Clause 3 - Duty to determine affordable borrowing limit
Local Government Bill
3:15 pm
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
The amendment would effectively remove subsections (2) and (3). That would remove the Secretary of State's power to provide by regulations the way in which a local authority performs its duty under subsection (1) and would remove all sorts of mechanistic controls in subsection (3) on how a local authority executes the duty imposed on it by subsection (1).
We have already seen the draft regulations and, as expected, they specify that the CIPFA code shall be had regard to under subsection (4). The rest of the provisions are unnecessarily prescriptive and meddlesome and relate to things in which the Government should not be involved. Provided that the CIPFA code is properly drafted—I have no reason to suppose that it will not be—it will be sufficient that local authorities shall direct themselves with regard to the guidance in discharging their duty under the relevant subsection. It seems to us that nothing else is necessary.
The clause would substantively be reduced to subsections (1) and (4). That is adequate for the purpose and anything further would be indicative of the Government's institutional reluctance to let go. That is perhaps not surprising. Anyone who has ever dealt with a Government or any large organisation will not be surprised that there is an institutional instinct against letting go any power that might one day, perhaps in some obscure and arcane circumstance, be mildly useful or convenient.
If the Government are going to be true to their word in trying to make local authorities freer, they must start with a clean sheet. Similarly, the Minister
must justify every line of a Bill that imposes a restriction on the freedom of local authorities to act. Some restrictions are necessary, but these are not. The Bill was put out for pre-legislative scrutiny, although that process was not very lengthy. Indeed, some people have said that the Chairmen of some Select Committees are not getting any nearer to their knighthoods for saying that too loudly. The Select Committee gave a clear steer to the Government by saying that if they are to deliver anything like the aspirations that were set out in the White Paper, they need to be more hands-off. They must go through the Bill with a fine-toothed comb and remove those things that are unnecessarily prescriptive and meddlesome and are simply the residue of the institutional instinct to keep their hands on everything.
I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to amendment No. 27. Characteristically, while he is smiling broadly, he is also shaking his head vigorously.
The Liberal Democrat amendment No. 55 has the same general thrust, but it would leave out only subsection (3)(c). It is, therefore, a subset of amendment No. 27 and I hope that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton will agree with its broad thrust. We cannot disagree with the thrust of amendment No. 55 because it is contained within our amendment.