Schedule
Sustainable Communities Bill
3:00 pm
Phil Woolas (Minister of State (Local Government & Community Cohesion), Department for Communities and Local Government; Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)
That is a fair question. The phrase “must invite principal councils” is an imperative. What I am seeking to avoid is a situation in which the legislation compels the principal council to act. In my view, Parliament can impose a duty on the Secretary of State but, in this process, not on the principal council. By saying “she or he must invite the councils”, it gives the council the flexibility to say, “We do not wish to make any proposals.” If one were to do it the other way round and insert “may consult”, the Secretary of State may decide not to do so. It is, of course, still open to principal councils to make proposals. If the proposal is in response to an invitation that the Secretary of State must make, that defines the process and obliges the Government to follow procedures.
Let me stray on one thing, Mr. Cummings. There is a huge debate raging in the country about the invitation to propose for unitary authorities. That was an invitation to propose; it was not a compulsion to propose. Within the framework of that consultation, it is triggered by the Secretary of State’s invitation. The idea behind that wording is to allow Parliament to compel the Secretary of State rather than to allow a flexible consultation with councils. The hon. Gentleman has picked up on the crucial wording; he has a tendency to do so.
The action plan being laid before Parliament each year is an important point. Under new clause 5, all decisions will be made public and any decisions requiring parliamentary scrutiny will be considered by Parliament. The Secretary of State will be held to account for her actions in meeting the requirements of the Bill and for the much wider range of actions that she takes to promote the sustainability of local communities. The Secretary of State is bound to act by the Bill, and her actions—for example, decisions on spending and the making of any legislation—will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. I believe that there is little to be gained by creating an extra parliamentary process.
I have already covered the point about a dutyto co-operate during our discussions on the original clause 3. To reiterate, we discussed the duty to co-operate at length at that time. I explained the meaning and intent of the duty that is placed on named authorities in clause 82 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill.
The drafting of new clause 6, and of new clause 5, is intended to meet this intent in the most appropriate way. One cannot have a one-sided duty to co-operate; named parties must co-operate with each other, and they have to co-operate on something or to do something. That is a helpful point from the intent of the Bill.
Hon. Members would like all duties in this clause to be subject to a timetable specified in the Bill. As I have said, it is desirable to act soon, and the Government has, I believe, demonstrated that it is committed to achieving progress through the Bill. However, the detailed implementation of all duties is subject to consultation, and rightly so. Including timetables in the Bill may create duties that are impossible to comply with. In addition, having a duty to do something by a specific date could also have the unintended effect of making the duty a one-off exercise.
I have said that new clause 5 is related to newclause 6. I am not saying that I intend to push this, but I would like to explain my thinking. New clause 6 is a replacement for the existing clause 3. It requires the Secretary of State to make regulations about the procedure to be followed in relation to proposals under the Government’s proposed new clause 5—so the jigsaw puzzle is coming together.
Before making the regulations, the Secretary of State must consult the selector, the LGA, and such other persons as she thinks represent the interests of principal councils. The regulations may specify stepsto be taken by a principal council before making proposals, including a requirement for a principal council to have regard to the matters specified in the schedule. Secondly, they may specify steps to be taken by the selector in considering the proposals and drawing up a shortlist. Thirdly, they may specify criteria to be applied by the selector in drawing up a shortlist. Fourthly, they may specify a maximum number of proposals to be included in a shortlist and require the selector to prepare and give to the Secretary of State a report on the proposals. Lastly, they may specify the form of, and information to be included in, the report.
The regulations, on the other hand, must require a principal council, if it has not already done so, to consult representatives of local people before making any proposal. The principal council is required to tryto reach agreement with those representatives about proposals and to have regard to any guidance issued. That is an important point, because the Committee was unanimous in wanting statutory guidance to ensure that there would be proper consultation and involvement.
The Secretary of State may issue guidance to principal councils about making proposals, which may include the guidance about consulting representatives of local persons that we have discussed before. Before issuing or revising guidance, the Secretary of State must consult principal councils or, again, persons who the Secretary of State considers represent the interests of principal councils. In other words, we would not be able to issue statutory guidance on how to consult without having first consulted the people whom we were going to compel to consult. That might sound like a pedantic point, but let me reassure the Committee—I am sure that if the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who did my job previously, were here, he would back me up—that such procedures are subject to detailed examination and sometimes to legal challenge should they not be followed. There iscase law precedent on the definition of consultation and the timetables and methods that are required. [Interruption.] I can see that the Committee wants me to move on, but it is important to put these matters on the record and I am going as fast as I can.
We think that it is right to achieve these matters through regulations and guidance and that the Secretary of State is required to consult widely, because there has not been an opportunity to involve principal councils and those representing their interests in our deliberations. That is not a criticism but a statement of obvious fact. However, the councils are in the best position to know what will work best.
I understand that there are a number of areas in which the Committee might feel that my proposals fall short of their desired position. I have already explained the meaning and the intent of the duty to co-operate that is placed on named authorities in clause 82 of the local government Bill. The drafting of new clauses 5 and 6 is intended to reflect that intent in the most appropriate way, namely by requiring the council and the Secretary of State to try to reach agreement with, respectively, local representatives and the selector. I should stress that that is a far-reaching duty. It carries more meaning and goes further than the wording proposed by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood. There cannot be a one-sided duty to co-operate. Named parties must co-operate with each other, and they have to co-operate on something or in doing something. This is a strong measure that meets the aspirations of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.
If I could just repeat the specific reference to disadvantaged groups, I fully agree that councilsshould make every effort to empower and engage disadvantaged groups. I have explained that this is the intent of clause 108 of the local government Bill and of the wider range of measures that we are putting into place. I have also said that we fully intend to cover this issue in the statutory guidance that will accompanythe Bill.
Referring to disadvantaged groups on the face of the Bill would have an unintended adverse impact on clause 108 of the local government Bill. I am keen to avoid that, which the hon. Member for Kettering will recognise as he has been following the debate. Amendment No. 33 requires principal councils to set up residents panels. New clause 6 requires principal councils, if they have not already done so, to consult representatives of local people before making any proposal. The difference is simply the word “panel”. Let me explain why new clause 6 does not include specific reference to a panel.
First, the effect of the requirement in new clause 6 is broadly equivalent to that of amendment No. 33. The term “panel” has very little meaning. For example, how many people should sit on it? The Opposition raised this question when we debated the public involvement in health parts of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill. Should it be the same number in all places? Should the panel meet to make decisions? How should panels take decisions? Those are not insurmountable problems, and they are fairly small and technical. I am simply putting on record the sorts of questions that the Government would have to answer.
Secondly, making specific reference to panels inthe Sustainable Communities Bill could have an unintended adverse consequence on clause 108 of the local government Bill. As I have said, our proposed new clause 6 includes a guidance-making power, and I am happy that the guidance that will accompany this Bill should include reference to panels.
The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood proposes that if a council fails in its duty to involve its citizens effectively, then citizens should be able to seek redress through the Secretary of State. There are a number of mechanisms in existence and planned in the local government Bill, such as the community call for action, which provide redress short of legal challenge or direct referral to the Secretary of State. Ultimately if the Secretary of State is satisfied that an authority is failing to meet its duty to involve local representatives her intervention powers under section 15 of the Local Government Act 1999 could apply.
Before exercising such powers, however, the Secretary of State would generally expect to work with the authority to give it an opportunity to address the issues before taking such action. If, following that opportunity, the Secretary of State was still of the view that the authority was failing to meet its duty she would need to be able to present clear evidence to support that view. Taken as a whole, I think that those powers are sufficient and, in particular, I do not believe it is appropriate to involve the Secretary of State every time an individual feels their council has not acted appropriately.
I understand that the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood would like to require principal councils to consider parish plans and to involve parish and community councils. Again, I agree that this would be desirable. In practice it will, of course, happen. Thereis a danger that it would be too restricting and prescriptive to make this a requirement on the face of the Bill. One of the big areas that we have debated is the voluntary sector involvement and the requirement for principal councils to include voluntary organisations among the bodies that they must consult. Again, that is desirable and it is the consequence of the local government Bill, and section 108 in particular. In practice, councils do involve voluntary organisations. There is a range of activities to build voluntary and community sector involvement and empowerment.
I do not propose to describe the difficulties that I have with new clause 7 because I have achieved my objective in putting on the record the Government’s proposals with regard to new clauses 5 and 6.