Mrs.
Lait: My hon. Friend will be aware that councils are
responsible under the Freedom of Information Act. Given that the hon.
Member for Plymouth, Devonport mentioned that there would be commercial
confidentiality, I wonder whether my hon. Friend might care to
speculate on how the FOI would play into commercial confidentiality for
small companies.
Mr.
Binley: That is what I meant when I made the point about
illiberal Liberals. It is all very well to state in the Bill that there
is some protection. I accept that, but once a matter gets into a formal
arena, there is grave doubt that the protection will still exist; that
is my
concern. I
am also concerned about the mischievous nature of the clause. I am
concerned about legal involvement and the cost to suppliers to the
organisations. I want to ask the proposer of the Bill what evidence he
has to suggest that people do not co-operate under the present
arrangements. When we have asked for information from an organisation
that is not directly accountable to a local authority, in my experience
people have been very helpful and we have always got that information.
What evidence does the proposer have that requires this rather more
draconian measure? I favour maintaining a degree of freedom and
independence from local authority involvement, particularly if it turns
out to be a mischievous action rather than an action that is helpful to
the local
community.
Julia
Goldsworthy: Once again, I am slightly confused by the
point that the Conservatives are trying to make. They are either saying
that all this already happens and people come forward and co-operate
anyway, or they are saying that it is a massive additional burden,
which will breach commercial confidentiality. I am not entirely sure
how it can be both things. From a party that says that it has converted
to the localist agenda, I have not heard anything to indicate that that
is the case. From the comments that have been made so far, their
apparent support for the Bill is massively
grudging.
Mr.
Binley: Will the hon. Lady give
way? 10.30
am
Julia
Goldsworthy: I have only a brief point to make and, having
been generous, I would like to make some progress. The way in which the
Warm Front scheme operates is an example of how public money and
private companies could open up the need for the kind of scrutiny that
we do not have at present. It is a national scheme involving large sums
of public money, but in Cornwall we have very few installers, which
means that we have had huge problems with installers coming all the way
from Cardiff with no reputational stake in delivering a good service.
As a result, people have their hot water and heating turned off and the
installers simply do not come back. Those are terrible experiences, and
it has been difficult to get information out of Warm
Front.
Mrs.
Lait: Warm Front is a national scheme. It is the hon.
Lady’s job to raise the issue here; it is not for local
government to raise it impotently in the local
area.
Julia
Goldsworthy: As I am sure the hon. Lady knows, the scheme
interacts with local authority grant funding to help deliver in areas
such as Cornwall, where there is little gas heating and a grant is
required from the local authority to ensure that some local people can
afford
it.
Mr.
Binley: Will the hon. Lady give
way?
Julia
Goldsworthy: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, since
he has been so
polite.
Mr.
Binley: Thank you very much—there had appeared to
be some sort of anti-male attack. May I clarify a point raised by the
hon. Lady? She claimed that I may want to have it both ways. Let me
make it clear that I stand on the side of the great majority of
individuals who are concerned about the over-mighty weight of
bureaucracy and administration. That is the point that I am making, and
I am making it with particular regard to small and medium-sized
businesses, which might be mischievously impacted upon. I want to
guarantee that that will not happen. I would have thought that every
liberal in this country would support that
point.
Julia
Goldsworthy: I suppose all I can say is that I stand on
the side of taxpayers who want to ensure that the money that they are
being asked to pay is being spent effectively and efficiently on
delivering services that benefit them. To return to my earlier point,
Warm Front is exactly the kind of scheme where private companies
receive large sums of public money and where there may be problems with
delivery at a local level. It would be helpful to have a power to
ensure that such a scheme provides appropriate information, so that the
weaknesses of its delivery across a local authority area can be
understood, debated and scrutinised. That is why the clause is
important. Mr.
David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op): I am delighted to serve
under your chairmanship, Mrs. Humble. I am sorry that I
missed the first half hour. Had I known that it was going to be such
fun, I would have rushed here expeditiously. It is good to see my good
friend the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne
present. I
want to make a point to my hon. Friend the Minister. How does the
clause relate to the local spending reports in the Sustainable
Communities Bill, which some of us have some knowledge about and
continue to support as it progresses? I hope that the Minister will say
some nice things about how the clause will connect with the ability for
greater transparency on how different parts of the statutory sector are
laid bare in terms of their funding, so that we can do a better job of
spending the money
subsequently.
Barbara
Follett: The Government recognise the need for
proportionality and the need to avoid duplication. That is why we
intend to use the regulation-making powers in clauses 2 to 4 to ensure
that there are certain safeguards and procedures in place to make sure
that the exercise of the powers by councils does not impose a
disproportionate burden on the bodies subject to scrutiny.
To reassure
the hon. Member for Northampton, South, the duty to attend will apply
to designated bodies only, and the regulations may need to make further
provision
to ensure that any burden is proportionate. Such regulations could
provide that information already in the public domain need not be
provided again, and prohibit overview and scrutiny committees from
undertaking scrutiny reviews on a matter more than once in a period
specified in the regulations. They could also make provision on the
disclosure of confidential and personal information to scrutiny
committees, and the description of who is an appropriate person for the
purpose of designated bodies sending a person to attend a scrutiny
committee hearing to answer questions. Our thoughts—as you can
tell from this, Mrs. Humble—are what could be
included in the regulations that are still at an early stage of
development. As with regulations under clause 1, we intend to consult
before making any regulations under these
clauses. I hope that,
given these assurances, the Committee will see fit to accept the
clause. In conclusion, I would like to say that I agree with my hon.
Friend the Member for Stroud that transparency is always to be
welcomed. I welcome working with him on the extension to the
Sustainable Communities Act
2007.
Mr.
Raynsford: My hon. Friend the Minister has rightly
highlighted that there will be consultation before any regulations are
prepared. That gives the right opportunity for all interested parties,
particularly the business community, to express views about the
proposals. As I stressed in an earlier debate, it is a matter of
balance. There is evidence—some anecdotal, but widely circulated
and believed—referred to on Second Reading by the hon. Member
for Putney, that in some cases, councils seeking information do not get
the co-operation that they should from bodies such as utilities. Water
companies are often mentioned: the leaky bucket story and other such
events. In those cases, where one is dealing with very large
organisations, there should be no reason for them not to provide
information to a local authority when requested.
The hon.
Member for Northampton, South is right to express concerns about
disproportionate burdens on small businesses, and they should be taken
into account during the consultation on the regulation-making powers.
With those assurances, I hope that hon. Members will agree that the
clause should stand part of the
Bill. Question
put and agreed to.
Clause 3
accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
4Power
to require response to report or
recommendations Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Raynsford: Section 21(2)(e) of the Local Government Act
2000 provides that overview and scrutiny committees
may “make
reports or recommendations to the authority or the executive on matters
which affect the authority’s area or the inhabitants of that
area.” These
reports will obviously have no effect if they are left to gather dust
on a shelf unread. Clause 4 therefore makes provisions about what
should happen after a
scrutiny report or recommendations have been made. Subsection (2)
provides that where an overview and scrutiny committee makes a report
or recommendation under the provisions of the Bill, it may also by
notice in writing require the designated body or person to have regard
to the report or recommendations when exercising any function of a
public nature. The committee
may also, in making a report or recommendations, require the designated
authority or person to respond to the report within two months of
receipt, indicating what action, if any, they intend to take. There are
various consequential provisions, including those relating to
regulation conditions. This seems a sensible way to ensure that
scrutiny reports are not just left to gather dust on the
shelf.
Jeremy
Corbyn: I understand the point about the requirements of a
limited time to reply—two months seems reasonable and fair.
Would that also apply to private sector organisations, such as Warm
Front, which receive large amounts of public money and virtually become
a delivery agency for the public
sector?
Mr.
Raynsford: The purpose of the Bill is to cover all those
involved in the delivery of public services. The definition of public
services in clause 1—which includes services discharged either
as part of a statutory function or as a result of receipt of grant from
the public sector—would cover those
organisations. Question
put and agreed to.
Clause 4
accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
5Power
to publish
response Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Raynsford: As we saw in Clause 4, committees may require a
response, and clause 5 simply deals with the publication of that
response. It provides that where an overview and scrutiny committee has
published its report, it may also publish the designated authority or
person’s response. It ensures that scrutiny can be open and
transparent and that the public are properly informed about
scrutiny reviews. It also provides further incentive for bodies to
consider properly and fully the recommendations made to them. Members
of the public will be able to see whether recommendations have been
taken seriously and to better understand the reasons
given. Harry
Cohen (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab): Under the clause, is it
possible for the scrutiny committee report to be added to the
council’s minutes, which are normally published, rather than
published as a separate
document?
Mr.
Raynsford: The Bill leaves the overview and scrutiny
committee a good measure of discretion to decide how it should act, and
my hon. Friend’s suggestion of a power to append an item to
another document is entirely sensible and reasonable. Ultimately, it is
a matter for the local authorities to decide, and it is right that they
should have discretion on this matter.
Question
put and agreed to.
Clause
5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
6Interpretation Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Raynsford: I would not normally rise to speak on an
interpretation clause, but this is the opportunity to discuss the role
of district councils, which we should touch on briefly, as Members have
raised the
matter. The
one difficulty that will arise in the case of district councils in
two-tier areas is the possible risk of duplication if more than one
district were to initiate an inquiry on the same subject
simultaneously. That would impose an unreasonable burden on local
partners, so it is right that there should be a proper co-ordinated
framework. On Second Reading, I expressed concern that the Bill
appeared to convey the message that district councils in two-tier areas
were excluded. That is not the intention; there should be a proper
co-ordinated framework to ensure that issues affecting more than one
area are the subject of joint scrutiny. There should not be the kind of
duplication about which Opposition Members have rightly expressed
concern.
Mr.
Drew: Would my right hon. Friend see this as an excellent
opportunity to move towards unitary authorities as a matter of extreme
urgency?
Mr.
Raynsford: Whatever my personal view on that subject, I
think that we have had enough controversy this morning to lead me not
to enter that particular minefield. I shall pass rapidly over my hon.
Friend’s question.
It is my
understanding—the Minister may wish to add her
reassurance—that in no way is it the Government’s
intention to exclude district councils and two-tier areas. There should
be a proper framework to avoid unnecessary
duplication.
Mrs.
Lait: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that
explanation, and I hope that the Minister can be equally positive.
However, it still prompts the question of when the regulations, which
are meant to be being prepared, are likely to emerge. Without them,
district councils will be excluded. We are considering this legislation
against the background of an imminent general election, so if the Bill
progresses but the regulations do not, the district councils will be
left out.
10.45
am
| 
