'(1) A Parish Council may provide on an agency basis within the Council's area any service within the area by any public body or statutory undertaker.
(2) A Parish Council may make grants towards the enhancement or preservation of any service by any public body or statutory undertaker, including any local authority health authority, public utility, public transport operator, quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation, housing association or any agency or voluntary body acting on behalf of or as contractor to any such body in exercise of their functions.'.—[Mr. Bendel.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ 7.2 pm
§ Mr. David Rendel (Newbury)I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse)With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 3—Audit—
'( ) Before a parish council or community council may exercise a power given to it under this Part it shall subject its accounts to audit in accordance with Part III of the Local Government Finance Act 1982.'.New clause 4—Local partnerships—'(1) Where a parish council or community council exercises a power under sections 26 to 30, it shall have regard to any transport plans published by a local authority in its area which co-ordinates local partnerships, including any interested body.(2) Where a parish council or community council exercises a power under section 30, it shall have regard to any community safety or crime prevention plans published by a local authority in its area which co-ordinates local partnerships, including any interested body.'.
§ Mr. RendelI am grateful for the opportunity to move new clause 1. As Liberal Democrats have said all along, the Bill is generally to be welcomed, because to some extent it enhances local powers. However, we have tabled the new clause because the Bill misses a good opportunity—it misses more than one good opportunity—to do much more to enhance local powers and to devolve central powers down to local councils.
When speaking in Committee about part III of the Bill, which deals with new powers for parish councils, the Minister said
It is a deliberately limited measure".—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 3 December 1996; c. 147.]I do not know whether it was deliberate, but it is certainly limited. The purpose of new clause 1 is greatly to enhance the new powers provided in the Bill to parishes.Some parishes are very small and may not wish, or may not be able, to take on many new powers. Other parishes, however, are now remarkably large, and some are even as 1125 large as the smallest district councils and unitary authorities. It is ludicrous that powers should not be given to such large parish councils after the Government have decreed that the similar powers should be given to district and unitary councils of a similar size.
It would be wrong to impose on all parishes all the powers that might be granted to the larger parishes, but there is no reason why the Bill should not at least enable parishes to take on greater powers if they feel that they are able to do so and are sufficiently large. That consideration is why new clause 1 would provide parishes with the opportunity to take such powers. Larger parishes may wish to take up those powers, even if the smaller ones do not.
The first part of the new clause would provide parishes with an opportunity to act as agent for other bodies. An important point, however, is that they would also be able to purchase improved services or even, in some cases, to preserve services that might otherwise be stopped because of financial cuts imposed on higher-level authorities.
Subsidiarity is the principle behind the new clause. Liberal Democrats believe that we should not only talk about devolving powers to lower level authorities but implement devolution whenever possible. I congratulate the Government on, to some extent, implementing that objective in the Bill. The principle of subsidiarity, however, should not be half-hearted, or available in some areas and to some authorities but not more generally. If it is true that we should pass down powers from Europe to national Governments, it is equally true that we should pass down powers from national to local authorities and from larger local authorities to smaller ones.
If the Government are genuinely to fulfil their pledge that they believe in subsidiarity, and if the Labour party is to fulfil its similar pledge, I hope that they will accept new clause 1.
§ Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon)I apologise for missing the first minute of the speech of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel). I assume that he believes, in moving new clause 1, which deals with parish councils, that its provisions should apply equally to community councils in Wales. An argument can certainly be made for certain powers to be given to larger community councils in Wales.
When one thinks of towns such as my home town of Caernarfon and of Colwyn Bay—which have the status of a community council, with very few powers—the need for change to current legislation is apparent. Towns such as Colwyn Bay may exist in a local authority in which the hinterland and the town itself have very different natures. They therefore require the ability to fine-tune policies to respond to the wishes of an urban area, such as Colwyn Bay or Llandudno, for example, as distinct from the wishes of the entire district or county authority in which they are located. I am not certain whether the wording of new clause 1 is appropriate to achieve that aim, although I am sure that the Minister will tell us.
In coming years, there will be a growing tide of pressure from identifiable communities, such as those I have mentioned, to be provided with greater autonomy and to be able to take the decisions that they can take for themselves—which is, after all, the basis of the concept of subsidiarity.
§ Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)In principle I support the comments of the hon. Member for Newbury 1126 (Mr. Rendel) and new clause 1, and I do so as an honorary vice-president of the National Association of Local Councils—an office which I have held for more than 20 years. I agree with his comment that we should make all levels of local government meaningful. Like him, I also very much commend the Government on the modest initiative that they have shown in the Bill to recognise the role not only of parish councils and—as the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said—community councils in Wales but of town councils, which, in urban areas, do very much the job of parish councils in the rural areas of the United Kingdom. In principle, I warmly welcome what the hon. Member for Newbury said. I presume that the brevity of his remarks, on which I also commend him, means that the new clause is perhaps a marker, and not something on which he intends to divide the House.
If it is any consolation to the hon. Gentleman, I know that some Conservative Members support the idea behind the new clause, which is to pass greater powers down to parish, town and community councils, to enable them, with their unique knowledge of the areas they serve, to carry out jobs currently carried out either by borough or district councils, perhaps even by county councils, or even, occasionally, by the Government. That work is more appropriately undertaken by those—I hope that they will forgive me for using this phrase—who operate at the grass roots level of local politics.
If, in due course, the concept behind the new clause is taken up and additional powers are granted to parish, town and community councils, perhaps more people will seek to serve in local government—people who have local knowledge and commitment and want to serve those with whom they live. They could bring to that task a unique knowledge of their area. I thus warmly support the new clause.
§ Mrs. Helen Jackson (Sheffield, Hillsborough)I shall be brief. I support new clause 1 in principle, but wish to relate it to new clause 3. If we are considering giving new powers to any public organisation, those organisations should be subject to proper scrutiny and public accountability. New clause 3 provides that, if a parish, town or other council is to be given new powers, its accounts should be carefully audited by the district auditor before those powers are granted in order to ensure that it is absolutely appropriate to proceed.
New clause 3 is important because there is a significant difference between a parish council and a local community association. Both can be used for consultative purposes—the consultation role is extremely important—but the power of parish councils derives from their power to levy a precept and manage a budget. That is what makes parish councils different and what makes it important that their public accountability should be stressed in the Bill.
My constituency contains the only parish councils in the city of Sheffield; the rest of Sheffield regards them in a rather bemused way and is unsure about what they are and do. There are three such councils, and each one is very different. One is in a very rural area of scattered communities but does an enormous amount—it manages and maintains the whole public footpath network in part of the Peak park and manages other parks, which it does extremely well. Its budget, however, is only slightly more than £100,000.
1127 The second council serves a larger population but covers an area that is not so rural. It does less but has a much higher local profile and spends more of its budget on its premises. The third is a small town council which is genuinely in a state of confusion about its powers, duties and budget. The district auditor is at the moment trying to clear up some of that confusion. That is one of the reasons why it is important that the Bill sets out more clearly what we intend such councils to do.
§ New clause 3 should be accepted because the public and parish councils must be sure and made aware of the fact that their finances are to be presented publicly and be open to scrutiny. "Sleaze" is a nasty word, but sleaze is sleaze is sleaze, whether it is found on the Government Benches or our Benches, on a city, county or parish council, or whether it involves Mr. X the builder whose wife is on the parish council—we all know how local communities work.
I believe that the Audit Commission should be properly consulted about the provisions that it wants included in the Bill if, as I think we should, we pass more power to local level. That would ensure that greater accountability followed that power.
§ Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent)I have to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) that I was part of the original working group that led to the formation of the National Association of Local Councils, and I am delighted to learn that it is in such excellent hands. I am also a vice-president of the Kent Association of Parish Councils.
I congratulate the Government warmly on their efforts to enhance the powers of parish councils, which I believe to be entirely appropriate. It is clear that the pool of people from which parish councillors can be drawn is growing every day as people take earlier retirement, or are even forced to do so. I have great sympathy for the new clause, but, even if it cannot be accepted, I hope and believe that Ministers will agree that parish councils are increasingly demonstrating their capacity to take on more roles. I hope that the move to give them more control over their local communities—communities of which parish council members have great knowledge, on which those members are able to spend much more time and to which they can offer greater personal commitment than is often possible for borough and county councillors—will continue.
§ Ms Hilary Armstrong (North-West Durham)This is an interesting little debate. I am sure that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) will not press the new clause, because it would in essence give parish councils a power of general competence, and therefore many more powers than other authorities would have.
Until we properly address the relationship between central and local government and the powers of other authorities, it would be perverse of the House to give parishes powers that other tiers of government cannot exercise. Were we to do that, new legislation would have to be introduced to ensure that parish councils were made accountable for those powers and that all the necessary checks and balances were in place.
1128 I am a fellow vice-president of the National Association of Local Councils and president of the Durham Association of Parish and Town Councils. I greatly support the important role that such councils play in their localities, but I am not convinced at this stage that they want to become county and district councils too. However, I believe that they have an important role to play, together with those authorities, in exercising functions that are currently the responsibility of other tiers of government.
That is why our new clause 4 offers models of partnership on two activities that are identified in the Bill—transport, and crime prevention and community safety. Given the current framework of local government, new clause 4 is by far the best way in which to proceed. We should ensure that there is real partnership between parish councils, town councils and the other tiers of government that have responsibilities in the areas they serve.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) referred to new clause 3. If the Government were minded to be sympathetic to new clause 1, new clause 3 would become even more important as an acknowledgement that the auditing of parish and town councils should be far more onerous than it is at present. I thank the Minister for his letter about auditing, which did not arrive until after we had tabled new clause 3; if we had delayed tabling the new clause, it would not have been discussed today. I appreciate that it does not take into account some of the measures that the Minister addressed in his letter.
Those of us who are concerned about probity in public office will be reassured by many of the measures outlined in the letter. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough on her persistence in pursuing the matter and on ensuring that we looked at it in detail in Committee. I felt that it was important to pursue it on the Floor of the House. I hope that the Minister can reassure us that the measures outlined in his letter of 21 January will be implemented swiftly, as the Bill is implemented, so that the new powers in the Bill do not come into effect until those measures come into effect.
New clause 4 deals with the powers relating to transport, and to crime prevention and community safety; it emphasises a partnership approach. The Bill addresses transport and crime prevention, but we believe that it is important to reflect the work going on in local government on the face of the Bill. Local government is committed to seeking to achieve more sustainable patterns of transport use and successful local crime prevention initiatives. Local authorities have extensive responsibilities in both areas, and, in many senses, they are in a prime position to tackle the real problems that local communities face.
We had some interesting and wide-ranging debates in Committee on the problems of transport in rural areas, which local authorities are in a prime position to tackle. By going along with the spirit of new clause 4, the Government would ensure that parish councils were involved with district councils, county councils or metropolitan authorities in ways that would mean that there was a close look at transport needs and what could be done to tackle them.
The Department of Transport is already working with local authority associations to develop further a package approach to transport investment, to ensure that 1129 authorities in a local area work out what is needed and to ensure that they target the finance available to tackle those needs. Parish councils have an important role to play in that and we should ensure that they are fully part of any plan that is being made.
I reiterate that we believe that local authorities need to be able to secure improvements in the quality of bus services and the integration of bus services with other forms of transport. Our debate in Committee highlighted the problems of rural areas in that regard and how important it was to take account of them.
It is also important that local authorities retain the ability to influence rail services. That is not as important in rural areas as it once was or as it should be. None the less, it is important that, as part of a wider transport strategy, all the different aspects of public transport come within the partnership approach that we seek to develop through new clause 4.
We want to ensure that the Government establish a policy and a financial framework within which authorities are encouraged to implement innovative transport strategies embracing a package of measures designed to improve the quality of public transport. They should look at car use; I know that the Road Traffic (Reduction) Bill, which is before the House tomorrow, deals with that.
Yesterday, I was in Loughborough looking at what the council has done to enable that small market town to provide pedestrian access, accessibility from the edges of the town and access for the disabled. Those developments have come about because the various authorities in the area have worked together and, despite the financial constraints, have come up with a package that is working for the town. It is our job to provide the framework to encourage and give an incentive to local authorities to work together on such developments.
There are things that can be done and there are things that local authorities are already doing. We believe that the Bill offers an opportunity for the Government to emphasise that parish and town councils play an important part and need to be consulted effectively. More importantly, they should be seen as partners in transport proposals.
The same is true of crime prevention, which is important in rural areas as well as in urban areas. When I was in Loughborough yesterday, I realised the importance of the integrated way in which the authorities had tackled crime prevention and transport in the town centre.
The second part of new clause 4 addresses crime prevention by encouraging concerned people and organisations to work together, each of them playing a vital role. We know very well that, if crime prevention is left to the police and seen as the responsibility of one agency rather than all agencies, adequate solutions simply do not come forward.
I have visited areas where they have spent a year considering crime prevention and bringing together voluntary organisations, different tiers of local government, the police, crime prevention panels, and so on, so that they work in partnership to identify practical ways in which they can deter criminals and find new ways of reassuring local people about security and community safety. Getting local government to take responsibility for ensuring such co-ordination would change things radically.
1130 The recent Audit Commission report on finding ways forward for young offenders, "Misspent Youth", marked a remarkable departure for the Audit Commission, bringing together some of the things that it does best. It made it clear that we can save an enormous amount of money and more effectively tackle the problem of young people committing offences if we take a much more co-ordinated approach and if local government plays a strategic role in ensuring such co-ordination. All our experience points to that approach. New clause 4 would ensure that parish and town councils were in the middle of a partnership approach to the development of a strategy for crime prevention and community safety. The Government ought to listen to such suggestions.
I have re-read what the Minister said the last time we debated crime prevention. He thinks that it is an issue for the police. I was not satisfied with his approach then and remain dissatisfied. The Audit Commission's report identifies other ways of going forward and the new clause would enable the Government to take them up. The new clause is not dictatorial or profess that we know best. It offers local solutions to local problems. It would begin to tackle problems in a way that I know can work. We ought to be pushing to ensure that such an approach works.
§ The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry)If I were to recommend to the House that we vote for new clause 1, there would be a corporate heart attack among parish councillors. They constantly tell us that they want to be consulted and listened to more effectively. There is not an enormous demand for vast new powers. Parish councils range enormously in size, as I am sure the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) would acknowledge. In my constituency, the populations they cover range from 15,000 to covering 150 people. We must be prudent, so that we give them realistic and sensible powers that are relevant to local circumstances.
As the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) said, new clause 1—which, to put the record straight, would not cover community councils in Wales—would give more competence to parish councils than district or county councils. Many people think that there are enough tiers of local government. We need to ensure that they work together effectively. I am afraid that I cannot commend the new clause to the House.
I agree with the points made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) about accountancy. As she will know from the letter of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), we have recently revised accountancy rules. They come into effect on 1 April—before most parts of the Bill come into effect. The rules were revised after consultation with the parish councils, and we should give them a chance to work. We are looking for accountancy with as light a hand as is necessary to provide probity. I know that she will agree with me on that.
I have sympathy with the spirit of new clause 4, and I would like to consider the inclusion of advice on any consultation to which the hon. Member for North-West Durham referred and in any guidance that we give to councils on their use of the new powers. I of course know that, as she says, the Department of Transport is considering what form of advice would be sensible, and is 1131 discussing with local authorities what form of advice they would find useful. That is sensible co-operation. The problem of putting that in the Bill is that it would impose a mandatory burden on a council that sought to exercise its powers and involve a new, rather more complicated level of procedure. The new clause is somewhat unclear and vaguely expressed, although I realise that it is rather difficult to put such responsibilities in precise terms. I hope that she finds it sensible to consider practical guidance.
I have reached the same sort of conclusion with regard to crime prevention. I agree with what the hon. Member for North-West Durham is trying to do—sensible people would. She is trying to put into statute what is common sense, but is doing so in statutorily unusable language. I hope that she will therefore agree that it is sensible that local authorities, which know what they are trying to do and have practical experience, deal with the issue pragmatically and sensibly. If they think that we should be able to give guidance, we would of course want to do so. That is the sensible way in which to proceed. I therefore hope that hon. Members do not feel that it is necessary to press the new clause to a Division.
§ Mr. RendelI am very grateful to those who have supported new clause 1. Many more have spoken in support of it than in opposition to it. Perhaps that is yet another example of Conservative and Opposition Back Benchers having rather more sense than the Government.
Two points that have been made could be considered to be in opposition to the new clause. The first is that, if such powers were given to parish councils, district councils should have them also. I entirely agree with that, but do not think that that is a reason why we should not give the powers to parish councils in the first instance. Let us give such powers to parish councils and then go on to give a power of general competence to districts and boroughs as well.
The second point was that the powers might give many parish councillors heart attacks. I do not see how offering parish councillors powers that they may or may not take up, depending on whether they feel that they are able to do so and that the council is a relevant size for the powers to be used effectively, could give any parish councillor a heart attack. I therefore reject that criticism.
I suspect that the new clause would not succeed if I pressed it to a Division. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.