House of Commons - The work of the Communites and Local Government Committee since 2010 - Communities and Local Government Committee

The work of the Communites and Local Government Committee since 2010 - Communities and Local Government Committee Contents

4 Review of core tasks

Introduction

45. Throughout the 2010-15 Parliament our scrutiny work has been guided by a set of select committee 'core tasks', which the House agreed in 2002 and which were revised in 2013.[66] Although not prescriptive, the new list aligned more closely the existing committee tasks of scrutinising departmental policy and expenditure; included the task of examining departmental strategy; and, perhaps most notably, added the task of engaging with the public, which we comment on at the end of this chapter. In this chapter we consider our performance against these core tasks, based on our own assessment and the views of those who made submissions to this exercise.

Strategy, Policy, Expenditure and Performance

Task 1: To examine the strategy of the department, how it has identified its key objectives and priorities and whether it has the means to achieve them, in terms of plans, resources, skills, capabilities and management information.

Task 2: To examine policy proposals by the department, and areas of emerging policy, or where existing policy is deficient, and make proposals.

Task 3: To examine the expenditure plans, outturn and performance of the department and its arm's length bodies, and the relationships between spending and delivery of outcomes.[67]

46. During the 2010-15 Parliament we have produced 37 reports covering a range of policy areas. These have included: housing;[68] planning;[69] devolution;[70]localism;[71] local government administration;[72] and building regulations.[73] We have also investigated discrete topics and produced reports on the European Regional Development Fund, Regeneration and The Role of Local Authorities in Health Issues.[74] At first, we based our programme of work on examining policy as it was formulated by the coalition Government. We then shifted our focus to monitoring policy as it was implemented and, later, on to reviewing its impact. In doing so we have sought to review each major policy area at least once during the Parliament. According to Dr Tim Brown, from the Department of Politics and Public Policy at De Montfort University, about 60% of our recommendations in housing, planning and regeneration reports have been accepted by the Government, compared with a select committee average of about 40%, but he said it was difficult to assess the significance of those parts of our reports which related to policy areas with fast-changing agendas.[75]

47. In the 2010-12 session we focused nine of our 11 inquiries on new policy as it was formulated by the Coalition Government. For example in 2011 as an in-depth examination of DCLG's decentralisation and planning policies, we produced our reports, Localism; The Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies: a planning vacuum?; and The National Planning Policy Framework.[76] We had two clear purposes in devoting so much of our time and energy to emerging policy: (1) to test each element of the Government's proposed policies and, if necessary, to suggest alterations; and (2) to press the Government on the outcomes which it expected from its policies. From our work in the first session we were clear that localism was going to be a key theme in this Parliament. As a committee we have supported localism and 'is it localist?' became a third test we applied in our subsequent work.

48. In the 2012-13 session we considered, among other inquiries, the operation of the mobile homes sector, in our report, Park Homes.[77] The issue arose because of concerns raised with Members at constituency surgeries. Similarly, following concerns about the adequacy of its operations, we reviewed the work of the Local Government Ombudsman.[78] In this session we also began to move the focus of our scrutiny from emerging policy to implementation with inquiries into: the Government's localist policies for mutual and co-operative approaches to delivering local services;[79] the return to local authorities of control over public health;[80] and the implementation by local authorities of the Government's welfare reform agenda.[81] With the Government's localist reforms in view, we also considered their likely impact on the role of councillors, in our report Councillors on the Frontline.[82]

49. In the 2013-14 session we continued to analyse policy implementation, tracking initiatives such as Community Budgets[83] and the Government's Building Regulations reforms,[84] both of which we had previously considered in 2010-12. We also undertook a major inquiry into England's housing in our report, The Private Rented Sector,[85] and considered the operation of Local government procurement.[86]

50. Citing our report on procurement, Professor George Jones and Professor John Stewart said that the 2013-14 session was when we shifted our focus to local authority management practices.[87] They criticised this as "encouraging centralisation, by making local authorities answerable to a committee of the House of Commons instead of to their own electorates".[88] We would disagree with their view for several reasons:

i) In 2014-15 Parliament voted resources of over £25 billion to local government in England, most of which was allocated via central government.[89] Central government does not act as an automatic transfer service and the money, under the current arrangements, is allocated to meet certain policy objectives set by central Government. There has to be accountability to Parliament for that funding. We therefore see it as part of our job to track expenditure from central Government to local government and to form a view on whether the expenditure is producing the results which the Government intended.

ii) We have concerns about the effectiveness of local government scrutiny both in terms of scrutiny across the sector—and here our work on procurement revealed the need for improvement across large parts of the sector—and also within individual authorities. Inadequate local scrutiny arrangements were one factor that prompted our 2014-15 inquiry into child sexual exploitation in Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council and our subsequent reports.[90]

Participants at our roundtable discussion suggested that select committees needed to tread carefully when scrutinising and criticising individual local authorities.[91] We agree, and do not see it is our role to routinely challenge individual councils on decisions they have made. We consider that the main thrust of our scrutiny should be on the systems in operation across local government and particular sectors of local government. Nevertheless, in exceptional circumstances, such as serious service failures of the kind seen in Rotherham, we do have an important role to play in holding local authorities to account.

51. If local government itself were able to raise more of the money that it spends, we would expect local authorities to have enhanced arrangements in place to scrutinise local expenditure and policy. In our first report of the 2014-15 session we examined the case for decentralising tax and spending powers, Devolution in England: the case for local government.[92] London Councils described this as a "timely and articulate consideration of one of the central issues facing local government. The inquiry produced recommendations that were widely supported by experts and the local government sector and we are keen to see these shape future government policy".[93] If fiscal devolution happens in England, then our role in scrutinising local government would change. We would expect to see a shift in accountability from the national to the local level, and a strengthened approach to local scrutiny. In the meantime, it is right and proper that we hold local government to account for the money Parliament allocates to it. We consider local government scrutiny further in Chapter 6.

Reflection: Alec Shelbrooke MP
During my relatively short time on the Select Committee I have been privileged to be involved in some of the key questions that relate to local government in this country.
The report on devolution for local government is a key milestone in the reform of how we are governed at the local level and is a driving reason behind my membership of the Committee.
The recommendations to give more spending control to local government are a vital first step towards a whole hearted root and branch overhaul of local government that will bring much greater accountability and direct influence to the provision of local services that have a wide ranging day to day effect on people's lives.
The inquiry into Rotherham Council is in my opinion, some of the most important work to have taken place in the Committee. The importance in being not only to ascertain what went wrong, but to also probe the robustness of existing bodies to prevent further dereliction of duties is hugely important. When finally produced, I believe that this report will be ground breaking in its conclusions.
As my first select committee it has been a hugely worthwhile experience to understand the important work that this aspect of Parliament undertakes. The strength of the Committee in being able to probe the honesty and probity of any witness is a huge asset to our democracy and should help reassure the public that governance is always under the strictest scrutiny whether it be through their existing polices or recommendations to the department for new, relevant policies.

52. Our final major inquiry of the 2010-15 Parliament demonstrated the approach we have sought to take throughout: following up previous reports. By returning to the Government's National Planning Policy Framework, this time to examine its operation two years after its introduction, we sought to build on the conclusions and recommendations we made to Government when it was a policy proposal and most of which the Government accepted.[94]

53. We have sought not only to focus on the detail of particular policies and initiatives but also on shaping the climate of wider debate. As a result, we would seek to assess our impact not only in terms of the implementation of particular recommendations, but also of how we have influenced the thinking of the Government and others. Examples of reports that have generated a wider discussion include those on Localism,[95] The Private Rented Sector[96] and Devolution in England.[97]

54. Throughout the 2010-15 Parliament we have scrutinised the expenditure and performance of DCLG, with annual and, when required, one-off sessions with officials and ministers, examining the Department's objectives and priorities and whether they had the means to achieve them.[98] To that end we have built a good working relationship with the National Audit Office (NAO). NAO officials have provided us with written and oral briefings on detailed topics, including departmental spending and the financial sustainability of local authorities. The NAO and House of Commons Scrutiny Unit[99] have also provided particularly useful assistance during our inquiries into the performance of DCLG, as over the Parliament DCLG has moved from making grant payments to local authorities to providing guarantees and assessing and managing risk. A further feature highlighted in several NAO reports has been DCLG's inconsistent use of data and infrequent recourse to impact assessments to inform formulation of policy. The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants said that it was "aware that the Committee regularly draws upon this wider (NAO) expertise and consider this good practice".[100]

55. We must put on record our thanks to both the National Audit Office (NAO) and the House of Commons Scrutiny Unit. We would urge our successor committee in the new Parliament to make contact with the NAO at an early stage and to build on what we consider has been a good working relationship. Both the NAO and Scrutiny Unit provide invaluable assistance in understanding policies, testing evidence and the impact of policies and in sharpening scrutiny of government.

56. We have had concerns about both the timing and quality of some Government responses to our reports. Several have taken far longer than two months to emerge. It took Ministers almost four months to respond to our report on the Role of Local Authorities in Health Issues,[101] almost three months to respond to our report on the Private Rented Sector and more than seven months to reply to Devolution in England: the case for local government.[102] The quality of some responses gave us concern. In our report on the Private Rented Sector, we asked the Government to provide specific data on the impact of its private rented sector taskforce; no data were provided.[103] In its response to the report on the Financing of New Housing Supply, the Government failed to engage with the substance of many recommendations, and it was unclear to us whether or not they had been accepted.[104]

57. We alert our successor committee to keep an eye on the quality and punctuality of Government responses to their reports.

Draft Bills

Task 4: To conduct scrutiny of draft bills within the committee's responsibilities.

58. No draft Bills have fallen within our scrutiny remit during the 2010-15 Parliament, although three of our members, including the Chair, sat on the Committee that undertook pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Local Audit Bill.[105]

Bills and Delegated Legislation

Task 5: To assist the House in its consideration of Bills and statutory instruments, including draft orders under the Public Bodies Act.

59. We considered the Government's localism policy as the Localism Bill proceeded through the House. Our report, Localism,[106] was published some six months before the legislation gained Royal Assent. In responding to the call for evidence on our work London Councils commented that we had "carefully [examined] the extent of the transfer of power achieved by the Act".[107] Our inquiry into localisation issues in welfare reform also took place in parallel with parliamentary debate about the then Welfare Reform Bill.[108]

Post-legislative Scrutiny

Task 6: To examine the implementation of legislation and scrutinise the department's post-legislative assessments.

60. Departments are expected to publish assessments of legislation between three and five years after enactment. DCLG produced its required assessments of legislation usually five years after enactment, and we considered each one. This meant that legislation we reviewed dated from 2007 and 2008, and we found it had often been superseded because of the change of government in 2010 and the changed economic climate since the downturn in 2007-08.

61. We did, however, carry out an inquiry into one piece of legislation, the previous Government's Greater London Authority Act 2007.[109] It made a relatively minor change in the law, and most of its provisions had been superseded by the Coalition Government's Localism Act 2011 and Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. We used the 2007 Act, however, as a starting point for a more general review of the role of the London Assembly. During our inquiry we were surprised to encounter questioning that we had not restricted ourselves to the 2007 Act. In our view, for post-legislative scrutiny to be effective select committees must be able to shape it to their own requirements. In this case it provided a useful path into a new subject for us, the governance of London, which we used as a springboard for our major inquiry into fiscal devolution in 2014.[110]

62. In our view post-legislative scrutiny is a good idea but too often stifled by an overly bureaucratic process and is frequently an ineffective use of resources. We ask the Liaison Committee to consider whether a lighter touch review could be put in place under which, for example, select committees could drop the requirement for a review by the parent department which serves no purpose or, if they consider it necessary, ask the department to review legislation sooner than three years after it has been enacted.

63. As was highlighted during the roundtable discussion it appears that Government is carrying out less evaluation of the impact of its policies. The committee in the new Parliament may wish to consider how to fill this gap. Some of the methods we outline in the previous chapter on research may be of use.

European Scrutiny

Task 7: To scrutinise policy developments at the European level and EU legislative proposals.

64. The main European policy development affecting local government in England is the European Regional Development Fund. We dealt in 2011-12 with the process of programming, financing and implementing the economic regeneration and development projects associated with the Fund. We recommended that Government plan for more projects than might actually be started, as inevitably some would not reach the point where they could be implemented.[111] Ministers wrote to us to say they would do so. As we note in the next chapter (on unfinished business), we continue to raise with DCLG officials issues regarding the Fund's management up to 2020.

Appointments

Task 8: To scrutinise major appointments made by the department and to hold pre-appointment hearings where appropriate.

65. Over the 2010-15 Parliament we have held pre-appointment hearings for the posts of

· Chair of the Regulation Committee of the Homes and Communities Agency,[112]

· Chair of the Audit Commission,[113] and

· following representations to the Secretary of State to add it to the list of pre-appointment hearings, the Housing Ombudsman.[114]

In 2012 we also held a post-appointment hearing with the Government's Chief Fire and Rescue Adviser.[115] We consider that as well as testing the fitness of the candidate for the post we have been able to ensure that their independence is safeguarded. In our hearing in 2014 with the Secretary of State's preferred candidate for the post of Housing Ombudsman, we endorsed her appointment but, to maintain the independence of the post, recommended she resign from the civil service.[116] She has now resigned.[117]

Support for the House

Task 9: To produce timely reports to inform debate in the House, including Westminster Hall, or debating committees, and to examine petitions tabled.

66. A number of our reports have been produced to coincide with the commencement of legislation, or with emerging national debates. For example, our report, The role of local authorities in health issues,[118] was published in the week leading up to the transfer of responsibility for public health to local government in April 2013. Similarly our report on the Implementation of welfare reform by local authorities[119] came out in the week of some of the most far reaching reforms to the welfare system in 60 years. The recommendations in our 2011 report on the Government's emerging National Planning Policy Framework were taken up almost in their entirety by the Government and cited by the then Planning Minister as a valuable contribution to the Government's consultation on the new planning framework.[120] Another of our reports, Devolution in England: the case for local government,[121] was the first of several in the summer of 2014 to address the devolution of powers from Westminster to English city and county regions, an issue that we expect to build and to be the subject of debate in the next Parliament.[122]

67. We have launched reports such as those on the Private Rented Sector[123] and the Operation of the National Planning Policy Framework[124] on the Floor of the House, with a statement by our Chair. We have also debated our reports and the Government's responses to them in Westminster Hall, the Commons' second Chamber. For example, the debate on our report, Councillors on the Frontline, attracted interest from a range of Members and maintained the momentum behind the ongoing debate about the role, functions and recruitment of councillors throughout England.[125] We have also made good use of the 'tagging' process, which allows committees to alert Members to documents relevant to debates in the House by listing them on the Order Paper.[126]

68. We consider petitions referred to us by the House. When we received more than 150 relating to the effect of the Government's local government finance settlement for 2014-15 on rural areas, we decided to take oral evidence from the Minister on the settlement, at which we questioned him on the concerns raised in the petitions.[127] We also invited those who submitted petitions on planning issues to the discussion forum that we held for our inquiry into the operation of the national planning policy framework.[128]

Public Engagement

Task 10: To assist the House of Commons in better engaging with the public by ensuring that the work of the committee is accessible to the public.

69. We have sought to make our work accessible to the public in a number of ways during the 2010-15 Parliament. We have worked closely with Parliament's outreach team and the Centre for Public Scrutiny (CfPS) to host delegations of councillors and council officers from local authorities in England and those from further afield who were interested in learning more about the work of select committees generally and ours in particular. These have taken the form of presentations by Members and staff, followed by question and answer sessions and, on some occasions, attendance at evidence sessions followed by a meeting in private with us to analyse the proceedings and how we carry out scrutiny. Committee staff took part in an exchange programme with the overview and scrutiny teams and executive staff on Hertfordshire and Hackney councils, and arranged a reciprocal opportunity for officers from Hackney and Hertfordshire, to enable them to gain an understanding of scrutiny work in Parliament. Additionally, in February 2013 and February 2014 committee staff worked with the CfPS to organise two seminars bringing together scrutiny officers from local government with those from Parliament. CfPS said such seminars were "greatly valued" by local councillors and officers.[129]

70. We have also used social media, discussion forums and visits to engage with the public. We describe these in detail in chapter 2.

71. Following our Councillors on the Frontline report,[130] Professor Colin Copus ran a series of seminars considering the issues raised in the report and Government response. His report was then the subject of a further evidence session, at which he appeared alongside the Chair of the Local Government Association and DCLG Minister, Kris Hopkins MP.[131] The CfPS said we had "led the way in terms of gathering more evidence in different ways".[132] Our Chair was also happy to have the tables turned and appear as a witness himself. He did so before the London Assembly, giving evidence into our report on the role of the London Assembly, something Richard Tracey AM described as "positive" and "right".[133]

72. Finally, in our view public engagement is not all in one direction. It is also responding to public concerns. There are limitations—for example, we took a decision not to review individual cases such as planning decisions or the Local Government Ombudsman's handling of specific cases on the grounds that we are not a court of appeal and it would be unfair to select one case over another. But we are clear that we should respond to evidence of systemic failures in central and local government. When such failures give rise to serious public concern, as the Jay Report into child sexual exploitation in Rotherham did[134] we have to move quickly.

73. The Liaison Committee may wish to consider whether committee core tasks need to include responding to serious public concern about systemic failure of government falling within the area of responsibility of the department it scrutinises.

66 Liaison Committee, Second Report of Session 2012-13, Select committee effectiveness, resources and powers, HC 697, pp 9-11 Back

67 Liaison Committee, Second Report of Session 2012-13, Select committee effectiveness, resources and powers, HC 697, p 11 Back

68 CLG Committee, Eleventh Report of Session 2010-12, Financing of New Housing Supply, HC 1652-I; First Report of Session 2012-13, Park Homes, HC 177-I; First Report of Session 2013-14, The Private Rented Sector, HC 50-I; Fifth Report of Session 2014-15, Pre-appointment hearing with the Government's preferred candidate for the post of Housing Ombudsman, HC 877 Back

69 CLG Committee, Second Report of Session 2010-12, Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies: a planning vacuum?, HC 517-I; Eighth Report of Session 2010-12, The National Planning Policy Framework, HC 1526-I; Fourth Report of Session 2014-15, Operation of the National Planning Policy Framework, HC 190 Back

70 CLG Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2013-14, Post-legislative scrutiny of the Greater London Authority Act 2007 and the London Assembly, HC 213; First Report of Session 2014-15, Devolution in England: the case for local government, HC 503 Back

71 CLG Committee, Third Report of Session 2010-12, Localism, HC 547-I; Fifth Report of Session 2010-12, Localisation issues in welfare reform, HC 1406-I; Ninth Report of Session 2010-12, Taking Forward Community Budgets HC 1750; Fifth Report of Session 2012-13, Mutual and co-operative approaches to delivering local services, HC 112; Ninth Report of Session 2012-13, Implementation of welfare reform by local authorities, HC 833-I; Third Report of Session 2013-14, Community Budgets, HC 163; Sixth Report of Session 2014-15, Community Rights, HC 262 Back

72 CLG Committee, First Report of Session 2010-12, Proposed Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity, HC 666; Fourth Report of Session 2010-12, Audit and inspection of local authorities, HC 763-I; Third Report of Session 2012-13, The work of the Local Government Ombudsman, HC 431-I; Sixth Report of Session 2012-13, Councillors on the frontline, HC 432-I; Fifth Report of Session 2013-14, Further review of the work and performance of the Local Government Ombudsman, HC 866; Sixth Report of Session 2013-14, Local government procurement, HC 712; Second Report of Session 2014-15, Local government chief officers' remuneration, HC 191 Back

73 CLG Committee, Tenth Report of Session 2010-12, Building regulations applying to electrical and gas installation and repairs in dwellings, HC 1851-I; Seventh Report of Session 2013-14, Building regulations certification of domestic electrical work, HC 906 Back

74 Respectively CLG Committee, Second Report of Session 2012-13, European Regional Development Fund, HC 81-I; Sixth Report of 2010-12, Regeneration, HC 1014-I; Eighth Report of Session 2010-12, The role of local authorities in health issues, HC 694-I Back

75 Dr Tim Brown (WSC 011), paras 2.3, 2.4. Dr Brown also noted the percentage of recommendations accepted measure does not take account of the relative importance / significance of recommendations; and studies have shown that the Government is more likely to accept minor rather than major recommendations. Back

76 CLG Committee, Third Report of Session 2010-12, Localism, HC 547-I; Second Report of Session 2010-12, Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies: a planning vacuum?, HC 517-I; ; Eighth Report of Session 2010-12, The National Planning Policy Framework, HC 1526-I Back

77 CLG Committee, First Report of Session 2012-13, Park Homes, HC 177-I Back