Tom Brake (Shadow Minister, Department for Communities and Local Government; Carshalton & Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 118, in clause 94, page 61, line 20, after ‘to’, insert ‘the written or oral’.

Joe Benton (Bootle, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 119, in clause 94, page 61, line 20, after ‘authorities’, insert ‘, or those contracted to them,’.

No. 140, in clause 94, page 61, line 23, at end insert ‘and

(c) requiring officers or employees of relevant partner authorities to attend the relevant committee to answer questions.’.

Tom Brake (Shadow Minister, Department for Communities and Local Government; Carshalton & Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

Hon. Members will be pleased to hear that I shall speak briefly to the amendments. Amendments Nos. 118 and 140 touch on whether the powers to require information from partner authorities extend to requiring those to give oral evidence. There may be occasions where written information is appropriate and others in which oral information—requiring people to come in front of the committee—is appropriate. [Interruption.] I see that the advice that the Under-Secretary is receiving is probably that that would encompass both things. It would be helpful if she confirmed that.

Amendment No. 119 is slightly different and deals with whether there will be a power to require information from contractors working for partner authorities. Again, if I can put it disparagingly, it may be necessary to hear from the organ grinder—the contractor doing the work—rather than the monkey. It may assist the partners, if that power is included, to require their contractors to provide information. I hope that the Under-Secretary can clarify whether my understanding of “information” is correct and whether contractors can be required to give information.

Andrew Gwynne (PPS (Rt Hon Baroness Scotland of Asthal QC, Minister of State), Home Office; Denton & Reddish, Labour)

I want to be equally brief. I accept all the arguments made by the hon. Gentleman in respect of amendment No. 119, but it does not go far enough. As I stated in the debate on clause 79, it is not just about those contracted to partner authorities, but about a range of other organisations. That is why the amendment in my name and that of my hon. Friends the Members for City of Durham and for Plymouth, Devonport, which, sadly, was not selected, suggested including other bodies providing services to the public locally.

I should like to explain, from local experience, why this matter is so important. Committee members who are groupies at Department for Constitutional Affairs questions will know that I am forever talking about freedom of information.

Joe Benton (Bootle, Labour)

Order. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that he cannot speak about an amendment that has not been selected.

Andrew Gwynne (PPS (Rt Hon Baroness Scotland of Asthal QC, Minister of State), Home Office; Denton & Reddish, Labour)

Thank you, Mr. Benton. I am speaking about why amendment No. 119 is incorrect and does not go far enough.

Last year, Stockport metropolitan borough council and Stockport Sports Trust decided to close Reddish baths. Those swimming baths were crucial to the health and recreational needs of many of my constituents in that part of Stockport. The sports trust was set up by Stockport council several years ago to manage and run all its leisure facilities and get around a range of restrictions  put in the council’s way. Unfortunately, in the good old days of the committee system—to contradict everything I said earlier—any decisions taken by Stockport council leisure services committee would have been under the Local Government Act 1972 and access to information regulations, unless they were commercially sensitive decisions. All the background information would have been in the public domain.

Unfortunately, that is no longer the case for some of these organisations. I have been told by Baroness Andrews that

“Stockport Sports Trust is a company limited by guarantee and is not owned in any way by the council; it is a separate legal identity... there is nothing to prevent a local authority or public body, which enters into an arrangement with an external entity to have services delivered, from making it a condition of any contract or agreement that certain information is passed to the local authority or public body and into the public domain... However, as this has not been agreed with Stockport MBC, the trust is not obliged to share this information.”

I bring this matter to the Committee’s attention because it was not just me as the Member of Parliament for Denton and Reddish who asked for background information on how those bodies came to the decisions to close Reddish baths, but the locally elected councillors in Reddish. They were told in no uncertain terms that they could have no access to any of the background reports or to any information to which counter-proposals could be made with the Friends of Reddish Baths to try to run it as community management organisation.

Furthermore, after I raised the issue at Department for Culture, Media and Sport questions, I received the following letter from John Howarth, the general manager of Stockport Sports Trust, in which he says:

“I am at a loss to understand the length which you and your colleagues are prepared to go to deal with this matter. I feel that no matter what I might say to you it will have no influence on your views and, therefore, consider it futile to pursue any attempt to debate by correspondence what is now clearly an issue of national importance.”

So there we go. But that crystallises what happens when a partnership breaks down between, on the one hand, a local authority and locally elected councillors and, on the other, an organisation that was of its own creation.

I do not think that the amendment goes far enough. I wish that it went further. I hope that the Minister takes on board the points that I have raised about Stockport Sports Trust. I hope that it makes him realise and understand why all these trusts, bodies and organisations need to have some control over the access to information. If that does not happen, all the wonderful work that we are going to do to improve scrutiny will be a waste of time, because scrutiny needs access to that information.

Alison Seabeck (PPS (Rt Hon Geoff Hoon, Minister of State), Foreign & Commonwealth Office; Plymouth, Devonport, Labour)

There are genuine concerns that relate specifically to amendment No. 119. Although this is a devolutionary Bill, which seeks to increase local autonomy, it still leaves gaps in scrutiny and the accountability of the services offered and contracted on behalf of local citizens. The Minister will know that, in addition to the quasi-public or formerly public bodies that perform functions of a public nature, many organisations provide services on contract to local authorities. The voluntary sector provides a steadily increasing volume of services on behalf of local  authorities, especially in social care. There are also private sector organisations that carry out a wide variety of work on contract to local authorities.

I am worried that voluntary sector organisations that perform functions of a public nature as drawn by legislation may not therefore be added to the list of authorities that have to respond to overview and scrutiny. A specific case can be used to highlight the nature of the problem. In R v. the Leonard Cheshire Foundation it was held that a care home providing accommodation for elderly residents, pursuant to arrangements made with the local authority, was not itself exercising functions of a public nature for the purposes of the Human Rights Act.

I have been lobbied by a number of organisations, including Sense, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, the Royal National Institute of the Blind and Scope, which believe strongly that any organisation providing social care on behalf of a local authority should be subject to overview and scrutiny. Those bodies are seeking to subject themselves to even greater accountability. I therefore ask my hon. Friend, when responding to the amendment, to consider how to ensure flexibility in the Bill to allow the widest possible scrutiny of the services supplied under contract to residents of a local authority.

Angela Smith (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government; Basildon, Labour)

I thank my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington for their contributions. The Government are seeking to extend and strengthen overview and scrutiny. We want local authorities to act as leaders in their communities, engaging local people about their priorities and working with partners to deliver better services. Questions have been raised about services not provided directly by the council or its partners. How can those organisations be called to account? We have given the amendment serious consideration, but it seems unnecessary and potentially bureaucratic. We are concerned that it could undermine accountability.

Our regulations will place the requirement to provide information squarely on the shoulders of the partner authorities that have entered into local area agreements. Certain authorities’ overview and scrutiny committees will be able to acquire from partner authorities only information relating to their respective local improvement targets. We fully recognise that, in securing cost-effective and high-quality services, partner authorities may contract out service provision, but it is partner authorities holding agreements with the council that will be accountable to the overview and scrutiny committee for the services for which they are responsible, including the services that they in turn commission.

It could be confusing and dilute accountability if contractors were required to provide information to overview and scrutiny committees. It could inadvertently encourage a culture in which partner authorities could shift responsibility away from the organisation holding the agreement with the council and on to the contractor. That is a grave concern, which is why we have addressed it in such a way.

It could also be an unreasonable bureaucratic burden on contractors to have to respond to requests for information from overview and scrutiny committees. I  do not think that the amendment of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington would require contractors commissioned by local authorities to respond to overview and scrutiny committees—there is a gap—so I do not see why we should require partner authorities’ contractors to do so. I have also heard my hon. Friends’ concerns that organisations one step removed from local authorities will not have such an obligation. It is a bit of a repeat of our earlier debate about LAAs.

We must be careful not to think that the list of organisations is exclusive and contains the only people who can be called to account by the overview and scrutiny committees. The committees will be able to investigate any issue, decide for themselves which inquiries they want to hold and ask anybody to attend. The Centre for Public Scrutiny gave an example in its evidence to the House of a scrutiny committee that acted innovatively to encourage a reluctant private-sector company to appear before it to give evidence. The committee was holding an inquiry into a service failure by one of the water companies that caused houses to experience a lack in their water supply for an unacceptable time. The committee found that the water company refused to attend its proceedings to put things right.

Hon. Members might recall that when my hon. Friend in another place, Lord Hattersley, refused an invitation to appear on “Have I Got News For You”, he was replaced by a tub of lard. In this case, the water company was replaced by a leaky, rusty bucket with its name across the front. It received considerable press interest. At the scrutiny committee’s second meeting, representatives from the water company turned up demanding to put the case before the committee so that they could have the right of response.

Although organisations will not necessarily be required to attend—only a limited number will be—overview and scrutiny committees will be free to invite anybody they wish. However, there is a danger that we could dilute the very accountability that we are seeking if we allow those with an agreement with the council to pass it on to contractors. It could have unintended consequences.

Alison Seabeck (PPS (Rt Hon Geoff Hoon, Minister of State), Foreign & Commonwealth Office; Plymouth, Devonport, Labour)

I fully understand the point that the onus is on the local authority to find ways and means—and, if necessary, to embarrass, as in the case that the Minister cited. I must say that I was the person who rang up to give apologies for Roy Hattersley for not appearing on the show, as I was working for him at the time. None the less, the Government must therefore instil that sense in local authorities, give them the best practice and disseminate information about how they can get such people to give evidence. It will not always be a bucket. There is a worry that the best will comply,  but the vast majority will not, and that things will therefore slip through the net.

Angela Smith (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government; Basildon, Labour)

I understand my hon. Friend and she makes a very powerful point. However, it is not only the best authorities that will use innovative means. We have put in place a process by which certain organisations will be required to give evidence. In response to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, I should say that those organisations can give oral or written evidence—it is the choice of the party or organisation being called to scrutiny. However, the process could be extended wider to organisations other than those required by the provisions. An overview and scrutiny committee, with the powers given to it in the Bill, will fairly soon want to extend its role beyond the services provided by the council to any services that its constituents receive. I would welcome that.

I take my hon. Friend’s point that it may take a short while for members of overview and scrutiny committees to recognise their new powers, strength and authority. However, I am confident that, by placing a requirement on partners, and by making it binding on those that have services arrangements with councils to give information by appearing before, or by giving written evidence to, overview and scrutiny committees, we have addressed the issue of the powers that the committees should have. We are confident that the increased powers will be welcomed by overview and scrutiny committees and that they will be used well. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman withdraws his amendment.

Tom Brake (Shadow Minister, Department for Communities and Local Government; Carshalton & Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

I am satisfied by the Under-Secretary’s explanation and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.