Paul Goodman (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Wycombe, Conservative)

Our approach to clause 30 is, in a manner of speaking, the opposite of our approach to clauses 28 and 29, which we have just considered. When we originally looked at clauses 28 and 29, we were inclined to be sceptical and looked at what happened in the Lords, but we came to the conclusion that they should pass muster. We have not tabled one of our repetitious and unselectable amendments in an attempt to delete clause 30, because we want to give the Minister a chance to justify it. Having said that, it did not have a friendly reception in the other place, where both Lord Hanningfield and Baroness Hanwee were extremely sceptical about it, drawing attention to the difference between the present state of affairs, where there is a monitoring officer, and a section 151 officer, and trying to get the Minister in the Lords to explain where that post would slot into the present arrangements. Indeed, Baroness Hanwee spoke of her opposition to the clause.

At the risk of sounding like a broken gramophone record, we come back again and again to the same question: bang in the middle of part 1 is the word “must”. Must we have “must” in the Bill? Need the statute book have such specific obligations placed on local authorities? The Minister probably has some explanation up her sleeve for why the finance officer, referred to in subsection 4(c), and the monitoring officer and the head of the authority’s paid service, referred to in paragraphs (b) and (a) respectively, may not be designated and why other posts may be, and I look forward to hearing it.

In summary, obviously the role of scrutinising what takes place in local councils is extremely important. We on the official Opposition Benches say that the correct balance must be struck between proper scrutiny and the need not to overburden local authorities with so many scrutinising duties from the centre that it makes it difficult for them to run their affairs with flexibility. We  wait to hear what the Minster has to say, but we are far from convinced that the clause, as drafted, should stand part of the Bill.

Julia Goldsworthy (Falmouth & Camborne, Liberal Democrat)

The key question is if this is the answer, what is the question? Is there a concern that the current scrutiny processes are not sufficient? Do we feel that the scrutiny procedures are not scrutinised enough? If so, do we need to open up channels for that to take place? I draw the Committee’s mind back to some comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall, who said that if we are imposing this measure on all authorities, does it pass the Isles of Scilly test? Will the Isles of Scilly, which has a very small council, now be required to appoint another officer to undertake scrutiny, when there are a relatively small number of officers to scrutinise?

I am not clear why the duty that is outlined in this clause does not apply

“to a district council for an area for which there is a county council”

as outlined in subsection (5). Surely if such a position is needed at local authority level to ensure that overview and scrutiny committees follow due process, then that should apply at any level of local government. I do not see why it should just apply to the principal authority in two-tier authorities. I share the scepticism that has been expressed, and I look forward to the Minister explaining the question to which this is the answer.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government; Portsmouth North, Labour)

I am glad that we all agree that overview and scrutiny is an important way of ensuring local accountability and transparency. Moreover, it is an important tool for empowering communities and enabling local people, through their democratically elected representatives, to participate. However, we must ensure that all lead councils rise to the standards of the best, and that all are aware that this powerful tool is an effective means of driving improvement.

For effective scrutiny, it is important that there is proper officer support and that officer resources are in place to provide that support and advice. The evaluation document, “The New Council Constitutions: The Outcomes and Impact of the Local Government Act 2000”, made a number of important points. First, less officer support is provided for scrutiny compared with executive functions. Secondly, scrutiny works best and is more robust in areas in which resources are committed. Thirdly, scrutiny arrangements are not as robust as executive arrangements. Moreover, we looked carefully at the Centre for Public Scrutiny survey, which sought views from the local government sector on the single element that would do most to improve the overview and scrutiny function. One of the highest responses was to provide more resources and staff.

We also consulted extensively on how to implement the proposals for scrutiny and support set out in the White Paper, “Communities in control”. The Centre for Public Scrutiny thought that that would be essential, if scrutiny is to benefit from the new powers and responsibilities outlined in the White Paper. We looked at three corporate statutory posts, which, experience has shown, are the foundation for ensuring that councils devote sufficient attention and support to those key functions in a way that is appropriate to their local circumstances.

We have given careful consideration to views expressed in the consultation, which make a compelling case for our proposal to replace the requirement on lead councils to have a scrutiny officer who is responsible for supporting the work of their overview and scrutiny committee, which does not have to be their only role. We are not saying that councils should have one person who only does that. We leave that decision to local councils.

Julia Goldsworthy (Falmouth & Camborne, Liberal Democrat)

Will the Minister clarify whether there will be additional resources for such a function and that it will not be just another job title for an officer to take on? Will there be resources that enable the kind of support that she has talked about?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government; Portsmouth North, Labour)

I confirm that if this clause is passed, the resources will be made available within the funding process to support that role. I do not think that the approach we have set out is overly prescriptive, which was the point made by the hon. Member for Wycombe. It recognises the important role officer support plays in driving effective scrutiny, but balances that with the need to allow local flexibility. We have not attempted any complex prescription of the scrutiny resources, and the clause provides scope for local authorities to determine these detailed arrangements for themselves.

I have been asked why we have excluded certain council officers from becoming a scrutiny officer. Just as the scrutiny function is kept separate from the executive function by ensuring that members of the executive cannot serve on overview and scrutiny committees, it makes sense that the scrutiny officer should not hold one of the key corporate posts as head of paid services or chief financial officer. The monitoring officer’s role is to ensure that the authority conducts its business lawfully and with propriety. The post carries certain powers and duties. Although the role of scrutiny is to some extent complementary in that it also provides checks and balances on the exercise of executive functions, the role of the scrutiny officer is to support scrutiny by members, and not to carry it out. Allowing those two roles to be carried out by the same person could blur the distinction between the two functions and lead to confusion.

The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne asked why the requirements are not applied to district councils. We are trying to ensure that the quality of scrutiny in councils responsible for local area agreements is raised to the standards of the current best, which is why we have confined them to those authorities. On that basis, I hope that we can pass the clause.