|
Mr. Clifton-Brown: It seems to be the trend that smaller parish councils are encouraged to work together. Under the proposals, is there a possibility that two or three councils could aggregate their budgets and functions to qualify for the best value grants?
Mr. Raynsford: The arrangements apply to existing parishes. If there were a proposal for an amalgamation of parishes into a new parish, we would look at the criteria. However, it is not possible for an administrative arrangement to be reached to enable a group of parishes to get through the barrier. The purpose of the £30,000 is to enable those authorities to discharge the responsibilities imposed by the best value regime, which is rightly all about ensuring proper auditing and observing respect for the proprieties of public office.
That brings me to the hon. Gentleman's point about the resignation of parish councillors, of which there have been some. I understand from the standards board that some parish councillors have not felt able to sign the basically straightforward undertakings to comply with the standards that apply to all people in public life, whether they are at parish council level, our level or local authority level. The standards board is an extremely thoughtful body that is approaching its responsibilities in a sensible and practical way. It advises me that there is nothing unreasonable about the application of those standards to parishes, which, as the hon. Gentleman will recognise, can take responsibility for substantial sums of money. Their budgets can be larger than that of a small district council, in which case the borderline between a parish council and a district council simply does not justify a different code of conduct.
Mr. Turner: Does the Minister agree that some of the requirements imposed by the standards board appear to be intrusive and disproportionate, particularly for very small parish councils?
The Chairman: Order. Before the Minister is tempted too far into the subject of probity, I hope that he will address his remarks to the clause, as we are not dealing with the requirement at present.
Mr. Raynsford: Thank you, Mr. Conway. I shall say a very brief no to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight to indicate my view, which I have already set out in response to the questions raised by the hon. Member for Cotswold. I shall not stray further into that territory.
We all believe that probity and honesty in public life are fundamental. It is right that all authorities should meet such obligations, and parish councils are not exempt. The provisions encourage and assist authorities to meet high standards of organisation and probity. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Column Number: 284
Clause 37
Best value grant: communities
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Touhig: Clause 37, which applies to Wales, provides for the National Assembly of Wales to pay a grant to best value community councils that are subject to any best value duties for expenditure that they incur. By virtue of the Local Government (Best Value) (Exemption) (Wales) Order 2000, at present no council meets the criteria for being subject to any of the best value duties in sections 3 to 6 of the Local Government Act 1999.
However, that may change. The Assembly has commissioned a research project to be carried out by the University of Wales at Aberystwyth into the role and responsibilities of community councils. It may result in some community councils taking part in the Wales programme for improvement, which is an in-depth assessment by each authority of its fitness to achieve continuous improvement across all its functions. The Wales programme for improvement is based on the best value duties in the 1999 Act.
Clause 37 permits the payment of grant to best value authorities, which are defined in subsection (1) as community councils that are subject to the best value duties set out in sections 3 to 6 of the 1999 Act. There is no requirement for Treasury consent, as the Assembly sets its own Budget.
Mr. Turner: I should like to explore some of the types of information that the National Assembly for Wales might seek to obtain under the provisions of the clause. It may be difficult to envisage that in the context of a regime under which no best value requirements are placed on any parishes or communities in Wales. However, can the Under-Secretary indicate whether the information that a community council may be required to provide is limited to that which it has obtained in connection with best value purposes? Or might it extend beyond such purposes to information that it might perhaps have acquired for other purposes; or, indeed, that it might not have acquired had it not been for the desire to obtain the grant that is or might become available under the clause?
Let me give the Under-Secretary some examples. Is it the intention of the Assembly to obtain information about the linguistic make-up of communities in Wales, the languages spoken by people buying houses or the ethnic origin of people in Welsh communities? Is it intended that the Assembly can require community councils to use the grant in such a way as to either distort or maintain the ethnic or linguistic composition of particular communities in Wales? Is it within the power that will be conveyed by the clause for a community council to make grants to schools or rural post offices? For example, in Cardiganshire there is argument about whether new houses should be built in its communities because they may be purchased by incomers who being more likely to be English than Welsh, would distort the balance between Welsh and English speakers. The contrary arguments are that the houses should not be built, in which case the viability
Column Number: 285
of local services, such as post offices and schools, would be reduced, or that the houses should be built only on condition that they are occupied by people who speak Welsh. Is it within the powers of the clause for the National Assembly for Wales to require that the grant be spent in any of those ways?
Mr. Touhig: No.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 39
Emergency financial assistance
to combined fire authorities
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I have a simple, short question to ask the Minister. Is it envisaged that the clause could be used in any way to pay combined fire authorities that are out of pocket, as a result of the present firemen's dispute?
Mr. Raynsford: No.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 40
Loans by Public Works loan commissioners
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I beg to move amendment No. 112, in
clause 40, page 17, line 39, after 'appropriate', insert 'by order'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
Amendment No. 113, in
clause 41, page 18, line 23, after 'appropriate', insert 'by order'.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I fear that the habit of brief questions and answers will come to a short stop now.
Mr. Swayne: Shame.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: No doubt my hon. Friend would prefer to debate the entire Bill in one sitting and go home. Sadly, the Committee would not be seen to be doing its job if we did that.
The clause refers to overhanging debts and some large sums. In a written answer to me, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), said that, under the clause, the
''Provision for 2003–04 is currently £616 million.''
In last Thursday's proceedings of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) quoted a figure of £800 million for the same year. That is some difference. Will the Minister clarify what figure is involved?
To set the matter in context, we know that some significant sums have already been paid in writing-off overhanging debt in relation to housing stock that is transferred, when debt has been accrued that is larger than the proceeds from the transfer. Some large payments have been made almost exclusively to
Column Number: 286
metropolitan boroughs. For example, I was told in a written answer that, in 1999–2000,
''£20.99 million was paid to Burnley. In 2000–01 payments were made to Coventry (£111.68 million) Calderdale (£64.59 million) and Blackburn with Darwen (£78.9 million). In 2002–03 payments have been made to St. Helens (£87.2 million), Redcar and Cleveland (£25.4 million) and Knowsley (£126.13 million).—[Official Report, 3 December 2002; Vol. 395, c. 707W.]
Large sums of debt are being written off. That is why amendments Nos. 112 and 113 would be appropriate. Subsection (1) states:
''The Secretary of State may, if he thinks it appropriate, make payments to the Public Works Loan Commissioners so as to reduce or extinguish such debt (whether then due or not) of a local authority in England to those Commissioners as he thinks fit.''
It seems to me that when one is dealing with such an important matter and with such large sums, payments should not be just at the whim of the Secretary of State; they should be made by order, which would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. I look forward with interest to the Minister's explanation and to him clarifying what sums he has laid out in his budget.
10.15 am
I fully understand that that will depend on which authorities succeed in making a stock transfer. Nevertheless, in line with the previous Government's policy, the Government are seeking to encourage local authorities to make stock transfer to registered social landlords. Presumably, they are using the provisions to encourage that transfer. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister how much he expects that to cost, and for how many more authorities such huge sums are in the pipeline.
| 
