Mr.
Curry: Before Report, I wonder whether the Minister could
give us a list of the number of people in one county who are
councillors on a different council. I wonder whether it is a real or a
mythical problem. I cannot think of a single person in North Yorkshire,
in the whole time that I have represented it, who has been an employee
of one authority and a councillor in another. People cannot leave their
political allegiance behind when they go in and out of the relative
town hall.
Julia
Goldsworthy: My understanding is that this is not just
about standing for election, but about being able to express views
publicly in favour of a political party. It is not simply about
conflicts arising from individuals standing for public
office.
Mr.
Curry: No, I accept that, but the most high-profile way in
which someone might wish to express a political opinion is by standing
for election to a council, and there are a number of bodies that have a
political role to which people can be nominated. The Dales national
park is not entirely made up of councillors, for example. I wonder how
real the issue is. Quite frankly, why are we bothering with it? I think
that we have invented a problem, and I do not understand why we should
invent a solution to a non-problem.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: Hon. Members’ contributions
suggest that there might be some misunderstanding about what the clause
will actually do. It will merely remove the link between salary level
and the designation for local authority posts. The salary level is
currently a sum of money, not a scale for a post, and the sum of money
has not been updated for a number of years. We therefore continue to
support the policy behind the Widdecombe rules, which help to ensure
the political impartiality of local authority employees. The removal of
the link between salary and whether a post is considered politically
restricted will not undermine the impartiality.
If the
legislation is enacted, the following posts will remain politically
restricted: chief executive, chief officer, deputy chief officer,
monitoring officer, political assistant, and any person whose post is
specified in a list maintained by the local authority whose duties
involve giving advice to the authority on a regular basis and/or
speaking regularly to the media on behalf of the authority. In relation
to the last category, the ultimate test of whether an individual post
is politically sensitive will depend on the nature of the
duties that the post entails. Every officer falling within
that category may be entitled to exemption from political restriction
if the nature of the duties of that post does not require the post
holder to be politically neutral. Applications for exemption are
considered by the local authority standards
committee.
Mr.
Curry: Will the hon. Lady give me the assurance that
anyone involved in planning will be covered by the
restrictions?
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: That would be up to the individual local
authority to determine. It would have to apply the rules that I have
set out and would be subject to the standards
committee.
Julia
Goldsworthy: I am trying to understand what process will
follow if the changes are adopted. Presumably, some posts are
automatically politically restricted at the moment because of the
salary level. If, after the proposals are put in place, some posts will
not be automatically restricted because of the salary level and a
judgment may be needed about whether or not they should be deemed to be
politically restricted, will every council therefore have to go through
a process of auditing those affected to ensure that positions are not
missed or added by mistake?
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: I am perfectly happy to confirm that to the
hon. Lady. The clause will provide a more sensible way of going forward
than using an arbitrary sum of money or a salary
level.
Mr.
Jackson: I do not think that there was any confusion among
Conservative Members. We just want assurances from the Minister that
the Government are still committed to the enduring principles of the
Widdecombe report, which have lasted for 20 years. In fact, the Library
supporting documents state that the clause is not related to a monetary
sum but to spine point 44 on the national
scale. 1.30
pm
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: I think that we are getting into specifics,
because it is a point on the scale of salaries, but it will be a
specific sum of money each year. I do not know whether the hon.
Gentleman’s point is the Opposition’s position, but in
the other place Lord
Hanningfield certainly welcomed the provision, agreed that we should
look at the role played by the officer, rather than the salary, and
described the salary point as “totally
outdated.”
Mr.
Jackson: I still think that there are some serious
questions about the operation of the clause and suspect that, if it is
accepted, there will need to be a significant amount of secondary
legislation to support it, because of the number of elected councillors
who might be affected by it. Given the Minister’s assurances,
which I think the Committee will find satisfactory, I beg to ask leave
to withdraw the
amendment.
The
Chairman: Order. There is no amendment. This is a clause
stand part debate.
Mr.
Jackson: I am sorry, Mr. Illsley. I will
rephrase that: we are minded not to vote against the clause standing
part of the
Bill. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
29 accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
30Scrutiny
officers Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Goodman: Our approach to clause 30 is, in a manner of
speaking, the opposite of our approach to clauses 28 and 29, which we
have just considered. When we originally looked at clauses 28 and 29,
we were inclined to be sceptical and looked at what happened in the
Lords, but we came to the conclusion that they should pass muster. We
have not tabled one of our repetitious and unselectable amendments in
an attempt to delete clause 30, because we want to give the Minister a
chance to justify it. Having said that, it did not have a friendly
reception in the other place, where both Lord Hanningfield and Baroness
Hanwee were extremely sceptical about it, drawing attention to the
difference between the present state of affairs, where there is a
monitoring officer, and a section 151 officer, and trying to get the
Minister in the Lords to explain where that post would slot into the
present arrangements. Indeed, Baroness Hanwee spoke of her opposition
to the
clause. At
the risk of sounding like a broken gramophone record, we come back
again and again to the same question: bang in the middle of part 1 is
the word “must”. Must we have “must” in the
Bill? Need the statute book have such specific obligations placed on
local authorities? The Minister probably has some explanation up her
sleeve for why the finance officer, referred to in subsection 4(c), and
the monitoring officer and the head of the authority’s paid
service, referred to in paragraphs (b) and (a) respectively, may not be
designated and why other posts may be, and I look forward to hearing
it.
In summary,
obviously the role of scrutinising what takes place in local councils
is extremely important. We on the official Opposition Benches say that
the correct balance must be struck between proper scrutiny and the need
not to overburden local authorities with so many scrutinising duties
from the centre that it makes it difficult for them to run their
affairs with flexibility. We
wait to hear what the Minster has to say, but we are far from convinced
that the clause, as drafted, should stand part of the
Bill. Julia
Goldsworthy: The key question is if this is the answer,
what is the question? Is there a concern that the current scrutiny
processes are not sufficient? Do we feel that the scrutiny procedures
are not scrutinised enough? If so, do we need to open up channels for
that to take place? I draw the Committee’s mind back to some
comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall, who said
that if we are imposing this measure on all authorities, does it pass
the Isles of Scilly test? Will the Isles of Scilly, which has a very
small council, now be required to appoint another officer to undertake
scrutiny, when there are a relatively small number of officers to
scrutinise? I
am not clear why the duty that is outlined in this clause does not
apply
“to a district
council for an area for which there is a county
council” as
outlined in subsection (5). Surely if such a position is needed at
local authority level to ensure that overview and scrutiny committees
follow due process, then that should apply at any level of local
government. I do not see why it should just apply to the principal
authority in two-tier authorities. I share the scepticism that has been
expressed, and I look forward to the Minister explaining the question
to which this is the
answer.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: I am glad that we all agree that overview
and scrutiny is an important way of ensuring local accountability and
transparency. Moreover, it is an important tool for empowering
communities and enabling local people, through their democratically
elected representatives, to participate. However, we must ensure that
all lead councils rise to the standards of the best, and that all are
aware that this powerful tool is an effective means of driving
improvement.
For effective
scrutiny, it is important that there is proper officer support and that
officer resources are in place to provide that support and advice. The
evaluation document, “The New Council Constitutions: The
Outcomes and Impact of the Local Government Act 2000”, made a
number of important points. First, less officer support is provided for
scrutiny compared with executive functions. Secondly, scrutiny works
best and is more robust in areas in which resources are committed.
Thirdly, scrutiny arrangements are not as robust as executive
arrangements. Moreover, we looked carefully at the Centre for Public
Scrutiny survey, which sought views from the local government sector on
the single element that would do most to improve the overview and
scrutiny function. One of the highest responses was to provide more
resources and
staff. We
also consulted extensively on how to implement the proposals for
scrutiny and support set out in the White Paper, “Communities in
control”. The Centre for Public Scrutiny thought that that would
be essential, if scrutiny is to benefit from the new powers and
responsibilities outlined in the White Paper. We looked at three
corporate statutory posts, which, experience has shown, are the
foundation for ensuring that councils devote sufficient attention and
support to those key functions in a way that is appropriate to their
local circumstances.
We
have given careful consideration to views expressed in the
consultation, which make a compelling case for our proposal to replace
the requirement on lead councils to have a scrutiny officer who is
responsible for supporting the work of their overview and scrutiny
committee, which does not have to be their only role. We are not saying
that councils should have one person who only does that. We leave that
decision to local
councils.
Julia
Goldsworthy: Will the Minister clarify whether there will
be additional resources for such a function and that it will not be
just another job title for an officer to take on? Will there be
resources that enable the kind of support that she has talked
about?
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: I confirm that if this clause is passed, the
resources will be made available within the funding process to support
that role. I do not think that the approach we have set out is overly
prescriptive, which was the point made by the hon. Member for Wycombe.
It recognises the important role officer support plays in driving
effective scrutiny, but balances that with the need to allow local
flexibility. We have not attempted any complex prescription of the
scrutiny resources, and the clause provides scope for local authorities
to determine these detailed arrangements for
themselves. I
have been asked why we have excluded certain council officers from
becoming a scrutiny officer. Just as the scrutiny function is kept
separate from the executive function by ensuring that members of the
executive cannot serve on overview and scrutiny committees, it makes
sense that the scrutiny officer should not hold one of the key
corporate posts as head of paid services or chief financial officer.
The monitoring officer’s role is to ensure that the authority
conducts its business lawfully and with propriety. The post carries
certain powers and duties. Although the role of scrutiny is to some
extent complementary in that it also provides checks and balances on
the exercise of executive functions, the role of the scrutiny officer
is to support scrutiny by members, and not to carry it out. Allowing
those two roles to be carried out by the same person could blur the
distinction between the two functions and lead to confusion.
The hon.
Member for Falmouth and Camborne asked why the requirements are not
applied to district councils. We are trying to ensure that the quality
of scrutiny in councils responsible for local area agreements is raised
to the standards of the current best, which is why we have confined
them to those authorities. On that basis, I hope that we can pass the
clause. Question
put, That the clause stand part of the
Bill. The
Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes
6.
Division
No.
26] Question
accordingly agreed to.
Clause 30
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
| 
