple and, I hope, without controversy, so we
will all nod it
through.
3.30
pm
Mr.
Letwin:
Opposition Members are preparing
legislation on community land trusts. Therefore, we may not even need
to wait until somebody else does
it.
Mr.
Drew:
In the spirit, of cross-party participation,
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will put my name on the
legislation. That means we can move everything forward in the way we
are moving this measure forward. That is why I am doing this; I have a
particular motive in mind. However, I have to use the usual analogy of
placing baubles on a Christmas tree. I hope that, subsequently, people
who understand and believe in such things will take those ideas
forward. It is a real point of engagement with local communities and I
have every hope that we may get it added to the
Bill.
Julia
Goldsworthy:
I would like to endorse everything
that the hon. Member for Stroud has just said and I would like to speak
very briefly to amendment No. 36, which follows representations from
the Law Society about the need to ensure that legal services are also
included in definitions outlined in the schedule. The Law Society wants
to ensure that local legal services can provide a valuable role in
producing thriving sustainable local communities. It wants to register
its concern that providers of such services are also suffering from the
phenomenon of ghost-town Britain, which is a familiar theme to all
those who have participated in the debate on the Bill. It wants to
underline the fact that—along with the local post
office, the shops and the pubs—local, often
independent, providers of legal services also feel the threat of
exactly the same kind of pressures and want to be recognised in a
similar way.
I draw
the Committee’s attention to a Law Society survey about the
developments in local legal services and their relationship with local
communities. The
overwhelming majority wanted to highlight their
concern about the current level of provision. Puttingit into
the context of the Bill, 100 per cent. of the respondents regard
adequate access to locally provided legal services as important to the
sustainability oflocal communities. By definition, that is a
unanimous response. I
would like to quote some of the comments that were made. We need to
consider them in the context of the changes being made to legal aid,
which many local people feel could threaten access to such services by
the most vulnerable people in society. One person
said:
In my area,
there used to be over 20 solicitors, now there are just
four.”
Another referred
to competition from outside, which has reduced the availability of
locally provided services. Another one stated:
“More people are
appearing at court unrepresented and completely without access to legal
advice or assistance. This leaves people feeling disenfranchised and
disaffected.”
One of the key points that
local people wanted to underline is that access to such services,
especially at a very early stage, is massively important to members of
the communities that we want to ensure remain sustainable. If people do
not access legal services at an early stage, it can lead to them
requiring access to other, more costly services. Ultimately, it will be
beneficial to the community in that way.
That reminds me of an important
service that the citizens advice bureau provides in my constituency. It
has an agreement with the local courts that all mortgage repossession
hearings be held on the same day, so that the legal specialists can go
there and give advice to people. The vast majority of people still turn
up at court having sought no advice. Dozens of people who would have
lost their houses keep them as a result of that advice. If they had
not, just think of the extra knock-on costs that it would have
represented to local authorities through having to try to find them
temporary accommodation. It is about not just protecting services but
ensuring that other services provided do not have additional financial
burdens.
The Law
Society, among other organisations, welcomes the opportunity that the
Bill provides to help counter many of the difficulties facing
communities. With the inclusion of local legal services, it feels that
the Bill will help to reverse the effects of ghost-town Britain, which
we have been
debating.
Mr.
Woolas:
I rise briefly to clarify the fact that the
Government have no problem with the amendments.It is clearly
desirable that the schedule include the relevant
matters—affordable housing, which is in amendment No. 21, and
legal services, in amendment No. 36—in its definitions. But one
would not wantto raise false expectations. The hon.
Lady’s survey reported a 100 per cent. affirmative response to
the question whether there should be legal services. It does not take
Sherlock Holmes to work out that the response to that will be 100 per
cent. We cannot kid ourselves that, by including things in a Bill, we
make them happen in the real world. We are facilitating local
communities to argue that they
should.
I could give a
strong defence of the fact that the Government are the author of the
affordable housing policy, and I could give a strong historic lesson as
to how we got legal aid and community services. I will
not, for fear of alienating members of the Committee, and I support the
amendments.
Amendment
agreed
to.
Amendment
made: No. 36, in schedule, page 8,line 36, at end insert
‘legal services,’.—[Julia
Goldsworthy.]
Schedule,
as amended, agreed
to.
| 
