Barbara
Follett: My hon. Friend’s question echoes that of
the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne. Decisions about exactly how
the scrutiny will operate will have to be taken. The idea is to build
slowly and look at how we can make the proposal effective. We can
expand a local area ad infinitum, but we need local authorities to be
as effective as possible. At this point, I will conclude and commend
the Bill to the
Committee.
The
Chairman: Before I call Mr. Raynsford to reply
to the debate on clause 1 stand part, as the Minister made reference to
an amendment, I would like to clarify, for the avoidance of doubt, the
fact that no amendment has been selected. We are debating clause stand
part.
Mr.
Raynsford: I would like to focus on three issues. First,
it is important to take the opportunity, on Report, to debate
amendments that hon. Members wish to pursue, because of the short
timetable that has precluded our doing so in Committee. I wholly
sympathise with that view, and I wrote to all hon. Members before
today’s sitting to say that I would happily discuss any
amendments they wish to table on Report.
Secondly, I
emphasise the fact that despite the differences that have emerged this
morning in Committee the Bill has up to now enjoyed all-party support,
and I hope
that it will continue to do so. The hon. Member for Beckenham made a
point, which was echoed by the hon. Member for Northampton, South,
about the possible burden and disproportionate impact on business, and
it is very much a concern that we should get a balance and that the
Bill should allow more effective scrutiny but should not impose
unreasonable
burdens. I
want to echo the views of the hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening)
on Second Reading. She said that overview and scrutiny committees
perform an important function, but that their powers need to be
extended:
“There
is a growing recognition that overview and scrutiny committees need to
have powers over a wider range of external organisations as they become
more involved in local public services, and that councils should
provide sufficient resources and support to those committees so that
they can undertake more
scrutiny. The
Bill seeks to address a number of issues, and we welcome its intention
to increase local scrutiny powers.”—[Official
Report, 5 February 2010; Vol. 505, c.
524-25.] I
hope that we can proceed on that consensual basis, with the clear
undertaking, which I am happy to give, that while I continue to have
anything to do with the Bill I want to achieve a balance between
enabling overview and scrutiny committees to discharge those functions
more effectively, across a wider range of organisations involved in
public service delivery, without imposing any undue burden. Three
points of detail have been raised, which I think will come up later.
The hon. Member for Northampton, South, in discussing a possible burden
on business, was worried about duplication. There is provision in
clause 7 for joint scrutiny, which is also pertinent to the concern of
the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne about the Devon and Cornwall
interest in cancer services at Derriford hospital. Again, joint
scrutiny would probably be the appropriate
response. My
hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport and the hon. Member for
Falmouth and Camborne both spent some time considering the words
“greater” or “different” in the phrasing of
the definition in clause 1. There is clearly a fine balance.
If we are to avoid imposing an unreasonable burden on the organisations
that are scrutinised, there should be a focus on what is local, and
what has a greater impact locally than it does elsewhere. The failure
of a jobcentre to ensure that there are effective services for a
particular area, to use the example given by my hon. Friend the Member
for Plymouth, Devonport, may have a greater impact on the citizens of
that area than on those elsewhere. However, I should like to take
further advice on the issue, and perhaps we may return to it on
Report. I
agree very much with the concerns that the hon. Member for Falmouth and
Camborne raised about the link with Total Place and the scope for
scrutiny to give more sense of public engagement in something that I
believe we all support as a concept, but which has seemed a little
remote and technocratic up to now. Perhaps that is a good way to engage
the public in an important
issue. The
hon. Member for Beckenham raised two specific issues including, first,
conflicts of interest between executive and back-bench members, which
will come up in relation to clause 8, so I will not say anything more
about it now. The second issue was district councils, which will come
up under clause 6; we can perhaps pick it up at that point. I
understand her concerns and hope that we will
find effective answers. I am interested in how the regulations, which
are crucial, will be introduced, although I am not in a position to
give any guarantees on that. However, it is vital to get the right
balance. Mrs.
Lait: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his
conciliatory approach. However, I shall stick to my suggestion and
encourage my colleagues to vote against clause stand part. This brief
debate has revealed many flaws in the Bill, which need to be debated.
Because of the speed of proceedings, which I accept the right hon.
Gentleman did not necessarily desire, we have not been able to
scrutinise the Bill thoroughly. To register our objection to the
Bill’s flaws and to that speed, I encourage my colleagues to
vote with me against clause stand
part. Question
put, That the clause stand part of the
Bill. The
Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes
3.
Division
No.
1] Question
accordingly agreed to.
Clause 1
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
2Excluded
matters Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill. 10.15
am
Mr.
Raynsford: I shall be brief. Clause 2 sets out the
circumstances in which the scrutiny powers in part 1 of the Bill do not
apply. There are some necessary exclusions because there is existing
legislative provision, for example in the Police and Justice Act 2006,
the National Health Service 2006 and the Flood and Water Management
Bill, which is currently before the
House.
Jeremy
Corbyn: My right hon. Friend mentioned NHS scrutiny, and I
recognise that there are existing scrutiny powers. May I draw to his
attention a problem that he must experience in London, just as I do? A
consortium policy has developed in all the regions of London in which
the local authorities decide on a major reorganisation covering, in
most cases, five or six London boroughs. The London boroughs have
scrutiny powers within each borough but not beyond it, which means that
a significant part of health planning is outwith any acceptable or
effective public scrutiny. I have experienced this in the London north
central area, which covers the five local boroughs, but I am sure that
my colleagues in other parts of London have the same problem. I realise
that this Bill is limited, but can he offer me any hope on this
matter?
Mr.
Raynsford: When we reach clause 7, my hon. Friend will see
the specific provisions relating to the scope for joint scrutiny. It is
clearly appropriate for authorities to work together across a wider
area where such circumstances apply. One of the important principles
that has been maintained is coterminosity between the primary care
trust and local authorities, which means that London has avoided some
of the problems that have occurred elsewhere. However, I take my hon.
Friend’s point. It is certainly an issue that should be
considered in relation to joint scrutiny and the use of the powers in
the Bill to cover a wider range of bodies than just those directly
delivering specific services, because there is a wider
impact. As
I have been reminded, health scrutiny is subject to separate
legislation. That remains, but there is provision later in this Bill,
so that where there is any doubt about the variable impact of different
measures, the provisions in the Bill will be overriding. We are trying,
in an interesting way, to extend scrutiny power, which has developed in
a rather piecemeal way over recent years. This is helping to create a
more coherent framework than the somewhat piecemeal approach that has
followed legislation relating to specific services
areas.
Mrs.
Lait: This is a very interesting point. My first thought
when the right hon. Gentleman began to outline the powers in the Bill
was that there would be duplication of scrutiny. Would he be prepared
to accept an amendment to the Bill to explore whether the overview and
scrutiny committees would thereby repeal all the other scrutiny
legislation that affects bodies such as health authorities, because
they will just be swamped by people scrutinising them and not able to
focus on patient
provision?
Mr.
Raynsford: I hope that I can reassure the hon. Lady by
saying that there is absolutely no intention of creating additional
layers of scrutiny that would have the effect she fears. The Bill will
ensure that there is scope for scrutiny in those areas where it is not
currently possible for overview and scrutiny committees to require
information or attendance. The powers are important, as her hon. Friend
the Member for Putney recognised on Second
Reading. There
is certainly no wish to duplicate measures. The way in which the Bill
is drafted builds on existing legislation, rather than substituting for
it. It would be difficult to accept an amendment that gets rid of all
other powers, because that would leave a series of new holes. I am more
than happy to talk to the hon. Lady between now and Report to see if we
need an amendment to clarify the objective that I am absolutely in
favour of, which is seamless scope for scrutiny without imposing
additional and unnecessary burdens. With those comments, I hope that
members of the Committee will accept the
clause. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
3Power
to require
information Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Raynsford: The clause deals with the provision of
information to overview and scrutiny committees. Subsection (1)
provides that an overview and scrutiny
committee may by written notice require a designated body or person to
provide the committee with information to enable it to carry out its
functions. It also provides that an overview and scrutiny committee can
require such a body or person to send an appropriate person to attend
before the committee to answer
questions. Subsections
(2) to (4) provide that the Secretary of State may make regulations
about the exercise of the powers. The intention is to ensure that
appropriate provision may be made for the handling of personal and
confidential data of all types. I hope that the Minister can reassure
the Committee that that will be the
case.
Mr.
Binley: Having had my rant about illiberal Liberals, not
least because of the experiences that we suffered in Northampton under
a Liberal council, I shall now proceed to the matter that I wished to
raise in the first instance. However, because I was not wide awake, I
failed to recognise at what stage we were
at. I
served as scrutiny chairman for a sizeable time when the Conservative
party was in opposition on Northamptonshire county council. We duly
took control of that council, and my role changed. I am a supporter of
scrutiny. It plays a vital part in local government and if we did not
have scrutiny, many elected councillors would not have much to do. One
of its purposes is to ensure that they are at least kept busy and off
the
streets. I
want to ask some questions specifically about the ability to summon
people to provide information or, indeed, to attend scrutiny meetings
in connection with the provision of public services by authorities or
persons designated under regulation by the Secretary of State. I seek
clarification of that particular measure. It seems to be a wide
definition of those people connected with the provision of services.
For example, many small businesses provide services for the provision
of a wider service within the remit of local government. Will the
clause include the many businesses that supply goods or services to
local organisations, which themselves provide a wider and perhaps more
specific service?
I recognise
the value of local councils, but I also recognise their ability to be
mischievous, and even more than mischievous on some occasions. I am
worried about the power that will be given to councillors who wish to
be mischievous, so I am looking for confirmation from the proposer of
the Bill, who I know to be a very fair man, and I know he would be
concerned if his Bill were misused in any way. He would certainly not
want
that. I
want to know about the legal situation. A small business that supplies
a bigger organisation might be open to giving away information that
might impact on it legally. What protection is there for people who
might be summoned under the new legislation? We all know that scrutiny
bodies do not have the right to summon people at the
moment.
Alison
Seabeck: Later in the Bill, protection for commercial
confidentiality is set out. Committees can keep information
confidential, so there is some security
there.
Mr.
Binley: I did see that there was some security and I am
grateful for that intervention, because that properly explains the
situation—“some security”. I am looking for a
greater degree of security for innocent people who
could be summoned for mischievous reasons at a local level,
particularly, if I may say so, in the run-up to an
election.
| 
