Ms
Winterton: May I first assure the hon. Member for
Peterborough that I will say that his clauses are legally defective
only if they are legally defective, because I would not make it up.
With regard to the new clause, I think that it is true to say that
outcome-based targets are already central to the new performance
framework through local area agreements, as was set out in the original
local government White Paper of 2006 and subsequently in statutory
guidance in 2008.
I am afraid
that the new clause would lead to significant disruption to the
existing set of local area agreement targets that local partners are
now working together to deliver. It would require us to revise all 152
local area agreements, and I think that the impact on the delivery of
priority outcomes in local areas would be significant, and certainly
not something that local government would welcome, frankly.
We are
already working to see how we might strengthen the framework further,
including considering the Bichard recommendations on strengthening
local area agreements in the national indicator set. So we think that
it would be premature and potentially counter-productive to pre-empt
that work by making changes such as the one proposed here. I therefore
ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the
motion.
Mr.
Goodman: The Minister, as she conceded, did not have her
battery of legal arguments to hand this time. All that she has told the
Committee is that the new clause would cause disruption—as
though no change brought in by Ministers over the past 10 years has
ever done that. I do not feel that she was at her most persuasive, but
I will not press the new clause. We might return to the matter if we
get an opportunity on Report and perhaps find a way of couching it so
that it would be even less disruptive to local councils. I beg to ask
leave to withdraw the
motion. Clause,
by leave,
withdrawn.
New
Clause
10Payments
by parish and community
councils ‘(1) The Local
Government Act 1972 (c. 70) is amended as
follows. (2) In section 150,
for subsection 5, there is
substituted— “(5)
Every parish or community council must make safe and efficient
arrangements for the making of their
payments.”.
(3) In section 246, for subsection 12, there is
substituted— “(12)
Charter trustees must make safe and efficient arrangements for the
making of their payments.”’.—(Mr.
Goodman.) Brought
up, and read the First
time. 2.45
pm
Mr.
Goodman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following:
New clause
11—Payments by charter
trustees ‘(1) The Charter
Trustees Regulations 1996 (SI 1996/263) is amended as
follows. (2) In Regulation 15,
for paragraph (2), there is
substituted— “(2)
Charter trustees must make safe and efficient arrangements for the
making of their
payments.”’. New
clause 12—Payments by parish and community councils and
charter trustees ‘(1) The
Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe requirements relating
to the making of payments
by— (a) a parish
council, or (b) charter
trustees in England constituted under section 246 of the Local
Government Act 1972 or the Charter Trustees Regulations 1996 (SI
1996/263). (2) The Welsh
Ministers may by regulations prescribe requirements relating to the
making of payments
by— (a) a community
council, or (b) charter
trustees in England constituted under section 246 of the Local
Government Act 1972 or the Charter Trustees Regulations 1996 (SI
1996/263). (3) Regulations
under this section may make different provisions for different
cases. (4) Regulations under
this section must be made by statutory
instrument. (5) A statutory
instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to
annulment in pursuance of a resolution
of— (a) either House of
Parliament (in the case of regulations under subsection (4)),
or (b) the National Assembly
for Wales (in the case of regulations under subsection
(5)). (6) This section comes
into force— (a) in
relation to England, on such day as the Secretary of State may by order
made by statutory instrument
appoint;
Mr.
Goodman: These clauses, as the Minister will well know
because the information is in the brief, are strongly supported by the
National Association of Local Councils. One might call them the NALC
clauses if it were not even more appropriate to call them the 1894
clauses. I shall explain what I mean by that date.
The new
clauses relate to payments made by parish and community councils and
charter trustees. The point that NALC wishes to make by supporting them
is that modernisation is needed in relation to payments. It describes
the way in which some councils have to make payments as an anachronism
that merits modernisation. It claims that the problem goes all the way
back to the Local Government Act 1894, arguing that methods of making
payment have not been adequately updated since then, despite the Local
Government Act 1933 and the Local Government Act 1972.
[Interruption.] There was an echo from a
well-informed voice on the other
side of the Committee—the right hon. Member for Greenwich and
Woolwich may be able to remember that Act better, I am afraid, than I
do. The
National Association of Local Councils makes the simple point that, in
effect, it believes payment by cheque—which is what I presume
was written into the 1894 Act—will be entirely superseded by
payment cards and internet banking within eight years. However, under
the present legislation, such online payments by the local councils and
bodies referred to in the clauses would be unlawful.
Those are the
1894 clauses in a nutshell. There may be reasons why the Minister
believes they could be better drafted. NALC, which represents
councillors of all sorts of different points of view, including
councillors from the Minister’s party, says that a serious
problem is rumbling along and gathering pace. The way in which payments
are made in the modern world is changing and NALC says it will be left
exposed legally if it moves to a more up-to-date process than writing
cheques. We look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments. She
may be able to persuade us that the Government are preparing to act on
the matter in a different way from that which the new clause
proposes.
Dan
Rogerson: The hon. Member for Wycombe has done a good
service to the local government community by proposing the new clause.
NALC hoped that some of the issues that were originally in the White
Paper would be addressed in the Bill; the Bill is of a different
nature, so it hoped such matters could be restored to it. Hon. Members
have heard me, in previous debates, express my regard for parish
councils and their work. Sometimes they are neglected. The proposal
would give them greater flexibility as they continue to serve their
communities. I hope the Minister will allow this change, which is
rather long
overdue.
Ms
Winterton: I certainly see that there is a case for reform
of the current rules on parish payments, and I agree with many of the
points that Opposition Members made. I have had some discussions with
my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich about the
issue because it is something that he feels strongly about,
too.
We had some
initial discussions that made good progress. I assure the Committee
that we will continue those discussions, so that we have a properly
worked out plan for change. We will also look for an opportunity in the
legislative programme to put that change on a firm foundation, which I
hope will receive support from all parties.
We want
further discussions about the issue. However, as I have said, I will
certainly give a commitment that we will look for an appropriate
legislative vehicle to make some of the changes. Having said that, I
hope that the hon. Member for Wycombe will withdraw the new
clause.
Mr.
Goodman: It is obviously not for the official Opposition
to pre-empt whatever NALC may think. However, having heard what the
Minister has said, I imagine that it will find her remarks reassuring.
Therefore, we will not seek to press the new clause to a vote and I beg
to ask leave to withdraw the
motion. Clause,
by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause
16Abolition
of the Standards Board for England and the Adjudication Panel for
England ‘(1) The Standards
Board for England and the Adjudication Panel for England shall be
abolished. (2) Sections 57,
57D, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 65A, 66A, 66B, 66C, 67(1), 75(1),
(3), (4), (7), (9), (11), 78A, 78B and Schedule 4 of the Local
Government Act 2000 (c. 22) shall cease to have
effect. (3) The Secretary of
State may also by order make transitional or consequential provisions
(including by amendment of the Local Government Act 2000) as
are necessary due to the abolition of the Standards Board for England
and the Adjudication Panel for
England. (4) Any order under
subsection (3) must be made by statutory
instrument. (5) A statutory
instrument containing an order under this section may not be made
unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approve by a
resolution of, each House of
Parliament.’.—(Mr.
Goodman.) Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Mr.
Goodman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time. We
now turn to the standards board. It is perhaps worth saying at the
start—
The Chairman:
Order. I just want to make an announcement: members of the public are
not allowed to take documents from the table. Those documents are for
the members of the Committee. Members of the public are not allowed
to come in front of the bar. Thank you.
Mr.
Goodman: As I was saying, we now turn to the Standards
Board. We have reflected on the history of the board for the past 10
years or so, since it was introduced, and we have come to the
conclusion that it is a classic illustration of the law of unintended
consequences. No reasonable person could object to the idea that we
should seek to ensure that local councillors conduct their work
according to proper standards. However, in these matters there is
always a danger that the law of unintended consequences applies and we
think that has been proven in this case. Labour Members ought to
consider that point very carefully if anyone anywhere proposes in any
way to apply a similar principle and a similar framework to Members of
Parliament.
Let me
explain what I mean by the law of unintended consequences. If a process
is established whereby a board is set up to receive complaints but it
happens that under data protection rules, the names of the people
making the complaints cannot be published, the Government are
potentially setting up a considerable problem for local councillors. I
suspect that there will not be a Member of Parliament in this Committee
this afternoon who has not received a complaint from a
councillor—probably a councillor from their own political party
but possibly not—about a case in which that councillor has been
reported to the Standards Board. The councillor does not necessarily
know the name of the person who submitted the complaint. It is
certainly the case with complaints that have been made to me that the
councillor was not even aware of the charges that had been brought
against them, which is surely contrary to natural justice. The process
then flows on.
Rather than
presenting the Committee with statistics about the small percentage of
complaints that have been upheld, I seek to draw its attention to
research that has been done by the university of Aberystwyth and others
that points to the difficulty that parish, town and community councils
have in attracting sufficient candidates. Obviously the existence of
the Standards Board will not be the only reason why people do not come
forward as candidates for those councils. However, given that such a
large proportion of the complaints are about parish councillors and
other councillors who operate at that level, the standards board
regime, which is of the nature that I have just described, must have an
effect on the number of people, and perhaps on the quality of people,
who wish to come forward; the university of Aberystwyth certainly
thinks that it does. I urge Ministers and other Labour Members to
consider whether there would be a similar effect on Members of
Parliament were a similar regime introduced at
Westminster.
Mr.
Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has not addressed the
crucial issue, which is the impact that the Standards Board may or may
not have had on standards of conduct in local government. He will be
aware that at the time it was established there was widespread concern
about inappropriate behaviour. As an illustration—it is a good
news story—I was judging the Local
Government Chronicle awards for governance and
standards in local government recently, and I saw a presentation from
an authority that began with an image of a police van with a caption
that
read: “That
was our former leader being taken
away.” I
tell the story because that local authority went through a traumatic
process because of that particular incident but subsequently improved
its governance and standards, as have many others. I believe that the
existence of a Standards Board has been an important influence. I hope
that the hon. Gentleman, rather than talking about peripheral
consequences, focuses on the crucial issue of the impact of the
Standards Board in helping to drive a culture of high standards in
local
government.
Mr.
Goodman: I think that people not coming forward to stand
for local government is not a peripheral consequence. I concede to the
right hon. Gentleman that if such a framework—one of his
favourite words—was implemented there would be some good
consequences. The problem is that there would also be some bad ones.
The question is whether the bad ones outweigh the good. The bad ones
outweigh the good for people who are not coming forward and for
councillors who have an accusation made against them without knowing
the nature of the complaint. Is it necessary to drive up standards of
behaviour among councillors by installing the framework in the first
place? The right hon. Gentleman’s answer is “yes”,
our answer is “no”. If local councils are given more
power and responsibility, standards will rise. There are other ways, to
which I shall refer, of ensuring that councillors observe proper
conduct, and that will happen
naturally. This
morning, in reference to an earlier debate, the right hon. Gentleman
claimed that there was no essential difference between my right hon.
Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon and himself—that both
right
hon. Gentlemen were content for the guiding hand of Government to apply.
I put it to the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich that there
is still an essential difference represented in our current discussion.
It is true that occasionally my right hon. Friend feels the odd
Stalinist twitch; he was a Minister and he will get to his feet and,
such is his open and honest nature, he will put his view. In the case
of the right hon. Gentleman, who also has an open and honest
nature—he is very obliging—when he does not agree with
what his Front Bench colleagues say, as with the petition clauses, he
is a bit more discreet than my right hon. Friend, who naturally wants
to share his views with the
Committee. | 
