Clause
92
Reference
of matter by councillor to overview and scrutiny
committee
Robert
Neill:
I beg to move amendment No. 139, in
clause 92, page 60, leave out lines 43 to
45.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss new
clause 10— Local authority scrutiny of crime and disorder
matters
‘(1) Section 19 of the
Police and Justice Act 2006 (c. 48) (local authority scrutiny of crime
and disorder matters) is amended as
follows.
(2) Omit subsections
(3) to (7).
(3) In subsection
(8) omit “or
(7)”.
(4) In subsection
(11) omit the definition of “local crime and disorder
matters.”.’.
Robert
Neill:
I shall be as brief as I can in the light of the
hour—or the declining light if I am looking out of the window.
Our concern both with the amendment and the new clause, which is the
other part of the package to achieve the desired result, is that if we
go down the current route there will be two schemes for community calls
for action—one in relation to crime and disorder issues and one
in relation to other issues—and we do not see the logic in that.
Very frequently, the sort of issues that are likely to be raised with
councillors at the moment and that give rise to community calls for
action will overlap between the two schemes. It is not very easy or
practical to say that this is a crime and disorder issue and this, for
example, is an environment or transport issue—frequently, the
two will overlap.
May
I give a simple example from my own constituency that applies
elsewhere, including across outer London? There is regrettably a
problem with youth disorder on buses in London. That can often spill
over into bus stops and the surrounding areas. One can readily conceive
of scenarios in which people who face that problem in a particular
locality might wish to invoke a community call for action. Although
that is an issue of disorder, it is also one that involves transport
and possibly graffiti, vandalism and damage to the environment as
well.
It is not very
sensible therefore to require councils to go through two processes to
achieve the desired result. If they use the proposals in the Bill, I
suppose it could be ruled out of order on the grounds that it is
essentially a policing issue. However, if the criminal justice
procedures are used, the matter could be related to disorder on buses
or damage to buses, and then one may ask where does it stand together?
That is a pretty obvious example that many of us would
encounter.
It also
seems anomalous, if one looks at the very helpful briefing that has
been prepared by the Local Government Association, that not only would
there be two schemes, but some slightly different criteria in section
19 of the Police and Justice Act 2001 from those outlined in the Bill.
There are different criteria for what the issue applies to, who can
raise it, and what the powers are. Most particularly, there is no power
under the Police and Justice Act for councillors to use any delegated
power to try to resolve the issue
themselves. That seems surprising, given the desire to resolve as much
as we can locally and to enhance the role of the local
councillor. It is
also odd that the Police and Justice Act scheme does not apply to
county councils. What is the logic of that? When we think that through,
we realise that issues could arise in which it would be appropriate for
a county council to get involved. That might not be the most obvious
case; probably the district or borough council is the usual first port
of call, but I am not sure about what the logical distinction is. In a
nutshell, it would be sensible to bring this together.
Another sensible point made by
the LGA is that, as well as encouraging the local resolution of issues,
the Police and Justice Act provisions allow an appeal tothe
council executive if the council declines to refer the issue to
the overview and scrutiny committee. That does not seem to apply in the
Bill, so why should it be different from any logical point of
view?
One could
argue that the PJA provisions potentially give too wide a scope for the
vexatious and the frivolous appeal. We all have people in our
constituencies who are never going to be satisfied with anything. Do we
really want to put council officers, perhaps council executives, in the
position of having to do an awful lot of work to protect the scrutiny
committee from being burdened with that? That is not perhaps a crucial
matter, but the distinction does not seem logical, whatever the
justification for the appeal process.
I ask the Government to resolve
those anomalies, and it seems to us on balance that the scheme proposed
in the Bill would be better applied across the piece. That would
certainly be a lot easier, because residents themselves would have a
one-stop scheme for initiating a community call for action. I should
have thought that sensible and in the interests of what the Government
want to
achieve.
Patrick
Hall:
You might, Mr. Benton, rule me out of
order, but I should like to raise a couple of other matters on the
clause. We are now concentrating solely on the
amendment.
The
Chairman:
If they are general matters that arise from the
clause, we shall wait until clause stand part
debate.
Angela
E. Smith:
I welcome the comments made by the hon. Member
for Bromley and Chislehurst. I understand his desire to have some of
what he calls logic in the process. Perhaps when I have spoken and
explained the process superficially—to use the word of the
day—it will be logical, and there are good reasons why there
will be two different processes.
The hon. Gentleman has already
explained that taking amendment No. 139 with new clause 10 would have
the effect of bringing in community calls for action under the crime
and disorder matters, in line with local government matters. There are
important differences between the two, for good reasons. In the
former—the crime and disorder matters—any person who
lives or works in the area can initiate the process known as a
community call for action. All that they need to do is ask the
councillor who represents them to consider it a crime and disorder
matter. The councillor
is then under a duty to respond to that matter, and can refer it to one
of the committees that he thinks appropriate.
Crime and
disorder and transport are the two examples that the hon. Gentleman
gave, so the matter could be addressed by different committees. The
councillor’s duty is to respond to the member of the
ward—his or her constituent—to say what action the
councillor is going to take. It is not just a matter of being able to
refer to one committee. The councillor has the power to refer to the
crime and disorder committee, but he or she could go to the transport
committee and look at both issues at the same time.
Even if no one has asked them
to do so, councillors can refer matters to a crime and disorder
committee by virtue of the fact that they have perceived a problem in
that area. If a councillor declines to defer the matter, the individual
who has raised it can, under the local authority operating set of
arrangements, refer it to the executive of the authority, which places
the person under a similar duty to consider the issue and gives him the
option to refer the matter to the crime and disorder
committee.
5.15
pm
The local
government matter is more simple. The only person with power to refer
it is the councillor. That puts an onus on the councillor. In our
evidence-based sittings, the hon. Gentleman must have heard the concern
that was expressed about frivolous or vexatious matters. The councillor
and the scrutiny committee are the backstops on such matters. It is a
power for the front-line
councillor.
The hon.
Gentleman referred to the LGA. When it gave evidence to the Committee,
it said that it would like the two matters aligned. There is a
difference between a councillor who is directly elected to a body and a
councillor who is not directly elected. The hon. Gentleman is right in
that the local government proposals that we are putting forward mean
that a councillor at any level, including a county councillor, can
refer the matter. It is important that the councillor has other means
by which to deal with the matter under the usual council process, other
than by referring it to overview and
scrutiny.
Although I
understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, I shall resist his
proposals. The Police and Justice Act 2006 received Royal Assent on 8
November 2006. Its provisions have not even come into force. Parliament
decided recently that it wanted community calls for action under the
Act to be dealt with in such a way, so there would have to be
extraordinarily good reasons to wipe it away and change the process
before it has even started to take place. Parliament is not really keen
to undo what it has only just
done.
The second
positive argument centres on the nature of the problems that the Police
and Justice Act is intended to address, such as community safety.
Whether to align the two matters was considered; on balance, it is
reasonable to have a more stringent process in place in respect of
crime and disorder, in particular to enable individual citizens to
force the pace of change if they need to do so or to force the issue
when community safety and crime and disorder are at stake. I hope that,
in light of my explanation, the hon.
Gentleman will understand why I am not minded to change matters at this
stage. He is smiling at me benignly, so I think that that means he is
in
agreement.
Robert
Neill:
I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for her
response. I am tempted to say that repealing statutory provisions that
have not come into force, let alone been used, is not without
precedent. None the less, and despite the fact that my mother is now
disappointed in this Committee and as well as in the Committee that
discussed the Greater London Authority Bill, I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Patrick
Hall:
I should be grateful for a couple of points of
clarification. Would local government matters that a member of a
council can refer to the overview and scrutiny committees include those
subcontracted to other bodies outside the local authority? In other
words, would scrutiny committees be able to have oversight over such
activities if they were referred to
them?
Subsection (11)
refers to matters that could be excluded from oversight but, under
paragraph (b), it seems that anything could be excluded. Is that not
too widely
drawn?
Angela
E. Smith:
My hon. Friend asked whether contracted services
will be included. Yes, anything that affects the service to the citizen
from local government will be raised with the citizen’s
councillor, in the same way that people currently raise similar issues
with their councillor. That gives the councillor the opportunity to
raise the matter with the overview and scrutiny committee, if the
councillor thinks that that is appropriate. In terms of issues that can
be ruled out of order, it would be for the councillor and the overview
and scrutiny committee to make a decision, as elected representatives,
about whether it is appropriate to pass the matter to the overview and
scrutiny committee and for that committee to decide how much time it
will give to examining the
matter.
This
devolutionary measure puts additional powers in the hands of front-line
councillors and the overview and scrutiny committees to examine wider
issues brought forward by
citizens.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause 92
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 93
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
94
Powers
to require information from partner
authorities
Tom
Brake:
I beg to move amendment No. 118, in
clause 94, page 61, line 20, after
‘to’, insert ‘the written or
oral’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments:
No. 119, in clause 94, page 61,
line 20, after ‘authorities’, insert ‘, or those
contracted to
them,’.
No.
140, in
clause 94, page 61, line 23, at
end insert ‘and
(c) requiring
officers or employees of relevant partner authorities to attend the
relevant committee to answer
questions.’.
Tom
Brake:
Hon. Members will be pleased to hear that I shall
speak briefly to the amendments. Amendments Nos. 118 and 140 touch on
whether the powers to require information from partner authorities
extend to requiring those to give oral evidence. There may be occasions
where written information is appropriate and others in which oral
information—requiring people to come in front of the
committee—is appropriate. [Interruption.] I see that the
advice that the Under-Secretary is receiving is probably that that
would encompass both things. It would be helpful if she confirmed
that.
Amendment No.
119 is slightly different and deals with whether there will be a power
to require information from contractors working for partner
authorities. Again, if I can put it disparagingly, it may be necessary
to hear from the organ grinder—the contractor doing the
work—rather than the monkey. It may assist the partners, if that
power is included, to require their contractors to provide information.
I hope that the Under-Secretary can clarify whether my understanding of
“information” is correct and whether contractors can be
required to give
information.
Andrew
Gwynne:
I want to be equally brief. I accept all the
arguments made by the hon. Gentleman in respect of amendment No. 119,
but it does not go far enough. As I stated in the debate on clause 79,
it is not just about those contracted to partner authorities, but about
a range of other organisations. That is why the amendment in my name
and that of my hon. Friends the Members for City of Durham and for
Plymouth, Devonport, which, sadly, was not selected, suggested
including other bodies providing services to the public
locally.
I should like
to explain, from local experience, why this matter is so important.
Committee members who are groupies at Department for Constitutional
Affairs questions will know that I am forever talking about freedom of
information.
The
Chairman:
Order. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that he
cannot speak about an amendment that has not been
selected.
Andrew
Gwynne:
Thank you, Mr. Benton. I am speaking
about why amendment No. 119 is incorrect and does not go far
enough.
Last
year, Stockport metropolitan borough council and Stockport Sports Trust
decided to close Reddish baths. Those swimming baths were crucial to
the health and recreational needs of many of my constituents in that
part of Stockport. The sports trust was set up by Stockport council
several years ago to manage and run all its leisure facilities and get
around a range of restrictions
put in the council’s way. Unfortunately, in the good old days of
the committee system—to contradict everything I said
earlier—any decisions taken by Stockport council leisure
services committee would have been under the Local Government Act 1972
and access to information regulations, unless they were commercially
sensitive decisions. All the background information would have been in
the public
domain. Unfortunately,
that is no longer the case for some of these organisations. I have been
told by Baroness Andrews that
“Stockport Sports Trust
is a company limited by guarantee and is not owned in any way by the
council; it is a separate legal identity... there is nothing to
prevent a local authority or public body, which enters into an
arrangement with an external entity to have services delivered, from
making it a condition of any contract or agreement that certain
information is passed to the local authority or public body and into
the public domain... However, as this has not been agreed with
Stockport MBC, the trust is not obliged to share this
information.”
I
bring this matter to the Committee’s attention because it was
not just me as the Member of Parliament for Denton and Reddish who
asked for background information on how those bodies came to the
decisions to close Reddish baths, but the locally elected councillors
in Reddish. They were told in no uncertain terms that they could have
no access to any of the background reports or to any information to
which counter-proposals could be made with the Friends of Reddish Baths
to try to run it as community management organisation.
Furthermore, after I raised the
issue at Department for Culture, Media and Sport questions, I received
the following letter from John Howarth, the general manager of
Stockport Sports Trust, in which he
says:
“I am at
a loss to understand the length which you and your colleagues are
prepared to go to deal with this matter. I feel that no matter what I
might say to you it will have no influence on your views and,
therefore, consider it futile to pursue any attempt to debate by
correspondence what is now clearly an issue of national
importance.”
So there we
go. But that crystallises what happens when a partnership breaks down
between, on the one hand, a local authority and locally elected
councillors and, on the other, an organisation that was of its own
creation.
I do not
think that the amendment goes far enough. I wish that it went further.
I hope that the Minister takes on board the points that I have raised
about Stockport Sports Trust. I hope that it makes him realise and
understand why all these trusts, bodies and organisations need to have
some control over the access to information. If that does not happen,
all the wonderful work that we are going to do to improve scrutiny will
be a waste of time, because scrutiny needs access to that
information.
Alison
Seabeck:
There are genuine concerns that relate
specifically to amendment No. 119. Although this is a devolutionary
Bill, which seeks to increase local autonomy, it still leaves gaps in
scrutiny and the accountability of the services offered and contracted
on behalf of local citizens. The Minister will know that, in addition
to the quasi-public or formerly public bodies that perform functions of
a public nature, many organisations provide services on contract to
local authorities. The voluntary sector provides a steadily increasing
volume of services on behalf of local
authorities, especially in social care. There are also private sector
organisations that carry out a wide variety of work on contract to
local authorities.
I
am worried that voluntary sector organisations that perform functions
of a public nature as drawn by legislation may not therefore be added
to the list of authorities that have to respond to overview and
scrutiny. A specific case can be used to highlight the nature of the
problem. In R v. the Leonard Cheshire Foundation it was held
that a care home providing accommodation for elderly residents,
pursuant to arrangements made with the local authority, was not itself
exercising functions of a public nature for the purposes of the Human
Rights Act.
I have
been lobbied by a number of organisations, including Sense, the Royal
National Institute for Deaf People, the Royal National Institute of the
Blind and Scope, which believe strongly that any organisation providing
social care on behalf of a local authority should be subject to
overview and scrutiny. Those bodies are seeking to subject themselves
to even greater accountability. I therefore ask my hon. Friend, when
responding to the amendment, to consider how to ensure flexibility in
the Bill to allow the widest possible scrutiny of the services supplied
under contract to residents of a local
authority.
5.30
pm
Angela
E. Smith:
I thank my hon. Friends and the hon.
Member for Carshalton and Wallington for their contributions. The
Government are seeking to extend and strengthen overview and scrutiny.
We want local authorities to act as leaders in their communities,
engaging local people about their priorities and working with partners
to deliver better services. Questions have been raised about services
not provided directly by the council or its partners. How can those
organisations be called to account? We have given the amendment serious
consideration, but it seems unnecessary and potentially bureaucratic.
We are concerned that it could undermine
accountability.
Our
regulations will place the requirement to provide information squarely
on the shoulders of the partner authorities that have entered into
local area agreements. Certain authorities’ overview and
scrutiny committees will be able to acquire from partner authorities
only information relating to their respective local improvement
targets. We fully recognise that, in securing cost-effective and
high-quality services, partner authorities may contract out service
provision, but it is partner authorities holding agreements with the
council that will be accountable to the overview and scrutiny committee
for the services for which they are responsible, including the services
that they in turn commission.
It could be confusing and
dilute accountability if contractors were required to provide
information to overview and scrutiny committees. It could inadvertently
encourage a culture in which partner authorities could shift
responsibility away from the organisation holding the agreement with
the council and on to the contractor. That is a grave concern, which is
why we have addressed it in such a
way.
It could also be
an unreasonable bureaucratic burden on contractors to have to respond
to requests for information from overview and scrutiny committees. I
do not think that the amendment of the hon. Member for Carshalton and
Wallington would require contractors commissioned by local authorities
to respond to overview and scrutiny committees—there is a
gap—so I do not see why we should require partner
authorities’ contractors to do so. I have also heard my hon.
Friends’ concerns that organisations one step removed from local
authorities will not have such an obligation. It is a bit of a repeat
of our earlier debate about
LAAs.
We
must be careful not to think that the list of organisations is
exclusive and contains the only people who can be called to account by
the overview and scrutiny committees. The committees will be able to
investigate any issue, decide for themselves which inquiries they want
to hold and ask anybody to attend. The Centre for Public Scrutiny gave
an example in its evidence to the House of a scrutiny committee that
acted innovatively to encourage a reluctant private-sector company to
appear before it to give evidence. The committee was holding an inquiry
into a service failure by one of the water companies that caused houses
to experience a lack in their water supply for an unacceptable time.
The committee found that the water company refused to attend its
proceedings to put things right.
Hon. Members might recall that
when my hon. Friend in another place, Lord Hattersley, refused an
invitation to appear on “Have I Got News For You”, he was
replaced by a tub of lard. In this case, the water company was replaced
by a leaky, rusty bucket with its name across the front. It received
considerable press interest. At the scrutiny committee’s second
meeting, representatives from the water company turned up demanding to
put the case before the committee so that they could have the right of
response.
Although
organisations will not necessarily be required to attend—only a
limited number will be—overview and scrutiny committees will be
free to invite anybody they wish. However, there is a danger that we
could dilute the very accountability that we are seeking if we allow
those with an agreement with the council to pass it on to contractors.
It could have unintended
consequences.
Alison
Seabeck:
I fully understand the point that the onus is on
the local authority to find ways and means—and, if necessary, to
embarrass, as in the case that the Minister cited. I must say that I
was the person who rang up to give apologies for Roy Hattersley for not
appearing on the show, as I was working for him at the time. None the
less, the Government must therefore instil that sense in local
authorities, give them the best practice and disseminate information
about how they can get such people to give evidence. It will not always
be a bucket. There is a worry that the best will comply,
but the vast majority will not, and that things will therefore slip
through the
net.
Angela
E. Smith:
I understand my hon. Friend and she makes a very
powerful point. However, it is not only the best authorities that will
use innovative means. We have put in place a process by which certain
organisations will be required to give evidence. In response to the
hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, I should say that those
organisations can give oral or written evidence—it is the choice
of the party or organisation being called to scrutiny. However, the
process could be extended wider to organisations other than those
required by the provisions. An overview and scrutiny committee, with
the powers given to it in the Bill, will fairly soon want to extend its
role beyond the services provided by the council to any services that
its constituents receive. I would welcome that.
I take my hon. Friend’s
point that it may take a short while for members of overview and
scrutiny committees to recognise their new powers, strength and
authority. However, I am confident that, by placing a requirement on
partners, and by making it binding on those that have services
arrangements with councils to give information by appearing before, or
by giving written evidence to, overview and scrutiny committees, we
have addressed the issue of the powers that the committees should have.
We are confident that the increased powers will be welcomed by overview
and scrutiny committees and that they will be used well. I therefore
hope that the hon. Gentleman withdraws his
amendment.
Tom
Brake:
I am satisfied by the Under-Secretary’s
explanation and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause 94 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
| 
