New
Clause
1
Local
spending reports
‘(1) For the
purpose of assisting in promoting the sustainability of local
communities, the Secretary of State may make arrangements for the
production, by the Secretary of State or another person, of local
spending reports.
(2) A local
spending report is a report on expenditure by such authorities, in such
area, and over such period, as are determined in accordance with the
arrangements.
(3) The
authorities may be—
(a)
a principal council;
(b) a
government department;
(c) any
other person exercising public
functions.
(4) The area may
be—
(a) one or more
local authority areas;
(b) one
or more parts of a local authority
area;
(c) any combination of
those.
(5) The period may be or
include a future period.
(6)
The expenditure to be included in relation to any authority, area or
period is to be determined in accordance with the
arrangements.
(7) A report may
relate to different areas or periods for different
authorities.
(8) The Secretary
of State may make different arrangements for different
reports.
(9) Before making
arrangements under this section, the Secretary of State must consult
such persons likely to be affected by the arrangements as the Secretary
of State thinks
appropriate.
(10) For the
purposes of subsection (9) any consultation undertaken before the
commencement of that subsection isas effective as it would
have been if undertaken after that
commencement.’.—[Mr.
Woolas.]
Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Mr.
Woolas:
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments to the proposed new clause: (a), in line
2, leave out ‘may’ and insert
‘shall’.
(c),
in line 2, leave out ‘may’ and insert
‘must’.
(b),
in line 7, leave out ‘may’ and insert
‘shall’.
(f),
in line 9, after ‘department’,
insert
‘(c) a fire and rescue
authority;
(d) a National Park
authority;
(e) the Broads
Authority;
(f) a police
authority;
(g) a chief officer
of the police;
(h) a waste
disposal authority established under section 10 of the Local Government
Act 1985 (c.51);
(i) a
metropolitan county passenger transport authority established by
section 28 of the Local Government Act 1985 (c.51) (joint
arrangements);
(j) a primary
care trust;
(k) a development agency established by section 1 of
the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998
(c.45);
(l) a local probation
board established by section 4 of the Criminal Justice and Court
Services Act 2000 (c.43);
(m) a
youth offending team established under section 39 of the Crime and
Disorder Act 1998 (c.37);
(n)
the English Sports Council;
(o)
the Environment Agency;
(p) the
Health and Safety
Executive;
(q) the Historic
Buildings and Monuments
Commission;
(r) the Learning
and Skills Council for England;
and
(s) Natural
England.’.
(g),
in Line 10, leave out ‘(c)’ and
insert—
‘(3A) The
authorities may
be’.
(d),
in Line 11, leave out ‘may’ and insert
‘must’.
(e),
in Line 13, at end insert
‘or’.
Mr.
Woolas:
We are making progress, Mr. Cummings,
and I am grateful to you for that. The new clause contains the
Government’s proposals for the resource mapping process. I
believe that there is broad agreement on its framework, which we
discussed in our sitting on 2 May. Amendments have been tabled to the
new clause, and we might wish to debate them briefly, but I do not want
to detain the
Committee.
The
local spending reports covered in the new clause come from a power of
the Secretary of State to make such arrangements and could effectively
cover all public expenditure in each local authority area, both current
and future spending. That is an important point. I am giving away
birthday cakes here, and Opposition Members are
not—[Interruption.] They are pleased; I thought that they
were not writing it down. The Committee discussed on 2 May the
difficulties of defining local and not local spending, and I reported
back on the consultation across government on some of the
issues.
The amendment
that I have tabled includes a dutyto consult interested
parties so that we do not simply impose a process from Whitehall. The
costs of producing the local spending report must be limited. However,
the power should contain the flexibility to allow the report to focus
on proposed expenditure within county areas or, alternatively, a break
down for counties and a break down for districts, or simply a break
down for each district. In two-tier areas, that it important.
The outcome might be a simple
report that identifies how much money is to be spent in each area by
partner authorities and if they do not spend it themselves, which is
increasingly the case, who
does.
The original
clause distinguishes between funding for primarily national or for
local priorities. Much expenditure could legitimately be said to be
either. We think that it is more powerful to be able to identify the
totality of funding that may be spent in each area. That exercise would
be based largely on existing—and possibly on currently
available—information. The aim of the task would be to quantify
expenditure that can easily be identified as relating to a particular
local authority area. The intent would be to understand in broad terms
how much money local partners and communities are responsible for. The
intent would be not to create an artificial split as to what funding
might
go where, but to identify as well as possible what is to be allocated to
where. The purpose would be to help local authorities, their partner
agencies and their residents and community groups to plan
better. Mr.
Cummings, is it desirable to you that I should move amendments (c), (d)
and (e), which stand in my name?
The Chairman: You should
speak to them at this stage.
Mr.
Woolas:
Very well, Mr. Cummings. The amendments
reflect an earlier discussion in this Committee. Amendment (c) reflects
the Committee’s wish that the Secretary of State should be under
a duty to make arrangements for the production of local spending
reports. It replaces the word “may” with the word
“must”.
Mr.
Letwin:
Why will the Minister not move amendment (b),
which seems to be entirely in line with his amendments (c), (d) and
(e)? Does he object to (b), or did he just happen not to move
it?
Mr.
Woolas:
I am coming on to that; I should have explained.
Let me first finish my argument on amendment (c). I hope that there is
agreement on replacing in subsection (1) of new clause 1 the word
“may” with the word “must”. Amendments (d)
and (e) reflect a similar wish. They amend subsection (4) of new clause
1 and require that the areas covered by the report should be one or
more local authority areas, one or more parts of a local authority area
or any combination of
those.
Let me explain
my difficulty with amendments (b), (g) and (f). New clause 1 provides a
degree of flexibility—that is not to allow the Government to
back out of their obligations. I repeat: we have tabled new clause 1
because we believe that a clear benefit can be gained from identifying
what public expenditure is spent in each area. It will make the
planning and decision-making process more transparent and accountable
and will help partners to make better informed decisions. The
flexibility is there because nobody yet knows how to achieve that.
There is a requirement in the new clause for the Secretary of State to
consult the people who will benefit from it. That means that we can
design a process that is fit for purpose. It seems strange to me to
design out such flexibility and to circumscribe the consultation even
before it takes
place.
3.45
pm
I also have a
slight concern about taking a list of authorities agreed for the
purposes of one piece of legislation and simply copying it into another
pieceof legislation. For example, it is unnecessary
toname authorities. The intent to include appropriate
authorities is already provided for. It will be confirmed by
consultation and written into arrangements. There is no need to name
authorities in the Bill. It is also potentially onerous to do so. Not
all named authorities allocate funding according to local authority
boundaries and, as I explained earlier, there is often a perfectly
legitimate business case for not doing so.
Our aim is not to create an
artificial split in what funding might go from which agency to which
area, but to create transparency for the funding that can be influenced
in a local area. Listing partner authorities could incur substantial
effort for no gain. As I have also said before, in this case
“may” implies “must”, so this is not a
simple list of suggestions. As I have already made clear, it is
important that we consult and make the production of local spending
reports as useful and efficient as possible. As nobody knows how best
todo this yet, I believe that it is wrong to write into the
Bill specific requirements which may undermine, unintentionally, the
usefulness of the reports.
In
short—[Interruption.] I hear a “Hear,
hear.” Having looked at this, and we have had some time now to
consult in Whitehall, we believe that this is the best way to do it.
This will be one of the main benefits of the Bill, because it will put
in the public domain what the spending is. Kent county council have
done so. Other councils, including my own, have done so. It will show
the public what the spending is and generate significant debate and
disagreement in local areas. We have the confidence in this process to
say that we should put that information out there because it will
result in better involvement, higher turn-outs in elections and
efficiencies in public spending. This is a key part of the Bill.
However, I do not want to prescribe in too much detail before we ask
local authorities to do
so.
Mr.
Hurd:
I am delighted that the Minister shares the
Committee’s enthusiasm for this clause. There may even be a
feeling in the Committee that the full ramifications of the clause have
yet to be fully understood outside the Committee Room. It could be the
catalyst for some very vigorous debate. It is therefore essential that
we get it right. I congratulate the Minister and his officials on
getting to the right place after a disappointing start. The right place
is one word, a “must” in line 2. That is the crucial
change. Everything else is secondary, in our
view.
I have followed
the Minister’s arguments carefully. He has had a solid afternoon
and I am delighted to tell him that he is likely to end on a victory
because the main achievement has been banked, which is the change to
line 2. I should explain amendments (f) and (g) very briefly. They are
designed to remove any doubt from the process and to show to an
external audience exactly who we mean in this process. That explains
the long list of authorities that are parties to local areas agreements
and listed in the existing legislation. I am persuaded by the
Minister’s arguments for possibly the first time this afternoon,
but I am more than happy to leave it open to members of the Committee
to express their
views.
Julia
Goldsworthy:
I do not really have anything else to add.
The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood has summed it up particularly
well. Perhaps the Minister will feel like having another drink once
this sitting is
over.
Mr.
Woolas:
I am grateful for those comments.I
believe that this clause will give real impetus to localism. I am
grateful for the support of the Committee.
Question put and agreed
to.
Clause
read a Second
time.
Amendments
made: (c), in Line 2, leave out ‘may’
and insert
‘must’.
(d),
in Line 11, leave out ‘may’ and insert
‘must’.
(e),
in Line 13, at end insert
‘or’.—[Mr.
Woolas.]
Clause,
as amended, added to the
Bill.
New
Clause
3
Local
spending reports: rights of principal councils and representatives of
local persons
‘(1) After
considering the information contained in a local spending report issued
pursuant to section 4, a principal council may make recommendations to
the Secretary of State as
to—
(a) whether that
council could decide how any part of the money specified in that report
may be spent; and
(b) any
consequential delegation of functions to the
council.
(2) Where a principal
council proposes to make recommendations pursuant to subsection (1), it
must—
(a) refer the
matter to any panels under section 3 for consideration;
or
(b) establish such panels if
they do not exist and refer the matter to them for
consideration.
(3) A principal
council and any panels acting pursuant to this section shall exercise
their functions to promote the sustainability of local
communities.
(4) Within three
months of receiving recommendations made by a principal council under
subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall either adopt or reject
each of the recommendations, and in either case shall give reasons for
his decision.
(5) At least once
in each calendar year the Secretary of State shall publish a report
providing details of all decisions taken pursuant to subsection (4)
above.’.
Brought
up, and read the First and Second
time.
Amendments
made: (a), in Line 2, leave out ‘may’ and
insert ‘subject to subsection
(2)’.
(b), in
Line 6, at end
insert—
‘(2A) A principal
council may not make recommendations regarding any money that has been
specified in the local spending report as being spent on services of a
wider or national
significance.
(2B) In
subsection (2) “services primarily of a wider or national
significance” means services provided wholly or largely for the
benefit of persons resident in areas wider than the area of the
council.’.
(c),
in Line 12, leave out ‘shall’,
insert—‘(a) ’.
(d), in
Line 13, at end insert
‘and
(b) have regard to the
council’s community strategy prepared pursuant to section 4 of
the Local Government Act 2000
(c.22);
(c) specify that in
their opinion any recommendations are consistent with that community
strategy; and
(d) give their
reasons for that opinion.’.—[Mr
Hurd.]
Clause,
as amended, added to the
Bill.
| 
