House of Commons - Communities and Local Government Committee

Select Committee on Communities and Local Government Committee Fourth Report

3 THE COMMITTEE'S EFFECTIVENESS

5. The Liaison Committee has identified a set of core objectives and tasks for departmental select committees.[14] These provide a framework for examining the effectiveness of our work. Four core objectives have been set, which are to examine the policy (A), expenditure (B) and administration of the Department (C), and to assist the House in debate and decision (D). In addition to those core objectives, the Liaison Committee also set 10 core tasks to assist in monitoring the work of departmental select committees. Our performance on these tasks is set out in Annex 1. Details of our activities in relation to the core objectives are set out below.

OBJECTIVE A: TO EXAMINE AND COMMENT ON THE POLICY OF THE DEPARTMENT

6. The central focus of our work is on examining current and possible future Government policy, relating primarily to the departmental responsibilities of CLG. Although we focus on the policy responsibilities of CLG, the cross-cutting nature of the issues for which the Department is responsible means that we inevitably touch upon a broad range of Government policy. In examining deficiencies in existing policy and suggesting improvements, we have been very successful in influencing Government policy. Our most significant achievements stem from our inquiries Coastal Towns, Is there a future for Regional Government? and Refuse Collection. As well as examining policy proposals, work continues on following up on our previous Reports and on our ongoing inquiries.

EXAMINING EXISTING GOVERNMENT POLICY

SECURING A SECOND GOVERNMENT RESPONSE (COASTAL TOWNS)

7. Our Report on Coastal Towns—followed by persistent lobbying—resulted in the Government taking the unusual step of issuing a second response. In it, the Government, finally, accepted a number of our recommendations.[15]

8. We had considered the impact of a diverse range of Government policies that affect coastal communities.[16] We concluded that the Government failed to appreciate and respond to the specific needs of coastal towns, and in particular we found the lack of cross-departmental liaison disappointing. We made 33 recommendations calling for Government action across a range of policy areas. Our key conclusions and recommendations were on the need for national co-ordination of policy affecting coastal towns, the sharing of best practice on regeneration, and addressing the distinct economic needs of coastal communities. We called for Government to establish a cross-departmental working group on coastal towns led by CLG.[17] On the economy, we made one key recommendation and reached one key conclusion. First, we asked Government to investigate the disproportionately high rise in the number of people claiming sickness and disability benefit in coastal towns in comparison to the average across Great Britain.[18] Secondly, we commented on the Department for Work and Pensions' failure to recognise the significance of seasonal work in coastal towns; we viewed this as indicative of a wider lack of Government understanding of the coastal economy.[19] All these recommendations and conclusions were rejected or dismissed by the Government in its initial response.[20]

9. We were deeply disappointed with the Government's response. Our Chair, Dr Phyllis Starkey, wrote to Rt Hon. Hazel Blears, then newly appointed as Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, outlining our concerns and requesting a further, more considered response, which the Government subsequently gave.[21] Its second response accepted a number of our recommendations—in contrast to the first—demonstrating our ability to influence Government policy. The Government is now committed to establishing a cross-departmental working group on issues affecting coastal towns and forming a coastal network with Regional Development Agencies and other bodies. It has also recognised our concerns on benefit dependency and seasonal work in coastal communities. We look forward to receiving updates from Government on the issues we raised in our Report, and we will continue to monitor progress in addressing the needs of coastal towns.

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF REGIONAL COMMITTEES (IS THERE A FUTURE FOR REGIONAL GOVERNMENT?)

10. In our inquiry Is there a future for Regional Government? we recommended that regional select committees be established, a view which the Government now shares. We examined the effectiveness of current mechanisms for scrutinising Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) and concluded that improvements were needed to enhance accountability and transparency. Our Report contained a number of proposals to enhance regional scrutiny, including ways to strengthen Parliamentary oversight.[22] In July 2007, the Government published the Sub-National Review; which supported the Committee's views on the importance of parliamentary oversight of regional institutions.[23] The Government has stated it believes the best means of achieving regional scrutiny is through the establishment of nine regional committees—noting and accepting our recommendation for their establishment.[24]

11. During this inquiry, we also examined the Government's policy on city-regions and proposals for their development. We found the economic case for the development of city-regions persuasive.[25] We called on the Government to provide greater clarity on the governing arrangements for city-regions, and on how the geographical boundaries would be defined. The Sub-National Review set out the Government's position on city-regions, including allowing groups of local authorities to establish statutory sub-regional arrangements.[26] The Government has not provided the level of detail that we sought; we will watch the development of city-regions with interest.

ACTION ON ALTERNATE WEEKLY COLLECTION AND FOOD WASTE (REFUSE COLLECTION)

12. Our inquiry on Refuse Collection provides further examples of our influence on policy. We examined the Government's policy on waste, including its Waste Strategy, and its approach to alternate weekly collection and food waste.[27] We found that the alternate weekly collection of refuse is not appropriate to all areas, particularly highly populated urban centres with crowded streets and limited storage space for bins. We also expressed concerns over the potential risks of fortnightly collection of food waste. One of the key recommendations was for the Government to take action to encourage householders and retailers to cut down on food waste. Following our Report's publication progress has been made in line with our recommendations. In July 2007 the Waste Reduction and Action Programme (WRAP)—a not-for-profit company funded by Government—issued revised guidance on alternate weekly collection to local authorities, which reflected our view on the need for food waste to be collected weekly. In November 2007, WRAP also launched a food waste reduction campaign.

SECURING A WHITE PAPER ON INTRODUCING BUSINESS RATE SUPPLEMENTS (LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE)

13. In August 2007, prompted by Sir Michael Lyons' Report on local government, we held two short inquiries covering aspects of local government finance—an inquiry on proposals for a Supplementary Business Rate (SBR) and an inquiry on Council Tax Benefit. Our Report on a SBR examined deficiencies in the Government's approach to local government revenue-raising powers, and examined the case for introducing a SBR, as called for by Sir Michael Lyons.[28] Following our Report the Government published a White Paper, Business Rate Supplements, in October 2007. The White Paper contained a firm proposal to introduce a power for local authorities to raise and retain local supplements to the national business rate.[29] We welcome the Government's commitment to introducing these powers, though we regret that the Government's proposals place restrictions around their use, which may limit their effectiveness. We will be following up on this inquiry during 2008.

14. Our Report on Council Tax Benefit highlighted some deficiencies in the Government's policy approach to Council Tax Benefit and examined the case for structural reform.[30] The Government did not agree with us on the need for structural reform of the rules governing Council Tax Benefit and instead stated that its focus was on increasing take up, particularly by pensioners.[31] Following our Report's publication the Local Government Association published its own Report on the need for reform of Council Tax Benefit.[32] We hope that continued pressure for change on this issue will lead to Government action in the future.

EXAMINING GOVERNMENT POLICY PROPOSALS

15. We have examined a number of CLG documents as part of our work in scrutinising the Department's output: the Discrimination Law Review,[33] the Planning White Paper,[34] and the Housing Green Paper.[35] On each paper we took oral evidence from the relevant minister. The evidence session covering the Discrimination Law Review fed into our Report on Equality. The evidence session on the Housing Green Paper linked into our continuing inquiry on The Supply of Rented Housing, and the session on the Planning Green Paper enabled us to follow up on our earlier Report on a Planning-gain Supplement.[36]

ONGOING WORK

16. We are committed to following up on our previous inquiries and monitoring the Government's actions on our recommendations. In addition to further action on our Coastal Towns inquiry, we are also pursuing issues arising from our inquiries on Refuse Collection and New Towns.

17. In our inquiry on Refuse Collection we examined proposals for the introduction of financial incentive schemes to encourage householders to reduce their waste. We concluded that introducing household rewards of as little as £20 or £30 a year for sorting waste was too low an incentive to ensure the behavioural change required. We also concluded that there could be implementation difficulties and negative consequences, such as increased fly-tipping and non-payment. The debate on proposals for the introduction of financial incentives to encourage recycling and waste reduction remains controversial. The Government's response did not adequately address our concerns on some of the details of implementing such charges. In December 2007 we held an evidence session with the Minister for Local Government, John Healey MP, and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Joan Ruddock MP, following up on the proposal for introducing financial incentives, as outlined in the Climate Change Bill. We are pleased that the Bill allows local authorities to link waste incentives with council tax if they wish.[37] We will continue to watch developments in this area.

18. In May 2007, we requested a memorandum from the Government on New Towns. This followed a number of recommendations made by our predecessor Committee—the Transport, Local Government and Regions Committee—in its Report on New Towns: Their Problems and Future.[38] In particular, we were keen to pursue our predecessors' finding that "it [was] very surprising that the New Towns 'experiment' [had] never been evaluated".[39] In the current policy context, where the Government is undertaking substantial work both on existing Growth Areas and on proposed new "eco-towns", our predecessors' conclusion that "an evaluation is urgently required which identifies both good practice and mistakes before any major new settlements are considered" appeared even more pressing now than when it was made five years ago.[40] We also wished to find out from the Government what steps it had taken since the Committee's Report to meet the reinvestment needs of New Towns identified in that Report.

19. The Government's memorandum is published on our website.[41] Although its overall response appeared encouraging, we were concerned that the Government's response to the crucial recommendations on research seemed half-hearted. We have therefore subsequently sought further information from the Town and Country Planning Association and from the New Towns Special Interest Group of interested local authorities. We will take a decision in the light of their responses on what further follow-up work might be appropriate.

20. We are also continuing our work on housing. In 2007 we held five evidence sessions as part of our inquiry into The Supply of Rented Housing. These sessions covered a broad range of housing issues including the role and significance of the social and private rented sectors, the future for local government and Arms-Length Management Organisations (ALMOs) in housing delivery, and measures to increase the supply of rented housing. In 2007 the Government published a Housing Green Paper. We felt it was important to take the Green Paper into account in our deliberations, and this has delayed publication of our Report. We held an additional evidence session with the Minister for Housing and Planning, Rt Hon. Yvette Cooper MP, to question her on these issues. We now plan to publish our Report during 2008.

OBJECTIVE B: TO EXAMINE THE EXPENDITURE OF THE DEPARTMENT

21. Issues of public expenditure are covered in many of our inquiries. The annual inquiry into the Department's Annual Report is the principal focus of our scrutiny of CLG's expenditure, alongside its focus on the performance and administration of the Department. In our Report on the Department's Annual Report 2007 we commented on the disappointing quality of information that CLG provided in the previous year in its Winter Supplementary Estimates memorandum. We went on to note the improved memorandum provided in 2007. Our adverse comments on previous Estimates have led to significant improvement in the Department's provision of information.[42] Our scrutiny of the 2007 Winter Supplementary Estimates continues, and we will continue to seek further improvement in the clarity and usefulness of the information provided to Parliament in the Department's Estimates memoranda.

OBJECTIVE C: TO EXAMINE THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE DEPARTMENT

PUBLIC SERVICE AGREEMENTS

22. Examination of Public Service Agreements (PSAs) provides an important means of monitoring the effectiveness of a department's ability to deliver. In our Report on the Department's Annual Report 2007 we commented that almost all of its PSAs "relied on the actions of someone else if their goals were to be achieved and on data collected elsewhere if they were to be accurately measured and assessed" and examined the effect of this on CLG's ability to deliver.[43] We also examined CLG's "slippage" on three PSAs—Decent Homes (PSA 7), Gender Equality (PSA 9) and Race Equality and Community Cohesion (PSA 10).[44] In our inquiry on Equality we considered existing PSA targets that covered different equality strands. We recommended that it would be beneficial for one PSA to cover all equality strands to ensure that the Government tackled discrimination faced by all disadvantaged groups. The Government has now adopted the recommendation.[45]

SCRUTINY OF EXECUTIVE AGENCIES AND NON-DEPARTMENTAL PUBLIC BODIES

23. In our Report on the Department's Annual Report 2007 we outlined the extent to which CLG is dependent upon a number of executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies to deliver its agenda, and we have examined the work of these bodies in our inquiries.[46] This has included examining the work of the executive agency Ordnance Survey and the non-departmental public bodies Regional Development Agencies (RDAs), the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), English Partnerships, and the Housing Corporation.

24. Ordnance Survey—the national mapping agency—is one of the four executive agencies of which CLG has oversight. The others are the Planning Inspectorate, the Fire Service College and the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre. During 2007 we examined Ordnance Survey's role and function. The rationale for this inquiry was to follow up on the recommendations made by our Committee's predecessor in 2002, and to consider the regulatory framework in which it operates, particularly the commercial use of public sector information.[47] In June 2007 we published 18 memoranda received from various witnesses. We plan to publish a short Report on Ordnance Survey during 2008.

25. Our inquiries on Regional Government and Coastal Towns considered the role and effectiveness of the executive non-departmental public bodies RDAs. While CLG does not hold departmental policy responsibility for RDAs—which lies with the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform—it is responsible for more than half of their funding. In our inquiry on Regional Government we concluded that there is a need for greater transparency and accountability of RDAs.[48] In our inquiry on Coastal Towns we drew attention to the critical role of RDAs in securing the regeneration of coastal communities, and we recommended that RDAs share best practice in this area.[49]

26. We examined the process of establishing the non-departmental public body the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) in our inquiry on Equality. During 2007 CLG held lead departmental responsibility for the Government's equalities policy, which included oversight of this body. In our Report we welcomed the formation of the new Commission but were critical of the Government's handling of its establishment.[50]

27. Through our continuing inquiry into The Supply of Rented Housing, we have also examined the role and effectiveness of the public bodies English Partnerships and the Housing Corporation in increasing the supply of social and private rented housing.

OBJECTIVE D: TO ASSIST THE HOUSE IN DEBATE AND DECISION

28. Westminster Hall debates provide an important forum for Parliamentary discussion on select committee reports. Our Report on Coastal Towns was debated in Westminster Hall on 7 June 2007.[51] We were pleased that, beyond our Committee's membership, hon. Members across parties, many with seaside town constituencies, expressed their support for our Report. The debate was useful in highlighting the inadequacy of the Government's initial response and in securing a further response. We intend to seek debates on other Reports of the 2006-07 Session as opportunities arise. In addition, two of our Reports and three evidence sessions have been tagged on the Order Paper as relevant to debates in the House.[52]

14 Following a Resolution of the House made on 14 May 2002. Back

15 First Report of Session 2007-08, Coastal Towns: the Government's Second Response, HC 69 Back

16 Second Report of Session 2006-07, Coastal Towns, HC 351 Back

17 Second Report of Session 2006-07, Coastal Towns, HC 351, para 109 Back

18 Second Report of Session 2006-07, Coastal Towns, HC 351, paras 48-53 Back

19 Second Report of Session 2006-07, Coastal Towns, HC 351, para 67 Back

20 Cm 7126 Back

21 First Report of Session 2007-08, Coastal Towns: the Government's Second Response, HC 69 Back

22 Fourth Report of Session 2006-07, Is there a future for Regional Government?, HC 352-I Back

23 HM Treasury, Review of sub-national economic development and regeneration, July 2007, p 9 Back

24 Ministry of Justice, The Governance of Britain, July 2007, Cm 7170, p 38 Back

25 Fourth Report of Session 2006-07, Is there a future for Regional Government?, HC 352-I Back