Clause 16
Local Democracy, Economic Developmentand Construction Bill [Lords]
6:15 pm

Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment 47, in clause 16, page 10, line 22, leave out from ‘means’ to end of line 25.

Clause 16 relates to a particular kind of petition, namely the requirement to call an officer to account. In the debates in another place, it was felt that the matter needs to be handled carefully and sensitively. Officers of all grades in authorities work day to day with local people in local communities and may have to take decisions or make judgments that make them unpopular  with those people. If it were possible for officers to be called to account by the public, in a very public way, perhaps when the petitioners do not have all the facts available to them, it would be stressful and difficult for them to do their jobs. Therefore, amendment 47 seeks to limit officers who can be called to account to those at the highest level in authorities and those who take the ultimate responsibility for many of the functions delivered by the paid service. That seems far more reasonable. That group is of a position and authority—indeed, they will have the support behind them—to be able to deal with a public debate on whether they have fulfilled their role.

I do not seek to detain the Committee for long, but this is an important point. We want to encourage people to come into public service, to work for local authorities and to continue to do good work, and it is important that only those of a senior grade are affected by such a measure and that only they will be called to account in such a way.

Stewart Jackson (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Peterborough, Conservative)

My concern about the clause is that we are beginning to blur the lines of responsibility between elected councillors, who must regularly be held responsible to their electorates, and paid professionals, who serve in a civil service role at local level.

Any of us who has attended public meetings over contentious issues such as school closures, noise from industrial units or telecoms masts will know that members of the public can become upset and angry, and that they can direct some of that energy towards officers. I feel profoundly uncomfortable about absolving councillors of the responsibility of having a coherent policy and answering to their constituents. Under the Bill, it would almost be as though they could pass the buck to officers. The measure is the thin end of the wedge.

This is not a partisan issue. When the Bill was debated in the other place, Baroness Hamwee made similar points, but Baroness Andrews, the Minister, did not sufficiently assuage her genuine concerns and those of others. I invite the Minister to touch on those concerns in her remarks.

Rosie Winterton (Minister of State (Pensions Reform; Minister for Yorkshire and Humber), Department for Work and Pensions; Doncaster Central, Labour)

I certainly have some sympathy with the amendment and its attempt to protect junior local authority officers from being required to attend meetings under the clause. The hon. Member for North Cornwall mentioned some of the meetings that we, as MPs, have attended, where junior officers have been put under considerable pressure. I think that brings home to us the importance of ensuring that the correct safeguards are in place.

We want to ensure that certain officers can be required to attend meetings, and to start with, we have set out some methods. For example, in subsection (3), the authority’s petition scheme must specify how many signatures will be needed to require an officer to attend a public hearing. That gives the local authority some discretion. We are also looking at other provisions. For example, under the Local Government Act 2003, any officer of the authority can be required to give evidence at a meeting of the overview and scrutiny committee. That is one way in which local authorities call officers to account.

At the moment in the Bill, it is for authorities themselves to determine which of their officers will be liable to be called to give evidence by petition. If the petitions are to have a meaningful impact, it is important that the most senior officers can certainly be called upon. That is why under the clause, as a minimum, petition schemes will provide that the head of paid service—often known as the chief executive—and the most senior officers responsible for the delivery of services can be required to provide information on their activities at public meetings of overview and scrutiny committees.

We certainly want to ensure that, in our guidance, when we have consulted closely with local authorities and others, we reach a situation where junior officers would not be subjected to inappropriate public pressure as a result of the clause. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will make that clear in the guidance that we intend to issue to aid local authorities in interpreting the legislation. I hope that that offers some reassurance to him.

Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)

I find that somewhat reassuring, and I think that it is important that we have had the debate. I know that those who will implement the legislation will have regard to the discussions that we have had here in Committee and on the Floor of the House. It is important, therefore, that we put on the record our concerns for junior officers.

I have some sympathy with what the hon. Member for Peterborough said about the whole idea behind the clause—calling officers to account—but it is not totally unreasonable to expect the most senior officers of an authority to come and give evidence on an issue to a meeting of that authority. I am talking not about a public meeting arranged in the community by a pressure group, but about meetings of that authority. People would particularly like to see the chief officer there, giving evidence while an issue was being considered. I think that that is a reasonable way to proceed, but there are concerns about junior officers, as I said. They might not be supported or, indeed, paid well enough to be expected to take the heat at a public meeting in that way. I am glad that the Minister has considered it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.