Clause
25Primary
authorities Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill. 12.45
pm
Mr.
McFadden: The clause is important because it deals with
the establishment of primary authorities. As I said, it is important
that all businesses operating across multiple local authorities have
some access to this scheme. The Hampton report highlighted two
problems. First, not all local authorities are prepared to take on the
role, leaving some businesses without an effective regulatory partner.
The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford talked about the importance
of that. Secondly, the division of labour between local authorities is
sometimes unfair, with some councils taking responsibility for a large
number of partnership schemes to the advantage of local authorities
elsewhere that may host
none. The
clause is designed to tackle those problems by giving businesses more
certainty and allowing LBRO to facilitate a fairer distribution of
responsibility for hosting the primary authority partnerships. The
relationship of
primary authorities and enforcement authorities is at the heart of part
2 of the Bill. The clause and those that follow are particularly
important in setting up that
relationship. Mr.
David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op): I agree that this is an
important clause, but does the Minister agree that it would be better
if services were delivered under one authority, particularly in the
areas of trading standards and environmental health? There is a strong
argument for unitary
authorities.
Mr.
McFadden: We have made relatively speedy progress this
morning, Mr. Chope. I suspect, if not fear, that pausing for
a discussion on which form of local authority is best may detain us for
some time. In the fine city of Wolverhampton, we have a single unitary
authority. In other parts of the country, we have a different system. I
will resist the temptation to pronounce on which model is best. That is
a debate for another
day. The
clause is designed to do something a little different, which is to
begin setting out in the Bill how the relationship of primary authority
and enforcement authority is to
run.
Mr.
Prisk: I am grateful for the Minister’s opening
remarks on the clause. It is important and establishes the principle of
primary authorities. Key to this matter is moving on from the familiar
and established procedure of home authorities. If I made an unkind and
unnecessary remark towards the city of Liverpool, I am more than happy
to withdraw it. It is good to see that there are collaborations. I
gather from the Minister that there are collaborations in the west
midlands. The car dealership that he referred to, which we will now
know as McFadden Motors, will clearly be able to trade across the west
midlands with some
confidence. The
primary authorities established by the clause lead me to the written
evidence submitted by Hertfordshire county council, which I saw this
morning. It raises a good and practical series of points. There is one
particularly important point on the practical and resource implications
of changing from the home authority to the primary authority. I am a
Member of Parliament for Hertfordshire and county hall is in Hertford
in my constituency. For those who are not familiar with Hertfordshire,
it is already established as a home authority for Tesco, Dixons,
Nissan, Renault and Orange. It has three dedicated offices working on
that
role. I
refer hon. Members to the first page of the document from Hertfordshire
county council. It
states: “Under
the current proposals in the Bill it is estimated that this
resource”— the
resource in terms of homes for primary authorities—
“would need to
increase by at least 100% assuming that only the largest businesses
take advantage of the Bill's provisions. If smaller businesses take
advantage of the primary authority provisions in the Bill, this
increase could be multiplied several times. We estimate that up to
twelve full time officers would be needed to service the increased
needs of the thousands of businesses based in Hertfordshire under the
requirements of the
Bill.” Three
officers are currently required, but that figure could rise to 12. Even
if only the largest of the businesses—say only six of
them—currently working with the council
as a home authority continue to work with it when it is a primary
authority, the latter’s resource commitment will
double. The
Minister and most Committee members will be aware of the long-held
understanding between the Local Government Association and Her
Majesty’s Government that additional duties placed on local
authorities, in legislation, will be reflected in formula funding. Will
that understanding be honoured? Will any duties placed on local
authorities under this Bill be directly reflected in their formula
funding?
Mr.
McFadden: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising
the submission given to the Committee by Hertfordshire county council.
I read it with interest last night, and discussed it with Bill
officials. Some were surprised by the submission, given how closely
that council was involved in the Bill’s development over some
months. I shall not take issue with its figures for the number of such
staff currently employed, but it is very different from that understood
by the Bill team.
The
council’s note, however, fails to make reference to the
provisions in clause 31, which allows primary authorities to recover
costs incurred in the carrying out of its new tasks. The
council’s central point is that there are resource implications
for local authorities in exercising their functions as primary
authorities, which is only right. Clause 31 takes account of that by
allowing for cost recovery, the principle of which has resulted in
small businesses giving a warmer welcome to the Bill than might have
been the case. Without that provision, they might have been concerned
that the resource implications would result in too much attention being
given to the national chains and not enough to their own. I believe,
therefore, that Hertfordshire council’s concerns are met by
clause 31. As I said, we were quite surprised to receive such a note
from a local authority that has been so heavily involved in the
consultation and discussions on the development of this
policy. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
25 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
26Nomination
of primary
authorities
Mr.
Prisk: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in
clause 26, page 13, line 3, at
end insert— ‘(c) the
regulated person gives 3 months notice that it wishes to terminate the
nomination’. The
central purpose of this probing amendment is to enable businesses to
terminate the primary authority nomination. As Members will be aware,
clause 26 deals with the nomination of primary authorities, but, under
subsection (5), it also deals with revocations, which are permitted by
the LBRO either where the LBRO considers an authority to be “no
longer suitable” or
where “it
considers it appropriate to do so for any other
reason”. The
latter provision is found in subsection (5)(b). Amendment No. 16 would
give a business the ability to indicate its wish to end that
nomination. After all, clearly primary authorities will secede only if
there is a two-way relationship. It is important for a regulated
business to know that, if it no longer wishes to proceed
with that relationship, it has the ability to seek a termination, but
the clause does not make that clear. It would be most helpful to the
businesses concerned if the Minister assured us that subsection (5)(b)
will give them that
ability. Lorely
Burt: I have growing concerns about the clause. The
problem is that the LBRO can nominate a local authority to be a primary
authority without its consent. Under the clause, a democratically
elected local authority will not have the right to decide on the
service provision that would best suit the needs of the local
population and economy. Does the Minister agree that the LBRO having
the power to decide how a local authority should deliver services is an
undemocratic and unnecessary centralisation of control, which runs
counter to the principles of the system of local area agreements?
Furthermore, surely a forced relationship between a council and a
business would not be productive or effective for either party. Surely,
a primary authority relationship will work only if both parties want to
participate.
Mr.
McFadden: This is an important discussion, because how
such relationships will work is at the heart of part 2 of the Bill. As
the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford pointed out, the clause
deals with how the establishments are to be set up and revoked. They
could be ended for several reasons. For example, LBRO might consider a
local authority to be no longer suitable for the task, or a business
might relocate its headquarters from one local authority area to
another and request
that a nomination be revoked so that it could enter a new primary
authority partnership. There might be a takeover of one supermarket
chain by another, as has happened in the past, in which the supermarket
that is taking over the other already has a relationship with a primary
authority. Alternatively, a business and its primary authority might be
abusing the provisions and LBRO might wish to change their
partnership.
This issue
was raised on Second Reading when sweetheart deals, in which relevant
businesses and local authorities have cosy relationships but
enforcement authorities have a problem, were discussed. There has to be
a mechanism for dealing with such situations, but the amendment would
not put LBRO under a duty to change the situation. The examples that I
have given involve situations in which a business or a regulated person
requests that a nomination be revoked and it is open to LBRO to do
that. The amendment would not put LBRO under a duty to do so, but would
allow it to. That is already within its power, but it raises questions
about whether there are circumstances in which LBRO could refuse a
request from a business to put an end to a partnership. The Bill should
allow LBRO flexibility to work with a business and a local authority to
put a matter right if the relationship is not working. It would not be
helpful, in all cases, to have a statutory requirement on LBRO to put
an end to a partnership without question. I understand what the
amendment is trying to do, but I am not sure that that is the right way
to do it.
It being
One o’clock, The Chairman
adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing
Order.
Adjourned
till this day at Four
o’clock.
| 
