Clause
31Joint
overview and scrutiny
committees
Mr.
Goodman: I beg to move amendment 33, in
clause 31, page 25, line 12, leave
out ‘The Secretary of State may by regulations’ and
insert ‘local authorities
may’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be
convenient to discuss the following: amendment 34, in clause 31,
page 25, line 36, leave out ‘regulations’ and
insert
‘arrangements’. Amendment
35, in
clause 31, page 26, line 19, leave
out ‘Regulations’ and insert
‘Arrangements’. Amendment
36, in
clause 31, page 26, line 26, leave
out ‘have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of
State’.
Mr.
Goodman: The official Opposition, like other Opposition
parties, were not convinced by the Minister’s explanation of
clause 30. She said that the view had generally been expressed that it
would be useful to have more resources and scrutiny and that
representations had been made to the Department for Communities and
Local Government, but it did not seem to us, on the basis of her
comments, that local authorities and others were knocking at the
Department’s door saying that scrutiny in local authorities was
poor. And
that brings me directly to our amendments. Very often, amendments are
probing amendments designed to test the Government’s intentions.
However, these amendments would give the clause sufficient flexibility
to make it just about bearable. Amendment 33 would remove the Secretary
of State’s regulation-making power and give local authorities
the flexibility to make this provision, if they so wish. Amendment 34
would replace “regulations”—again, made from the
centre—with the more pliable word “arrangements”.
That is also the case with the next amendment. Perhaps we have taken a
rather severe view of any guidance issued by the Secretary of State in
amendment 36. However, together, our amendments would make the minimum
necessary changes to the clause to ensure that it does not place a
burden on local authorities that, on the basis of the Minister’s
evidence, they should not have to
carry. 1.45
pm
Julia
Goldsworthy: I think that everybody in the Committee
agrees that ensuring a strong scrutiny process is important in order
for people to have confidence that their councils are well run and
that, if there are any problems, a mechanism exists for investigating
them fully. The Liberal Democrats have no problem with the
establishment of joint overview and scrutiny committees. There are many
issues on which councils working together can be run more efficiently,
and we can see an improved process.
Our problem is
that we cannot see why the process must be determined by the Secretary
of State. The concern is that it brings forward a background issue,
which is that the Government always presume the best intentions in the
Government and the worst in local authorities. The provisions are just
another example of that: clearly, local councils cannot be trusted to
come
up with satisfactory arrangements; that will only be achieved if those
arrangements are specified, once again, in primary legislation. That
seems to be the theme of virtually every clause in the
Bill. The
amendments presented by the hon. Member for Wycombe seem entirely
sensible. They would make it clear that it is not only the local
authority’s right but its responsibility to ensure that the
process works effectively. For councils that might struggle to do so,
the regulations might be an additional burden that will make it more
difficult to fulfil those duties. Once again, the Government have no
business requiring all local authorities to act entirely in a specified
way. It is a matter for local authorities. It is depressing that we
continue to have discussions such as
this.
Mr.
Curry: If the Minister were to accept the amendments,
would it not be a good opportunity to put into practice the new
doctrine enunciated by the Prime Minister yesterday about
devolution?
Julia
Goldsworthy: The right hon. Gentleman makes a valid point.
This is called the Local Democracy Bill, and the White Paper that
informed much of it was all about putting communities back in control.
Exactly how will the Bill put communities back in control? Even looked
at in the most positive way, which is that it is about giving
communities a better service—I am sure that the Government will
present it that way—it certainly does not put them in control.
It puts power in the hands of one person only, and that person is the
Secretary of State.
Mr.
Goodman: Has the hon. Lady had a chance to read—I
am sure that she has, as she is an assiduous chewer-through of
material—a recent report called “The balance of
power” by the Select Committee on Communities and Local
Government, on which our parties do not have a majority? The conclusion
reads: “Central
government should maintain a very high threshold before it intervenes
in only the last
resort.” It
ends: “CLG
is not as far down the road as some of its rhetoric might
suggest.”
Julia
Goldsworthy: It is a challenge for all political
parties. It is easy to use the rhetoric surrounding empowering
communities and pushing down resource, but it is an opportunity for the
Government to ensure that their actions confirm their words. At the
moment, they appear to be contradicting
them.
Mr.
Curry: Of course, the supervision of the Secretary of
State will be carried out by the regional office, so in practice, an
official will make a recommendation to the Secretary of State. The
practical decision could well be taken by somebody who is not
elected.
Julia
Goldsworthy: And then we are back into quangocracy and
bureaucracy, which will continue to be remote to so many people. I have
grave concerns about the clause. The amendments are an attempt to
restate that. I think that the Conservatives also have a long way to go
in persuading people that they are prepared to back up their rhetoric
with actions, so if the Government were to adopt the
amendments—I am inclined to support them—it might be an
opportunity
to demonstrate on a cross-party basis that not only are all the parties
keen to use the rhetoric of localism, they are prepared to do something
about it as well.
Mr.
Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab): On Second
Reading, I declared my interest as a chairman of the Centre for Public
Scrutiny; I stress that this is a non-pecuniary interest, a
non-remuneratory post.
I have to say
that what I have been hearing from the Opposition is a load of
nonsense. This is not some kind of unwarranted Government interference:
it is a sensible measure to enable joint scrutiny to be carried out by
different local authorities—scrutiny that engages other
activities, notably the health service and the criminal justice system.
We all know the importance of joining up, and if we do not have central
Government creating a legal framework that makes it clear that this can
be
done—
Mr.
Raynsford: Will the hon. Gentleman please leave me for a
moment? I simply want to make this point. If central Government do not
create a clear, legal framework under which it is absolutely clear to
local authorities that they can set up joint scrutiny committees, there
will inevitably be variations in interpretation of what is within their
power and what is not. This is where there is an absolute case for
central Government to set out the framework. It does not impose
obligation on local authorities: the powers are permissive. How they
set up their joint scrutiny committees will be for them to decide, as
will whether they set them up at all.
Both
Opposition parties are completely wide of the mark on this. They are
trying to see some kind of authoritarian, central Government diktat
where it does not apply at
all.
Mr.
Goodman: If the right hon. Gentleman, to whose experience
I defer, wants a framework he can have one, but why should not that
framework say “local authorities may” rather than
“the Secretary of State may” by
regulations?
Mr.
Raynsford: For the very simple reason, as I just
explained, that some authorities may take a different interpretation of
the extent of the powers for some of the scrutiny bodies that may be
set up, not just with other authorities, but with other parties as
well. All the evidence of scrutiny—the Minister referred to the
experience of the Centre for Public Scrutiny—suggests that there
are huge benefits from cross-silo working by different authorities and
bodies in the public service. We should surely be encouraging this and
promoting a framework that makes it
possible.
Mr.
Jackson: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe, I
defer to the right hon. Gentleman’s interest in and passion for
this issue, but we are not talking about encouragement. The Bill is
effectively forcing local authorities to amalgamate their functions.
What is wrong with using the term “may” and giving more
authority and autonomy to local authorities, if they have issues
relating to social and economic commonality of
interest?
Mr.
Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. If he
reads the Bill, he will see that the relevant phrase
says: “The
Secretary of State may by regulations make provision under which any
two or more local authorities in England may”—
It says
“may”, not “must”. It is permissive; it
helps local authorities; it gives clarity. It is Government acting
sensibly: acting in response to representations, made by many people
with experience of good scrutiny, that we should be encouraging
cross-border and cross-sector working to ensure a more joined-up
approach to the delivery of public services and better government at a
local level.
Julia
Goldsworthy: The right hon. Gentleman says that the
problem is that there have been variations in interpretation, but does
he not think that a good thing, which allows for the boundaries to be
pushed even further? Is it not also slightly risky to assume that joint
scrutiny processes will in every case help overcome some of the silo
thinking? I can think of a joint health and adult social care overview
scrutiny committee that, from the point of view of the public, has been
very confusing because it looks at decisions for which it has no
responsibility. In many cases, it has been criticised for decisions
that are entirely in the realm of health, and nothing to do with the
council it is responsible for scrutinising. So this provision is not
the only way of breaking down these silo
issues.
Mr.
Raynsford: The hon. Lady makes two points, the first of
which is to leave it all to local authorities. I entirely concur with
the principle that the format of the joint scrutiny committees can
probably best be determined at a local level. The problem is that if
individual local authorities are advised by their lawyers that their
powers are perhaps limited, we may get different interpretations. One
authority could take the view that it has the power to set up such a
committee, and another might take a different view. That is why it is
sensible to have a national
framework. The
hon. Lady’s second point was that joint scrutiny is not always a
good thing. Of course it is not always, and it can sometimes be done
badly, but there are huge gains from different organisations with
different perspectives working together. The experience of local
authority involvement in health scrutiny is an interesting issue. It
has helped local authorities, with their considerable social care
responsibilities, to have a much better understanding of the interface
between what they do and what the national health service does. That
must be a good
thing.
Julia
Goldsworthy: I have no doubt that it has helped to
encourage joint working, but this is the Local Democracy Bill and much
of what we have been considering is about aiding people’s
understanding. I am not entirely convinced that in every case, these
joint committees help people to understand where the responsibilities,
and ultimately the budgets, also
lie.
Mr.
Raynsford: They may not have worked in every case, but
they have overwhelmingly been a force for good. I would have thought
that the hon. Lady and her party would support this as a way of
encouraging more joined-up working at local level, with the permissive
power to enable local authorities to take useful
initiatives.
Mr.
Curry: I have a sense that we are travelling round
different perimeters of the circle to arrive at the same point. If
local authorities had to discover the boundaries of their powers
themselves, would not the tradition of best practice before very long
assert a common view of what was permitted? Would not that
process of experimentation in a sense be rather creative in the
process? Secondly, what the hell is the Local Government Association
for?
Mr.
Raynsford: Probably, given its recent difficulties, it is
best to pass over that second question. On the first question, I give
the right hon. Gentleman three names to show why his assumption is a
bit optimistic. They are the names of local authorities with which I
had considerable dealings when I was Local Government Minister because
they were in an appalling mess: the London borough of Hackney, the
metropolitan borough of Walsall and the district of Rossendale. Those
are three different authorities under different political
control—that is the reason why I mention them—that were
not working well and where, despite the fact that this had been evident
for many years, there was little sign of any improvements.
Sometimes it
is necessary to give a little nudge and a little help in the right
direction. When that is done it can often produce rather remarkable
results. I am happy to say that all three of those local authorities
are now working very much better—remarkably better than a decade
ago. There is evidence of the perfectibility of man, woman and local
government, but sometimes it requires a bit of a nudge. So just leaving
it to the automatic process, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, may
not be the right approach. The clause is eminently sensible. I believe
that the Opposition’s amendments are misconceived and I hope
that my hon. Friend the Minister will recommend the clause to the
Committee and that it will approve
it.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: I thank my right hon. Friend for sharing his
considerable expertise and experience on this issue, and I entirely
concur with his remarks. Unfortunately, I do not entirely concur, as
might be expected, with the remarks of Opposition Members.
I reassure the
Committee that we have not opted for this approach because we want to
prescribe the fine details of how local arrangements work. To reiterate
what my right hon. Friend said, the regulations simply ensure a broad
framework and flexibility to address key questions relating to area
scrutiny committees. This is an enabling power and a practical measure
that allows us to address matters of important detail in regulations,
to ensure that the various scrutiny provisions dovetail and work
effectively without causing duplication or unnecessary burdens. I
certainly see nothing unusual or sinister about making provision for
such matters through
regulation. 2
pm The
Committee might be aware that we recently consulted on proposals for
joint area scrutiny arrangements. Responses to that consultation
highlighted a number of practical considerations. For instance, there
were concerns about the need for full and fair representation of all
interests and proper governance arrangements, and there is clearly a
difficult but important balance to strike, and possibly quite complex
arrangements to make.
As
the proposal for any two or more authorities to appoint joint overview
and scrutiny committees is new, it is even more important that we
carefully consider those practical issues and work with key
stakeholders to ensure that the right balance is struck. By addressing
those detailed matters in regulations, we can ensure that the new
arrangements work to deliver real benefits for communities.
On guidance,
Parliament agreed and recognised the need for a statutory
guidance-making power for the overview and scrutiny
provisions introduced by the Local Government and Public Involvement in
Health Act 2007, including those for joint overview and scrutiny
committees. Overview and scrutiny committees are already required to
have regard to a basic level of statutory guidance and there is no good
reason to treat joint overview and scrutiny committees differently.
However, I should like to reassure the Committee that wherever
possible, guidance should take the form of sector-led best practice
guidance. That is why we are working with the Centre for Public
Scrutiny to issue guidance to accompany the new overview and scrutiny
powers, thereby limiting the need for statutory guidance.
I hope that
the hon. Gentleman is prepared to withdraw the amendment and support
the clause as it stands.
| 
