Mr.
Drew: My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and
Woolwich knows what I am saying, and I am in no way trying to wreck
this laudable Bill. My hon. Friend the Minister also hears what I am
saying: I am just describing what I have seen as real, practical
problems. Even if they are not in any way what is actually going on,
the perception of what could go on influences for the worse the best
part of the reforms.
Julia
Goldsworthy: The hon. Gentleman has highlighted some
weaknesses in the existing system, which the clause could exacerbate.
Perhaps there needs to be a wider rethink of the options available to
local authorities. In some cases it might require a return to the
committee system or a more effective counterweight to that. The key
issue is that the set-up of the current overview and scrutiny system
also muddies these waters quite a lot.
For example,
the health and adult services overview and scrutiny committee
scrutinises services that the council the local primary care trust
delivers. Those are very different roles. In one case, it is clear why
there might be an argument for having an executive member sitting on a
committee scrutinising the work of the PCT, but it would be entirely
inappropriate for them to be sitting on a committee scrutinising work
they were undertaking themselves.
We need to
work out whether it is possible to separate those two issues. Could the
executive member attend at the invitation of the committee? That might
be a way of doing it. Participation could be linked to a specific
report or investigation, so that there was participation only on issues
that went beyond the remit of the local authority, but that were
subject to scrutiny by the committee.
I see some
value in this measure if councils need to campaign on an issue. We
should remember that councils not only deliver services but have a
campaigning role to fulfil. I understand the benefit of an executive
member adding weight to an investigation or scrutiny process, but we
must ensure that the various elements are properly separated. I hope
there is some way of doing that, and that the Minister and her
officials will put their minds to it.
Mr.
Binley: I support the comments of the hon. Member for
Stroud and others, and I agree that this is one of the greatest
weaknesses of the overview and scrutiny process. It is not a party
political thing in any sense; it spreads right across controlling
groups from all political parties. I urge the Bill’s promoter to
think about the matter in more depth. I know how wise he is, and he has
tried to be so with the Bill, but I am not sure that it gives quite
enough consideration to the problem.
I
wish to make three points. First, scrutiny chairmanships can offer a
massive opportunity to reward loyal retainers. That is the truth of the
matter, and it is happening more and more. Of course, that flies in the
face of the very purpose of overview and scrutiny committees. Secondly,
the bigger the majority, the greater the problem. The very fact that
there is a big majority means that there are not enough people from
other parties to fill those roles. We need to think about that,
too.
Finally, in
such cases overview and scrutiny becomes an adjunct and supporter of
the executive. Again, that totally undermines the reason for the
overview and scrutiny arrangements that the Government initially
proposed. Those weaknesses are not rare, but relatively widespread. I
consequently urge the Bill’s promoter to see what he can do to
make the business of overview and scrutiny a more effective tool for
local government in such circumstances. At the moment, it could easily
become a total supporter of the executive and thus lose all reason for
its
existence.
Barbara
Follett: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich
and Woolwich said, concerns about clause 8 were raised on Second
Reading. In particular, Members were concerned that the provision would
undermine the overall structure of accountability in local authorities,
with scrutiny committees acting as a check and balance against a strong
executive.
I assure the
Committee that we do not intend to use the regulation-making power to
blur the important distinction between the executive’s role in
the strategic leadership of the council and the scrutiny
committee’s role of holding the executive to account. Like the
hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne and others, we believe that there
may be circumstances—for instance, if a committee is
scrutinising an external body on matters of local concern in which the
council has played
no part—in which the capacity to enable members of the executive
to be present could improve the scrutiny of such matters and may be
more productive to the benefit of the local
community. Like the
Committee, however, the Government realise that that could be
difficult. Allowing each council to decide whether a member should be
present could result in pressure, which is why I urge my right hon.
Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich to work with me and my
officials on a way forward that we could introduce on
Report.
Mr.
Raynsford: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s
suggestion, and I would be more than happy to work with her and her
officials. I would also like to engage other members of the Committee
who have spoken on the matter. There is complete agreement across all
parties that the issue needs to be addressed, and I would like to be
able to table an amendment on Report that deals with it, while at the
same time recognising that there may be merit, in certain
circumstances, in deploying the expertise of executive members as part
of such scrutiny. However, it must be on terms that do not undermine
the role of the scrutiny
committee.
Mr.
Raynsford: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in just a
moment. I refer to his speech in saying that I would not want such
participation to create a situation where there is patronage and where
the executive, through control of scrutiny appointments, essentially
neutralises the effectiveness of the scrutiny. That would be a complete
breach of everything that we seek to achieve with better
scrutiny.
Mr.
Binley: I simply ask whether the right hon. Gentleman
thinks this might be workable: one way of ensuring that the executive
has no role to play whatsoever in the appointment of chairmen and
members of the scrutiny committee would be to leave that for
non-executive councillors to decide among themselves. I recognise that
undue influence could still be applied in that scenario, but less
easily so than in the present situation, in which the executive often
decides who should be the chairman, vice-chairman and so on of scrutiny
committees. They make decisions for their own reasons and not for the
reasons of good
scrutiny.
Mr.
Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman’s observation is
interesting, not least because he makes it in the week in which the
House will vote on issues relating to the appointment of Select
Committee members. I would like to reflect on that. It would be
difficult within the structure of the Bill to make far-reaching changes
to existing scrutiny arrangements; nevertheless, he makes a good
point.
Mrs.
Lait: In the interests of co-operation, another thought
that has crossed my mind is to give the executive member a status
similar to that of an adviser to a Select
Committee.
Mr.
Raynsford: The role of adviser, and the possibility of
executive committee members being invited to attend by the scrutiny
committee, rather than having a right to attend, as I believe was
suggested by the hon. Member
for Falmouth and Camborne, are both interesting options. I would like to
reflect on them and speak further with colleagues and, obviously, with
the Minister and her officials, then try to shape an amendment that
would address those issues on Report. With that, I ask Members to agree
that the clause should stand part of the
Bill. Question
put and agreed to.
Clause
8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
The
Chairman: Before we move on to debate clause 9, Members
may wish to note that, under the terms of Standing Order 88(2), I am
normally required to adjourn the Committee at 11.25 am. However, the
Standing Order also provides for me to defer the adjournment for a
maximum of 15 minutes—that is, until 11.40 am—if, in my
opinion, there is a realistic prospect that the deferral would enable
the Committee to conclude its proceedings during the sitting. That is
my opinion, so I give notice to Members that the Committee will
adjourn, at the latest, at 11.40 am. There can be no further extension
beyond
that. Clauses
9 to 12 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Jeremy
Corbyn: You do not need the 15 minutes, Mrs.
Humble.
The
Chairman: My role is to facilitate the debate, and to
ensure that Members have their
say. 11.15
am
Question
proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill to the
House.
Mr.
Raynsford: Before we conclude our business, I thank you,
Mrs. Humble, for presiding with great skill and charm over
our interesting proceedings. I thank all members of the Committee for
their time and contribution. I hope that, despite the difficulties that
have emerged in the course of the Committee’s work, we can find
a constructive way forward.
Jeremy
Corbyn: There is an important point to be resolved with
the Minister on the question of scrutiny committees and the chairing of
them. Can my right hon. Friend indicate how quickly that can be done,
so that we do not lose the opportunity of getting this valuable private
Member’s Bill on to the statute book before the great reaper
arrives?
Mr.
Raynsford: Alas, that poses all sorts of questions that I
am not in a position to answer. As my hon. Friend will know, I have
done my utmost to try to ensure rapid progress on the Bill. I will
continue to do my utmost to
ensure that it progresses constructively and, hopefully, with agreement
through its remaining stages in the House. Beyond that, we are in the
lap of the
gods. In
conclusion, I thank the Clerks for looking after today’s
arrangements so efficiently, and I thank the police and others who have
helped to ensure our proceedings are carried forward in an expeditious
way. I recommend that the Bill now be reported, as the motion
requires.
Mrs.
Lait: May I add my thanks to you, in particular,
Mrs. Humble? It has been a cheerful Committee, despite the
degree of disagreement that has been evident. I was very interested in
some of the Back-Bench comments. The Committee stage has shown which
areas we need to work on on Report and which require more
clarification, so your excellent chairing has allowed us to do that. I
also want to thank the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for
picking up the Bill at such short notice. We recognise how difficult it
is. We will work to introduce the amendments that we think are required
in the Bill. I thank my colleagues and other members of the Committee
for teasing out the issues, and I thank everyone who has helped to
ensure that we have been able to complete this Committee stage in
relatively good order.
Julia
Goldsworthy: Thank you, Mrs. Humble, for your
very efficient chairmanship and for giving me another 25 minutes in
which to speak. I would not go quite as far as the hon. Member for
Beckenham and say that it has been good-tempered debate, although the
mood seemed to improve as hon. Members woke up. We have discussed
important issues that we hope to resolve before Report. The debate has
also touched on wider issues, which perhaps exposed the Bill’s
limitations. The issues raised about scrutiny committees and membership
go far beyond what we have debated here. Perhaps that is something to
which we need to return in a different debate. None the less, it has
been worthwhile and I am pleased that it has ended on such a concordant
note.
Barbara
Follett: I echo the remarks made by colleagues. I have
enjoyed the Bill and the work that we have done together on it. I would
like to assure my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North that we
will work as expeditiously as possible to settle the matters before we
see the grim reaper, whose actual time of arrival is not yet
known. Question
put and agreed
to. Bill
accordingly to be reported, without
amendment. 11.19
am Committee
rose.
| 
