Barbara
Follett: I should like to reassure the hon. Member for
Beckenham that we will make the regulations a priority. I am aware of
the cliff that we are all facing
Mrs.
Lait: Over which I hope this lot all fall, but never
mind.
Barbara
Follett: I do not share the hon. Ladys hopes; in
fact, I have entirely different ones. I look forward to the regulations
being taken through the House but, sadly, I will not be here to see it
because I am standing down at the general election.
Clause 6
provides that the provisions of part 1 of the Bill, which sets out the
framework for the enhanced scrutiny regime, will apply to county
councils in England and to London borough councils, as my right hon.
Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich said. Part 1 of the Bill
does not apply to non-unitary district councils.
That approach
has been taken to minimise the potential burdens placed on bodies
subject to the enhanced regimeI hope that the hon. Member for
Northampton, South, will be pleased about thatand to reduce the
ever-present risk of duplication. However, that is not to devalue the
important work of non-unitary district councils in scrutinising matters
of local concern. I can reassure right hon. and hon. Members that such
district councils will continue to have a very important role, under
both the existing and the enhanced scrutiny regimes, in holding to
account and scrutinising the decisions of local public service
providers. Amendments
made by the Bill will allow the Secretary of State to extend the
enhanced scrutiny powers to joint overview and scrutiny committees.
That will enable non-unitary district councils, working with their
county council, to take full advantage of the new powers to hold local
public service providers to account on behalf of their
communities. The
Government intend to work with experts in the field of local government
scrutiny to produce best practice guidance on the operation of joint
overview and scrutiny committees when the new scrutiny powers that are
set out in the Bill are used. That guidance may also include helpful
suggestions and illustrative examples of how non-unitary district
councils can become involved in that scrutiny
work. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
7
Consequential
amendments Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Raynsford: Once again, I would not normally wish to speak
on a clause about consequential amendments. However, for the benefit of
my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North, who raised the issue of
joint scrutiny of health services, I want to highlight the provisions
in the clause that amend section 123 of the Local Government and Public
Involvement in Health Act 2007 to enable the Secretary of State to make
provision in regulations for the appointment of joint overview and
scrutiny committees of two or more local authorities that may discharge
their powers in that respect. I hope that that gives my hon. Friend the
assurance for which he was particularly
keen.
Jeremy
Corbyn: That is helpful. However, my right hon.
Friend may be able to help me on what might be a slightly arcane point.
I was told by councils in my local authority last week that if they
formed a consortium of north London authorities to scrutinise the
London strategic health authoritys plans for the north central
area, they would lose their ability to scrutinise the same
plans at an entirely local level. It became a type of either/or
situation, which seems a fairly ridiculous way of proceeding, because
there are clearly regional implications, as well as very local
implications, for any plans made by any health authority. I do not know
whether my right hon. Friend can help me with that point, or whether he
just wants to think about
it.
Mr.
Raynsford: I certainly want to think about it, because
that point takes us right back to the key issue throughout our debate,
which is the importance of achieving a balance between ensuring that
there are not gaps in the scrutiny process and avoiding the risks of
duplication and creating unreasonable burdens. That is the balance that
must be achieved. I believe that what the clause does is correct,
because it closes a gap; there was not the scope for the joint
committees before. I would have thought that the right way forward on
the issueI am just thinking aloud at this
point
Jeremy
Corbyn: Very dangerous.
[Laughter.]
Mr.
Raynsford: It is always a dangerous thing to do, but those
who know me know that I have form in that particular area.
My thought is
that the sensible thing would be to have a joint overview and, in the
course of that joint overview process, issues that are uniquely of
concern to individual areas should be highlighted as part of the joint
review, rather than there being a separate and duplicated scrutiny
process.
Jeremy
Corbyn: I accept that, and it sounds sensible. In some
cases, the views of two local authorities might diverge completely, for
example on the location of a specialist health facilitythe sort
of issue that is familiar to all of us. We would not want a consortium
of, say, five local authorities agreeing a majority consensusif
such a thing is possiblewhile a minority consensus is ignored.
Those in the minority cannot ultimately make their point to the
Secretary of State on behalf of the people whom they represent. That
could become a real problem in some
areas.
Mr.
Raynsford: My response to my hon. Friend on the classic
issue of the entitlements and rights of minorities in situations where
they might be overridden by the majority view, but where they have a
real local concern, is that their recourse is probably to options other
than scrutiny. Ultimately, we are being taken into the political arena,
and the ability of a public authority to highlight its concerns
politically and to raise them with the electorate is probably a more
powerful
weapon.
Harry
Cohen: May I take the opportunity to raise an issue on
which I would appreciate my right hon. Friends comments? In my
area, Newham is responsible for London City airport. It may agree,
under its process, a change to flight times or arrangements. As part of
that planning process, Newham consults around the airport, but not in
neighbouring areas such as mine, which the planes go over. That causes
some aggravation. Would it be appropriate for the local authority,
under local pressure, to say, We want to look at
Newhams consultation process, because it didnt apply to
our area, even though it affected our area? Would it be
legitimate for a
scrutiny committee in Waltham Forest or Redbridge, for example, to do
that, even though the decision was made in
Newham?
Mr.
Raynsford: I will be cautious in response, not least
because, as my hon. Friend knows, I have a similar interest, in that I
live in and represent a constituency that lies under the flight paths
to Heathrow and to London City airport. I am well aware of the issues
in areas that are afflicted by aircraft noise but that are not
themselves directly part of the consultation
process. My
gut instinctit is always dangerous to voice it, and I probably
should not do so, but I willis that the establishment of a
joint scrutiny body might be the right way to overcome those fears and
concerns. However, that is very much off the top of my head, rather
than an official
response. On
health, my hon. Friend the Minister might wish to have some words with
her colleagues in the Department of Health to ensure clarity about how
the scrutiny functions are properly
discharged.
Barbara
Follett: I assure my right hon. Friend that I shall indeed
have those words with my
colleagues. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
8Membership
of overview and scrutiny
committees Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Raynsford: We come to another issue highlighted on Second
Reading and by the hon. Member for Beckenham this morning. I share her
concerns, of course, because I voiced the same ones on Second
Reading. The
effect of the amendments made by subsections (2) and (3) is
to allow an overview and scrutiny committee to include members of the
local authoritys executive, when the committee is not
scrutinising matters relating to the executive. There are also powers
to make regulations for further provisions to avoid conflicts of
interest. My concern is to avoid creating false relationships, in which
a local authority member might be a partner of a body one day and
scrutinising it the next. That is a difficult situation, which should
be avoided if
possible. My
second concern is to avoid the overview and scrutiny members in a local
authority to some extent having their important role usurped by
executive members, who have far greater powers in the normal course of
events. However, I accept that there might be circumstances in which,
in the interests of good scrutiny, the expertise of an executive member
might be useful as part of that process. I look to the Minister to say
that there needs to be very careful drafting of the regulations to
ensure that while the permissive power may be used in appropriate
circumstances, it is hedged around with sufficient safeguards to avoid
the two particular problems that I have highlighted.
Mr.
Raynsford: The hon. Lady, I am sure, wants to add to those
remarks, so I shall finish mine on that
point.
Mrs.
Lait: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I
could not have put the point better myself. There is a potential
resolution to the problem, because the issue of conflict of interest is
very important and
could lead to a lot of trouble in the future. There are not many
councils I know that could be browbeaten, but it is possible that an
executive member could browbeat the other members of the overview and
scrutiny committee, and that is not a satisfactory situation.
Obviously,
the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich hopes that the
Minister will reassure him, but I hope that it is possible to come
forward with a joint amendment on Report to deal with the issue. My
suggestion, as somebody who has observed local government but has never
been part of it, is that the executive member could be a witness; they
would then not need to be part of the overview and scrutiny committee.
The witness could be called more than once if issues arose that
affected any contract or local area agreement. That would be more
satisfactory than putting the executive member in the unenviable
position of having a conflict of interest, or of being accused of
browbeating the
committee.
Mr.
Drew: This is the one part of the Bill that I have some
difficulty with, based entirely on my own experiences. The problem is,
who decides who goes on overview and scrutiny committees and,
subsequently, who chairs those committees? We all probably have, or
know of, examples where a majority groupoften a very strong
majority groupcan unfairly influence the whole process, which
is based on our Select Committees. However, we come to some sort of
arrangement here in the House of Commons through the usual channels; in
local government there is no equivalent. It is quite within the power
of a majority group to appoint its own chairsclearly not an
executive, but its own chairsfrom that party to every one of
the committee chairs and to influence who goes on the overview and
scrutiny
committees.
Jeremy
Corbyn: My hon. Friend raises a very important point.
Certainly, in my experience of local authorities, the majority group
often seeks to appoint somebody. It is a paid position and a lucrative
position. In effect, where the majority party appoints them, they
become almost an addendum to the executive cabinet system that
operates. That is absolutely the opposite of what the scrutiny
committee should be and should
do. 11
am
Mr.
Drew: And that is the whole point. Clearly, they are
entirely reliant on those who appoint to keep themselves in that
position. I ask my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and
Woolwich to look at that issue. In fact, the problem goes beyond that
unacceptable situation. I have seen examples of the majority group not
only appointing the chairs but influencing who goes on the committees,
to the extent that, where another group has put forward a proposal, the
person in question has not achieved the satisfactory level of support
and somebody elseeither from another group or even,
ludicrously, from the same grouphas been put on that committee
by another party. That brings into question the whole basis of the
independence and objectivity of these committees.
One thing we
pride ourselves on here is our Select Committees: if they are not
independent and objective they are completely useless. That is why I am
always nervous about PPSs going on to Select Committees,
even in desperation when we have to make the numbers up. They are
inevitably wearing two hats, even though the Committee may not be in
their Ministers area. There is inevitably confusion if not in
their minds, then in the minds of other Committee members
anddare I say it?in the minds of those whom we
represent. Which hat are they wearing at any one time?
We need to
look at this issue. This is one of the few improvements to come from
the loss of the committee system. As a long-term servant of local
government I had some loyalty to that system, although I accept that it
had its weaknesses as well. The problem is that in moving to the
current system of overview and scrutiny, these committees have to be
independent and objective and must be seen to be so. It is not
acceptable to have people from the executive on them. I hope that we
can look at this again on Report so we can establish that.
I am going
beyond where we are now but this is a real problem in local government
at the moment, and it could be a growing problem, because unless we nip
it in the bud, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North said,
there will be some slippage. This could be quite a nice position for
someone who is not on the executive but who is in a strong majority
situation, and who could be encouraged to think that this is another
job they can
do.
Jeremy
Corbyn: My hon. Friend makes a strong point. A scrutiny
committee chair is a paid position that is subject to annual
appointment. In practice, what happens is that a council election takes
place and an executive is established. A scrutiny committee chair is
appointed, and they may even give up their own job to do this. I am
sure that the knowledge that they may not be reappointed a year later
fetters their judgment and their ability to scrutinise seriously what
is going on. It is a real issue. If we are to achieve effective
scrutiny, there has to be some degree of
independence.
|