---

Local Authorities (Overview and Scrutiny) Bill

I am speaking to these amendments on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening), who represents the constituency in which I had the privilege to be born—some years ago. Amendment 8 would leave out "section" and insert "significant section"; amendment 9 would leave out "or" and insert "and", and amendment 10 would insert""at the point of use of the public service by the public"." These three amendments, along with the others in the group, are part of a theme. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Putney, like me, does not agree with too much prescription in local government. Indeed, we can now see that the Local Government Act 2000, which required most local authorities in England to abolish the traditional committee system of governance and to adopt new executive structures, was unnecessarily prescriptive. That is why my hon. Friend seeks through the amendments to reduce the level of prescription and the extent of the regulation-making powers. Let us look at the amendments in more detail. Amendment 8 would narrow the definition of a "public service" for the Bill's purposes. In order to fit in with the Bill's parameters, "public service" would be""a service provided to the public, or a significant section of the public, that…is provided in the exercise of functions of a public nature or under statutory authority,"" "and"—rather than "or", as affected by amendment 9—""is wholly or partly funded by grants, subsidies or other financial assistance from central or local government funds"." Those two amendments are complemented by amendment 10, which changes clause 1(3)(c) by adding additional words that would make it""irrelevant whether a service is provided on payment or without payment at the point of use of the public service by the public"." Effectively, the promoter and his supporters think that local authorities should branch out from their core business into the business of looking at local public services other than the ones run by the council itself. They believe it would be a good idea for the local council to hold these other public services to account, irrespective of whether they are provided by other public bodies or private companies delivering public services. The promoters argue that councillors will have the ability to shine a spotlight on services that they do not think are delivering for local people and will be able to demand action on behalf of their communities to resolve local problems. As I see it, however, the difficulty is that we already have local authorities up and down and country that are not even getting on properly with their core business. If they cannot cope with their core business and are always complaining—well, not always, but quite often—about the lack of resources they have to discharge that business, why should we let them nose around in other public services in the area? Why cannot we leave the people charged with taking responsibility for those services to get on with providing them and to be accountable to the public either through their Members of Parliament or through some other means? If they are in receipt of public funds, all sorts of methods and avenues of accountability are available. Why should we want to get the local council involved in all that? I remember saying, when I was leader of a local authority, that it was a legitimate part of an authority's business to transfer powers from another authority: for example, to abolish the Greater London Council and give its powers to the London boroughs, or to abolish the Inner London Education Authority and give its powers to local councils. However, I think that that is different from the arrangement envisaged in the Bill, which would enable councils to sick their noses into activities that were not part of their core business. Amendments 8, 9 and 10 are designed to mitigate the adverse consequences of that. I am delighted to see that the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) is present. His amendment 1 states:""Before making any regulations under this section"—" clause 1—""the Secretary of State must consider their potential effect on small businesses and voluntary or community…organisations."" That strikes me as an important and sensible safeguard, which accords with the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney that local authorities should not start interfering in areas where they ought not to interfere. If before making regulations the Secretary of State had to consider their potential effect on small businesses and so on, it would probably be to the good, particularly if that Secretary of State was a member of a Conservative Government. Amendment 6 proposes to insert the following provision in clause 1:""The Secretary of State must on an annual basis review the meaning of a 'designated authority or person', with a view to removing any authority or person…that no longer meets the definition of a 'designated authority or person'.'."" I admit that I have not discussed the wording with my hon. Friend the Member for Putney, but it seems pretty innocuous and sensible to me—as, indeed, does amendment 17, which proposes to insert in clause 3 the words,""only where that person is reasonably able to attend and answer questions"." Clause 3 is headed "Power to require information", and states:""An overview and scrutiny committee may by notice in writing require a designated authority or person…to provide…information"." Subsection (1)(b) provides that the overview and scrutiny committee may""require a designated authority or person…for that purpose to send an appropriate person to attend before the committee to answer questions."" Amendment 17 suggests that that should not be a general power, but should be limited to circumstances in which the person who is asked to attend""is reasonably able to attend and answer questions within their personal resource base"." That is not an expression with which I am familiar, but I imagine it means information that it is in their power to give. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney might, for example, have had in mind the brain of the person who is being asked to answer the questions, because one could describe one's brain as a "personal resource base"—I am now speculating a little, however. It is also necessary to ensure that this could only be done""where the requirement for such attendance is not in contradiction to part of an existing formal agreement the person or the organisation they represent has entered into to provide public services"." That addition speaks for itself, and it would limit the power to require information under clause 3. The same can be said of amendment 18. Clause 3(3)(b)(v) currently refers to""the description of person who is (or is not) an appropriate person."" The amendment would replace "person" with""the role of the person"," and I think that is what the drafter of the Bill intended. He was concerned about not the description of the person—such as whether they had long or short hair—but the role of that person. I am therefore sure that my hon. Friend's amendment is a more accurate reflection of the original intentions of the Bill's promoter. The other amendments in the group refer to a number of further issues, such as whether there should be affirmative resolutions.