Local Government Bill

---

[back to previous text]

Mr. Curry: Will my hon. Friend give way?

The Chairman: Order. This line of inquiry about another Bill has been pursued far enough. I am sure that members of the Committee will want to take copies of the Bill back to their rooms this afternoon and check the spelling mistakes.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Thank you, Mr. Griffiths. I give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Curry: It would be entirely consistent with the Liberal Democrats to be in favour of different spelling in different parts of the Bill. [Laughter.]

11 am

Mr. Clifton-Brown: The point has been made. I have not come across any spelling mistakes so far in

Column Number: 207

this clause, but it is only three lines long. I am sure that there will be scope for that in the rest of the Bill.

I hope that, in the spirit in which he introduced them, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton will not press the amendments to a vote. I am sure that they are only probing amendments, and it is pertinent to probe this point. As I understand it, if a court were asked to interpret the clause, the Minister would have to demonstrate that he was acting reasonably in any case, but it would be useful to have that on the record.

With regard to charging for the cost of providing the information, I hope that the Government will not accept that amendment. If the Secretary of State were charged for information, presumably he would want to charge the local authority when providing information. The bureaucratic mechanism whereby charging would be introduced would be an unnecessary burden on top of the cost to council tax payers.

I also want to ask the Liberal Democrats, tongue in cheek, how they would apply the mechanism where they were in control of district councils in England. They also have a controlling interest in the Scottish Parliament and a major interest in the Welsh Assembly. How would they react if the boot were on the other foot? No doubt the Liberal Democrats, who always face both ways at the same time, will have an answer to that question.

In the spirit of these probing amendments, let me say that this is a simple clause, and I hope that we can move on fairly quickly.

Mr. Leslie: I, too, hope that we can move on fairly quickly. I welcome the hon. Member for Cotswold to his rightful place in the Committee. He has already served a useful purpose by demolishing the arguments on the amendments advanced by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton.

I can confirm that the Government will act reasonably, as we always do, in respect of any request for information. If we did not, it would be open to challenge. It would not be right for councils to be able to charge the Secretary of State for the cost of providing information. That would not only be bureaucratic, but would not make sense, not least because the Government do not charge local authorities when they request information. In addition, there would be no limit on the charge by the local authority.

I imagine that if a local authority wants a grant or other support from central Government, it will reasonably want to supply the relevant information, such as data on pupil numbers and normal formula grant reviews. If it did not provide that data, it would be hard to see how it could receive any grant, so the amendment simply makes no sense.

Mr. Davey: Even given the spirit in which I moved the amendment, I think that the Under-Secretary is going slightly over the top. For the record, will he ensure that when his Department makes requests of local authorities, it is mindful of the costs that it imposes on them in making those requests?

Column Number: 208

Mr. Leslie: I not only confirm that, but go further by saying that we are already, through some of the extra freedoms and flexibilities that we have announced, relieving a significant burden on local authorities by reducing the number of submissions that they are required to make to central Government. I am not just saying that; it is already happening in practice. The clause is reasonable, and I hope that hon. Members will support it.

Mr. Davey: I, too, welcome the hon. Member for Cotswold. I have served on Committees with him before and it has always been a pleasure.

These are indeed probing amendments and they have been useful, because the Minister has said on the record that the Government will not make requests unreasonably, but that if they do, local authorities can challenge the requests. He has also said that the Government do not intend to use the power willy-nilly and that they will think about the costs that they impose on local authorities. It is good that we have got that on the record. We will hold the Government to account when they use the powers. If, over time, we see the powers being abused, the House may need to return to the matter. Through the usual channels and with local government, we will be watching. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15

Guidance

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I beg to move amendment No. 42, in

clause 15, page 6, line 24, leave out from beginning to end of line 26 and add,

'to such guidance as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify for the purposes of this provision, whether or not issued by him.'.

The amendment provides a good opportunity to probe the Minister's intention in relation to guidance and regulations. On the whole, the purist in me says that wherever possible legislation should be made by primary legislation, not by guidance or regulations and certainly not by directions, as we will see later in the Bill. More than half of all the legislation last year went through in the form of secondary legislation. There were more than 4,000 items, many of them completely undebated. A small part went through by negative procedure under a statutory instrument and received only cursory scrutiny. We, therefore, need to probe the Minister every time a Bill refers to regulations.

The Minister has been very courteous in producing draft regulations for the Bill in plenty of time for the Committee to debate them, unlike his colleague on the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. However, I do not believe that we have had sight of any draft regulations on this clause. Perhaps the Under-Secretary can give us an idea of what he expects might be in such regulations. It will not have escaped the notice of the Committee that there is a difference between subsections (a) and (b). Whereas subsection (a) refers to

Column Number: 209

''such guidance as the Secretary of State may issue'',

subsection (b) refers to

''such other guidance as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify for the purposes of this provision.''

There is a difference. Under one subsection the Secretary of State can issue guidance such as he sees fit, in the other it has to be by regulations which presumably must go through this House and receive some scrutiny.

I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that in the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill the Minister accepted and made directions subject to scrutiny, in other words subject to regulations. It would be useful to probe the Government's consistency as to how they intend to draw up the guidance and whether it is by regulations. I do not quite see why the entire paragraph should not be by regulations but it would be interesting to know the Under-Secretary's thinking on this matter.

Mr. Leslie: The amendment would significantly change the clause, which first requires local authorities to have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State. We are thinking of using that power to give clear and simple guidance on prudent investment practice. Secondly, it requires authorities to have regard to guidance issued by other bodies and specified in regulations under the clause. Regulation 18 of the draft regulations indicates that we intend to specify the treasury management code published by CIPFA, which is already widely adopted by local authorities.

Unfortunately, the amendment would require all guidance to be specified in regulations, including any issued by the Secretary of State. That would be an extremely unusual approach. Guidance is one thing, but it is not the same as a direction. It simply requires authorities to have regard to a particular policy. To have that aspect always enshrined formally in regulations would be excessive. The Housing Act 1996, which was brought in by the previous Administration, contained powers to issue guidance by regulation. This is not abnormal. I hope that, in those circumstances, the hon. Gentleman will reconsider and withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: The Minister's explanation is helpful. I seek one further assurance before urging my colleagues to ask the Committee for its approval to withdraw the amendment.

With regard to the guidance, particularly the CIPFA code on prudential borrowing, will the Minister confirm that it would be the normal practice of the Department, when changing the guidance, to consult widely, particularly with CIPFA and the other main bodies involved?

Mr. Leslie: Certainly, in the normal course of our business we are keen to consult when we make changes to guidance. With regard to the specific provisions to which I have already referred, including the code produced by CIPFA, it would be slightly awkward for us to consult on changes that CIPFA proposed to make to its own code. However, I accept the spirit of

Column Number: 210

consultation that the hon. Gentleman seeks, and we shall endeavour to do that as best we can.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: After that short debate, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16

Capital expenditure

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I beg to move amendment No. 43, in

clause 16, page 6, line 30, leave out 'proper practices' and insert 'Generally Accepted Accounting Practices.'.

 

---

Prepared 30 January 2003