Clause 7
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill
5:00 pm
Alistair Burt (Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government), Communities and Local Government; North East Bedfordshire, Conservative)
I am intrigued by subsection (1)(c), whereby the Secretary of State could,
“decide to take no action”.
That would be at the end of a process where the boundary committee’s views have been sought, consultation has taken place and the boundary committee has made its recommendations. Will the Minister enlighten us as to what in particular is likely to lead him to a decision not to respond to the consultation and to take no action? I would like him in the context of the clause to set out what may induce him to take no action.
Phil Woolas (Minister of State (Local Government & Community Cohesion), Department for Communities and Local Government; Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)
The short answer to that is common sense. If I explain what the clause is trying to do, that may help the Committee.
The clause allows the Secretary of State to implement proposals for a single tier of local government, as the Committee is aware. Those may be the proposals received from local authorities, or alternative proposals made by the boundary committee. Proposals may be implemented as I said before with or without modification. That is to allow the Secretary of State to implement the proposals with changes—for example, following advice from the boundary commission she may wish to amend the boundary of the proposed area. Any order for structural change will be subject to the affirmative procedure, as we will debate under clause 173, if the hon. Member for Lichfield wishes to make a note. Any such order will therefore be subject to further scrutiny by the House.
If a proposal that the Secretary of State has decided to implement has not been submitted jointly by all the authorities affected by it, she may not implement it unless she has first consulted on the proposal as required by clause 4. If she has asked the boundary committee for advice by a certain date, she may implement a proposal or an alternative proposal submitted only once six weeks have passed from that date.
The clause also specifies that the Secretary of State may decide to take no action on a proposal, as the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire said. She may decide to do that where she considers that the case for a single tier of local government for a particular area has not been made. The clause therefore specifies that the Secretary of State “may” implement proposals that she receives for a single tier of local government. The provision to which the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire has drawn attention simply points out the face that the Secretary of State may decide that the case has not been made—that even though the alternative route has been used, the case is not there. I would have thought that he would welcome that option.
Alistair Burt (Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government), Communities and Local Government; North East Bedfordshire, Conservative)
I thank the Minister for the clarification. I presume that the same will apply if the Secretary of State finds that there is not a broad measure of public support for a proposal?
Phil Woolas (Minister of State (Local Government & Community Cohesion), Department for Communities and Local Government; Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)
Indeed. The proposal must pass all the criteria. This is not a cherry-picking exercise. One has to weigh up the strengths and weaknesses of the proposals, but proposals must pass the criteria. As I said in evidence to the Committee in Portcullis House, the value for money criterion is particularly important.
Robert Syms (Shadow Minister (Local Government), Communities and Local Government; Poole, Conservative)
We have so far had 26 proposals, of which the Government intend to run with eight, as I read somewhere—it might be fewer, or it might be more. However, as I understand the Government’s intention, they will go forward with a proportion, so inevitably, no further action will be taken on some. At that point, presumably, the proposals on which no action has been taken are dead—gone. What I mean is that the Government are not going to go forward with eight and have another eight later. When someone has worked everything out, spent the money and put the proposal together, it is either success or failure.
Phil Woolas (Minister of State (Local Government & Community Cohesion), Department for Communities and Local Government; Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)
The hon. Gentleman, quite reasonably, is probing for an answer to that question. The suspicion of Opposition Members knows no bounds.
First, the figure of about eight proposals, as I said in evidence, comes from the fact that reorganisation to unitary carries up-front costs, and those costs can be met only from the reserves of or efficiency savings by the local authority concerned. In either instance, most obviously in the first—where the reserves are affected—that would have an effect on local government in its totality’s assets and therefore its borrowing capacity. The figure of about eight is a macro-figure to fit in with the Government’s wider economic policy.
Secondly, a proposal would be given the go-ahead only if it could show that there were cost savings to the council tax payer in the form of the council tax not being at a higher level than it currently is. That raises the thorny question, if it is a district moving into a county unitary or districts coming together, whether the lower or the higher council tax would apply. The answer is that it would be the lower council tax. An authority would have to show that it was able to keep those costs down, so whether or not eight turns out to be the correct figure, and whether or not consequential proposals in neighbouring areas, districts or, in one case, unitaries take place, one would have to take those wider costs into account. There is a wider financial judgment to be made, as well as the specific judgement on each of the proposals or consequential proposals.
Robert Syms (Shadow Minister (Local Government), Communities and Local Government; Poole, Conservative)
This is a slightly tangential point but, however one looks at it, additional work is going to have to be undertaken by the boundary committee, which I suspect is not a heavily funded organisation. Who is going to pay for that? When the boundary committee gets involved in the process of consultation or in questions of local governance in relation to the bids that go forward, there will be some cost. My central question is: will the Secretary of State pay? Will committee’s current budget cover it, or will the cost have to be recouped from the good taxpayers of Bedfordshire, Shropshire, or elsewhere?
Phil Woolas (Minister of State (Local Government & Community Cohesion), Department for Communities and Local Government; Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)
I commend the hon. Gentleman on an ingenious question. The answer is that the boundary committee is funded by the taxpayer and would be charged with the duties of commenting on those proposals. Of course, in the real world of government, that is another reason why one has to take decisions efficiently. I do not suppose that the Conservative party’s leaflets in Bedfordshire—no, I must not comment on Bedfordshire. However, it is a fair question, and the answer is that the boundary committee would pay.
It might be helpful if I comment on the 26 proposals that have come forward in the present stage of the procedure. The Government’s initial view on which bids will proceed to stage 2 of the consultation will be based on assessment against the invitation criteria, including affordability, and will be announced in March. The invitation acknowledges that decisions on restructuring will be taken in the light of overall public expenditure, and the difficulty for any Government is that one has to set down that overall cost envelope. However, without knowing which proposals fulfil the criteria, it is not possible to say how many will proceed. I believe that that is evidence of the Government’s good faith and of our genuinely open attitude and devolutionary approach.
The invitation adds that if the number of proposals meeting the criteria exceeds overall affordability, the Government will prioritise proposals on the basis of a range of factors that include delivery of desired outcomes by the proposal—benefits in services and so on—as well as use of reserves and value for moneyand efficiency. Affordability is thereby locked in as a priority consideration should we have to choose between proposals.
I genuinely believe that the provision is a common-sense one and I commend it to the Committee.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow, Conservative)
Having helpfully outlined the aggregate affordability envelope, will the Minister help us further by saying how much it is? What is the value of the affordability envelope?
Phil Woolas (Minister of State (Local Government & Community Cohesion), Department for Communities and Local Government; Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)
It is not possible to do that. The envelope relates to the overall local government borrowing requirement, which is influenced by a number of factors. The level of assets—of debts and credits at any one time—is affected by many criteria, so the answer depends on the extent of the call on reserves by the aggregate proposals. That will determine the number of proposals that could proceed.
That approach is the responsible one to take, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will support it given that he wants inflationary pressures to be kept down, not least in relation to local government.
Andrew Stunell (Shadow Secretary of State for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Communities and Local Government), Department for Communities and Local Government; Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat)
The Minister was initially positive in responding on the clause, but then he wandered off. He said that if a proposal fails, it fails—that is the end of it. That probably satisfied the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire, but the Minister then said some other things and I should like to test him on them. He said that certain members of the Opposition were unduly suspicious.
Phil Woolas (Minister of State (Local Government & Community Cohesion), Department for Communities and Local Government; Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)
The Conservatives are.
Andrew Stunell (Shadow Secretary of State for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Communities and Local Government), Department for Communities and Local Government; Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat)
Well, both they and we are paid to be suspicious—that is our job and I make no bones about it. Our suspicion is born from the experience of being given assurances that are often not 100 per cent. robust. I hope that the Minister does not mind, therefore, if I push him further.
We know that 26 bids have been submitted. However, if we look carefully at the list, we know also that 10 of them are bound to fail because they conflict directly with others. Without prejudice to which ones are successful, we know that there are 16 places where things can happen, so we know that 10 bids will fail. The Minister is to some extent a prisoner of the public statements that have been made in the past 18 months by Ministers in his Department. Ministers initially suggested that unitary authorities were the total solution, but they gradually, and quite properly, stepped back from that and have taken a much more permissive and—as the Minister himself sought to claim—devolutionary approach. We welcome that.
At the same time, we continue to hear language outside the Committee about the absolute necessity of those areas that do not change to a unitary structure developing an enhanced two-tier structure. Clause 7 is the provision that gives cause for suspicion that the Minister, in implementing
“an alternative proposal from the Boundary Committee...with or without modification”,
might, in turning down a bid, say, “Yes, but we are going to impose other kinds of change on the way that you work and organise yourselves.” I want the Minister to say just how far those alternative proposals might go, how far the boundary committee might takethose proposals but the Minister will accept them,and how far that might leave a situation that is somewhere between the present circumstances and the circumstances following a bid, but much to the disadvantage of the local community.
Phil Woolas (Minister of State (Local Government & Community Cohesion), Department for Communities and Local Government; Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)
I accept, of course, that it is the hon. Gentleman’s job to be suspicious. To tease out clarification, which local authorities can look at, is helpful. The situation with the 26 proposals does not contradict what Ministers have said in the period before the last election and since. There were a number of reports that credited Ministers with remarks that went further in terms of the Government’s desire to have more unitary councils. Indeed, some specialist press reports said that the whole of England would be covered by unitary arrangements. The Government have never said that. As we all know, there has been a strong debate inside local government itself as to what the desirable procedure is. Both those reports and that debate reflected the lobbying—if I can use that word—within local government. I remember one newspaper headline saying that we were going to abolish all the counties. In the same week, another newspaper covering local government said that we were going to abolish all the districts. I kept those two headlines on my desk for reference when journalists called up.
Phil Woolas (Minister of State (Local Government & Community Cohesion), Department for Communities and Local Government; Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)
I can assure the hon. Member for Lichfield that we have no intention to do both. Once one has decided that a permissive approach is the right one, one does not control what those proposals will be. Political parties may have their views, which are then accepted or not by their supporters. I suppose I just have to accept that. However, by definition, that means the Government could not prescribe in advance how many, or what type of, proposals should come forward.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband) went out of his way to explain to authorities during the discussions that that was why it was not logically possible to limit the size, either minimum or maximum, of population or geography that a successful proposal should be, which had been the case in previous reorganisations. Once one has accepted that there are different solutions for different areas—which might mean a large rural county area is treated differently from an urban area—one cannot prescribe the configuration. Therefore, the debate has rendered the Government a victim of their own permissiveness and genuine desire to be devolutionary.
Andrew Stunell (Shadow Secretary of State for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Communities and Local Government), Department for Communities and Local Government; Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat)
Again, that was eloquently put, but the Minister did not answer the question regarding clause 7, namely that when a bid is not accepted and the boundary committee brings forward some alterations or modifications, how far does the clause permit the Minister to impose on a geographical area a form of government that is neither in the bid nor the status quo, but suits the Minister?
Phil Woolas (Minister of State (Local Government & Community Cohesion), Department for Communities and Local Government; Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)
I can only commend the hon. Gentleman for pushing the point. This clause and the previous one sets that out. An alternative proposal that the boundary committee makes can include only the whole or a part of the authority that put forward the proposal in the first place. The hon. Gentleman’s premise is that the boundary committee could put a Machiavellian Government bid in. It cannot. I understand why he is pushing that suspicion, but it could not be the case.
We debated earlier the timing, the geography andthe remit of the power to direct and I hope that I responded to that as clearly as possible. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his statement about an elegant reply. I hope that he accepts its honesty, too.
Alistair Burt (Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government), Communities and Local Government; North East Bedfordshire, Conservative)
We come back to our debate on whether or not it was possible within a geographical area for a solution to be devised by the Minister that was not one of the proposals put to him by any of the parties that had responded to the invitation. The clause seems to confirm that that is the case. By varying the order, the hon. Gentleman can produce an answer that no one had thought of previously because, in his mind, that is the most convenient and effective system for local government in respect of the proposals that have been put to him.
Phil Woolas (Minister of State (Local Government & Community Cohesion), Department for Communities and Local Government; Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)
We are repeating our previous debate, which takes us directly to clause 2 and the requirement to direct. It is not intended that the power should give the Secretary of State the opportunity to put forward a bid that has not either been first proposed by a local authority or subsequently, following the direction, been put forward by a local authority as the best way forward for the area. The reason for that, as I said before, is that the Government cannot allow a situation whereby a solution for part of an area is not viable in another part of the county, as would happen in the case that we are discussing.
A Minister cannot impose his or her ideas anywhere. He can implement a modification of a proposal ifthe boundary committee were to be involved, or a modification of the proposal from the councils. As hon. Gentlemen are questioning such matters, a Minister could not put forward a proposal that did not have the support of the local authority in the area concerned. It is possible that neighbouring authorities would not have that ultimate proposal as their first choice. Were that not the case, we would be able to move forward on a consensus.