Standing Committee B
Thursday 11 February 1999
(Morning)
[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]
9 am
The Chairman: Good morning. If hon. Members wish to remove their jackets they may do so.
Before we commence this morning, I should point out that the Chair's incredibly politically acute antennae have picked up the fact that the clause is mildly contentious, as shown by comments in earlier debates. The clause itself is brief and to the point. The amendments that have been selected have been grouped to encapsulate the whole clause. As has been said, they run the gamut of emotions from A to B.
As always, the Committee has a choice. Hon. Members may either debate the amendments at considerable length, which is their right, or have a brief debate on the amendments and a clause stand part debate. But they cannot have their cake and eat it. Hon. Members may wish to move three amendments separately, and again, because these amendments have been grouped to encapsulate the clause, they may do so after the usual discussions with the Chair.
Clause 13
Secretary of State's powers
Jackie Ballard (Taunton): I beg to move amendment No. 199, in page 10, line 2, leave out from "applies"to first "is"in line 3 and insert "if a report under section 12 is not approved by a full meeting of the authority and the Audit Commission".
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following Amendment No. 179, in page 10, line 2, leave out
"the Secretary of State is satisfied that".
Amendment No. 153, in page 10, leave out lines 10 to 12.
Amendment No. 36, in page 10, line 10, after "opinion", insert
"in consultation with the representatives of best value authorities".
Amendment No. 180, in page 10, leave out lines 16 to 19.
Amendment No. 96, in page 10, line 20, leave out subsection (5).
Amendment No. 198, in page 10, line 29, at end insert
", provided that the functions exercised by the Secretary of State or his nominee in subsections (a) or (b) above shall also be subject to best value criteria".
Government amendments Nos. 59 to 61.
Amendment No. 146, in page 10, line 38, at end insert-
"() A direction given under this section must have regard to the duty of best value under section (3)(1).".
Amendment No. 97, in page 10, leave out lines 39 and 40 and insert-
"(8) No direction shall be given under this section unless a statutory instrument containing the direction has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.".
Amendment No. 154, in page 10, leave out lines 39 and 40 and insert-
"(8) No direction shall be given under this section unless an Order containing the direction has been approved by resolution of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs.".
Amendment No. 181, in page 10, line 39, leave out from "enforceable"to end of line 40 and insert
"only after an order containing the direction has been approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament".
Jackie Ballard: You are right, Mr. Gale. Many roads have led to this clause and many hon. Members will want to have a substantive debate on it. I am also quite surprised and delighted to see that some Labour Back Benchers have finally found their voice and have tabled an amendment. That perhaps shows that there is widespread concern about the powers that the Secretary of State will be given if the clause is accepted as it stands.
It will come as no surprise to anyone that we oppose the clause, and we will vote accordingly on clause stand part. I am sorry to disappoint the Government Whip but I am feeling quite bullish about it this morning. The clause gives the Secretary of State power completely to emasculate local government, to ride roughshod over local democrat mandates and to ignore the consultations procedure laid down in the Bill.
The notes that accompany the Bill are, as usual, illuminating. They say that the clause
"offers the Secretary of State a wide range of intervention powers in response to failures. These include some which are of a procedural nature, and others which involve more substantive action".
I suspect that no matter how persuasive the Opposition's arguments are, the Goverrnment will not withdraw the clause, although I would be delighted if they surprised me and did so. [Interruption.]
My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) has more confidence and thinks they are a listening Government and that they will withdraw the clause. Nevertheless, I will to through the amendments that we have tabled which are designed to improve the clause.
Amendment No. 199 paves the way for our other amendments and tries to tip the balance of power in this relationship away from the Secretary of State and back to local people. Amendment No.153 deletes the open-ended ability of the Secretary of State to give best value authorities any instructions that he or she wants. Amendment No. 96 deals with the hit squad. We know that hit squads can go into education authorities, and that they have been used very sparingly, but the proposal for a more wide-ranging hit squad is the most centralising and draconian measure in the clause.
The views of the late Nicholas Ridley on local government were mentioned earlier. He would have been delighted with this clause, and with its hit squad power, which goes beyond even his wildest dreams of the extent to which central Government could emasculate local government. When the hit squad is sent in, it will not even be subject to best value in the way that it runs local government services. I see that that has been addressed by an amendment tabled by the hitherto silent Labour Back Benchers. Let us hope that their amendment will be successful, even if none of ours is.
Government amendments Nos. 59 to 61, which propose the urgency powers, take an already greedy and grabbing clause and make it much worse. When exercising those powers, there would not even be a requirement for a debate in parliament, as there is with, for example, the reserve capping powers. When individual authorities are capped, that must be debated on the Floor of the House. Indeed, I took part in such a debate on my own local authority, Somerset county council, when I was first elected. Amendment No. 97 proposes a procedure to ensure parliamentary scrutiny before the hit squad powers are exercised. That is also dealt with in amendment No. 154.
The clause gets to the heart of the relationship between local and national government, and exposes starkly the fact that in this country, perhaps uniquely among western democracies, local government has no constitutional right of independent existence and no powers of general competence. Indeed, the Minister implied that she did not believe in the power of general competence, and that it had never been Labour party policy, which came as a surprise to me and perhaps also to some Labour Members in Committee. Local government has no independence over its-[Interruption.] The Minister suggests that the election was not fought on the power of general competence.
The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): My hon. Friends know on what issues they fought the election. In our manifesto we committed ourselves to a power of well-being, which we believe is more relevant than a power of general competence. I said to the hon. Lady that, following work done before the election, it was decided that a power of general competence would not be the catch-all, the magic wand, that she and her hon. Friends pretend that it would be, and that it would have been of little use to local government.
Jackie Ballard: I thank the Minister for that explanation.
Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire): By a happy chance, I have the Labour manifesto in my right hand. It says clearly:
"Local decision-making should be less constrained by central government, and also more accountable to local people."
Jackie Ballard: If one reads the rest of the Labour manifesto, one will find a "but", followed by "as resources allow"or "as the mood takes us"or "as focus groups tell us".
One of the Government's first acts was to sign the European charter of local self-government. The Government did-[Interruption.] This is not a leadership speech; only one other member of the Committee would have a vote in that election. I shall not waste the Committee's time in that way.
The Government signed the European charter of local self-government very early on, but there is no real commitment in the Bill to giving self-government to local government. I regret that local government will not have the power of general competence or any independent control over their own finance. Indeed, clauses that we shall debate-at great length, I am sure-later in the Bill propose to take away even more of local government's power to control finance. It will have very little flexibility, if the Bill goes through as it is, to meet what it and local people think are local priorities.
The report of the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, with which many Labour Members were involved, stated that many local authorities were concerned at the extensive power that would be given to the Secretary of State under the clause. They were also particularly concerned that those powers would undermine efforts to make local authorities more responsive to their communities and would compromise innovation and local flexibility. I do not believe that the Government want to stifle innovation and flexibility and create even more disputes between local and central government than we have witnessed over the past 20 years. Indeed, the Select Committee pointed out that that was a danger. A number of Government Members were on that Select Committee, and their names appear at the end of its report. I hope that they will give us their views on this matter.
The Select Committee pointed out that the threat of sanctions might lead to a siege mentality and stigmatisation, which would lead to poor morale among people on whom we rely to improve the delivery of local services.
I hope that the Government will listen closely to our debate and will be able to reassure local government that they do not intend to centralise further; that they do not trust a Tory Secretary of State more than they trust Labour-controlled councils.
| 
