Clause 58

Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at on 22 February 2007.

Alert me about debates like this

Community governance reviews

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Photo of Alistair Burt Alistair Burt Shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Good morning, Mr. Chope. It is nice to see you in your place. We shall welcome your deliberations.

I wish to raise a couple of issues and cover a few points about the parishes that we did not have time to discuss at our previous sitting. Parishes are the real backbone of community involvement in the rural districts that make up so much of our country. Those of us who have spent most of our lives in urban areas and are relatively new to parishes certainly appreciate their work.

In previous sittings, I have touched on the growing bureaucracy that surrounds parish councils and on my appreciation of their concern about how their role is perceived and defined. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be allowed to interpret the clause reasonably generously so as to cover the community governance provisions of the next two or three clauses. I should like to know her intentions behind the power that will be given to principal councils to organise the community governance review.

What do the Government expect to be reviewed? Will parish councils that are not working effectively be under threat? There are two concerns about the community governance proposals in the Bill, and the first has to do with the provision to allow petitions from people who think that their area might need a parish council. Asking principal councils to consider whether the parishes in their area are working effectively could threaten those councils that think they are working straightforwardly and effectively but are doing so more quietly than the Government expect.

Let me expand on those two points. If new parishes are to be created, are the Government satisfied that the capacity is there to take on the role of parish councils in some new areas? In urban areas, the tradition and structure of involvement in local communities may not exist in the same way that it does in rural communities,  where parish structure has been part of the landscape for a long time. For example, it is not strictly accurate to say that an estate with 3,000 people living on it is equivalent to a small village of 2,500 or 3,000 people.

People can live on an estate with a relaxed sense of community; in fact, their sense of community may apply to a council or geographical area that is larger than their immediate surroundings. A hamlet of fewer than 100 people can have a strong individual identity quite different from what might be found in a group of 100 people living in an urban area. If urban parishes are to be created as a result of the proposals and petitions, is the Under-Secretary confident that there is enough capacity, that training and resources will be available, and that mistakes will not be made?

The second worry is whether parishes are being overloaded and given too many things to do—a question that we touched on the other day, when we debated their being given the chance to promote the power of well-being. At the weekend, I attended a meeting attended by representatives from two thirds of my parish councils. We covered several matters, but two or three things in particular irked the people who were at the meeting.

For example, people felt that their voices about what matters to them were not being listened to. We discussed planning and, although there is a statutory right of consultation, in too many cases people have become very wary of the whole concept of consultation. To them, the consultation often seems like an exercise being carried out by a principal council or authority: opinions are collected, but there is no real intention to act on the information gathered. When the expectation of local involvement is raised but not fulfilled, the danger is that people are not encouraged to stay involved or to continue making a contribution. The people to whom I spoke were concerned that there was more bureaucracy and more things that they had to do.

The implications of the Standards Board that was introduced some years ago are probably well known to the Under-Secretary. My own sense is that all the fuss that was raised among the parishes that I have contact with seems to have settled down, and that the board is no longer such an issue.

There was real concern, however, that if new powers were taken on to promote well-being, the councils would find it difficult to bring in new people to handle the extra duties. They already find it hard to get people involved. Councils are concerned that, if they do not opt to promote a power of well-being, they will be seen by the powers that govern them as not willing to be involved in their communities. That might expose them to charges that they are not doing their job, with the result that a community governance review organised by their principal council could appear threatening.

In other words, I want to know whether the Government desire parish councils to do certain things, fulfil certain standards and perform a certain amount of work. If a council does not do all that, will the Government feel that it is not doing its job and that it is time for it to go?

If so, I think that that would be a failure to understand the purpose of parish councils, what they do in their local communities and how they go about it. The concern is that the continual audit, and the  inspection and review some years ago that revealed a certain number of silent parish councils, disturbed the sense that councils were masters of their own destiny and could look after things in their own way, provided that they fulfilled basic statutory requirements and were doing the job that their local parish constituents wanted them to do. Fulfilling those requirements, rather than responding to more rules and regulations from above, should be the most important thing that they do.

Those are the concerns I wanted to put on the record. I pay tribute to those who work in our parish council, and to its clerks. Clerks often cover a number of different parish councils: their ability to keep the councillors and chairs up to speed with changes in legislation and responsibilities is formidable, and we pay tribute to them and to all the parish councillors who work so hard.

I would like to know what is behind the Government’s thinking on the community governance reviews. Is there anything that parish councils should be aware of? If petitions are raised for new parish councils to be created in urban areas, what guarantee will be given that support and resources will be available to assist them?

Photo of Patrick Hall Patrick Hall Labour, Bedford

The hon. Gentleman is reviewing a possible gradation of parish councils in the context of the debate. Within that spectrum, would he care to speculate or comment on the role of urban community councils, which do not have the power to raise a local rate, for example, but none the less exist? There are two such councils in Bedford. They are part of the range of local community representation that exists in the UK.

Photo of Alistair Burt Alistair Burt Shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Parish councils are wary about raising more money. That issue came up the other day when we were discussing the power to promote well-being. Councils will not be given any new resources to do that, but will have to raise the money themselves. Raising money locally is never an easy job. Again, councils were concerned that they would be given new powers but no new resources, and that then people would say, “Why are you not doing anything?” No one wants to contribute and no one wants to cough up extra taxes.

I am not sure whether urban community councils want the power to raise money. I can understand why they would be hesitant. Any group, such as a residents association or neighbourhood association, that provides a collective view and an opportunity for people to engage beyond the confines of their own houses and take part in community life is good news.

It is very important that urban community councils are established, and that they thrive. We must always ensure that there is something reasonable and meaningful for people to do. Again, I urge that community councils and other bodies that are statutory consultees should be able to see that that consultation really matters, that what they have to say about something is noticed, and that things change as a result. It is clear, however, that they are important and that they have a role.

Having said that, it has happened that community groups have been set up and have then handled money poorly, with the result that problems have arisen.  Therefore, we need to be sure that there is leadership capacity, and that resources are available for training to improve it and to ensure that people are able to handle money safely. In that way, people will be able to handle their responsibilities effectively.

Those are the issues that I wish to tease out with the Under-Secretary, and I hope that she will be good enough to respond and give us a sense of the meaning of clause 58 and the associated clauses.

Photo of Robert Syms Robert Syms Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government)

I have just a couple of questions. Will the Under-Secretary confirm that where urban parishes are set up they will have a precepting power? If that is the case, will the current arrangements—with no capping on parish councils—continue?

Photo of Angela Smith Angela Smith Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

I am grateful to the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire for his comments on parish councils. We touched on some of the issues the other evening, and his comments go to the crux of community governance matters. I think that I shall be able to reassure him.

The clause deals with the means by which a principal council can initiate a community governance review. Either local electors in an area can petition for the principal council to conduct a review, or the council can decide to undertake a review at any time on its own initiative. That will enable local authorities to take decisions on the community governance arrangements in their area, following a review that they will be able to initiate.

A community governance review can apply to the whole of a local authority area, or to part of that area. Currently, local authorities conduct parish reviews, but the Secretary of State or the Electoral Commission take the decisions on implementation. Under the existing arrangements, petitions can be raised for the creation of parishes, but local authorities have to pass those petitions on to the Secretary of State. A crucial aspect of the Bill is that it devolves these decision-making powers to local authorities, so that the Secretary of State will no longer make the decision. Essentially, reviews will operate as they do already, but the final decision will be taken by local authorities rather than the Secretary of State. That is quite right, and it is truly devolutionary.

For the purposes of the provisions on community governance reviews, the local authorities that will be designated as principal councils will be district councils—both metropolitan and non-metropolitan, unitary county councils and, as a further step, London borough councils. The White Paper said that the Government were committed to giving communities in London the same rights to have a parish council as the rest of the country.

The question has been raised in our debate as to whether it will be more difficult to have parish councils in urban areas. There are already such parish councils, and there is no evidence that they are not as welcome or effective as others. The Government do not believe it right that London alone should be denied the opportunity to have parish councils, if areas of London so wish. The choice will remain with the area.  

Is it more difficult to have parish councils in urban areas? The way to identify the community will be by way of the parish, the community or the neighbourhood, although the position might be different from that in rural areas. The general rule will be to decide matters on the basis of the smallest area that reflects community identity and community interests, but the area should also be viable as an administrative unit. If both those criteria are followed, the position will be the same as that for rural areas, though there might be a different shape from rural areas. For instance, the parish council area could be based on the boundaries of a housing estate rather than on those of the town in which the estate lies. It will be up to local people to make a case to the principal council that the area is an appropriate and viable one for a parish council. It will be a local decision.

Photo of Michael Fabricant Michael Fabricant Opposition Whip (Commons)

I am following the Under-Secretary’s remarks with interest. I believe that Lichfield city council is the largest parish council—

Photo of Michael Fabricant Michael Fabricant Opposition Whip (Commons)

My hon. Friend says that it is not. The council has always told me otherwise. Hon. Members will recall that it is the one with two maces.

Photo of Michael Fabricant Michael Fabricant Opposition Whip (Commons) 9:45, 22 February 2007

Indeed. I am grateful for that intervention from the Minister.

Let me ask a question. Smaller rural councils sometimes have problems finding councillors, and councillors are sometimes co-opted because they are unable to stand for election. Does the Under-Secretary not think that there could be a problem? If, for example, an estate in London were to have a parish council as she described, it could be taken over by just a few people, resulting in a general lack of interest. How can we get people involved? Her idea is good in principle, but in practice, how can it involve people and get them to stand for such councils?

Photo of Angela Smith Angela Smith Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

The issue that the hon. Gentleman raises cuts across every parish council in the country. It is not peculiar to London. For his information, the largest parish council in the country is Weston-super-Mare, and I regret that it is not Lichfield. I am sure that he will do his best to find one in Lichfield, but Weston-super-Mare has the largest parish council.

Involving people in parish councils is an issue that cuts across many areas. What we are discussing in the measures before us—for example, the power of well-being if councils achieve certain criteria—will encourage people to be more involved and play a role in their community. However, we must be aware that parish councils are an important part of community life. They are very important in rural areas and some urban areas, and London should be no different. I do not see the particular problem that the hon. Gentleman  raises, but there are checks and balances in how the local authority will decide whether to give permission to go ahead with a parish council. Of course, we have had to take such issues into account. It is necessary to consider whether there is a community requirement and support for a parish council.

Photo of Bob Neill Bob Neill Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst

On the legislation and guidance for local councils in dealing with petitions for councillors, does the Under-Secretary remember that that point was raised on Second Reading? I think that the Secretary of State, or perhaps it was another colleague, responded to questions on particular concerns—not unique to London but raised by London councils—about ensuring that councils can resist petitions in circumstances where there is a risk of damage to community cohesion through hijacking. When are we likely to see the guidance and the tightening-up of the provisions?

Photo of Angela Smith Angela Smith Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

We will get the guidance to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible, but I assure him that it will contain a commitment to community cohesion. That issue was raised in the evidence sessions. We are going a little wider than the clause, Mr. Chope, but I hope that you will indulge me, because this debate covers a group of clauses that hang together on a number of issues.

The Government have made a strong commitment on the importance of community cohesion and must be covered in the guidance. That will not apply just to the sort of extremist groups mentioned in evidence; it could also apply to a group that wants to remove itself from the community as a whole. That would be community segregation, and we want to see community cohesion.

I am instantly inspired to give the hon. Gentleman a better time scale. We should have a draft of the guidance by around April, but I can give him a commitment that community cohesion will be covered in it. He raised an important point.

Other important points had to do with how small parishes would cope with the work they have, and what we will do to direct what work parishes should do. That is difficult for the Government to direct, because parishes vary enormously in size, from Weston-super-Mare to a parish council of just a few people or to Lichfield—we are having a Bedford moment with Lichfield today. I do not think that it is appropriate for the Government to direct exactly what a parish council should do; that is a matter for the parish council. In terms of resources, the parish council, with the support of its community, will raise a precept for the duties that it thinks it should undertake. That is appropriate within the community.

The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire also raised the issue of bureaucracy. He was correct to raise it, and I take it on board. He will note that the White Paper and the Bill contain no new duties to increase bureaucracy. In fact, we have resisted involving parish councils in the local area agreements, although they will obviously have regard to parish council plans. Parish councils are not named in LAAs precisely because we do not want to be overly bureaucratic or to  put overly onerous duties on them. That would be inappropriate. However, they will play an increasingly important role in the life of the community.

Photo of Philip Dunne Philip Dunne Conservative, Ludlow

I am somewhat reassured by what the Under-Secretary says, but could she clarify something? It is clear that the measure is intended to devolve power to principal councils, and, as a localiser and not the centraliser she has accused me of being, I welcome that. However, I am concerned that some councils might seek to use those powers to impose a standard obligation upon areas where there are small parishes. Such small areas might just have parish meetings and not parish councils. The obligation might be that the area under the control of the council has a set-up of parish councils, and parish meetings are abolished for the administrative convenience of the district council. Will that be permitted under the arrangements?

I am also concerned that the community governance review will give to principal councils the authority to impose obligations other than those prescribed in these clauses for the sizing of parish councils and the grouping of areas. For example, will a principal council be allowed to impose an obligation for parish meetings to have a parish clerk in order to make contact more convenient for the principal council?

Photo of Angela Smith Angela Smith Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

I give an absolute reassurance to the hon. Gentleman that that is not the case. It will not be for the principal council to place an obligation on the parish council.

On the point made about a review, there are very limited circumstances in which one would be initiated by the principal council. For example, it may be that residential properties have been built over existing parish boundaries and that a street or area straddles a parish boundary, so that people in the same residential street are represented in different parishes. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate for the principal council to initiate a review, but generally it would be for local members themselves to petition.

The hon. Member for Poole made a point about precepting. It will be open to parish councils to precept in their area as it is now. There are no plans to cap local precepts. That matter will be revisited if a problem is perceived, and if representations are made to the Government about, say, excessive rate precepting by parish councils. We may look at the matter again, but there are currently no plans to do so.

The issue of the Standards Board was raised, and of whether being subject to it would be over-onerous to parish councils. When the issue was first raised four years ago, there was an outcry. It was said that subjecting parish councils to the Standards Board was over-onerous, that it was like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and that it would deter people from becoming involved in parish councils. However, it has not had that impact; it has ensured that members of the public are aware of the propriety of local parish councillors. The fact that it has not been a problem for parish councils is testimony to the work of parish councillors themselves.

Photo of Andrew Stunell Andrew Stunell Shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Liberal Democrat Spokesperson (Communities and Local Government)

I was trying to follow that point. I was under the impression that the Standards Board believed that it had been completely overloaded by frivolous complaints in relation to parish councils. The Under-Secretary seems to be contradicting that impression.

Photo of Angela Smith Angela Smith Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

I am not aware that there have been complaints from parish councils. I was making the point that suggestions were made four years ago that making parish councils subject to the Standards Board would impact on them, and that they would have greater difficulty finding candidates. There is no evidence that the Standards Board has put anybody off putting themselves forward as a candidate for a parish council.

Photo of Philip Dunne Philip Dunne Conservative, Ludlow

Does the Under-Secretary recognise that although a number of parish councils may not themselves have complained to the Standards Board, the volume of its work arising from frivolous or vexatious complaints made by parish councillors has exploded? Does she also recognise that a large number of parish councillors who were councillors prior to the introduction of the Standards Board have resigned, and that that is the reason why there are not a large number of people putting themselves forward for election in several areas, including some areas in my constituency?

Photo of Angela Smith Angela Smith Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

I find the hon. Gentleman’s comments quite surprising. My understanding is that there has not been a flood of complaints from parish councils to the Standards Board. There may have been some complaints as is appropriate when there are issues to address. However, there has been no flood of complaints. There is a difficulty in finding enough candidates in some areas to stand for election to parish councils, but there is no evidence that that is a direct result of the involvement of the Standards Board. I find it difficult to believe that parish councillors have resigned because they were subject to the Standards Board. Councillors that I know—I am sure that other hon. Members are aware of similar examples—appreciate the role of the Standards Board. Its presence is not a deterrent to councillors; it is for their protection. The board judges issues of propriety, so I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s point.

Photo of Andrew Stunell Andrew Stunell Shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Liberal Democrat Spokesperson (Communities and Local Government)

Perhaps this matter will be discussed when we get to the clauses dealing with the Standards Board, and I do not want to extend the point too far. However, will the Under-Secretary look carefully at the reports prepared by the Standards Board over the years about the proportion of complaints that it has received from parish councils, against the proportion from principal councils? Will she acknowledge that more complaints have gone to the Standards Board in relation to one parish council covering one third of one of the 21 wards in Stockport than in the whole borough?

Photo of Angela Smith Angela Smith Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

I would not want to give the impression that there have been no complaints about parish councillors to the Standards Board. The point that I am trying to make—perhaps very badly, which is  why there are so many interventions—is that there is no evidence that the board has had an impact on the number of people putting themselves forward to be parish councillors. I should like to emphasise that. My point, in case I have confused the Committee somewhat or have not put things clearly enough, is that there is no evidence that the board as it applies to parish councils, as it was said when it was established four years ago, would impact on the number of people coming forward. It has not done so.

We have had a useful discussion about issues relating not just to the community governance petition, but to community governance as a whole. I move that the clause stands part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 59 to 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.