Dan
Rogerson: I congratulate the Minister again on how she has
got to grips with the brief, given that she has not had the opportunity
to be involved in the negotiations and discussions. However, the
representations received by Committee members suggest a significant
body of opinion in the world that will have to implement these measures
that the provision is not yet quite right and that changes are
necessary. I would be letting people down if I did not give hon.
Members the opportunity to
vote.
Mr.
Raynsford: I put it to the hon. Gentleman that when the
original provisions were introduced by regulation in 1998, based on the
1996 Act, there were many voices across the industry that expressed
anxiety and disagreement with some of them. That is the nature of the
construction industry; it is hugely diverse, with many parties whose
interests are not always the same. In reality, the result of the
introduction of the 1998 provisions is a step forward. Although there
are inevitably discordant voices about the proposed changes, I suspect
that those differences are inherent in the nature of the industry and
do not reflect on the changes being introduced. The proposals have been
the subject of detailed discussion and, in my judgment, will improve a
process that has undoubtedly taken a lot of litigiousness and
adversarial behaviour out of the industry. I counsel the hon. Gentleman
against giving too much credence to the negative voices. Let us see how
the changes work in practice.
Dan
Rogerson: I am, as always, grateful to the right hon.
Gentleman for his intervention. I am usually happy to take his advice
and hear the benefit of his experience, but on this occasion, I would
like to test the Committee’s opinion. I come from a Cornish
background. SMEs are dominant in our economy, and I am concerned
because their representatives feel that the changes could be a problem
and could put their work at risk.
Question
put, That the amendment be made.
The
Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes
8.
Division
No.
57] Question
accordingly negatived.
Clause 139
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses
140 to 142 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Schedule
7 agreed
to. Clauses
143 to 145 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
146Short
title Amendment
proposed: 1, in clause 146, page 88, line 28,
leave out subsection (2). —(Ms Rosie
Winterton.) This
amendment removes the standard privilege amendment made in the House of
Lords.
Mr.
David Curry (Skipton and Ripon) (Con): This is an historic
moment; I think an amendment is actually going to be accepted. Perhaps
we ought to have a hallelujah chorus at this stage in the proceedings.
However, I am intrigued by the amendment, which would delete a
subsection that
states: “Nothing
in this Act shall impose any charge on the people or on public funds,
or vary the amount or incidence of or otherwise alter any such
charge”. In
other words, the statement in the Bill that there will be no charge to
individuals or public funds is being deleted, so presumably there will
be a charge. If the provision is wrong, how did it get there in the
first place? The amendment, in practice, reverses a position. It is not
a drafting amendment; it is a substantive amendment. I should like to
know a little bit about it. It is nice to have an echo of the previous
Minister in this Committee, even in one amendment, but I am intrigued
by what it is all
about.
Ms
Winterton: The amendment is purely a formality. The
privilege clause is inserted in any Bill that starts in the Lords to
prevent the Lords from contravening Commons privilege, and it needs to
be removed now that the Bill is being considered in the
Commons.
Mr.
Curry: We learn something every day, Mr.
Illsley. Amendment
1 agreed
to. Clause
146, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
New
Clause
1Award
of construction projects ‘In
considering the award of a contract in accordance with the Housing
Grant, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (c. 53), a local
authority may have regard
to— (a)
their functions under section 66 of the Local
Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (local
authority economic assessment);
and (b) the desirability of
maintaining a diverse range of contractors in its local authority
area.’.—(Dan
Rogerson.) Brought
up, and read the First
time. 1.45
pm
Dan
Rogerson: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second
time. I
wanted to raise some questions about local contracting and the
desirability of local authorities having regard to that. The new
clause, which was tabled by Members who could not join us on the
Committee, sets out a helpful principle. It does not, as far as I can
see, restrict local authorities, in that it does not instruct them
always to look to local contractors or anything like that. However, it
focuses the mind on clause 66, which deals with local economic
conditions. The new clause would be a useful addition to the
Bill.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: The new clause appears to be about access
for local contractors to local authority construction contracts. The
issue was raised on Second Reading. The new clause would permit local
authorities considering the award of construction contracts, as
defined by the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996,
to have regard to the assessment of the economic conditions in their
area and to the desirability of maintaining a diverse range of
contractors. Part 2 of the 1996 Act, which regulates construction
contracts, sets out the rights to adjudication, staged payment and the
suspension of performance under the contract. The legislation has
generally worked well, but has been ineffective in certain areas. Part
8 of the Bill addresses those
weaknesses. The
new clause does not relate to that issue, however. It appears to use
the 1996 Act definition of a construction contract as a convenient hook
on which to hang another issue—that of securing preferential
treatment for contractors in a local authority’s area by pinning
awards on the economic assessment of conditions in a local
authority’s area and the range of contractors available
locally.
The drafting
of the new clause is unclear. It is difficult to understand what is
meant
by “the
desirability of maintaining a diverse range of contractors in its local
authority
area.” It
may mean the desirability of protecting local businesses from recession
by ensuring that they receive preferential treatment in the award of
local authority contracts. That is incompatible with the EU procurement
regime, which requires procurements by public bodies, including local
authorities, to be advertised competitively throughout the EU if the
value is above the threshold. There are limited exceptions to that
regime, but none appear to be relevant here. The new clause
suggests that local firms should be favoured over competitors from
the EU and elsewhere in the UK. Such unequal treatment or
discrimination would mean that a competitor, whether inside or
outside the UK, could challenge the procurement process or the award of
the contract if it has gone to a local company that has received
preferential
treatment. Our
view is that a mixed economy of service provision is how local
authorities achieve best value in the delivery of their services. In
statutory guidance published last year, “Creating Strong, Safe
and Prosperous Communities”, the then Secretary of State
reaffirmed that commitment. The relevant paragraph states
that “best
value is more likely to be achieved where there is a positive approach
to achieving a mixed economy, rather than where any one supplier
dominates the provision of services in an
area.” Leaving
that matter within statutory guidance ensures that local authorities
have the necessary flexibility to be able to consider the circumstances
for each contract. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the
clause.
Dan
Rogerson: The Minister will be pleased to hear that I do
not intend to press the motion to a Division. However, there are
important points to be
made. In
an area such as mine, where many of the businesses are smaller ones, a
local authority might be able to shape the time frame and the way it
collects bids for contracts to allow groups of smaller contractors to
form consortiums so that they can bid successfully against larger
operators that operate across the whole country. That is not to say
that the larger operators do not provide best value; however, in many
cases they will not be able to and are just able to act more quickly in
getting their bids in.
The new clause
was intended to enable us to explore whether local authorities can
carry out their procedures in such a way that it creates a level
playing field and takes account of factors that might act on local
contractors. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to air that issue
and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
clause. Clause,
by leave,
withdrawn.
New
Clause
2Referendums ‘(1)
A principal local authority must provide a facility for the holding of
referendums— (a) in
electronic form, or (b) in such
other manner as the authority considers
appropriate. (2) A principal
local authority must give reasons for not granting a request to use the
facility provided by it under this section for the holding of a
referendum. (3) A principal
local authority must make a scheme (a “referendum
scheme”) for the holding of a
referendum. (4) A referendum
scheme must be approved at a meeting of the authority before it comes
into force. (5) A principal
local authority must publish its referendum
scheme— (a) on its
website, and (b) in such other
manner as the authority considers appropriate for bringing the scheme
to the attention of persons who live, work or study in its
area. (6) A principal local
authority may at any time revise its referendum scheme (and subsections
(3) and (4) apply in relation to any scheme which is revised under this
subsection). (7) A principal
local authority must comply with its referendum
scheme. (8) Subject to that,
nothing in this Chapter affects the powers or duties of a principal
local authority in relation to any referendum
held.’.—(Mr.
Goodman.) Brought
up, and read the First
time. Mr.
Paul Goodman (Wycombe) (Con): I beg to move, That the
clause be read a Second
time. It
is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr. Illsley. Although
time is drawing on, the new clauses give us a chance to change the Bill
from a centralising measure into a real instrument of localisation. The
hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) is not here to
move his new clause—the Committee has previously discussed his
mysterious disappearance from the Committee membership and have
speculated about where he may be now—but we have decided, in a
spirit of benign good will, to move the new clause for him
and see how we get
on. Although
the new clause may be technically flawed, so we are not absolutely
insistent on pressing it to a vote at this stage, it gives us an
opportunity to discuss and consider the whole principle of referendums
in relation to local government. The new clause raises questions such
as whether such referendums should take place, how often they should
take place, and where they should fit in the general scheme of things.
The big issue at stake, which my right hon. Friend the Member for
Skipton and Ripon explored during part of his speech on Second Reading,
is the balance that must be struck
in any democracy between representative democracy—electing
Members of Parliament, councillors and so on to represent views in the
Commons or, in this case, local councils—and direct democracy,
which includes the use of
referendums. It
has to be admitted that traditionally Britain has not used referendums
greatly, and that the way of some places abroad, such as California and
Switzerland, has been to use them more often. Since the 1970s, however,
we have begun to use referendums at national level to decide important
constitutional issues with greater frequency. There was a 1975
referendum on EU membership and there have been referendums in
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on whether Parliaments and
Assemblies should be set up in those parts of the United Kingdom, so it
seems right at this point to pause and consider whether it would be
right to have local referendums run by local councils and, if so, in
what
circumstances. If
we take a step back from the new clause, it is clear that, in
contemporary politics, the debate between when representative democracy
should apply and when direct democracy should apply has become very
live. It would be out of order for me to spend any time on the recent
expenses debacle, but it is a sign of the degree to which the internet
and modern communication and technology are leading many people to
probe and question the traditional elected representative model.
Indeed, we have heard calls, which I am sure will be considered in
other contexts, for the recalling of Members of Parliament between
elections. That argument is about the degree to which the traditional
model of the electorate electing a representative and allowing
them—as the electorate wish—to stand again for election
should
apply. My
hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Carswell), who is
sadly not a member of the Committee, and my former work colleague,
Daniel Hannan, have written a book called “The Plan: Twelve
Months to Renew Britain” in which they wish local referendums to
be a major element in how local democracy works. I am kicking myself
for not bringing my copy along to wave at the Committee and excite its
interest even further. My hon. Friend and Mr. Hannan want
quite a low trigger for local
referendums. Our
view is that there has to be a balance, but that the traditional model,
whereby it is assumed at local level that councillors will be elected
and then put up for re-election every four years—just like
Members of Parliament and the parliamentary cycle—and the
referendum instrument can never apply, is not the right
balance.
| 
